Next Article in Journal
Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Using Extract of Artemisia absinthium L., Humulus lupulus L. and Thymus vulgaris L., Physico-Chemical Characterization, Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Intra-Soil Milling for Stable Evolution and High Productivity of Kastanozem Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 9
Issue 8
10.3390/pr9081303
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Clarithromycin Toxicity on the Growth of Bacterial Communities in Agricultural Soils

by
Laura Rodríguez-González
,
Vanesa Santás-Miguel
*,
Claudia Campillo-Cora
,
Manuel Arias-Estévez
and
David Fernández-Calviño
Área de Edafoloxía e Química Agrícola, Departamento de Bioloxía Vexetal e Ciencia do Solo, Facultade de Ciencias, Universidade de Vigo, Campus As Lagoas, s/n, 32004 Ourense, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2021, 9(8), 1303; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081303
Submission received: 31 May 2021 / Revised: 21 July 2021 / Accepted: 23 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental and Green Processes)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The presence of antibiotics in different environmental matrices is a growing concern. The introduction of antibiotics into the soil is mainly due to sewage treatment plants. Once in the soil, antibiotics may become toxic to microbial communities and, as a consequence, can pose a risk to the environment and human health. This study evaluates the potential toxicity of the antibiotic clarithromycin (CLA) in relation to the bacterial community of 12 soils with different characteristics. Bacterial community growth was evaluated in soils spiked in the laboratory with different concentrations of CLA after 1, 8, and 42 incubation days. The results indicated that the addition of clarithromycin to the soil may cause toxicity in the bacterial communities of the soil. In addition, it was observed that toxicity decreases between 1 and 8 incubation days, while the bacterial community recovers completely in most soils after 42 incubation days. The results also show that soil pH and effective cation exchange capacity may influence CLA toxicity.

1. Introduction

The consumption of antibiotics to treat human diseases has increased considerably worldwide [1], reaching between 100,000 and 200,000 tons per year [2]. Antibiotics are poorly metabolized in the human digestive tract; therefore, a high percentage of the antibiotics consumed (30–90%) are excreted in urine and/or feces [3] either as the original compound and/or as secondary metabolites [4]. The intensive use, both domestic and in hospitals, of these substances causes a high presence of antibiotics in wastewater destined for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), where they are only partially eliminated [5,6,7,8]. In addition, pharmaceutical products that enter the wastewater plants tend to accumulate in sewage sludge [9]. Therefore, WWTPs become the main sources of human antibiotics released into the environment [10,11,12]. The antibiotics present in the WWTPs may be released into the soil through two routes: liquid effluents used for agricultural irrigation [13] and solid effluents (sewage sludge) used as fertilizers. The amendment of agricultural soils with sewage sludge is a widespread and approved practice in many jurisdictions in Europe [14] because it improves soil fertility [15]. However, there is a potential risk in using sewage sludge as an organic amendment for agricultural soils, as it contains various inorganic and organic contaminants, including antibiotics for human use [16,17,18,19].
Once in the soil, antibiotics can affect non-target organisms such as bacterial communities [20]. Moreover, risks arising from the arrival of antibiotics in the soil lie in their inhibitory effect on the growth of natural bacterial communities [21]. The effect of antibiotics on soil bacterial communities may also affect their structure and diversity [22,23,24] and also their environmental functions [22,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Moreover, the toxicity exerted by organic compounds on soil microbial communities may be dependent of their availability, which may be highly affected by the physico-chemical characteristics of soils such as pH or organic matter content [33].
Macrolides are a widely used group of antibiotics (the second highest in Europe) [34], and the World Health Organization has classified them as critical antimicrobials of the highest priority [35]. Within the macrolides group, clarithromycin (6-O-methylerythromycin) is one of the most prescribed in human medicines [36]. Clarithromycin is a stable semisynthetic acid antibiotic with a broad spectrum of activity [37]. Previous studies on the effect of clarithromycin on bacterial communities focused mainly on sewage sludge treatment processes [38,39,40]. However, no studies have been found on clarithromycin’s effects on the structure and/or function of soil bacterial communities.
In view of this background, this study has hypothesized that clarithromycin may have toxic effects on soil bacterial communities and the toxicity may be dependent on the characteristics of soils. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of soil pollution with clarithromycin on the growth of bacterial communities in soils with different general characteristics. For this purpose, 12 agricultural soils with different characteristics in terms of organic carbon and pH were selected and spiked with eight different concentrations of clarithromycin. The results of this study may provide relevant information on the potential effects of clarithromycin pollution on soil bacterial communities’ growth and tolerance.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Soil Samples Used

Clarithromycin (CAS: 81103-11-9, 95% purity; CLA) and talc, (CAS 14807-96-6) were supplied by Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). Twelve soil samples, collected from different areas of Galicia (NW Iberian Peninsula), were selected from a larger pool of soils in order to select soil samples that show high variability in their properties such as pH and organic carbon. The selected soils have not been previously treated with antibiotics. On each sampling site 10–20 sub-samples were taken in the soil surface horizon (0–20 cm) using an Edelman probe, and were subsequently mixed in one composite sample. Then, the soil samples were air-dried, sieved through a 2 mm mesh, and stored in polyethylene bottles until analysis. Soil characteristics were determined following standard methods [41]. Soil pH was determined in water (pHW) and in 0.1 M KCl (pHKCl) (soil ratio: 1:2.5), using a combined glass electrode. Organic carbon and total nitrogen were determined by elemental analysis in a LECO CHN-1000 (LECO Corporation, St. Joseph, MI, USA). In this study, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) was analyzed using distilled water as the extraction solution (soil/water ratio, 1:10) and measuring it in a total organic carbon (TOC) analyzer. Particle size distribution (texture) was analyzed with wet sieving followed by the pipette method. Exchangeable basic cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) were extracted with 0.2 M NH4Cl [42], while exchangeable Al was extracted with 1 M KCl [43], and then determined by flame atomic absorption (Ca, Mg, and Al) or emission spectroscopy (Na and K). The effective cation exchange capacity (eCEC) was estimated as the sum of the exchangeable basic cations and Al. Non-crystalline Fe and Al oxides (Feo and Alo) were extracted with 0.2 M ammonium oxalate-oxalic acid [44]. All samples were analyzed by triplicate.

2.2. Experimental Design

The 12 soil samples were moistened up to 60–80% of water holding capacity and incubated at 22 °C in darkness for 15 days, enough time to recover the microbial activity and soil bacterial community growth stabilization [45]. After the incubation period, the 12 soils were spiked with clarithromycin (by triplicate) using different doses in order to achieve the following eight concentrations: 0, 0.49, 1.95, 7.81, 31.25, 125, 500, and 2000 mg kg−1 of soil. The concentrations were selected in order to obtain adequate short-term dose-response curves, allowing the estimation of toxicity indices in a reliable way [46]. These concentrations were also satisfactorily used in previous studies testing the effects of different tetracycline antibiotics on soil bacterial communities [31,32]. Clarithromycin was added to soil using talc as a carrier for equalizing the amount of dry material added to each microcosm and facilitating the mixture with the soil [47]. The mixtures of antibiotic and soil obtained resulted in a total of 288 microcosms (12 soils × 8 concentrations × 3 replications). Once the soils became spiked with clarithromycin, the soil microcosms were incubated at 22 °C in darkness and the bacterial community growth was determined after 1, 8, and 42 days. These incubation times have been selected to estimate short-term (immediate toxicity, day 1), medium-term (day 8) and long-term (day 42) toxicity. In general, 42 days of incubation is enough time for the stabilization of the soil bacterial communities after an impact [48].

2.3. Estimation of Bacterial Community Growth

The bacterial community growth was estimated using the leucine incorporation technique [49,50]. Briefly, 1 g of soil (fresh weight) was mixed with 10 mL distilled water using a multivortex shaker at maximum intensity for 3 min, followed by low-speed centrifugation at 1000× g for 10 min to create a bacterial suspension in the supernatant. An aliquot (1 mL) of this suspension was transferred to 2 mL microcentrifugation tubes. Then, 2 μL [3H]Leu (3.7 MBq ml−1 and 0.574 TBq mmol−1; Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) was added with non-labeled Leu to each tube, resulting in 300 nM Leu in the bacterial suspensions. After incubation for 2 h at 22 °C, growth was stopped with 75 μL 100% trichloroacetic acid. Finally, the bacteria in the microcentrifugation tubes were washed as described by Bååth et al. [50] and radioactivity determined using scintillation liquid counting (Tri-Carb 2810 TR, Perkin Elmer). This methodology was previously used for other antibiotics such as streptomycin [51], sulfadiazine [52] and tetracycline antibiotics [31,32,51].

2.4. Data Analysis

The resulting bacterial community growth data were normalized dividing each value by mean control values (without clarithromycin) for each soil sample. The logarithm of added clarithromycin concentration that inhibited 50% of bacterial community growth (Log IC50) was estimated for each soil using the following logistic model [53,54,55] (1):
Y = c/[1 + eb(a−x)],
where Y is the Leu incorporation (bacterial community growth) determined for each added clarithromycin concentration, x is the logarithmic value of the added clarithromycin concentration, a is the value of Log IC50, b is a parameter related to the slope of the inhibition curve, and c is the bacterial growth rate observed in the control sample (antibiotic-free). High Log IC50 values indicate low clarithromycin toxicity on bacterial growth, whereas low Log IC50 values indicate high clarithromycin toxicity. Moreover, Log IC10 values (the logarithm of added clarithromycin concentration that inhibited 10% of bacterial community growth) were calculated using Equation (2), from estimated data using Equation (1):
Log IC10= a − (ln((c/0.9) − 1))/b.

2.5. Statistics

The differences between Log IC50 or Log IC10 values with incubation time (1, 8 and 42 days) were checked using a paired t-test, while the relationships between soil properties and clarithromycin toxicity were studied using the Pearson correlation. SPSS Statistics 21.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Figures were drawn using the KaleidaGraph software (Synergy Software, Reading, PA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. General Characteristics of Soils

The general properties of soil samples are shown in Table 1. Briefly, these soil samples present pH values measured in water (pHW) between 4.1 ± 0.1 and 6.1 ± 0.2, and pH values measured in 1 M KCl (pHKCl) between 3.7 ± 0.2 and 5.3 ± 0.2. The organic carbon contents and nitrogen contents vary between 0.6 ± 0.2% and 6.80 ± 0.3% and 0.1± 0.0 and 0.6 ± 0.3%, respectively. The DOC measured in soils samples ranged between 121 ± 10 and 634 ± 47 mg kg−1. The studied soils present different textures and show sand content between 34 ± 2% and 81 ± 7%, silt content between 10 ± 0% and 38 ± 3%, and clay content between 9 ± 0% and 28 ± 2%. The effective cation exchange capacity (eCEC) values varied between 3.2 ± 0.1 and 37.2 ± 1.3 cmolc kg−1. Lastly, Alo and Feo values ranged between 0.7 ± 0.0 and 8.7 ± 1.3 g kg−1, and between 1.3 ± 0.1 and 8.9 ± 0.3 g kg−1, respectively.

3.2. Toxicity of Clarithromycin on the Growth of Soil Bacterial Communities

The inhibition curves obtained with the addition of clarithromycin to the 12 studied soils after 1, 8, and 42 incubation days are shown in Figure 1. As a general trend, the soil samples showed sigmoid dose–response curves after 1 and 8 incubation days, i.e., low clarithromycin antibiotics doses did not inhibition bacterial growth, but at high doses, the extent of inhibition increased with the dose. The dose–response curves obtained for the 12 soils for 1 and 8 incubation days showed a shift to the right with time, i.e., the toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on soil bacterial communities decreased with time. In addition, there is a total recovery and even an increase in bacterial growth in many of the soils studied to day 42 of incubation.
The dose–response curves to all soils for 1 and 8 incubation days were generally well described by the logistic model (Equation (1)), with R2 values ranged between 0.925 and 0.998 (mean R2 = 0.978) for 1 day and from 0.682 to 0.993 (mean R2 = 0.900) for day 8. Only one curve (soil 5, day 8) was not well described (Table 2). However, for day 42, only three soils were well described by the logistic model (Table 2), with R2 values between 0.932 and 0.976 (mean R2 = 0.947). Table 2 also shows estimated Log IC50 and Log IC10 values for each soil and incubation time tested from inhibition curves (Table 2). The Log IC50 values estimated after 1 day of incubation of clarithromycin ranged between 0.75 ± 0.18 and 3.02 ± 0.04 (mean = 2.22); after 8 days of incubation between 1.52 ± 0.17 and 3.57 ± 0.51 (mean = 2.96); and after 42 days of incubation ranged between 3.22 ± 0.15 and 4.12 ± 0.34 (mean = 3.57). Similar trends were found for Log IC10 values. Thus, after 1 day of incubation the Log IC10 ranged between −1.48 and 2.07 (mean = 0.64); after 8 days between −0.89 and 2.23 (mean = 0.75) and after 42 days of incubation the Log IC10 values ranged between −0.45 and 1.60 (mean = 0.86). These results, together with the graphical analysis, show that the toxicity of clarithromycin decreases with incubation time, i.e., the toxicity of clarithromycin on soil bacterial communities is greater at day 1 of incubation (low Log IC50 values) than at day 42 (high Log IC50 values). This is evident for 42 days, when most of the soils totally recover the bacterial growth (Figure 1). The Log IC50 values were used to observe whether there are significant differences between 1 and 8 incubation days by performing the paired t-tests, showing that Log IC50 values are significantly different (p < 0.05; t = −6.338). This result confirms that the toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on the growth of bacterial communities decrease with time.

3.3. Effect of Soil Characteristics on Clarithromycin Toxicity

A Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to check the relationships between the toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on soil bacterial communities (Log IC50 and Log IC10 values) and the properties of the studied soils (Table 3). No significant correlation was found between the soil properties and Log IC50 values at any incubation time. However, Log IC10 values were significantly (p < 0.05) and positively correlated with pH measured in water (pHW) and in KCl (pHKCl), and also with the effective cation exchange capacity (eCEC) after 8 incubation days (Table 3), i.e., the clarithromycin toxicity decreases when the pHW, pHKCl, and eCEC increase. After 1 day of incubation the correlation coefficients showed the same sign for those variables as after 8 days, but with a different p-value (p < 0.1). The same trend was observed after 42 days, despite having only data from three soils.

4. Discussion

The addition of clarithromycin to the studied soil samples inhibited the growth of bacterial communities in the soil after one incubation day, showing clear dose–response curves similar to those found by other authors with other antibiotics such as tetracyclines and streptomycin [31,32,51]. The toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on the growth of bacterial communities is time dependent. Thus, after eight incubation days the toxicity is still present for most of the soils, but with a lower magnitude than after one incubation day. After 42 days, the bacterial community growth was totally recovered in most of the studied soils. This type of recovery has been previously observed in soils contaminated with other pollutants such as Cu [48,56] and Zn. [48]. Therefore, the clarithromycin toxicity effect on the growth of soil bacterial communities has a low persistence in the soil, contrary to the behavior found for other antibiotics such as tetracyclines [31,32] or sulfadiazine [52], and other organic substances such as propiconazole [57]) or terbutryn [58].
The decrease in clarithromycin toxicity over time may be due to different reasons. First, clarithromycin can be adsorbed by soil components [59] and thus be less bioavailable for bacterial communities. Sorption processes may be increased with time in soils, causing an aging effect [60], and therefore reduce the toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on soil bacteria. A second possibility is clarithromycin degradation in soil, a time-dependent process. The half-lives of antibiotics in soils depend on the initial concentration of the antibiotics and the physical–chemical and biological properties of soils [24,61,62,63]. It should also be noted that the degradation of clarithromycin in the soil may also be caused by soil microorganisms, since the biodegradation of clarithromycin has been demonstrated in several studies [64,65,66,67]. Different authors have found different half-lives of clarithromycin in soils. Thus, Kodešová et al. [63] observed that the lowest value of clarithromycin half-life obtained for the different soils was 88.9 days, whereas Topp et al. [67] obtained half-life values of 37 days in soils where there was no previous application of clarithromycin, although the half-life times decreased to 16 and 10 days in soils with a history of application of antibiotics of 0.1 and 10 mg kg−1. In general, clarithromycin may show a high persistence in the soil for 42 days, especially for high antibiotic concentrations. The third option is the development of tolerance to clarithromycin by soil bacteria, since the presence of any contaminant in the soil can induce bacterial community tolerance to that contaminant [68]. The induction of bacterial community tolerance to antibiotics depends on factors such as the amount of antibiotic applied and the frequency of application [69]. Few works have studied the effect of clarithromycin on soil microorganisms. Thus, Lau et al. [70] studied the presence of resistance genes derived from the addition of clarithromycin in soils, showing that low concentrations (0.1 mg kg−1) didn’t increase the abundance of clarithromycin-associated resistance genes. However, adding 10 mg kg−1, the abundance of resistance genes in the soil increased.
In some of the soils, further to a full recovery of bacterial growth after 42 incubation days, exponential increases of bacterial community growth were observed. These exponential increases may be due to the fact that antibiotics can be used by soil bacteria as sources of carbon and nitrogen [71,72,73], since these nutrients may be limiting factors for soil bacterial growth [74]. In addition, the introduction of antibiotics into soil microcosm may cause the death of a large number of bacteria, dead bacteria being a possible future source of energy for bacterial groups that resist antibiotic concentrations in the soil [48]. Reischke et al. [75] studied the effect of the addition of glucose (as a labelled carbon source) on the microbial activity of the soil and observed an increase in bacterial growth in the soil. Since clarithromycin may be bacteriostatic or bactericidal depending on the organism and drug concentration, this effect may be present, especially for higher clarithromycin concentrations.
Soil properties did not show a clear effect of the toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on the growth of soil bacterial communities based on Log IC50 values. However, based on Log IC10 values, there is a relationship between clarithromycin toxicity and soil pH and eCEC. Clarithromycin speciation is strongly pH dependent, occurring predominantly in cationic form at soil pH values (4.1 to 6.1) [76]. Since soil charge is pH dependent and the negative charge increased with pH [77,78], clarithromycin adsorption in the soil may increase with pH, as described previously for humic substances [79]. This behavior is consistent with the results obtained in this study, showing that the increase in pH values may reduce the toxicity that clarithromycin exerts on the growth of soil bacterial communities. Furthermore, there is also a positive correlation between Log IC10 values and eCEC, i.e., high eCEC values caused lower toxicity of clarithromycin on the growth bacterial communities than low eCEC values. High eCEC values allow high antibiotic adsorption on soils, especially given that antibiotic–soil interactions occur mainly through cation exchange. This type of interaction has been observed by Sibley and Pedersen [76] in a study of the sorption of clarithromycin by humic acids. Moreover, similar results were observed by Kodešová, et al. [59], who found a positive correlation of clarithromycin adsorption with pH and with variables related to the exchange complex.
After one incubation day, Log IC50 values ranged between 0.75 and 3.02 (Table 2), i.e., IC50 ranged between 5.6 and 1050 mg kg−1 of clarithromycin in soils. Considering that the concentrations of clarithromycin found in soils are between 1 and 100 µg kg−1 [80], much lower than IC50 values, these soils present a low risk of high clarithromycin toxicity in relation to soil bacterial growth. However, Log IC10 values ranged between −1.48 and 2.07 (Table 2), i.e., IC10 values ranged between 0.03 and 120 mg kg−1 of clarithromycin in soils, the lower value being close to those found in soils. Therefore, in some clarithromycin-polluted soils, low toxicity may be present in soil bacterial growth.

5. Conclusions

The addition of clarithromycin (CLA) to soils has a dose-dependent inhibitory effect on bacterial communities after one incubation day. This effect remained after eight incubation days, but at a low level (i.e., the toxicity decreased), while after 42 incubation days the bacterial community growth was totally recovered in most of the studied soils. In fact, in some of them the growth was higher in clarithromycin-amended soils than in the control after 42 incubation days. No relationships were observed between different soil characteristics and clarithromycin toxicity at the doses needed to decrease the growth of bacterial communities by 50% (IC50) However, Log IC10 was related to soil pH and effective cation exchange capacity. The higher these parameters were, the lower the clarithromycin toxicity according to Log IC10 values.

Author Contributions

Data curation, L.R.-G. and C.C.-C.; formal analysis, L.R.-G. and C.C.-C.; investigation, L.R.-G., C.C.-C., V.S.-M., M.A.-E. and D.F.-C.; methodology, V.S.-M. and D.F.-C.; project administration, M.A.-E.; supervision, M.A.-E.; writing- original draft, L.R.-G., V.S.-M. and M.A.-E.; writing – review & editing, V.S.-M. and D.F.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities through the projects RTI2018-099574-B-C21 and RTI2018-099574-B-C22 (FEDER Funds). David Fernández Calviño holds a Ramón y Cajal contract (RYC-2016-20411) financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy Industry and Competitiveness. Vanesa Santás Miguel, Claudia Campillo Cora and Laura Rodríguez González hold a pre-doctoral fellowship (ED481A-2020/089, ED401A-2020/084 and ED481A 2021/309, respectively) financed by Xunta de Galicia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kosjek, T.; Heath, E.; Krbavčič, A. Determination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) residues in water samples. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kümmerer, K. Antibiotics in the aquatic environment—A review—Part I. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hirsch, R.; Ternes, T.A.; Haberer, K.; Mehlich, A.; Ballwanz, F.; Kratz, K.L. Determination of antibiotics in different water compartments via liquid chromatography–electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 815, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lienert, J.; Güdel, K.; Escher, B.I. Screening method for ecotoxicological hazard assessment of 42 pharmaceuticals considering human metabolism and excretory routes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 4471–4478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ternes, T.A.; Meisenheimer, M.; McDowell, D.; Sacher, F.; Brauch, H.J.; Haist-Gulde, B.; Preuss, G.; Wilme, U.; Zulei-Seibert, N. Removal of pharmaceuticals during drinking water treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3855–3863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ternes, T.A.; Stüber, J.; Herrmann, N.; McDowell, D.; Ried, A.; Kampmann, M.; Teiser, B. Ozonation: A tool for removal of pharmaceuticals, contrast media and musk fragrances from wastewater? Water Res. 2003, 37, 1976–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Petrović, M.; Gonzalez, S.; Barceló, D. Analysis and removal of emerging contaminants in wastewater and drinking water. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2003, 22, 685–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Berset, J.D.; Kupper, T.; Etter, R.; Tarradellas, J. Consideration about the enantioselectivity transformation of polycyclic musks in wastewater, treated wastewater, and sewage sludge and analysis of their fate in a sequencing batch reactor plant. Chemosphere 2004, 57, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Díaz-Cruz, M.S.; García-Galán, M.J.; Guerra, P.; Jelic, A.; Postigo, C.; Eljarrat, E.; Farré, M.; López de Alda, M.J.; Petrovic, M.; Barceló, D. Analysis of selected emerging contaminants in sewage sludge. TrAC Anal. Chem. 2009, 28, 1263–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carballa, M.; Omil, F.; Lema, J.M.; Llomapt, M.; García-Jares, C.; Rodríguez, I.; Gómez, M.; Termes, T. Behaviour of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and hormones in a sewage treatment plant. Water Res. 2004, 38, 2918–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Radjenovíc, E.; Petrovic, M.; Barceló, D. Analysis of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and removal using a membrane bioreactor. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 387, 1365–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Rizzo, L.; Manaia, C.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Ploy, M.C.; Michael, I.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes spread into the environment: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 447, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Michael, I.; Rizzo, L.; McArdell, C.S.; Manaia, C.M.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.J.W.R. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: A review. Water Res. 2013, 47, 957–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. O’Connor, G.A.; Elliott, H.A.; Basta, N.T.; Bastian, R.K.; Pierzynski, G.M.; Sims, R.C.; Smith, J.E. Sustainable land application: An overview. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Weber, J.; Karczewska, A.; Drozd, J.; Licznar, M.; Licznar, S.; Jamroz, E.; Kocowicz, A. Agricultural and ecological aspects of a sandy soil as affected by the application of municipal solid waste composts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1294–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lindberg, R.H.; Björklund, K.; Rendahl, P.; Johansson, M.I.; Tysklind, M.; Andersson, B.A. Environmental risk assessment of antibiotics in the Swedish environment with emphasis on sewage treatment plants. Water Res. 2007, 41, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Clarke, B.O.; Smith, S.R. Review of ‘emerging’organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 226–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. An, J.; Chen, H.; Wei, S.; Gu, J. Antibiotic contamination in animal manure, soil, and sewage sludge in Shenyang, northeast China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 74, 5077–5086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fijalkowski, K.; Rorat, A.; Grobelak, A.; Kacprzak, M.J. The presence of contaminations in sewage sludge. The current situation. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203, 1126–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Warman, P.R. The effect of amprolium and aureomycin on the nitrification of poultry manure-amended soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1980, 44, 1333–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baguer, A.J.; Jensen, J.; Krogh, P.H. Effects of the antibiotics oxytetracycline and tylosin on soil fauna. Chemosphere 2000, 40, 751–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zielezny, Y.; Groeneweg, J.; Vereecken, H.; Tappe, W. Impact of sulfadiazine and chlorotetracycline on soil bacterial community structure and respiratory activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 2372–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reichel, R.; Michelini, L.; Ghisi, R.; Thiele-Bruhn, S. Soil bacterial community response to sulfadiazine in the soil–root zone. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cycoń, M.; Mrozik, A.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Antibiotics in the soil environment—degradation and their impact on microbial activity and diversity. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brandt, K.K.; Sjøholm, O.R.; Krogh, K.A.; Halling-Sørensen, B.; Nybroe, O. Increased pollution-induced bacterial community tolerance to sulfadiazine in soil hotspots amended with artificial root exudates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 2963–2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, F.; Ying, G.G.; Tao, R.; Zhao, J.L.; Yang, J.F.; Zhao, L.F. Effects of six selected antibiotics on plant growth and soil microbial and enzymatic activities. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 1636–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Unger, I.M.; Goyne, K.W.; Kennedy, A.C.; Kremer, R.J.; McLain, J.E.; Williams, C.F. Antibiotic effects on microbial community characteristics in soils under conservation management practices. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2013, 77, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ma, J.; Lin, H.; Sun, W.; Wang, Q.; Yu, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Fu, J. Soil microbial systems respond differentially to tetracycline, sulfamonomethoxine, and ciprofloxacin entering soil under pot experimental conditions alone and in combination. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 7436–7448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Molaei, A.; Lakzian, A.; Datta, R.; Haghnia, G.; Astaraei, A.; Rasouli-Sadaghiani, M.; Ceccherini, M.T. Impact of chlortetracycline and sulfapyridine antibiotics on soil enzyme activities. Int. Agrophys. 2017, 31, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Santás-Miguel, V.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Díaz-Raviña, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Calviño, D. Interactions between soil properties and tetracycline toxicity affecting to bacterial community growth in agricultural soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Santás-Miguel, V.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Díaz-Raviña, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Calviño, D. Effect of oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline on bacterial community growth in agricultural soils. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Calvet, R. Adsorption of organic chemicals in soils. Environ. Health Perspect. 1989, 83, 145–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Surveillance Report. In Annual Epidemiological Report for 2016; Antimicrobial Consumption; ECDC: Solna Municipality, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. World Health Organization. Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine 5th Revision 2016. In Ranking of Medically Important Antimicrobials for Risk Management of Antimicrobial Resistance due to Non-Human Use Bull; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kümmerer, K.; Henninger, A. Promoting resistance by the emission of antibiotics from hospitals and households into effluent. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2003, 9, 1203–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Peters, D.H.; Clissold, S.P. Clarithromycin. Drugs 1992, 44, 117–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alenzi, A.; Hunter, C.; Spencer, J.; Roberts, J.; Craft, J.; Pahl, O.; Escudero, A. Pharmaceuticals effect and removal, at environmentally relevant concentrations, from sewage sludge during anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 319, 124102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Huang, X.; Liu, X.; Chen, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, D.; Tao, Z.; Xu, D.; Xue, W.; Geng, M.; et al. Clarithromycin affect methane production from anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tiwari, B.; Sellamuthu, B.; Piché-Choquette, S.; Drogui, P.; Tyagi, R.D.; Buelna, G.; Vaudreuil, M.A.; Sauvé, S.; Dude, R.; Surampalli, R.Y. Compositional Microbial-Community Shift of Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Treating Hospital Wastewater at Varying Temperatures. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 2021, 147, 04020152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tan, K.H. Soil Sampling, Preparation, and Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sumner, M.E.; Miller, W.P. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3. Chemical Methods; Soil Science Society of America Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 65–94. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bertsch, P.M.; Bloom, P.R. Aluminum. Methods Soil Anal. Part 3 Chem. Methods 1996, 5, 517–550. [Google Scholar]
  44. Blakemore, L.C. Exchange Complex Dominated by Amorphous Material (ECDAM). In The Andisol Proposal; Smith, G.D., Ed.; Soil Bureau: Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 1978; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
  45. Meisner, A.; Bååth, E.; Rousk, J. Microbial growth responses upon rewetting soil dried for four days or one year. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 66, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fox, D.R.; Landis, W.G. Don’t be fooled—A no-observed-effect concentration is no substitute for a poor concentration–response experiment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 2141–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Rousk, J.; Demoling, L.A.; Bahr, A.; Bååth, E. Examining the fungal and bacterial niche overlap using selective inhibitors in soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2008, 63, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Rajapaksha, R.M.C.P.; Tobor-Kapłon, M.A.; Bååth, E. Metal toxicity affects fungal and bacterial activities in soil differently. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 2966–2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Bååth, E. Thymidine and leucine incorporation in soil bacteria with different cell size. Microb. Ecol. 1994, 27, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bååth, E.; Pettersson, M.; Söderberg, K.H. Adaptation of a rapid and economical microcentrifugation method to measure thymidine and leucine incorporation by soil bacteria. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 3, 1571–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rousk, J.; Demoling, L.A.; Bååth, E. Contrasting short-term antibiotic effects on respiration and bacterial growth compromises the validity of the selective respiratory inhibition technique to distinguish fungi and bacteria. Microb. Ecol. 2009, 58, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Santás-Miguel, V.; Rodríguez-González, L.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Díaz-Raviña, M.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Calviño, D. The toxicity exerted by the antibiotic sulfadiazine on the growth of soil bacterial communities may increase over time. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sebaugh, J.L. Guidelines for accurate EC50/IC50 estimation. Pharm. Stat. 2011, 10, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rousk, K.; Elyaagubi, F.K.; Jones, D.L.; Godbold, D.L. Bacterial salt tolerance is unrelated to soil salinity across an arid agroecosystem salinity gradient. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1881–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rath, K.M.; Maheshwari, A.; Bengtson, P.; Rousk, K. Comparative Toxicities of Salts on Microbial Processes in Soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 2012–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Fernández-Calviño, D.; Bååth, E. Interaction between pH and Cu toxicity on fungal and bacterial performance in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 96, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fernández-Calviño, D.; Rousk, J.; Bååth, E.; Bollmann, U.E.; Bester, K.; Brandt, K.K. Ecotoxicological assessment of propiconazole using soil bacterial and fungal growth assays. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 115, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernández-Calviño, D.; Rousk, J.; Bååth, E.; Bollmann, U.E.; Bester, K.; Brandt, K.K. Short-term toxicity assessment of a triazine herbicide (terbutryn) underestimates the sensitivity of soil microorganisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 154, 108130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kodešová, R.; Grabic, R.; Kočárek, M.; Klement, A.; Golovko, O.; Fér, M.; Nikodem, A.; Jakšík, O. Pharmaceuticals’ sorptions relative to properties of thirteen different soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 511, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Loibner, A.; Jensen, J.; Ter Laak, T.; Celis, R.; Hartnik, T. Sorption and ageing of soil contamination. Ecol. Risk Assess. Contam. Land Decis. Support Site Specif. Investig. 2006, 2, 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  61. Demoling, L.A.; Bååth, E.; Greve, G.; Wouterse, M.; Schmitt, H. Effects of sulfamethoxazole on soil microbial communities after adding substrate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 840–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cui, H.; Wang, S.P.; Fu, J.; Zhou, Z.Q.; Zhang, N.; Guo, L. Influence of ciprofloxacin on microbial community structure and function in soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2014, 50, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kodešová, R.; Kočárek, M.; Klement, A.; Golovko, O.; Koba, O.; Fér, M.; Nikodem, A.; Vondráčková, L.; Jakšíka, O.; Grabic, R. An analysis of the dissipation of pharmaceuticals under thirteen different soil conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 544, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chenxi, W.; Spongberg, A.L.; Witter, J.D. Determination of the persistence of pharmaceuticals in biosolids using liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Chemosphere 2008, 73, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E.; Jelić, A.; Llorca, M.; Farré, M.; Caminal, G.; Petrović, M.; Barceló, D.; Vicent, T. Solid-phase treatment with the fungus Trametes versicolor substantially reduces pharmaceutical concentrations and toxicity from sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 5602–5608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Buchicchio, A.; Bianco, G.; Sofo, A.; Masi, S.; Caniani, D. Biodegradation of carbamazepine and clarithromycin by Trichoderma harzianum and Pleurotus ostreatus investigated by liquid chromatography–high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry (FTICR MS-IRMPD). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Topp, E.; Renaud, J.; Sumarah, M.; Sabourin, L. Reduced persistence of the macrolide antibiotics erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin in agricultural soil following several years of exposure in the field. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Blanck, H. A critical review of procedures and approaches used for assessing pollution-induced community tolerance (PICT) in biotic communities. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2002, 8, 1003–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rutgersson, C.; Ebmeyer, S.; Lassen, S.B.; Karkman, A.; Fick, J.; Kristiansson, E.; Brandt, K.K.; Flach, C.F.; Larsson, D.J. Long-term application of Swedish sewage sludge on farmland does not cause clear changes in the soil bacterial resistome. Environ. Int. 2020, 137, 105339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Lau, C.H.F.; Tien, Y.C.; Stedtfeld, R.D.; Topp, E. Impacts of multi-year field exposure of agricultural soil to macrolide antibiotics on the abundance of antibiotic resistance genes and selected mobile genetic elements. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abd-El-Malek, Y.; Monib, M.; Hazem, A. Chloramphenicol, a simultaneous carbon and nitrogen source for a Streptomyes sp. from Egyptian soil. Nature 1961, 189, 775–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kameda, Y.; Kimura, Y.; Toyoura, E.; Omori, T. A method for isolating bacteria capable of producing 6-aminopenicillanic acid from benzylpenicillin. Nature 1961, 191, 1122–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schofield, C.J. Antibiotics as food for bacteria. Nat. Microbiol. 2018, 3, 752–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Aldén, L.; Demoling, F.; Bååth, E. Rapid method of determining factors limiting bacterial growth in soil. Appl. Environ. Micribiol. 2001, 67, 1830–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Reischke, S.; Rousk, J.; Bååth, E. The effects of glucose loading rates on bacterial and fungal growth in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 70, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sibley, S.D.; Pedersen, J.A. Interaction of the macrolide antimicrobial clarithromycin with dissolved humic acid. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fernández-Calviño, D.; Bermúdez-Couso, A.; Garrido-Rodríguez, B.; Rodríguez, S.P.; Arias-Estévez, M. Copper release kinetics from a long-term contaminated acid soil using a stirred flow chamber: Effect of ionic strength and pH. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 367, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wegst-Uhrich, S.R.; Navarro, D.A.; Zimmerman, L.; Aga, D.S. Assessing antibiotic sorption in soil: A literature review and new case studies on sulfonamides and macrolides. Chem. Cent. J. 2014, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Christl, I.; Ruiz, M.; Schmidt, J.R.; Pedersen, J.A. Clarithromycin and tetracycline binding to soil humic acid in the absence and presence of calcium. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9933–9942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Yi, X.; Lin, C.; Ong, E.J.L.; Wang, M.; Zhou, Z. Occurrence and distribution of trace levels of antibiotics in surface waters and soils driven by non-point source pollution and anthropogenic pressure. Chemosphere. 2019, 216, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Processes 09 01303 g001 550
Figure 1. Relative bacterial community growth as a function of clarithromycin (CLA) concentration in the 12 soils studied, after 1, 8, and 42 days of incubation.
Figure 1. Relative bacterial community growth as a function of clarithromycin (CLA) concentration in the 12 soils studied, after 1, 8, and 42 days of incubation.
Processes 09 01303 g001
Table
Table 1. General characteristics of studied soils mean value ± standard error (n = 3).
Table 1. General characteristics of studied soils mean value ± standard error (n = 3).
SoilpHWpHKClC (%)N (%)eCEC
(cmolc kg−1)		DOC
(mg kg−1)		Sand (%)Silt (%)Clay (%)Feo (g kg−1)Alo (g kg−1)
15.6 ± 0.04.2 ± 0.10.6 ± 0.20.1 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.2120.9 ± 1061 ± 525 ± 113 ± 01.3 ± 0.10.7 ± 0.0
25.6 ± 0.14.9 ± 0.13.7 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.219.5 ± 0.4263.3 ± 1569 ± 417 ± 114 ± 13.5 ± 0.15.8 ± 0.2
35.6 ± 0.24.8 ± 0.11.6 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.0243.1 ± 1344 ± 334 ± 223 ± 12.2 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.0
46.1 ± 0.25.3 ± 0.22.8 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.137.2 ± 1.3265.0 ± 1961 ± 521 ± 118 ± 13.6 ± 0.24.4 ± 0.1
55.7 ± 0.04.9 ± 0.04.8 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.117.4 ± 0.9332.9 ± 2458 ± 420 ± 121 ± 22.8 ± 0.25.3 ± 0.3
65.5 ± 0.24.2 ± 0.26.6 ± 0.20.5 ± 0.310.5 ± 0.4350.6 ± 1666 ± 413 ± 121 ± 15.5 ± 0.13.1 ± 0.1
74.8 ± 0.14.4 ± 0.13.1 ± 0.00.4 ± 0.35.2 ± 0.3633.9 ± 4770 ± 518 ± 112 ± 01.8 ± 0.02.1 ± 0.1
84.6 ± 0.14.2 ± 0.32.4 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.13.2 ± 0.1336.2 ± 2877 ± 414 ± 19 ± 01.6 ± 0.02.2 ± 0.2
94.1 ± 0.13.7 ± 0.23.3 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.04.3 ± 0.2599.8 ± 3981 ± 710 ± 09 ± 02.3 ± 0.11.8 ± 0.0
105.2 ± 0.24.7 ± 0.13.2 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.24.1 ± 0.2327.1 ± 2555 ± 228 ± 217 ± 18.9 ± 0.53.1 ± 0.1
115.6 ± 0.35.1 ± 0.23.4 ± 0.10.4 ± 0.111.2 ± 0.8356.4 ± 2345 ± 233 ± 222 ± 18.1 ± 0.23.8 ± 0.1
125.1 ± 0.04.5 ± 0.06.8 ± 0.30.6 ± 0.35.5 ± 0.3318.4 ± 2134 ± 238 ± 328 ± 28.9 ± 0.38.7 ± 0.4
pHW is pH measured in water; pHKCl is pH measured in 0.1 M KCl; C is total carbon; eCEC is Cationic Exchange Capacity; DOC is dissolved organic carbon; Alo, Feo: extracted with ammonium oxalate (mg kg−1).
Table
Table 2. Toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on the growth of soil bacterial communities estimated as Log IC10 and Log IC50 values (mean values with the standard error range in brackets) after 1, 8, and 42 days of incubation. R2 values represent the coefficients of determination for model fits used for Log IC50 determination.
Table 2. Toxicity exerted by clarithromycin on the growth of soil bacterial communities estimated as Log IC10 and Log IC50 values (mean values with the standard error range in brackets) after 1, 8, and 42 days of incubation. R2 values represent the coefficients of determination for model fits used for Log IC50 determination.
Day 1Day 8Day 42
SoilLog IC50 ± ErrorLog IC10R2Log IC50 ± ErrorLog IC10R2Log IC50 ± ErrorLog IC10R2
12.29 ± 0.041.630.9942.64 ± 0.141.200.9543.37 ± 0.101.430.976
22.45 ± 0.051.720.9892.94 ± 0.072.230.962
32.28 ± 0.31−0.770.9602.92 ± 0.17−0.170.976
42.17 ± 0.021.700.9982.68 ± 0.102.230.917
52.37 ± 0.091.280.979
61.80 ± 0.100.580.9843.07 ± 0.330.030.900
72.02 ± 0.100.700.9853.19 ± 0.171.760.897
80.75 ± 0.18−0.500.9831.52 ± 0.17−0.280.9933.22 ± 0.151.600.932
92.74 ± 0.27−0.350.9533.57 ± 0.51−0.890.8944.12 ± 0.34−0.450.934
102.19 ± 0.051.140.9723.53 ± 0.450.470.804
113.02 ± 0.042.070.9893.09 ± 0.260.860.924
122.52 ± 0.61−1.480.9253.42 ± 0.550.790.682
Table
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between soil characteristics and Log IC50/IC10 values estimated after 1, 8, and 42 days of incubation.
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between soil characteristics and Log IC50/IC10 values estimated after 1, 8, and 42 days of incubation.
SandSiltClayCNpHWpHKClTOCCICe
Log IC50 Day 1 (n = 12)−0.4380.4520.3360.0700.2060.1720.2850.0440.055
Log IC50 Day 8 (n = 11)−0.3080.2500.3560.4010.474−0.081−0.026−0.1110.368
Log IC50 Day 42 (n = 3)−0.6720.6000.8320.0590.0450.2860.5640.5240.813
Log IC10 Day 1 (n = 12)0.137−0.136−0.154−0.256−0.2750.569 *0.501 *−0.2320.532 *
Log IC10 Day 8 (n = 11)−0.1150.1220.065−0.064−0.1760.604 **0.640 **−0.2330.656 **
Log IC10 Day 42 (n = 3)−0.5960.6510.434−0.708−0.6080.7050.997 **−0.8580.042
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodríguez-González, L.; Santás-Miguel, V.; Campillo-Cora, C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Calviño, D. The Effect of Clarithromycin Toxicity on the Growth of Bacterial Communities in Agricultural Soils. Processes 2021, 9, 1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081303

AMA Style

Rodríguez-González L, Santás-Miguel V, Campillo-Cora C, Arias-Estévez M, Fernández-Calviño D. The Effect of Clarithromycin Toxicity on the Growth of Bacterial Communities in Agricultural Soils. Processes. 2021; 9(8):1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081303

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodríguez-González, Laura, Vanesa Santás-Miguel, Claudia Campillo-Cora, Manuel Arias-Estévez, and David Fernández-Calviño. 2021. "The Effect of Clarithromycin Toxicity on the Growth of Bacterial Communities in Agricultural Soils" Processes 9, no. 8: 1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081303

APA Style

Rodríguez-González, L., Santás-Miguel, V., Campillo-Cora, C., Arias-Estévez, M., & Fernández-Calviño, D. (2021). The Effect of Clarithromycin Toxicity on the Growth of Bacterial Communities in Agricultural Soils. Processes, 9(8), 1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081303

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop