keywords: Arsenic, assay, conductometry, inhibition, soybean, urease
This study describes a conductometric inhibition assay for the quantitative determination of arsenic ions in aqueous systems using soybean (Glycine max) urease. In this approach, the decrease in conductivity as a consequence of inhibition of urease activity by As (III) ions was evaluated and used to plot a calibration curve of %inhibition against arsenic concentration. The curve displayed linear relationship in the concentration range of 0.01 – 10 mg/L according to the regression equation 4.1427x + 41.0238 with an R2 of 99.77% which shows very good correlation. Optimization of process parameters revealed pH maxima within the range of 7.0 – 7.5 and temperature within the range of 35 – 45oC. The determination of arsenic in synthetic water samples using the proposed method was satisfactory when compared with a spectrophotometric reference method and AAS analysis. The results showed no significant difference in 80% of the evaluated samples at 95% confidence level. Repeatability (precision) of the method was 4.8% RSD for 6 measurements (0.5 mg/L). The relative accuracy of the method ranged from 73.4 – 97.85%. Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) were 0.043 mg/L and 0.145 mg/L, respectively. Overall, the method presented in this study shows good potential for rapid determination of arsenic in water samples.
Aqion 2014. Activity and ionic strength (online) Available from: http://www.aqion.de/site/69. Accessed: 12-02-2017 ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2011. Detailed Data Table for the 2011 Priority List of Hazardous Substances. Available from: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/SPL. Bhattacharyya P, Tripathy S, Kim K & Kim S 2007. Arsenic fractions and enzyme activities in arsenic-contaminated soils by groundwater irrigation in West Bengal. Ecotox Environ Safe, 8: 15. Banerjee S & Aggarwal A, 2012. Isolation, partial purification, characterization and inhibition of urease (E.C. 188.8.131.52) enzyme from the Cajanus cajan seeds. Asian Journal of Bio 7 (2): 203-209. Follmer, C (2008). Insights into the role and structure of plant ureases. Phytochemistry, 69, 18-28 Follmer C, Barcellos GB, Zingali RB, Machado OL, Alves EW, Barja-Fidalgo C, Guimaraes JA, & Carlini CR, 2001. Canatoxin, a Toxic Protein from Jack Beans (Canavalia Ensiformis), Is a Variant Form of Urease (Ec 184.108.40.206): Biological Effects of Urease Independent of Its Ureolytic Activity. Biochemical Journal, (1): 217. Howard Hu 2002. Human health and heavy metals exposure In: Life Support: The Environment and Human Health Michael McCally (ed), MIT Press. Khan M, Javed M M, Zahoor S & Ikram U 2013. Kinetics And Thermodynamic Study of Urease Extracted From Soybeans. Biologia Pakistan 59 (1): 7-14. Kumar, S & Kayastha, AM 2010. Inhibition studies of soybean (Glycine max) urease with heavy metals, sodium salts of mineral acids, boric acid, and boronic acids. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, 25(5): 646–652. Mandal BK & Suzuki KT 2002. Arsenic round the world: A review. Talanta (58);201–235. Mobley HL, Island MD, Hausinger RP, 1995. Molecular biology of microbial urease, Microbiol. Rev, 59: 451-480. Naujokas MF, Anderson B, Ahsan H, Aposhian HV, Graziano JH, Thompson C & Suk WA 2013. The broad scope of health effects from chronic arsenic exposure: Update on a worldwide public health problem. Environ., 121: 295–302. Philiswa NN, Ngila JC & Titus AM 2011. Indirect Amperometric Determination of Selected Heavy Metals Based on Horseradish Peroxidase Modified Electrodes. Biosensors -Emerging Materials and Applications, InTech, Prof. Pier Andrea Serra (Ed.), pp. 978-953. Prakash O, Talat M & Hasan SH 2008. Enzymatic detection of heavy metal ions in aqueous solution from vegetable wastes by immobilizing pumpkin (Cucumis melo) urease in calcium alginate beads. Biotech. & Bioprocess Engr., 13(2): 210–216 Rodriguez BB, Bolbot JA, & Tothill IE 2004. Development of urease and glutamic dehydrogenase amperometric assay for heavy metals screening in polluted samples Biosensors & Bioelectronics, 19: 1157–1167 Sabullah M K, Ahmad SA, Sulaiman MR, Shukor MY, Syed MA & Shamaan NA 2013. The development of an inhibitive assay for heavy metals using the acetylcholinesterase from Periophtalmodon schlosseri. J Of Env. Biorem. & Tox., 1(1): 20-24 Safar YK, kov L, Konerack Safa kov M, Timko M, & Kopicansk P 2002. Determination of selected xenobiotics with ferro fluid modified trypsin. Biotechnol. Lett. 24: 355–358. Sharma, R., Rajput, YS, Kaur, S and Tomar, SK, 2008.A method for estimation of urea using ammonia electrode and its applicability to milk samples. J. Dairy Res., 75: 466-470. Shukor MY, Baharom NA, Rahman F.A, Abdullah MP, Shamaan NA & Syed MA 2006. Development of heavy metals enzymatic based assay using papain. Anal. Chim. Acta. 566(2): 283–289. Shukor MY, Bakar NA, Othman AR, Yunus I, Shamaan NA & Syed MA 2009. Development of an inhibitive enzyme assay for inhibitive enzyme assay for copper. J. Environ Biol. 2; 30(1): 39–44. Stepurska KV, Soldatkin, Kucherenko IS, Arkhypova VM, Dzyadevych SV & Soldatkin AP 2015. Feasibility of application of conductometric biosensor based on acetylcholinesterase for the inhibitory analysis of toxic compounds of different nature. Analytica Chimica Acta 854:161–168. Takeuchi, T 1909. On the Occurence of Urease in Higher Plants. Journal of the College of Agriculture, Imperial University of Tokyo, 1. Talat M, Prakash OM & Hasan SH 2009. Enzymatic detection of As (III) in aqueous solution using alginate immobilized pumpkin urease: Optimization of process variables by response surface methodology. Bioresource Technology 100: 4462–4467. Wang X, Xia S, Zhao J, Zhao H & Renault NJ 2009. Inhibitive Determination of Heavy Metal Ions By Conductometric Nitrate Reductase Biosensor, Chem. Res. Chinese Universities, 25(4): 443 – 445. Wolfbeis OS, & Preininger C 1995 disposable cuvette test for enzymatic determination of heavy metals. Environmental Monitoring and Hazardous Waste Site Remediation, Published in SPIE Proceedings, 2504.