“…To circumvent this problem, we treated AvNifH and AvNifH Se with 20 mM dithionite (E 1/2 = À 0.44 V at pH 8.0), 2 mM dithionite (E 1/2 = À 0.47 V at pH 8.0), 10 mM europium(II) 1,4,7,10-tetrakis(carbamoylmethyl)-1,4,7,10tetraazacyclododecane (Eu II -DOTAM; E 1/2 = À 0.59 V at pH 8.0), 10 mM europium(II) 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid (Eu II -DOTA; E 1/2 = À 0.92 V at pH 8.0), and 10 mM europium(II) diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (Eu II -DTPA; E 1/2 = À 1.14 V at pH 8.0), and monitored the intensity of the all-ferrous, g = 16.4 parallel-mode EPR signal at the various reduction potentials created by these reductants (Figure 6b). [16,37] In the case of AvNifH, the g = 16.4 signal are absent from the EPR spectra at À 0.44 V (i.e., 20 mM dithionite) and À 0.47 V (i.e., 2 mM dithionite); whereas in the case of AvNifH Se , the intensities of the g = 16.4 signal are 4 % and 13 %, respectively, of the maximum intensity at À 0.44 V and À 0.47 V. Plotting of the intensity of the g = 16.4 signal versus the reductant potentials allowed for an approximate assignment of the "mid-intensity" potential, or the potential corresponding to 50 % of the maximum signal intensity, for AvNifH and AvNifH Se (Figure 6c). Strikingly, the "mid-intensity" potential for AvNifH is � À 0.90 V, which approximates the midpoint potential of À 0.79 V previously determined for the [Fe 4 S 4 ] 1 + /0 couple by a redox mediator-based method.…”