The significance of extracellular polymer substances (EPS) on cell deposition on silica surfaces was examined by direct comparison of the deposition kinetics of untreated "intact" bacteria versus those from the same strain but with EPS removal via cation exchange resin (CER) treatment using a quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation (QCM-D). Four bacterial strains, mutant Escherichia coli BL21 (gram-negative, nonmotile), Pseudomonas sp QG6 (gram-negative, motile), Rhodococcus sp QL2 (gram-positive, nonmotile), and Bacillus subtilis (gram-positive, motile), were employed to determine the influence of EPS on cell deposition. Experiments were conducted in both monovalent (NaCl) and divalent (CaCl2) solutions under a variety of environmentally relevant ionic strength ranging from 1 to 100 mM at pH 6.0. The effectiveness of EPS removal via CER method was ensured by biochemical composition analysis of EPS solutions and further confirmed by FTIR analysis. Comparable zeta potentials were observed for untreated and CER treated bacterial cells in both NaCl and CaCl2 solutions, indicating that removal of EPS from cell surfaces via CER treatment did not affect the electrokinetic properties of the cell surfaces for all four strains. However, observed deposition efficiencies (alpha) were greater for untreated cells relative to those with CER treated cells across the entire ionic strength range examined in both NaCI and CaCl2 solutions for all four bacterial strains. These results strongly demonstrated that the removal of EPS from cell surfaces for all four strains decreased the deposition of bacteria on silica surfaces. This study clearly showed that the enhancement of cell deposition on silica surfaces due to the presence of EPS on cell surfaces was relevant to all bacterial strains examined regardless of cell types and motility.
The deposition kinetics of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) on silica surfaces were examined in both monovalent and divalent solutions under a variety of environmentally relevant ionic strength and pH conditions by employing a quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation (DCM-D). Soluble EPS (SEPS) and bound EPS (BEPS) were extracted from four bacterial strains with different characteristics. Maximum favorable deposition rates (k(fa)) were observed for all EPS at low ionic strengths in both NaCl and CaCl2 solutions. With the increase of ionic strength, k(fa) decreased due to the simultaneous occurrence of EPS aggregation in solutions. Deposition efficiency (alpha; the ratio of deposition rates obtained under unfavorable versus corresponding favorable conditions) for all EPS increased with increasing ionic strength in both NaCl and CaCl2 solutions, which agreed with the trends of zeta potentials and was consistent with the classic Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory. Comparison of alpha for SEPS and BEPS extracted from the same strain showed that the trends of alpha did not totally agree with trends of zeta potentials, indicating the deposition kinetics of EPS on silica surfaces were not only controlled by DLVO interactions, but also non-DLVO forces. Close comparison of alpha for EPS extracted from different sources showed alpha increased with increasing proteins to polysaccharides ratio. Subsequent experiments for EPS extracted from the same strain but with different proteins to polysaccharides ratios and from activated sludge also showed that alpha were largest for EPS with greatest proteins to polysaccharides ratio. Additional experiments for pure protein and solutions with different pure proteins to pure saccharides ratios further corroborated that larger proteins to polysaccharides ratio resulted in greater EPS deposition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.