Scholarly article on topic 'Assessing antibiotic sorption in soil: a literature review and new case studies on sulfonamides and macrolides'

Assessing antibiotic sorption in soil: a literature review and new case studies on sulfonamides and macrolides Academic research paper on "Environmental engineering"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Chemistry Central Journal
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{""}

Academic research paper on topic "Assessing antibiotic sorption in soil: a literature review and new case studies on sulfonamides and macrolides"

œ Chemistry Central

Journal

REVIEW Open Access

Assessing antibiotic sorption in soil: a literature review and new case studies on sulfonamides and macrolides

Stacia R Wegst-Uhrich1, Divina AG Navarro1,2, Lisa Zimmerman1 and Diana S Aga1*

Abstract

The increased use of veterinary antibiotics in modern agriculture for therapeutic uses and growth promotion has raised concern regarding the environmental impacts of antibiotic residues in soil and water. The mobility and transport of antibiotics in the environment depends on their sorption behavior, which is typically predicted by extrapolating from an experimentally determined soil-water distribution coefficient (KJ. Accurate determination of Kd values is important in order to better predict the environmental fate of antibiotics. In this paper, we examine different analytical approaches in assessing Kj of two major classes of veterinary antibiotics (sulfonamides and macrolides) and compare the existing literature data with experimental data obtained in our laboratory. While environmental parameters such as soil pH and organic matter content are the most significant factors that affect the sorption of antibiotics in soil, it is important to consider the concentrations used, the analytical method employed, and the transformations that can occur when determining Kd values. Application of solid phase extraction and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry can facilitate accurate determination of Kd at environmentally relevant concentrations. Because the bioavailability of antibiotics in soil depends on their sorption behavior, it is important to examine current practices in assessing their mobility in soil.

Keywords: Veterinary pharmaceuticals, Antibiotics, Antimicrobials, Sulfamethazine, Tylosin, Partition coefficient, Sorption, Mobility, Degradation, Transformation

Introduction

Veterinary pharmaceuticals (VPs) are physiologically active compounds that are used to protect animals against parasites, prevent bacterial infections, and growth promotion [1-6]. Antibiotics, their synthetic analogues, and synthetically produced antimicrobials are introduced in both therapeutic and medical dosages to the animals through medicated feeds, injections, and external application [1]. Most animals do not absorb these compounds completely; hence antibiotics are excreted in urine and feces as parent compounds, and in mixtures with their conjugated metabolites and oxidation/hydrolysis products [1,3-8].

The presence of antibiotic residues in animal manure that are land-applied to agricultural lands can contaminate water and soil [9-11]. Consequently, changes in the

* Correspondence: dianaaga@buffalo.edu

department of Chemistry, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

soil microbial population can occur; the microorganisms' ability to degrade contaminants and their role in chemical cycles, such as nitrification, may be affected significantly [5,7,12-14]. Persistent antibiotics can accumulate in the top layers of soil, may leach to the groundwater, or can be transported to surface waters [1,15,16]. Sul-fonamide antibiotics, the first broad spectrum antibacterial medications [17], are relatively persistent in the environment and do not sorb strongly to soil. Thus, sul-fonamides have been detected in surface water, ground water, soil pore water [18-20], and drinking water [21] that have been impacted by agricultural and human activities.

A common parameter used to predict the transport behavior of organic contaminants in soil is the soil-water partition coefficient, Kd. The Kd values can be directly determined experimentally, or derived indirectly from the octanol-water partition coefficients (I<cw) or by computational modeling using free energy calculations. Because

Qj Chemistry Centra

© 2014 Wegst-Uhrich et al.; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

the sorption properties of antibiotics affect their mobility and ecotoxicology, it is important to recognize that different Kd measurements may provide varying results that could potentially lead to large errors in environmental models that are used in risk assessment.

The fate and transport of antibiotics in the environment depend on the underlying physical properties of the compound such as water solubility, lipophilicity, volatility, and sorption potential. Soil can act as potential sink, and thus sorption of antibiotics in the solid phase can reduce their mobility, reactivity, and bioavailability for microbial degradation [22]. In addition, soil properties such as organic carbon content, ionic strength, clay content, texture, and pH can alter sorption mechanisms involved, and the extent of sorption of antibiotics [23]. The assumption that sorption occurs solely through hydrophobic partitioning to soil organic matter (OM) is inappropriate for antibiotics with ionizable groups, when electrostatic interactions and hydrogen bonding become significant [1].

The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the different ways that Kd values are measured, and demonstrate how the analytical differences may affect the prediction of the fate and transport of antibiotics in the environment. Specifically, this review will focus on two of the most used classes of antibiotics: sulfonamides and macrolides. Within these classes, sulfamethazine, tylosin, and erythromycin are examined due to their wide use in animal related practices, and their variable sorption properties [1,24].

Review

Octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) and octanol-water distribution ratio (Dow)

Antibiotic mobility in soil has been traditionally estimated using the octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow):

\Solute\

octanol

[Solute] water

However, Kow only reflects hydrophobic interactions and does not accurately account for electrostatic interactions, surface complexation, hydrogen bonding, cation-exchange, or bridging that may vary significantly with changes in pH, OM, and ionic strength [1]. While the use of Kow in predicting soil sorption behavior of nonpolar compounds works fairly well, the application of Kow for polar or ionizable compounds, such as many antibiotics, may be inaccurate. Additionally, the variety of environmental factors (such as soil properties) that can affect sorption will complicate the modeling efforts to predict sorption and mobility of antibiotics. For example, OM may block interlayer sites of clay minerals

[25], but such phenomenon is not accounted for by Kow values. Thus simply using Kow will result in incorrect assessment of antibiotic fate and transport in the environment.

The pH dependent octanol-water distribution ratio Dow, can be used to avoid variations in Kow values resulting from changes in pH. The Dow value considers hydro-phobicity and ionogenicity, and is a combination of the Kow (of the neutral compound) and the pKa, in which the transfer of both neutral and ionized species between the aqueous and immiscible phase is accounted for [26]. The Dow value does not consider hydrophobicity as the sole governing factor that dictates partitioning of neutral compounds, but also accounts for the transfer of ion pairs and free ions from aqueous to the organic layer [27,28]:

[nonionized + ionized species] octanoi

[nonionized + ionized species]water

A relationship between log Kow and log Dow can be derived for both acidic and basic compounds [29]. For sulfamethazine, Kow values between 1.042 and 3.750 are reported, while Dow values between 0.427 and 1.950 are reported (determined at pH values of 4-8). These Kow and Dow values were calculated using Advanced Chemistry Development (ACD/Labs) Software V11.02 (© 1994-2012 ACD/Labs). Notably, these values fall in the lower part of the wide range of Kj values (0.23-30 L/kg) obtained experimentally, as reported from literature (Table 1).

The Kd partition coefficient

The soil-water partition coefficient (Kd) is used to describe the sorption potential of pollutants and the extent that they will move into the ground or surface waters. Using Kd instead of Kow demonstrates sorption behavior with respect to the soil media of interest, and data extrapolation from the octanol to soil matrices is eliminated. The Kd value is the ratio between the concentration of the compound in soil (Cs) [total concentration, including sorbed transformation products] to the concentration of the dissolved compound in water (Cw) [1]:

In the experimental determination of Kd values, it is important to accurately measure the concentrations of the compounds at environmentally relevant levels for both the water and soil components to assure mass balance. Kd is typically determined one of two ways: (1) column displacement studies in which determination occurs from a breakthrough curve at a single location, or (2) batch sorption experiments in which multiple concentrations are used to construct isotherms by plotting Cs versus Cw.

Table 1 Sorption coefficients of sulfamethazine

Soil type Kd (L/kg) Concentration range used Measurement technique Reference

Sandy loam 0.27-0.77 1.5, 3.5, 7.5, 10, 15 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 275 nm) [34]

0.23-1.22 0.3 - 20 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 254 nm) [33]

9.8-22 0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.5, 4.0 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 275 nm) [32]

0.95-19.53 17.7, 35.4,53.1,70.8, 88.5 ppb Liquid scintillation counting ED

(LSC) with 14C-SMZ Method 1

1.0-7.52 1, 3, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 300 ppb LSC with 14C-SMZ ED

Method 1

Clay loam 2.88 1.5, 3.5, 7.5, 10, 15 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 275 nm) [34]

16.55 ± 1.41 0.012, 0.122, 1.219 ppm LSC with 14C-SMZ [31]

Loam 1.05-3.91 0.3 - 20 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 254 nm) [33]

3.1-17 0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.5, 4.0 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 275 nm) [32]

2.83-22.28 17.7, 35.4,53.1,70.8, 88.5 ppb Liquid scintillation counting ED

(LSC) with 14C-SMZ Method 1

0.9-18.2 1, 3, 10, 20, 30, LSC with 14C-SMZ ED

50, 100, 300 ppb Method 1

17.10 ± 1.66 0.012, 0.122, 1.219 ppm LSC with 14C-SMZ [31]

Silty clay loam 18.58 ± 2.29 0.012, 0.122, 1.219 ppm LSC with 14C-SMZ [31]

Silt loam 0.82-2.12 1.5, 3.5, 7.5, 10, 15 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 275 nm) [34]

0.66 - 6.73 2.5 - 50 |jM HPLC-UV (A = 254 nm) [30]

LSC with 14C-SMZ

206.18 ± 12.09 0.012, 0.122, 1.219 ppm LSC with 14C-SMZ [31]

Loamy sand 2.3-30 0, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.5, 4.0 ppm HPLC-UV (A = 275 nm) [32]

Sand 7.52 ± 0.09 0.012, 0.122, 1.219 ppm LSC with 14C-SMZ [31]

Note: Results are soil dependent. ED: experimentally determined. Methodology can be found in the additional files. Kow of sulfamethazine ranges from 1.042-3.750. Kow values calculated using Advanced Chemistry Development (ACD/Labs) Software V11.02 (© 1994-2012 ACD/Labs).

Experimentally determined Kd values reported in the literature for a particular compound are highly variable even for the same soil type and environmental conditions. For example, Tables 1 and 2 list Kd values for sulfamethazine, a sulfonamide [30-34] and tylosin, a macrolide [2,6,25,35-38], respectively. Corresponding plots were drawn in Figure 1 to clearly demonstrate the wide range of their Kd values reported. For the same type of soil, Kd values appear to vary widely depending on the concentration ranges used to determine Kd.

In general, Kd values have been obtained using high concentrations (in the parts per million range) of antibiotics that are not environmentally relevant. High concentrations are used to enable detection of the desorbed portion without sample pre-concentration. However, the use of high concentrations of antibiotics for sorption experiments can result in anomalies when the Kd value is concentration-dependent and exhibits non-linearity. For example, the Kd value for sulfachloropyri-dazine (pka = 1.88, 5.90) was determined in sandy loam (pH 6.0-7.5 and 6.6, respectively) at 1-10 ppb to be 0.9 L/kg,

while when determined at 1.5 ppm the Kd value was 8.1 L/kg. These discrepancies in the Kd values pose differences in predicting the fate of sulfachloropyridazine; it implies that at lower concentrations, sulfachloropyridazine is considered to have high mobility under the pesticide mobility classification [6,19], while at higher concentrations sulfachloropyridazine has low mobility [6,39].

The freundlich sorption constant, Kf:

Because sorption coefficients are not always the same at all aqueous concentrations, linear plots are not always observed. In the case of tylosin, non-linearity has been previously reported [40,41], and therefore all original data will be presented as both Kd and Kf values. The Freundlich constant (sorption coefficient) Kf provides a better estimate of partitioning:

where n, the Freundlich exponent, is a measure of the isotherm nonlinearity. A plot of log Cs vs. log Cw gives a

Table 2 Sorption coefficients of tylosin

Soil Type Kd (L/kg) Concentration range used Measurement technique Reference

Sandy Loam 58.1 - 148.0 500 ppb LC-MS [37]

LC-fluorescence

92 1000 ppm ELISA [35]

101.02-13961.00 10, 100, 200, 1000 ppb HPLC-MS ED

(ion trap) Method 2

6737-33871 1, 5, 10, 100, 200, 500, 1000 ppb HPLC-MS/MS ED

Method 3

42 5 ppm HPLC-UV [36]

(A = 290 nm)

Clay Loam 66 1000 ppm ELISA [35]

156 ±8 3 ppm HPLC-MS (SIM) [6]

1.76 - 6.19 0.5, 5, 50 ppm HPLC-UV [25]

(A = 290 nm)

65 5 ppm HPLC-UV [36]

(A = 290 nm)

Loam 59.35-1176.00 10, 100, 200, 1000 ppb HPLC-MS (ion trap) ED

Method 2

1684-172480 1, 5, 10, 100, 200, 500, 1000 ppb HPLC-MS/MS ED

Method 3

5.77 - 12.4 0.5, 5, 50 ppm HPLC-UV [25]

(A = 290 nm)

Loamy Sand 8.3 ± 1.2 500 ppb LC-MS [37]

LC-fluorescence

8.9 ± 0.4 3 ppm HPLC-MS (SIM) [6]

Sand Soil 10.8 ± 0.7 500 ppb LC-MS [37]

LC-fluorescence

24 5 ppm HPLC-UV [36]

(A = 290 nm)

Clay%: 0.2 - 51.6% 10.4-387.0 3 - 7.5 ppm HPLC-MS (SIM) [38]

(Average = 129.5)

Clay%: < 3 - 69% (Kd increases with clay %) 2.23-5520 5 - 43 (jmol/L HPLC-UV, [2]

(Tylosin A) (A = 280 nm)

547-4745 5 - 43 (jmol/L HPLC-UV, [2]

(Tylosin D) (A = 280 nm)

597-6520 5 - 43 (jmol/L HPLC-UV, [2]

(Tylosin A-Aldol) (A = 280 nm)

Note: Results are soil dependent. ED: experimentally determined. Methodology can be found in the additional files. Kow ranges for tylosin A and it's metabolites: tylosin A: 0.552-32.6587; tylosin B: 1.535-78.343; tylosin C: 0.676-41.495;tylosin D: 0.309-17.947. Kow values calculated using Advanced Chemistry Development (ACD/Labs) Software V11.02 (© 1994-2012 ACD/Labs).

linear isotherm with a slope equal to n and a y-intercept equal to log Kf. If the value of Kf approaches the value of Kd, the Freundlich exponent, n, is equal to 1, and sorption is linear. If n is greater than 1, the sorption coefficient increases as the amount of compound sorbed on the solid phase increases; this indicates that the presence

of sorbed compounds on the solid induces further sorption of additional compounds. If n is less than 1, sorption coefficient decreases when the amount of compound sorbed is increased; this indicates that the presence of sorbed compounds hinders further sorption [29].

Figure 1 Box plots of Kd values for sulfonamides and macrolides reported in literature. The sulfonamides (left) include sulfamethazine and sulfachloropyridazine, and the macrolides (right) includes tylosin and erythromycin. pH values range from 5.2-7.5 when reported. Soiltypes include loamy and sandy loam, clay loam, loam, loamy sand, and silt loam. The high variation of Kd values found in literature is illustrated here. The upper and lower boundaries of the box represent the 75th and 25th percentile respectively. The middle line indicates the median value, and the whiskers indicate the maximum and minimum values.

An alternative to Kd: normalizing with organic carbon, Koc

Experimental determination of Kd values can be cost-prohibitive and time-consuming because one has to measure Kd at various conditions (e.g. different soil types, pH values, and organic and ionic strengths). When Kd is normalized to the organic carbon content of the soil, the organic carbon normalized sorption coefficient Koc is obtained [1]:

OC - r

However, mechanisms other than hydrophobic interactions are not accurately accounted for when normalization is performed using organic carbon content [1]. The differences between Koc and Kd are observed in literature. Rabolle and Spliid [37] reported Kd and Koc values ranging from 8.3-128 L/kg and 553-7988 L/kg, respectively, for tylosin in 4 different soils. Lertpaitoonpan et al. [33] reported Kd values for sulfamethazine for 5 different soils at varying pH between 0.23-3.91 L/kg, and Koc values between 30.4-139.7 L/kg. In both cases, the antibiotics have higher Koc values, which would suggest that the compounds are less mobile than their Kd values would indicate. Thus, while normalizing partition coefficients may help reduce variation between samples, it cannot be universally applied to all antimicrobials, particularly those that have ionizable functional groups.

Case studies: sorption behavior of sulfonamides and macrolides in sediment

Macrolides and sulfonamides are commonly used antibiotic classes in livestock. Approximately 165800 kg of tylosin (a macrolide), 18660 kg of sulfamethazine, and 19400 kg of sulfathiazole are used annually in the United States for growth promotion, prevention, and therapy [42]. Our laboratory conducted sorption experiments for sulfamethazine and tylosin under varying pH, OM content, and ionic strengths using loam and sandy loam sediments. A study by Kim et al. [43] found sulfametha-zine, erythromycin-hydrochloride, and tylosin in agricultural soils at concentrations of 9.1, 30.7, and 19.6 ^g/kg, respectively. Therefore, sorption tests were performed using aqueous concentrations between 1-1000 ^g/L prior to partitioning in order to mimic environmentally relevant concentrations of these antibiotics. Details regarding the methodology used to perform these batch experiments can be found in Additional file 1.

The pH-dependence of antibiotic sorption is critical, because many pharmaceuticals have acid-base properties resulting in changes in the overall net charge of the molecule as ammonia concentration in manure changes [6]. These factors can alter the distribution between the aqueous and solid phase, particularly for ionizable compounds [23]. Changes in soil pH can also affect surface charge and cation exchange capacity of the soil [1]. Ionic strength variations can lead to changes in pH, and cause electrostatic competition between ions present in the solution and the

analyte of interest [6,44-46]. This study makes use of sediments that have similar OM content but have different fractions of sand, silt and clay. Most of the study conditions render a percentage of the compound in its ionized form, and due to the dependence on ionic strength, the antibiotics in the cationic form show increased sorption. However, sediment buffering capacity must be considered. The higher clay content in the loam sediment has a weaker buffering capacity relative to OM [47]. The sandy loam can more readily adjust the pH closer to the original pH, and therefore antibiotic sorption in sandy loam is less affected by changes in pH. The water solubility of the antibiotics increases with increase in dissolved OM content [48], which in turn results in increased mobility of antibiotics in soil [1]. Thus, it is important to understand how the Kd changes for each antibiotic when OM is present in the system.

Sulfamethazine

Sulfonamides, or sulfa drugs, are synthetic antimicrobial agents containing the sulfonamide functional group (-RSO2NH2) [10]. Sulfonamides are mobile antibiotics and their speciation changes with pH. A common sulfonamide antibiotic is sulfamethazine (pka: 1.62, 7.91), and its Kd values for various soil types reported in literature are presented in Table 1, and compared with the Kd values obtained experimentally from our laboratory.

Effects of pH on sulfamethazine sorption

The sorption isotherm we determined for sulfametha-zine (Figure 2) illustrates that Kd generally decreases with increase in pH for both loamy sand and loam sediments. This sorption behavior is consistent with the changes in the fraction of ionization of sulfamethazine as it converts from its cationic form to the neutral and anionic forms (See Figure 3). Positively charged species are electrostatically attracted to the negatively charged soil surface, and therefore a higher Kd is observed at pH below 5 (Table 3) [2,30]. Despite the presence of a small fraction of negatively charged sulfamethazine at pH 7, cation bridging does not appear to play a significant role in the sorption of sulfamethazine because sulfonamides interact primarily with soil organic matter via hydropho-bic interactions [49]. This behavior of sulfonamides is in contrast with tetracycline and fluoroquinolone family of antibiotics that interact with soils primarily through cation exchange, surface complexation and cation bridging sorption mechanisms.

Sulfamethazine sorption (Table 3) trends towards linear isotherms in the sandy loam (npH5 = 0.916, npH7 = 0.853, and npH9 = 1.01) at the three pH values tested. Sorption in loam exhibits some non-linearity (npH4 = 0.885, npH6.9 = 0.822, and npH8.2 = 0.708). The n values are less than 1 which signifies that the sorption coefficient decreases when the amount of compound sorbed

is increased, indicating that the presence of sorbed compounds hinders further sorption of antibiotic [29,50].

Effects of ionic strength on sulfamethazine sorption

Sulfamethazine showed a slight decrease in sorption when ionic strength was increased from 50 mM to 250 mM (Table 4). The small decrease in sulfamethazine sorption may be attributed to a slight change in pH brought about by increase in ionic strength, and a possible change in interfacial potential between the negative sediment surface and the partially charged sulfametha-zine [44-46]. The negatively charged soil surface reduces the sorption of anionic organic compounds [6,51].

Effects of organic matter on sulfamethazine sorption

Fan et al. [31] found that the sorption correlation of sulfamethazine with OM is confounded by soil pH. Thiele-Bruhn and Aust [52] observed that when electrostatic competition were eliminated through use of an acidic pig slurry matrix, the sorption of sulfon-amides decreased. Decreased antibiotic sorption may be attributed to association of sediments with OM from manure components (ammonia-N-containing soluble hydrocarbons such as amino acids urea [53,54], and N-heterocyclic hydrocarbons such as pyrrols, methylin-dols, and nitrogen bases [55]). The interaction of OM with soil can block access of antibiotics to interlayer sorption sites in soil [25,52,56]. In our study, we found no consistent trend with changes in humic acid (HA) concentrations (Table 5). These tests may have been complicated by the presence of both dissolved and suspended HA in solution. Suspended HA provides sites where additional partitioning can occur. Increased amounts of dissolved OM can cause antibiotics to desorb from soil, and increased association of antibiotics with dissolved OM can facilitate transport in the environment [1,16,57]. Furthermore, any anionic sulfamethazine may be repelled by the increased surface charge occurring from the dissolved OM [30].

Tylosin

Macrolides, which are mainly active to Gram-positive bacteria, inhibit ribosomal protein synthesis. Their activity stems from the presence of the macrolide ring, a large lactone ring to which one or more deoxy sugars are attached [58]. A case study on the soil sorption of tylosin antibiotic, which belongs to the macrolide class, is presented below.

Effects of pH on tylosin sorption

Tylosin sorption (pKa: 7.20, 12.44, 12.93, 13.36, 13.94, and 15.01; assignments of pKa values in the molecule are shown in Scheme 1) strongly depends on the pH, as well as on the surface area, clay content, and cation-

Figure 2 Sulfamethazine sorption isotherms. Top: Sulfamethazine sorption isotherms in sediment at low, neutral, and high aqueous pH. Left: sandy-loam and Right: loam Bottom: Tylosin sorption isotherms in sediment at low, neutral, and high aqueous pH. Left: sandy-loam and Right: loam

exchange capacity of the soil [2]. Since tylosin is water soluble (5 mg/mL) and has high molecular weight, it is unlikely that sorption occurs through penetration of soil micro pores [25]. Several studies have reported that the Kd values for tylosin increase with decreasing pH [6,25,38,59]. The same pH effects on the sorption behavior of tylosin were observed in the studies conducted in

our laboratory, as shown in Figure 2 and in Table 3. Tylosin sorption increased in both loam and sandy loam sediments when the pH of the sediment-aqueous system was decreased. The increased sorption of tylosin at pH 5, relative to its sorption at pH 7 and 9 can be expected due to the shift in tylosin speciation towards the positively charged species, resulting in increased

Table 3 Sulfamethazine and tylosin partitioning with changes in pH

Sandy loam Loam

Antibiotic pH Kd (L/kg) R2 Kf R2 Kd (L/kg) R2 Kf R2

Sulfamethazine 5 6.9 ± 0.5 0.996 8.49 0.997 18 ± 1 0.998 24.3 0.999

7 5.1 ±0.3 0.997 7.54 0.996 5.3 ± 0.7 0.985 10.3 0.998

9 0.9 ±0.3 0.954 0.994 0.980 0.9 ± 0.1 0.990 9 CO 0.995

Tylosin 5 3x104± 1x104 0.933 6.28x104 0.967 1.7x105 ± 4x104 0.952 2.02x105 0.933

7 1.5x104±6x103 0.899 1.43x104 0.950 2.2x104±7x103 0.933 1.66x104 0.867

9 7x103 ± 3x103 0.872 2.21x103 0.962 1.7x103 ± 9x102 0.808 1.26x103 0.938

Note: Values were experimentally determined. Errors represent standard deviation. Methodology can be found in the additional files. Sulfamethazine data was performed using method 1 and tylosin data with method 2. Sulfamethazine batch experiments were performed with concentrations of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, and 300 ng/mL, and tylosin batch experiments were performed with concentrations of 1, 5, 10, 100, 200, 500, and ng/mL.

electrostatic attractions to the negatively charged sediment surface [25].

Our experimental values indicate that tylosin sorption (Table 3) is linear over 3 orders of magnitude in the sandy loam sediment at pH 5 and 7 (npH5 = 0.993, npH7 = 1.05). However, at pH 9, npH9 = 1.22; this greater than unity value indicates a non-linear sorption behavior that can be attributed to the presence of sorbate molecules inducing further sorption [29]. In other words, the presence of the sorbed tylosin results in further sorption of the antibiotic in soil. Similarly, the loam sediment exhibits some non-linearity (npH5 = 1.15, npH7 = 1.18, npH9 = 1.19), but to a lower extent. Thus, electrostatic forces dominate the sorption model.

Effects of ionic strength on tylosin sorption

Literature suggests that tylosin sorption decreases with increase in ionic strength due to the consequent change in pH, and as a result of competition between the electrolyte cations and the positively charged tylosin species for negatively charged sorbent [6]. However, ionic strength experiments performed in our laboratory at a constant pH of 7, with tylosin in mostly neutral form, showed a reverse trend (Table 4). Instead, at pH 7, tylosin sorption increased with increase in ionic strength. This sorption behavior may be attributed to the presence of hydrated

cations in the solution (Ca2+, Na+) that may act as proton-donors, which can protonate the tertiary amine in the tylosin molecule and enhance its sorption properties at higher ionic strengths. Yong-Hak et al. [60], observed that the tertiary amine group of erythromycin can become pro-tonated, and that clay surfaces can facilitate this with their proton supplying power. Alternatively, hydrated cations that adsorb on the negatively charged soil can provide hydrogen bonding as an important sorption mechanism for tylosin because of several OH groups present in the molecule.

Effect of organic matter on tylosin sorption

It was expected that the Kd values for tylosin would decrease in the presence of OM due to increased solubility. However, studies in our laboratory demonstrated higher Kd values with increased OM (represented as humic acids) using 10 ppm tylosin in sandy loam, and unchanged values in loam (Table 5). Similar to sulfametha-zine, complications could arise from the presence of both dissolved and suspended OM within the solution. This complexity can be observed in the change in Kf values with increasing tylosin concentration (Table 5). Likewise, differences in the sorbates can also influence sorption, as was observed in the sorption of tylosin to the two sediment types used in our laboratory study.

Table 4 Sulfamethazine and tylosin partitioning with changes in ionic strength

Antibiotic Ionic strength (mM) Sandy loam Loam

Kd (L/kg) R2 Kf R2 Kd (L/kg) R2 Kf R2

Sulfamethazine 30 10.3 ± 0.5 0.999 26 0.992 5.5 ± 0.8 0.991 46 0.978

50 10±1 0.994 47 0.991 7.5 ± 0.5 0.997 59 0.960

250 7±3 0.913 54 0.974 2.8 ±0.3 0.995 84 0.917

Tylosin 30 500 ± 45 0.969 1640 0.969 190 ± 30 0.984 2689 0.919

50 2.9x103 ± 1x102 0.999 4411 0.980 600 ± 300 0.886 3109 0.972

250 1.4x104 ± 7x103 0.927 17200 0.935 9.6x103±7x102 0.998 5555 0.937

Note: Values were experimentally determined. Errors represent standard deviation. Methodology can be found in the additional files. Sulfamethazine data was performed using method 1 and tylosin data with method 2. Sulfamethazine batch experiments were performed with concentrations of 17.7, 35.4, 53.1, 70.8, 88.5 ng/mL, and tylosin batch experiments were performed with concentrations of 10, 100, 500, and 1000 ng/mL.

Table 5 Sulfamethazine and tylosin partitioning with changes in organic strength

Sandy loam Loam

Antibiotic Humic acid Kd R2 Kf R2 Kd R2 Kf R2

(mg/L) (L/kg) (L/kg)

Sulfamethazine 1 9 ± 2 0.974 31 0.910 5 ± 2 0.918 70 0.913

10 3 ± 2 0.727 67 0.947 4±2 0.878 84 0.827

50 12 ± 3 0.960 50 0.910 6±2 0.961 86 0.958

Tylosin 1 60 ± 30 0.869 1.43x105 0.873 50 ± 10 0.960 1.66x105 0.983

10 90 ± 20 0.976 4.41x103 0.940 50 ± 50 0.715 1.77x104 0.829

50 140 ± 70 0.936 8.18x104 0.996 40 ± 30 0.714 1.19x105 0.975

Note: Values were experimentally determined. Errors represent standard deviation. Methodology can be found in the additional files. Sulfamethazine data was performed using method 1 and tylosin data with method 2. Sulfamethazine batch experiments were performed with concentrations of 17.7, 35.4, 53.1, 70.8, 88.5 ng/mL, and tylosin batch experiments were performed with concentrations of 10, 15, 30, and 50 mg/L.

Sorption of tylosin metabolites

Tylosin and other antibiotics may interconvert between multiple chemical forms depending on environmental conditions as shown in Figure 4. Tylosin A and its related compounds are stable from pH 4-9 [61]. Metabolism of tylosin by livestock results in the excretion of tylosin A, B, D, and dihydrodesmycosin metabolites [2,62,63]. As the metabolites retain different degrees of bioactivity (TA = 100%, relative, TB = 83%, TD = 35%, dihydrodesmycosin = 31%) [2], it is important to consider the speciation of tylosin present in the environment. Tylosin A, D, and tylosin A-Aldol have been found to exhibit similar sorption characteristics [2]. However differences in sorption behavior between tylosin A (Kow: 0.552-32.659) and its hydrolysis

pKa=12.93

o^ 0^,0

pKa=i3.36 = o^^^

pKa=15.01

pKa=13.94 'oh pKa= 12.44

pKa=7.20

Scheme 1 The macrolide, tylosin. Chemicalstructure and pKa

values are shown.

product tylosin B (spiramyycin, Iw 1.535-78.343) may be significant. Tylosin B results from the hydrolysis of tylosin A which involves a loss of the mycarose ring attached at position 4 of the 16-membered lactone ring. With this loss, the hydrophilicity of tylosin increases. This can alter tylo-sin's potential to sorb to soil through hydrophobic interactions, and tylosin B can potentially be more mobile in the environment. Therefore, due to the varying properties of the different forms of tylosin, including tylosin A, B, C, and D it may not be appropriate to use only one Kj value for risk assessment of tylosin. Rather, I values should be obtained for all forms possible under the expected conditions.

To date, studies on the environmental fate of tylosin A degradation products are very limited [2,24]. Our laboratory determined sorption differences between tylosin A and B in loam sediment at an initial concentration of 50 ^g/mL equilibrated between sediment and aqueous phase for 24 h. The amount of tylosin remaining in the aqueous phase was determined by liquid chromatography coupled to an ion trap mass spectrometer (LC-MS) following concentration by solid phase extraction (SPE). The methodology used follows that in method 2 of the additional file 1. It was found that 53% tylosin A and 39% tylosin B were sorbed in the loam. However, these results may be complicated by the hydrolysis of tylosin over the equilibration time period and during the SPE process. A study by Ali et al. [64] observed a decrease in sorption with decreasing pH. This result is contradictory to what is found in most of the studies reported in the literature. The decrease may be associated with the decrease in tylosin A due to the formation of tylosin metabolites. The conversion of the parent compound to metabolites and the interconversions that occur under varying conditions are challenges associated with analyzing degradation products.

Conclusions

It is not possible to determine the fate and mobility of antibiotics and antimicrobials in the environment with

Figure 4 Degradation products of tylosin. Under environmental conditions, tylosin A can degrade to desmycosin, relomycin, dihydrodesmycosin, and tylosin A-Aldol. Tylosin A, relomycin, dihydrodesmycosin,desmycosin, and additional unknown degradates are present in swine excreta [62,63].

Kow values alone. The variability in mobility, as demonstrated by Kd and Kf values due to environmental factors such as pH, ionic strength, and organic strength as well as the multiple chemical functions of the molecule are large. In the case studies presented here, sulfamethazine was found to be very mobile in sandy loam and loam sediments, while tylosin is very immobile in both sediments. It is possible that degradates may have a higher mobility than the parent compounds. It is also important to determine sorption coefficients of antibiotics at environmentally-relevant concentrations. To achieve this, highly sensitive analytical techniques must be used, including the use of radiolabeled compounds.

A decrease in solution pH resulted in an increase in sorption of the cationic forms of antibiotics suggesting that electrostatic forces are the favored sorption mechanism of sulfamethazine and tylosin. As with other known pharmaceuticals, ionization of these compounds at the conditions considered was shown to favor the sorption of compounds. A cation-exchange mechanism can also be envisioned based on the results of ionic strength experiments where ions compete with charged species for sites on the soil. Organic matter dependence of Kd appears to be concentration-dependent, where low antibiotic concentrations result in higher soil sorption, and higher antibiotic concentrations result in lower soil sorption. It is observed that sorption mechanisms are much more complex than simple hydrophobicity and hydrogen bonding, and should also consider van der

Waals and electrostatic interactions, as well as cation-exchange, competition and bridging. Additionally, the properties of the sorbent also affect the sorption process. Differences in clay content alone provide notable changes in Kd values. Finally, sorption of antibiotics in soil, manure, and biosolids can be microbially-mediated, and may result in degradation or possibly irreversible binding onto manure solids with time [25,40,62,65]. Fate and transport studies should take into account not only Kd values for the parent compounds, but also those of the transformation products formed during biotic and abiotic processes in soil.

Additional file

Additional file 1: Methodology for Sorption Batch Experiments.

Abbreviations

VPs: Veterinary pharmaceuticals; Kow: Octanol-water partition coefficient; Dow: pH dependent octanol-water distribution ratio; Kd Soil-water partitior coefficient; Cs: Concentration of compound in soil; Cw: Concentration of dissolved compound in water; PAH: Poly aromatic hydrocarbon; Koc: Organic carbon normalized sorption coefficient; OM: Organic matter; DOM: Dissolved organic matter; HA: Humic acid; TA: Tylosin A; TB: Tylosin B; TD: Tylosin D; LC-MS/MS: Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry; SPE: Solid phase extraction.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

SRW, DAGN, and LZ performed experiments and analyzed data. SRW drafted the manuscript. DSA devised the study, secured funding, and supervised personnelduring sampling, analysis and manuscript preparation. Allauthors read and approved the finalmanuscript.

Acknowledgements

Originalresearch was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Award no. 2006-35102-17206, sun-contracted through the University of Iowa. The authors acknowledge Dr. Joseph Bidwellfrom Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, and Dr. Joel Coats and Keri Henderson from Iowa State University, Ames, IA for kindly providing the pond sediments used in the experiments. Stacia Wegst-Uhrich acknowledges her IGERTfellowship support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant No. DGE-0654305, titled "Ecosystem Restoration through Interdisciplinary Exchange" Traineeship Program.

Author details

department of Chemistry, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA. 2Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization, Private Bag 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia.

Received: 15 August 2013 Accepted: 14 January 2014 Published: 17 January 2014

References

1. Tolls J: Sorption of veterinary pharmaceuticals in soils: a review. Environ Sci Tech 2001, 35:3397-3406.

2. Sassman SA, Sarmah AK, Lee LS: Sorption of tylosin A, D, and A-aldol and degradation of tylosin a in soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 2007, 26:1629-1635.

3. Pruden A, Pei R, Storteboom H, Carlson KH: Antibiotic resistance genes as emerging contaminants: studies in northern Colorado. Environ Sci Tech 2006, 40:7445-7450.

4. Pei R, Kim S-C, Carlson KH, Pruden A: Effect of river landscape on the sediment concentrations of antibiotics and corresponding antibiotic resistance genes (ARG). Water Res 2006,40:2427-2435.

5. Kotzerke A, Sharma S, Schauss K, Heuer H, Thiele-Bruhn S, Smalla K, Wilke B-M, Schloter M: Alterations in soil microbial activity and N-transformation processes due to sulfadiazine loads in pig-manure. Environ Pollut 2008, 153:315-322.

6. ter Laak TL, Gebbink WA, Tolls J: The effect of pH and ionic strength on the sorption of sulfachloropyridazine, tylosin, and oxytetracycline to soil.

Environ Toxicol Chem 2006, 25:904-911.

7. Boxall ABA, Kolpin DW, Halling-Sorensen B, Tolls J: Are veterinary medicines causing environmental risks? Environ Sci Tech 2003, 37:286A-294A.

8. Gaskins HR, Collier CT, Anderson DB: Antibiotics as growth promotants: mode of action. Anim Biotechnol 2002,13:29-42.

9. Elmund GK, Morrison SM, Grant DW, Nevins MP: Role of excreted chlortetracycline in modifying the decomposition process in feedlot waste. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 1971, 6:129-132.

10. Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, Buxton HT: Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Tech 2002, 36:1202-1211.

11. Thiele-Bruhn S: Pharmaceutical antibiotic compounds in soils - a review. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 2003, 166:145-167.

12. Halling-Sorensen B: Inhibition of aerobic growth and nitrification of bacteria in sewage sludge by antibacterial agents. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2001, 40:451-460.

13. Klaver AL, Matthews RA: Effects of oxytetracycline on nitrification in a model aquatic system. Aquaculture 1994, 123:237-247.

14. Stone JJ, Dreis EK, Lupo CD, Clay SA: Land application of tylosin and chlortetracycline swine manure: impacts to soil nutrients and soil microbial community structure. J Environ Sci Health, Part B 2011, 46:752-762.

15. Alder AC, McArdell CS, Golet EM, Ibric S, Molnar E, Nipales NS, Giger W: Occurrence and fate of fluoroquinolone, macrolide, and sulfonamide antibiotics during wastewater treatment and in ambient waters in Switzerland. ACS Symp Ser 2001, 791:56-69.

16. Kulshrestha P, Giese RF, Aga DS: Investigating the molecular interactions of oxytetracycline in clay and organic matter: insights on factors affecting its mobility in soil. Environ Sci Tech 2004, 38:4097-4105.

17. Bryskier A: Antimicrobial agents: antibacterials and antifungals. Washington D.C: ASM Press; 2005.

18. Lindsey ME, Meyer M, Thurman EM: Analysis of trace levels of sulfonamide and tetracycline antimicrobials in groundwater and surface water using solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry.

Anal Chem 2001, 73:4640-4646.

19. Boxall ABA, Blackwell P, Cavallo R, Kay P, Tolls J: The sorption and transport of a sulphonamide antibiotic in soil systems. Toxicol Lett 2002, 131:19-28.

20. Hirsch R, Ternes T, Haberer K, Kratz K-L: Occurrence of antibiotics in the aquatic environment. Sci Total Environ 1999, 225:109-118.

21. Boxall ABA, Johnson P, Smith EJ, Sinclair CJ, Stutt E, Levy LS: Uptake of veterinary medicines from soils into plants. J AgricFood Chem 2006, 54:2288-2297.

22. Hatzinger PB, Alexander M: Biodegradation of organic compounds sequestered in organic solids or in nanopores within silica particles. Environ Toxicol Chem 1997, 16:2215-2221.

23. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals: adsorption - desorption using a batch equilibrium method. [http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/ meetings/2008/october/106_adsorption_desorption_using.pdfl.

24. Hu D, Coats JR: Aerobic degradation and photolysis of tylosin in water and soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 2007, 26:884-889.

25. Zhang Q, Yang C, Dang Z, Huang W: Sorption of tylosin on agricultural soils. Soil Sci 2011, 176:407-412. 410.1097/SS.1090b1013e3182247420.

26. Wells MJM: Log DOW: key to understanding and regulating wastewater-derived contaminants. Environ Chem 2006, 3:439-449.

27. Comer JEA: High-throughput measurement of log D and pKa. In Drug bioavailability: estimation of solubility, permeability, absorption and bioavailability (Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry). Volume 18. 1st edition. Edited by Waterbeemd H, Lennernäs H, Artursson P. Germany: Wiley-VCH; 2003:21-45 [Mannhold R, Kubinyi H, Folkers G (Series Editor): Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry].

28. Jafvert CT, Westall JC, Grieder E, Schwarzenbach RP: Distribution of hydrophobic ionogenic organic compounds between octanol and water: organic acids. Environ Sci Tech 1990, 24:1795-1803.

29. Schwarzenbach RP, Gschwend PM, Imboden DM: Environmental organic chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2003.

30. Chu B, Goyne KW, Anderson SH, Lin C-H, Lerch RN: Sulfamethazine sorption to soil: vegetative management, pH, and dissolved organic matter effects. J Environ Qual 2013, 42:794-805.

31. Fan Z, Casey FM, Hakk H, Larsen G, Khan E: Sorption, fate, and mobility of sulfonamides in soils. Water Air Soil Poll 2011, 218:49-61.

32. Kurwadkar ST, Adams CD, Meyer MT, Kolpin DW: Effects of sorbate speciation on sorption of selected sulfonamides in three loamy soils. J Agric Food Chem 2007, 55:1370-1376.

33. Lertpaitoonpan W, Ong SK, Moorman TB: Effect of organic carbon and pH on soil sorption of sulfamethazine. Chemosphere 2009, 76:558-564.

34. Srinivasan P, Sarmah AK, Manley-Harris M, Wilkins AL: Sorption of sulfamethoxazole, sulfachloropyridazine and sulfamethazine onto six New Zealand dairy farm soils. In 19th World congress of soil science, soil solutions for a changing world; August 1-6. Brisbane, Australia; 2010.

35. Gupta S, Singh A, Kumar K, Thompson A, Thoma D: Report for 200IMN1041G: Antibiotic losses in runoff and drainage from manure-applied fields. [http:// water.usgs.gov/wrri/01grants/prog-compl-reports/2001 MN1041 G.pdf].

36. Hu D, Coats JR: Laboratory evaluation of mobility and sorption for the veterinary antibiotic, tylosin, in agricultural soils. J Environ Monit 2009, 11:1634-1638.

37. Rabolle M, Spliid NH: Sorption and mobility of metronidazole, olaquindox, oxytetracycline and tylosin in soil. Chemosphere 2000, 40:715-722.

38. ter Laak TL, Gebbink WA, Tolls J: Estimation of soil sorption coefficients of veterinary pharmaceuticals from soil properties. Environ Toxicol Chem 2006, 25:933-941.

39. van Loon GW, Duffy SJ: Environmental chemistry: a global perspective. 3rd edition. UK: Oxford University Press; 2010.

40. Kolz AC, Ong SK, Moorman TB: Sorption of tylosin onto swine manure. Chemosphere 2005, 60:284-289.

41. Bhandari A, Surampalli RY, Adams CD, Champagne P, Ong SK, Tyagi RD, Zhang TC (Eds): Contaminants of emerging environmental concern. United States of America: The American Society of Civil Engineers; 2009.

42. Apley MD, Bush EJ, Morrison RB, Singer RS, Snelson H: Use estimates of in-feed antimicrobials in swine production in the United States. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2012, 9:272-279.

43. Kim S-C, Chung DY, Kim KH, Lee JH, Kim HK, Yang JE, Ok YS, Almarwei YAO: Concentration and environmental loading of veterinary antibiotics in agricultural irrigation ditches. Korean J Soil Sci Fert 2012, 45:867-876.

44. Figueroa RA, Leonard A, MacKay AA: Modeling tetracycline antibiotic

sorption to clays. Environ Sci Tech 2003, 38:476-483.

45. Sithole BB, Guy RD: Models for tetracycline in aquatic environments. Water Air Soil Pollut 1987, 32:303-314.

46. Sposito G: The chemistry of soils. 2nd edition. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press; 2008.

47. Rengel Z (Ed): Handbook of soil acidity. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2003.

48. Chiou C: Partition and adsorption of organic contaminants in environmental systems. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2002.

49. Figueroa-Diva RA, Vasudevan D, Mackay AA: Trends in soil sorption within common antimicrobial families. Chemosphere 2010, 79:786-793.

50. Vittoria Pinna M, Castaldi P, Deiana P, Pusino A, Garau G: Sorption behavior of sulfamethazine on unamended and manure-amended soils and short-term impact on soil microbial community. Ecotox Environ Safe 2012, 84:234-242.

51. Westall JC, Chen H, Zhang W, Brownawell BJ: Sorption of linear alkylbenzenesulfonates on sediment materials. Environ Sci Tech 1999, 33:3110-3118.

52. Thiele-Bruhn S, Aust MO: Effects of pig slurry on the sorption of sulfonamide antibiotics in soil. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2004, 47:31-39.

53. Xing B, Pignatello JJ: Competitive sorption between 1,3-dichlorobenzene or 2,4-dichlorophenol and natural aromatic acids in soil organic matter.

Environ Sci Tech 1998, 32:614-619.

54. Liang BC, Gregorich EG, Schnitzer M, Schulten H-R: Characterization of water extracts of two manures and their adsorption on soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1996, 60:1758-1763.

55. Kaiser K, Zech W: Soil dissolved organic matter sorption as influenced by organic and sesquioxide coatings and sorbed sulfate. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1998, 62:129-136.

56. Pils JRV, Laird DA: Sorption of tetracycline and chlortetracycline on K- and Ca-saturated soil clays, humic substances, and clay - humic complexes.

Environ Sci Tech 2007, 41:1928-1933.

57. Magee BR, Lion LW, Lemley AT: Transport of dissolved organic macromolecules and their effect on the transport of phenanthrene in porous media. Environ Sci Tech 1991, 25:323-331.

58. Shryock TR, Mortensen JE, Baumholtz M: The effects of macrolides on the expression of bacterial virulence mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998, 41:505-512.

59. Gao J, Pedersen JA: Adsorption of sulfonamide antimicrobial agents to clay minerals. Environ Sci Tech 2005, 39:9509-9516.

60. Kim Y-H, Heinze TM, Kim S-J, Cerniglia CE: Adsorption and clay-catalyzed degradation of erythromycin A on homoionic clays. J Environ Qual 2004, 33:257-264.

61. O'Neil MJ: The Merck Index: an encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals. 12th edition. New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc.; 1996.

62. Kolz ACM, Moorman TB, Ong SK, Scoggin KD, Douglass EA: Degradation and metabolite production of tylosin in anaerobic and aerobic swine-manure lagoons. Water Environ Res 2005, 77:8.

63. Scott Teeter J, Meyerhoff RD: Aerobic degradation of tylosin in cattle, chicken, and swine excreta. Environ Res 2003, 93:45-51.

64. Ali M, Wang JJ, DeLaune RD, Seo DC, Dodla SK, Hernandez AB: Effect of redox potential and pH status on degradation and adsorption behavior of tylosin in dairy lagoon sediment suspension. Chemosphere 2013, 91:1583-1589.

65. Loke M-L, Ingerslev F, Halling-Sprensen B, Tjprnelund J: Stability of tylosin A in manure containing test systems determined by high performance liquid chromatography. Chemosphere 2000, 40:759-765.

doi:10.1186/1752-153X-8-5

Cite this article as: Wegst-Uhrich et al.: Assessing antibiotic sorption in soil: a literature review and new case studies on sulfonamides and macrolides. Chemistry Central Journal 2014 8:5.

Publish with ChemistryCentral and every scientist can read your work free of charge

"Open access provides opportunities to our colleagues in other parts of the globe, by allowing anyone to view the content free of charge."

W. Jeffery Hurst, The Hershey Company.

• available free of charge to the entire scientific community

• peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance

• cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central

• yours — you keep the copyright

Submit your manuscript here: http://www.chemistrycentral.com/manuscript/ ChemistryCentra I