Subscriber access provided by PEPPERDINE UNIV
Article
Pyrosequencing reveals soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities impacted by graphene and its oxides Yan Rong, Yi Wang, Yina Guan, Jiangtao Ma, Zhiqiang Cai, Guanghua Yang, and Xiyue Zhao J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03646 • Publication Date (Web): 26 Sep 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on September 28, 2017
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1
Pyrosequencing reveals soil enzyme activities and bacterial
2
communities impacted by graphene and its oxides
3
Yan Rong1,2, Yi Wang2, Yina Guan2, Jiangtao Ma2, Zhiqiang Cai1,2*, Guanghua
4
Yang1*, Xiyue Zhao1,2
5
1. Advanced Catalysis and Green Manufacturing Collaborative Innovation Center,
6 7 8 9 10
Changzhou University, Changzhou, 213164, China 2. Laboratory of Applied Microbiology, School of Pharmaceutical Engineering & Life Science, Changzhou University, Changzhou, 213164, China * Corresponding author. Tel/Fax: +86 519 86330160 Email address:
[email protected];
[email protected] 11 12
ABSTRACT
13
Graphene (GN) and graphene oxides (GOs) are novel carbon nanomaterial, they have
14
been attracted much attention because of their excellent properties and are widely
15
applied in many areas including energy, electronics, biomedicine and environmental
16
science etc. With industrial production and consumption of GN/GO, they will
17
inevitably enter the soil and water environment. GN/GO may directly cause certain
18
harm to microorganisms and lead to ecological and environmental risks. Graphene
19
oxides are graphene derivative with abundant oxygen-containing functional groups in
20
its graphitic backbone. The structure and chemistry of graphene show obvious
21
differences compared with graphene oxide, which lead to the different environmental
22
behaviors. In this study, four different types of soil (S1, S2, S3 and S4) were 1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
23
employed to investigate the effect of GN and GO on soil enzymatic activity, microbial
24
population and bacterial community through pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene
25
amplicons. The results showed that soil enzyme activity (invertase, protease, catalase
26
and urease) and microbial population (bacteria, actinomycete and fungi) changed after
27
GN/GO release into soils. Soil microbial community species are more richness and
28
the diversity also increase after GO/GN application. The phylum of Proteobacteria
29
increased at 90 days after treatment (DAT) after GN/GO application. The phylum of
30
Chloroflexi occurred after GN applying at 90 DAT in S1 and reached 4.6%.
31
Proteobacteria were the most phylum in S2, S3 and S4 soils, it ranged from 43.6% to
32
71.4% in S2, 45.6% to 73.7% in S3, 38.1% to 56.7% in S4, respectively. The most
33
abundant genus were Bacillus (37.5% - 47.0%), Lactococcus (28.0% - 39.0%) in S1,
34
Lysobacter and Flavobacterium in S2, Pedobacter in S3 and Massilia in S4 soil. The
35
effect of GN and GO on soil microbial community is time dependent, and there are no
36
significant differences between the samples at 10 and 90 DAT.
37 38
KEYWORDS: Graphene; Graphene oxides; Pyrosequencing; Bacterial community;
39
Soil enzyme activity
40
2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 28
Page 3 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
41
42
Graphene (GN) is a two-dimensional nanomaterial with sp2 hybridization carbon
43
atoms.1,2 And graphene oxides (GOs) are layered graphene sheets with oxygen
44
functional groups, such as carbonyl and hydroxyl group. 3,4 GN and GO have attracted
45
much attention because of their excellent properties (such as low resistivity and rapid
46
electron mobility etc.) and wide application in many areas (including complex
47
material, energy, electronics, biomedicine, and environmental science etc.).1,4 For
48
instance, GN has high-performance properties of adsorbent in water treatment,5 GO
49
are used in removing pollutants due to their excellent adsorbents and photocatalysts.6
50
The GN and GO are now transferred to industrial production, and 1000 ton per annual
51
of GO has been put into operation in Changzhou, China. With industrial production
52
and consumption of GN/GO, they will inevitably enter the environment. GN/GO may
53
directly cause certain harm to animals, plants and microorganisms in the environment,
54
and lead to ecological and environmental risks.7-9 And GN and GO have strong
55
adsorption capacity, the enrichment of poisonous and harmful environment the
56
material, thereby affecting the environmental pollutants transformation and
57
degradation of environmental behavior.7-12
58
INTRODUCTION
Previous studies showed that GO have strong antimicrobial effect on
59
microorganisms, such as Escherichia coli,12 Pseudomonas putida,13 white rot fungus
60
Phanerochaete chrysosporium.14 GN also showed toxicity to cells and animals, the
61
genotoxicity and long term toxicity caused by GN have been reported.15,16 The large
62
amount of GN and GO application may lead to their residues in environment, which 3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
63
can affect soil enzyme activity and soil microbial community by changing their
64
number, microbial activity and diversity.10,13-15,17-20 Soil enzyme activity and microbial
65
community are often used as the key factors in assessing soil quality. Artificial
66
compounds have effect on soil microbial dominant species, community diversity and
67
richness, and also impact soil enzyme activity and microbial population. Until now,
68
only few reports studied the effects of GO on microbial community,8,21 GO had toxic
69
effect on the wastewater microbial communities at concentrations from 0.05 to 0.3 mg
70
ml−1,8
71
characteristics. The better understanding of GN and GO impacts on soil enzyme
72
activity, microbial population, microbial community diversity and composition in the
73
soils are necessary for their safe use. The present study was investigated their effect
74
on soil microbial community, diversity, population and soil enzyme activity.
which showed that GOs have potential risk to the soil biochemical
75 76 77
Materials and Methods Chemicals and Soil Samples. Graphene (GN) and graphene oxides (GOs) were
78
obtained from Jiangnan Graphene Research Institute (Changzhou, China). The
79
morphology of graphene (GN) and graphene oxides (GOs) were investigated by
80
scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Zeiss supra55, Germany, Figure S1) and atomic
81
force microscopy (AFM, JPK Nano Wizard 3, Germany. Figure S1). GN and GO zeta
82
potential and particle sizes were measure by Zetasizer nano potentiometer (Malvern,
83
Zetasizer Nano ZEN 3600, UK. Figure S2). Four types of soil from different
84
agricultural field were sampled and employed in this study, which were Red paddy 4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 28
Page 5 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
85
soil (S1, GB/T-H2121315), Yellow loam soil (S2, GB/T-A2111411), Huangshi soil
86
(S3, GB/T-G2511211) and Yellow paddy soil (S4, GB/T-A2111511), respectively. The
87
soil samples were taken from crop fields in Longyou (Zhejiang province), Longquan
88
(Fujian province), Changzhou (Jiangsu province) and Huajiachi, Hangzhou (Zhejiang
89
province, China). All soil samples were air-dried, mixed and passed through a 2-mm
90
sieve. Their basic physicochemical characteristics were listed in Table 1.
91
Experiments Procedure. To study the impact of GN and GO on soil enzyme
92
activities, microbial population and bacterial community, GN and GO were mixed
93
with soils thoroughly to give a final concentration of 100 mg kg-1 soil. Soils were
94
incubated at 25 ± 1o C to allow microorganisms to acclimatize. The control
95
experiment was carried out under the same condition without GN and GO (CK set).
96
All the tests for each soil were conducted with three replicates. The soil moisture
97
content was adjusted to about 60% of the maximum water-holding capacity by adding
98
Milli-Q (MQ) water. At different time intervals (10, 30, 50, 70 and 90 days), 5 g of
99
soil (dry weight equivalent) was sampled from the flask and was used for soil
100
microbial population and soil enzyme activities, soil samples at 10 and 90 days after
101
treatment (DAT) were employed for soil DNA extraction.
102
The activities of soil protease (EC 3.4.21.92), invertase (EC 3.2.1.26), catalase (EC
103
3.5.1.5) and urease (EC 1.11.1.6) were analyzed according to the previous published
104
method.22 Soil microbial population (heterotrophic bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi)
105
counting was assayed through most probable number method (MPN) according to
106
previous reports.22,23 5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Soil DNA Extraction and Pyrosequencing, Bioinformatics Analysis. Soil DNA
107 108
extraction was based on the manufacturer’s protocol (Fast DNA Spin kit, MP
109
Biomedicals, USA). The total DNA was purified by electrophoresis in 1% agarose gel.
110
Pure DNA was extracted using Agarose gel extraction kit (Roche). DNA quality was
111
assessed with a ScanDrop 200 spectrophotometer. The primers 515F (5'- GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGG-3') and 907R (5'-
112 113
CCGTCAATTCMTTTRAGTTT-3') were used for amplifying the fragment of 16S
114
rRNA gene. The PCR reaction program and PCR products purification were was
115
according with previous reported methods.22,23 Totally 865,196 16S rRNA sequence
116
reads were filtered, Trimmomatic was used for denoised and processed. The resulting
117
sequences after quality control were analyzed through QIIME. Operational taxonomic
118
units (OTUs) was used at 97% sequence similarity. The methods used for Rarefaction
119
curves, Shannon Wiener curves, communites composition, Venn and PcoA analysis,
120
and genus heatmap were in accordance with the reported methods.22,23
121 122 123
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Effect of GN and GOs on Soil Enzyme Activity. Soil environmental change and
124
stress often lead to soil enzyme activities change, which are often used as the soil
125
quality index. GN and GOs release into soils perhaps can impact soil enzyme
126
activities and its effects on enzyme activities (invertase, urease, protease and catalase)
127
are shown in Figure1 and Figure S3.
128
Invertase activity invertase activity increased significantly after GN application in 6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 28
Page 7 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
129
soil S1, while it also most kept unchangeable after GO application, except at 70 DAT
130
invertase activity reach 7.10 mg glucose g-1 soil, the control group was only 5.0 mg
131
glucose g-1 soil . In soil S2, invertase activity was inhibited by graphene and GO at 30
132
and 90 DAT, while increased at 50 DAT. Invertase activity remained almost
133
unchangeable in soil S3, and GO inhibit its enzymatic activity during 30-70 DAT in
134
soil S4.
135
Urease activity soil urease plays a key role during the transformation of organic
136
phosphorus. The impact on urease activities by graphene and GO differed in different
137
type of soil. Urease activity in soil S1 inhibited significantly before 50 DAT, it only
138
reached 0.33 and 0.26 mg NH4-N g-1 soil after GN and GO application at 30 DAT,
139
while the activity was 0.58 mg NH4-N g-1 soil in the control soil. However urease
140
activity increased remarkable at 70 and 90 DAT. Graphene inhibited enzyme activity,
141
while GO increased in soil S2. Both GN and GO inhibited urease activity gently in
142
soil S4, and increase significantly in S3 at 90 DAT.
143
Protease activity protease activity presents soil microbial population and fertility.
144
Graphene can inhibit protease gently and GO increase enzyme activity remarkably at
145
90 DAT in soil S1. Protease activity remains unchangeable in soil S3 after GN and
146
GO application. In soil S2 and S4, both GN and GO inhibit enzyme activity. Protease
147
activity was 0.91 mg tyrozine g-1 soil, and 0.79 mg tyrozine g-1 soil after GN and GO
148
application in soil S2 respectively, while in control soil it is 1.52 mg tyrozine g-1 soil
149
90 DAT. In soil S4, enzyme activity is 8.0 mg tyrozine g-1 soil, after GN and GO
150
applying, it declines to 6.24 and 5.21 mg tyrozine g-1 soil, respectively. 7
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
151
Catalase activity catalase is one of the most important enzyme in microbial growth
152
and can protect organisms from H2O2 toxicity. In this study, catalase activity increased
153
except 30 DAT in soil S1, and it was stimulated to increase after GN and GO
154
application in soils. At 50 DAT, catalase activity reached 3.62 ml 0.02 M KMnO4 / g
155
soil and 2.97 ml 0.02 M KMnO4 / g soil after GN and GO application in S1. The
156
catalase activity increased 47.9% and 21.4% in soil S1 compared with the control
157
group at 50 DAT, respectively. In other 3 type soils, catalase activity both increased
158
with GN and GO application.
159
Enzyme activity in soils is one of the key roles in decomposition of biological
160
residues (animal, plant, microorganism and human), biodegradation and
161
transformation of organic compounds. Therefore the changes in soil microbial
162
population and enzyme activity exposed to GN and GO were investigated in this study,
163
the results were employed to assess the effect of GN and GO on soil quality.9,10,24,25
164
Fig.1 showed that GN and GO could stimulate to increase invertase activities in S1
165
soil, in S2 soil decreased at 30 and 90 DAT, keep almost unchangeable in S3, and
166
decreased at 30 DAT in S4. Urease was inhibited at the initial day and then it
167
increased significantly after 70 DAT. Protease activity decreased in S1 and S2 soils,
168
catalase activity increased in both four different soils. The results indicated that both
169
GN and GO can impact enzyme activity in different soils, and invertase, catalase and
170
protease are sensitive to GN and GO. But these effects were transient, enzyme activity
171
keep with normal level after 50 - 90 DAT. Higher concentration of GO lowered soil
172
enzyme activity.17-19 8
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 28
Page 9 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
173
Effect of GN and GO on Soil Microbial Population. The effects of GN and GO
174
on the total number of bacteria, actinomycete and fungi in soils were showed in
175
Figure 2 and Figure S4. The bacterial total number in S1 soil increased after GN and
176
GO application at 30 and 70 DAT, and decreased in 10 and 50 DAT. GN was just
177
released in to S2 soil, bacterial population increased compared with the CK obviously
178
especially at 30 DAT, bacterial total number reached 109 CFU g-1 soil, while it was
179
only 108 CFU g-1 soil in the CK soil. It was only 107 CFU g-1 soil after GO application
180
in S2 soil at 30 DAT. In S3 soil, bacteria population inhibited at 10, 30 and 70 DAT,
181
and it increased at 50 and 90 DAT. The total number of bacteria in S4 increased at 30
182
and 70 DAT, and decreased at 10, 50 and 90 DAT.
183
GO inhibit actinomycete growth in S1 and S2 soils, especially at 70 DAT in S1 soil,
184
actinomycete population is 8 × 103 CFU g-1 soil, while it was 9 × 104 CFU g-1 soil in
185
the CK soil. However, GN and GO were released into S3 and S4 soils after 30 DAT,
186
actinomycete population increased compared with the CK obviously. In S3 soil, the
187
total number of actinomycete reached 4 × 106 CFU g-1 soil and 6 × 106 CFU g-1 soil
188
after GN and GO application, respectively, and it was only 1 × 106 CFU g-1 soil in the
189
CK S3 soil at 50 DAT. GN and GO inhibit actinomycete at 10 DAT, and then it was
190
stimulated to increased significantly. Fungal population in S1 and S3 soils increased
191
and decreased in S2 and S4 soils.
192
Many studies showed that GO has antimicrobial activity, which have been
193
investigated through microorganisms culture.10,17,26,27,28 Antimicrobial activity of GO
194
may also apply to soil as well. However, our findings demonstrate that GO can 9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
195
promote soil enzyme activity in particular soils, and may have positive effect on the
196
functions of environmental microorganisms in soils. And its negative impact on soil
197
enzyme activity and microbial population may be only transient, with cultural days
198
prolonging, negative effect will disappear. Especially in S1 soil, both GN and GO
199
increase invertase, protease and catalase activities, and the bacterial and fungal
200
population in S1 soil also increased significantly, and the concentration of GN and
201
GO is 100 mg kg-1 soil in this study, which is far higher than that in many
202
studies.7,8,17,19,20,29 Lots of studies showed that the potential toxicological impact of
203
GN and GO on many microorganism, GO has strong cytotoxicity toward bacteria,30,31
204
fungi32 and algae29 etc. Compared with Gram-negative bacteria, GO and GN are more
205
toxic to Gram-positive bacteria.30
206
Figure 1 indicated that the catalase activity reached maximum at 50 DAT, and then
207
it was higher than that in control soil, lower catalase activity at the beginning of
208
GN/GO application. This showed catalase activity are sensitive to GN/GO.10,11 The
209
activity of catalase was related to microbial quantity, but also microbial environmental
210
stress, including ROS, superoxide anions (*O2-), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and
211
hydroxyl radicals (*OH-).33-34 Microorganism is often induced to generate ROS and
212
its subsequent oxidative stress after they are exposed to GN and GO. The results in
213
this study GN and GO can inhibit or increase soil enzyme activities and microbial
214
population in different soils, which showed GN and GO have different toxicity to
215
bacterial in different environment, these are in accordance with the results of
216
microbial population in different soils. The organic matter (OM) can provide effective 10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 10 of 28
Page 11 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
217
carbon and energy sources and its content leads to different microbial population and
218
growth rate in soils. Higher OM content brought about higher microbial population,
219
which may weaken GN/GO toxicity to microorganism.
220
Microbial Community Species Richness and Diversity. The rarefaction curve
221
(Figure 3A) can assess environmental microbial species richness, Shannon -Wiener
222
curve (Figure 3B) reflect the index of microbial species diversity and Venn diagram
223
(Figure S5) shows all possible logical relations in the sample. Microbial species are
224
more richness after GO and GN application in S4 soil than that in control at 90 DAT.
225
The species decrease after GO applying at 10 DAT, while it increases after GN
226
application in S4. And microbial species are relatively poor after GN and GO
227
application in S2 and S3 soil than that in control soil at 90 DAT. The sequence of
228
species richness from high to low is S4 > S3 > S2 > S1. OTUs in S4 are above 1500,
229
in S3 and S2 are higher than 1000, however in S1 soil, OTUs are below 300 at 90
230
DAT. The microbial species are higher at 90 DAT than that at 10 DAT in S2, S3 and
231
S4 soils. Species diversity was showed in Fig. 3B. With the increase of inocubation
232
time, the microbial species diversity in soils with GN/GO application and control
233
group increased. GO can inhibit species diversity and GN can increase microbial
234
species diversity at 10 DAT in S4 soil, and the microbial species diversity are almost
235
unchangeable compared with the control group at 90 DAT after GN and GO
236
application. GN/GO both can inhibit gently species diversity in S3 soil at 90 DAT,
237
however, GO can increase diversity and GN also can inhibit species diversity in S2 at
238
90 DAT. 11
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
239
Community Species Composition and Structure. The results showed in Figure 4
240
all the reads were assigned to bacteria. Firmicutes were the most phylum in S1 soil
241
(87.2%-95.3%), the second phylum is Proteobacteria (3.6%-9.7%). The ratio of
242
Proteobacteria increased at 90 DAT after GN/GO application. The phylum of
243
Chloroflexi occurred after GN applying at 90 DAT in S1 and reached 4.6%.
244
Proteobacteria were the most phylum in S2, S3 and S4 soils, it ranged from 43.6% to
245
71.4% in S2, 45.6% to 73.7% in S3, 38.1% to 56.7% in S4, respectively. GO can
246
inhibit Proteobacteria in S2, which decreased from 53.7% to 43.6% at 90 DAT. The
247
phylum of Chloroflexi increased, which was 10.3% after GO application in S2 and
248
was only 7.7% in control soil. Firmicutes were also stimulated to increase by GN and
249
GO. In S3 soil, the phylum of Bacteroidetes increased by 3.4% after GN application,
250
and 3.1% after GO application compared with that in control soil. Firmicutes
251
decreased from 14.4% to 11.2%. In S4 soil, Acidobacteria was inhibited at 90 DAT
252
after GN/GO application. The most abundant genus were Bacillus (37.5% - 47.0%),
253
Lactococcus (28.0% - 39.0%) in S1 soil. GN inhibit Lactococcus and Bacillus growth
254
at 90 DAT, GO only inhibit Bacillus gently (Figure 5). Microbial genus is more
255
richness in S2, S3 and S4 soils than that in S1, and bacterial community composition
256
was strongly affected by GN/GO in S2. after application of GO at 90 DAT in S2,
257
Bacillus, Nocardioides, Roseiflexus, increased obviously from 3.8% to 6.4%, 0.4% to
258
3.0%, 1.1% to 2.8%, respectively, and the genus of Arenimonas decreased obviously
259
from 6.8% to 1.5%. The community composition was gently affected by GN/GO in
260
S3 and S4 soils. 12
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 12 of 28
Page 13 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
261
From Fig. 4, 5 and 6, it can be concluded that the richness and diversity of soil
262
bacterial communities increased after GN and GO application. Especially GN can
263
selectively enrich some bacterial phylum (such as Chloroflexi and Firmicutes etc. )
264
and genus (such as Lactococcus and Baccillus etc.), and GO also can inhibit some
265
bacterial genus. Previous reports showed that the change in soil microbial biomass in
266
response to the GO exposure was not obvious, which indicated that the GO toxicity is
267
transient in the short-term response.17,18 The results in this study are in accordance
268
with the previous reports. The effect of GN and GO on soil microbial community is
269
time dependent.20 And no significant differences existed compared with the samples at
270
10 DAT and 90 DAT. The bacterial community structure and composition analysis
271
showed a significant shift after introduction of GN and GO after 10 DAT, and then
272
weaken at 90 DAT. Previous studies also showed that GN and GO impact on
273
microbial community is transient and time dependent. Ge et al reported that GN could
274
not affect fungal communities, whereas it did alter the bacterial community after
275
induction of GN for 1 year.25
276
The results in this study showed that effects of GN and GO on soil enzyme activity,
277
population and microbial communities varied at different incubation time, GN/GO
278
can make some of phyla and genus increase or decrease in soils. The heat map
279
analysis revealed clearly that the bacterial communities after GN/GO introduction and
280
without GN/GO application were different in soils (Fig. 6). Soil microbial community
281
composition and population are not only the simple reflection of the microorganisms
282
in soils, also result from the specific environmental pressures. 13
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
283 284
Acknowledgments
285
The research was financially funded by the grants “National Natural Science
286
Foundation of China” (Project No. 11275033) and “Natural Science Foundation of
287
Jiangsu Province, China” (Project No. BK20151185).
288 289
References
290
(1) Geim, A.K.; Novoselov, K.S. The rise of grapheme, Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 183-191.
291
(2) Rao, C.N.; Sood, A.K.; Subrahmanyam, K.S.; Govindaraj, A. Graphene: the new
292
two-dimensional nanomaterial, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 7752–7777.
293
(3) Lerf, A.; He, H.; Forster, M.; Klinowski, J. Structure of graphite oxide revisited. J.
294
Phys. Chem. B. 1998, 102, 4477–4482.
295
(4) Bianco, A. Graphene: Safe or toxic? The two faces of the medal. Angew. Chem. Int.
296
Ed. 2013, 52, 2-14.
297
(5) Xu, J.; Lv, H.; Yang, S.T.; Luo, J. Preparation of graphene adsorbents and their
298
applications in water purification. Rev. Inorg. Chem. 2013, 2-3, 139-160.
299
(6) Zhao, G.; Wen, T.; Chen, C.; Wang, X. Synthesis of graphene-based nanomaterials
300
and their application in energy related and environmental-related areas. RCS Adv.
301
2012, 2, 9286–9303.
302
(7) He, K.; Chen, G.; Zeng, G.; Peng, M.; Huang, Z.; Shi J. Stability, transport and
303
ecosystem effects of graphene in water and soil environments. Nanoscale. 2017, 9,
304
5370. 14
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 14 of 28
Page 15 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
305
(8) Ahmed, F.; Rodrigues, D.F. Investigation of acute effects of graphene oxide on
306
wastewater microbial community: A case study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 256-257,
307
33-39.
308
(9) Zhang, P.; Zhang, R.; Fang, X.; Song, T.; Cai, X.; Liu, H; Du, S. Toxic Effects of
309
Graphene on the Growth and Nutritional Levels of Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.):
310
Shortand Long-Term Exposure Studies. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 317, 543–551.
311
(10) Huang, G.; Guo, H.; Zhao, J.; Liu, Y.; Xing B. Effect of Co-Existing Kaolinite
312
and Goethite on the Aggregation of Graphene Oxide in the Aquatic Environment.
313
Water Res. 2016, 102, 313–320.
314
(11) Lin, D.; Tian, X.; Wu, F.; Xing, B. Fate and Transport of Engineered
315
Nanomaterials in the Environment. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 1896–1908.
316
(12) Liu, S.; Zeng, T.; Hofmann, M.; Burcombe, E.; Wei, J.; Jiang, R.; Kong, J.; Chen,
317
Y. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced
318
graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano. 2011, 9, 6971–6980.
319
(13) Combarros, R.G.; Collado, S.; Diaz, M. Toxicity of graphene oxide on growth
320
and metabolism of Pseudomonas putida. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 310, 246-252.
321
(14) Xie, J.; Ming, Z.; Li, H.; Yang, H.; Yu, B.; Wu, R. Toxicity of graphene oxide to
322
white rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Chemosphere. 2016, 151, 324-331.
323
(15) Ma, Y.; Shen, H.; Tu, X.; Zhang, Z. Assessing in vivo toxicity of graphene
324
materials: current methods and future outlook. Nanomedicine. 2014, 9(10),
325
1565-1580.
326
(16) Akhavan, O.; Ghaderi, E.; Hashemi, E.; Akbari, E. Dose-dependent effects of 15
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
327
nanoscale graphene oxide on reproduction capability of mammals. Carbon. 2015, 95,
328
309-317.
329
(17) Chung, H.; Kim, M.J.; Ko, K.; Kim, J.H.; Kwon, H.; Hong, I. Effects of
330
graphene oxides on soil enzyme activity and microbial biomass. Sci. Total Environ.
331
2015, 514: 307-313.
332
(18) Du, J.; Hu, X.; Zhou, Q. Graphene oxide regulates the bacterial community and
333
exhibits property changes in soil. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 27009.
334
(19) Oyelami, A.O.; Semple, K.T. Impact of carbon nanomaterials on microbial
335
activity in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 86, 172-180.
336
(20) Ren, W.; Ren, G.; Teng, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, L. Time-dependent effect of graphene on
337
the structure, abundance, and function of the soil bacterial community. J. Hazard.
338
Mater. 2015, 297, 286-294.
339
(21) Wang, J.; Chen, J.; Zhu, W.; Ma, J.; Rong, Y.; Cai, Z. Isolation of the Novel
340
Chiral Insecticide Paichongding (IPP) Degrading Strains and Biodegradation
341
Pathways of RR/SS-IPP and SR/RS-IPP in an Aqueous System. J. Agric. Food Chem.
342
2016, 64, 7431−7437.
343
(22) Cai, Z.; Ma, J.; Wang, J.; Cai, J.; Yang, G.; Zhao, X. Impact of the novel
344
neonicotinoid insecticide Paichongding on bacterial communities in yellow loam and
345
Huangshi soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016, 23, 5134–5142.
346
(23) Cai, Z.; Wang, J.; Ma, J.; Zhu, X.; Cai, J.; Yang, G. Anaerobic degradation
347
pathway of the novel chiral insecticide Paichongding and its impact on bacterial
348
communities in soils. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 7151-7160. 16
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 16 of 28
Page 17 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
349
(24) Asad, M.A.; Lavoie, M.; Song, H.; Jin, Y.; Fu, Z.; Qian. H. Interaction of chiral
350
herbicides with soil microorganisms, algae and vascular plants. Sci. Total Environ.
351
2017, 15, 1287-1299.
352
(25) Ge, Y.; Priester, J.H.; Mortimer, M.; Chong, H.C.; Ji, Z.; Schimel, J.P.; Holden,
353
P.A. Long-term effects of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and graphene on microbial
354
communities in dry soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3965–3974.
355
(26) Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Han, H.; A new function of graphene oxide emerges:
356
inactivating phytopathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae. J. Nanopart.
357
Res. 2013, 15, 1658.
358
(27) Pretti, C.; Oliva, M.; Pietro, B.D.; Monni, G.; Cevasco, G.; Chiellini, F.; Pomelli,
359
C.; Chiappe, C. Ecotoxicity of pristine graphene to marine organisms. Ecotoxicol.
360
Environ. Saf. 2014, 101, 138–145.
361
(28) Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Chen, J.; Han, H.; Yuan, Z. Evaluation andmechanism of
362
antifungal effects of carbon nanomaterials in controlling plant fungal pathogen.
363
Carbon. 2014, 68, 798–806.
364
(29) Du, S.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, R.; Lu, Q.; Liu, L.; Bao, X.; Liu, H. Reduced graphene
365
oxide induces cytotoxicity and inhibits photosynthetic performance of the green Alga
366
Scenedesmus Obliquus. Chemosphere. 2016, 164, 499– 507.
367
(30) Akhavan, O.; Ghaderi, E. Toxicity of graphene and graphene oxide nano walls
368
against bacteria. ACS Nano, 2010, 4, 5731–5736.
369
(31) Liu, S.; Zeng, T.H.; Hofmann, M.; Burcombe, E.; Wei, J.; Jiang, R.; Kong, J.;
370
Chen, Y. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and 17
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
371
reduced graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano. 2011, 5, 6971–
372
6980.
373
(32) Chen, M.; Cao, F.; Li, F.; Liu, C.; Tong, H.; Wu, W.; Hu, M. Anaerobic
374
Transformation of DDT Related to Iron(III) Reduction and Microbial Community
375
Structure in Paddy Soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 2224−2233.
376
(33) Seabra, A.B.; Paula, A.J.; de Lima, R.; Alves, O.L.; Duran, N. Nanotoxicity of
377
graphene and graphene oxide. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2014, 27, 159–168.
378
(34) Nadres, E.T.; Fan, J.; Rodrigues, D.F. Toxicity and Environmental Applications
379
of Graphene-Based Nanomaterials. Graphene-based Materials in Health and
380
Environment, Springer, Cham, Switzerland. 2016, 323–356.
381
18
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 18 of 28
Page 19 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
382
TABLE AND FIGURE CAPTIONS
383
Table 1 Physico-chemical characteristics of the experimental soils.
384
Figure 1. Effects of GN and GO on soil enzyme activity for different incubation
385
periods in soils (A: S1 invertase activity. B: S2 invertase activity. C: S3 invertase
386
activity. D: S4 invertase activity)
387
Figure 2. Effect of GN and GO on soil microbial population for different incubation
388
time in S1 and S2 soils (A: S1 bacterial population. B: S1 actinomyces population. C:
389
S1 fungal population. D: S2 bacterial population. E: S2 actinomyces population. F: S2
390
fungal population.).
391
Figure 3. Bacterial diversity comparison with rarefaction curves (A) and Shannon
392
-Wiener curves (B) in different soils at 10 Day and 90 DAT
393
Figure 4. Bacterial phyla composition of the different communities (Percentage of
394
relative read abundance of bacterial phyla within each community)
395
Figure 5. Bacterial genus composition of the different communities (Percentage of
396
relative read abundance of bacterial genus within each community).
397
Figure 6. Distribution heatmap of microbial genus arranged by hierarchical clustering
398
of soils with different treatment.
399
Supporting Information Available: [Figure S1. SEM and AFM photo of graphene
400
and graphene oxide (a: GN-SEM; b: GO-SEM; c: GN-AFM; d: GO-AFM). Figure S2.
401
Graphene and graphene oxide zeta potential and particle sizes (a: GN sizes; b: GN
402
zeta potential; c: GO sizes; d: GN zeta potential). Figure S3. Effects of GN and GO
403
on soil enzyme activity for different incubation periods in soils.(a: S1 urease activity.
404
b: S2 urease activity. c: S3 urease activity. d: S4 urease activity. e: S1 protease activity. 19
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
405
f: S2 protease activity. g: S3 protease activity. h: S4 protease activity. i: S1 catalase
406
activity. j: S2 catalase activity. k: S3 catalase activity. l: S1 catalase activity. ).
407
Figure S4. Effect of GN and GO on soil microbial population for different incubation
408
time in S3 and S4 soils (a: S3 bacterial population. b: S3 actinomyces population. c:
409
S3 fungal population. d: S4 bacterial population. e: S4 actinomyces population. f: S4
410
fungal population.). Figure S5. Venn diagram in different soils at 10 Day and 90
411
DAT.]
412
20
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 20 of 28
Page 21 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
413
Table 1
414 Red paddy soil
Yellow loam soil
Huangshi soil (S3)
Yellow paddy soil
(S1)
(S2)
Longyou, Zhejiang
Longquan,
Changzhou, Jiangsu
Huajiachi, Hangzhou,
Province
Fujian Province
Province
Zhejiang Province
pH (H2O)
4.20
6.53
5.95
7.02
OMa /%
8.4
2.67
1.52
30.5
CEC b / cmol kg-1
6.62
14.09
7.11
10.83
Clay / %
39.0
38.7
33.5
18.2
Silt / %
41.1
50.4
49.8
61.2
Sand / %
19.9
10.9
16.7
20.6
0.09mm
17.30
4.3
6.7
20.8
Total N / %
2.03
0.24
0.08
1.12
P /mg kg-1
18.26
21.25
7.65
16.37
K / g kg-1
21.6
13.47
10.7
15.83
Characteristics
Location
Texture/%
415
a
Organic matter.
416
b
Cation Exchange Capacity.
(S4)
417
21
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 1. 12 10 8
20
A
Invertase (mg glucose /g soil)
Invertase (mg glucose /g soil)
418
S1C S1GN S1GO
6 4 2 0 10
30
50
70
90
B
S2C S2GN S2GO
15 10 5 0 10
30
Days S3C
14
S3GN
12
S3GO
10 8 6 4 2 0 10
50 Days
C
16
Invertase (mg Glucose /g soil)
Invertase (mg Glucose /g soil)
419
420
Page 22 of 28
30 50 Days
70
90
20 15
70
90
D
S4C S4GN S4GO
10 5 0 10
30
50 Days
22
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
70
90
Page 23 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 2.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
6 5
30
50 Days
70
S1GN S1GO
4 3 2 1 0 10
30
50
S2GN
8.5
S2GO
8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 10
30
70
7.5 7 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3
90
10
30
6 5
8
S1G N S1G O
70
90
F
S2C
7 S2G N
6 5
4
4
3
3
2
2 1
1
0
0 10
422
50 Days
C
S1C
90
6.5
Fungal population (lg CFU/g soil)
Fungal population (lg CFU/g soil)
7
70
E
S2C S2GN S2GO
Days 8
50 Days
B
S1C
S2C
D
9
90
Actinomyces population (lgCFU/g soil)
10
Actinomyces population (lgCFU/g soil)
A
S1C S1GN S1GO
Bacterial population (lg CFU/g soil)
8
Bacterial population (lg CFU/g soil)
421
30
50
70
90
10
Days
423
23
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
30
50 Days
70
90
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
424
Figure 3.
Rarefaction Measure: rarefaction
A
425
Rarefaction Measure: r-shannon
B
426 24
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 24 of 28
Page 25 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 4.
Relative abundance (%)
427
428
25
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 5.
Relative abundance (%)
429
430
431 432
26
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 26 of 28
Page 27 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
433
Figure 6.
434
27
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Graphical Abstract
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 28 of 28