Millar Cody, Pratt Dyan, Schneider David J, McDonnell Jeffrey J
Global Institute for Water Security, School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, 11 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 3H5, Canada.
Global Institute for Food Security, University of Saskatchewan, 110 Gymnasium Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 4J8, Canada.
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2018 Jul 15;32(13):1031-1044. doi: 10.1002/rcm.8136. Epub 2018 May 27.
The stable isotope ratios of water (δ H and δ O values) have been widely used to trace water in plants in a variety of physiological, ecohydrological, biogeochemical and hydrological studies. In such work, the analyte must first be extracted from samples, prior to isotopic analysis. While cryogenic vacuum distillation is currently the most widely used method reported in the literature, a variety of extraction-collection-analysis methods exist. A formal inter-method comparison on plant tissues has yet to be carried out.
We performed an inter-method comparison of six plant water extraction techniques: direct vapour equilibration, microwave extraction, two unique versions of cryogenic vacuum distillation, centrifugation, and high-pressure mechanical squeezing. These methods were applied to four isotopically unique plant portions (head, stem, leaf, and root crown) of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Extracted plant water was analyzed via spectrometric (OA-ICOS) and mass-based (IRMS) analysis systems when possible. Spring wheat was grown under controlled conditions with irrigation inputs of a known isotopic composition.
The tested methods of extraction yielded markedly different isotopic signatures. Centrifugation, microwave extraction, direct vapour equilibration, and high-pressure mechanical squeezing produced water more enriched in H and O content. Both cryogenic vacuum distillation systems and the high-pressure mechanical squeezing method produced water more depleted in H and O content, depending upon the plant portion extracted. The various methods also produced differing concentrations of co-extracted organic compounds, depending on the mode of extraction. Overall, the direct vapor equilibration method outperformed all other methods.
Despite its popularity, cryogenic vacuum distillation was outperformed by the direct vapor equilibration method in terms of limited co-extraction of volatile organic compounds, rapid sample throughput, and near instantaneous returned stable isotope results. More research is now needed with other plant species, especially woody plants, to see how far the findings from this study could be extended.
水的稳定同位素比率(δH和δO值)已广泛应用于各种生理、生态水文、生物地球化学和水文研究中追踪植物中的水分。在这类研究中,分析物在进行同位素分析之前必须先从样品中提取出来。虽然低温真空蒸馏是目前文献中报道使用最广泛的方法,但也存在多种提取-收集-分析方法。尚未对植物组织进行正式的方法间比较。
我们对六种植物水分提取技术进行了方法间比较:直接蒸汽平衡法、微波提取法、两种独特的低温真空蒸馏法、离心法和高压机械挤压法。这些方法应用于春小麦(Triticum aestivum L.)四个同位素特征不同的植物部位(穗、茎、叶和根冠)。提取的植物水分在可能的情况下通过光谱分析(OA-ICOS)和基于质量的分析系统(IRMS)进行分析。春小麦在可控条件下生长,灌溉水源具有已知的同位素组成。
所测试的提取方法产生了明显不同的同位素特征。离心法、微波提取法、直接蒸汽平衡法和高压机械挤压法产生的水中H和O含量更富集。两种低温真空蒸馏系统和高压机械挤压法产生的水中H和O含量更贫化,这取决于所提取的植物部位。根据提取方式的不同,各种方法还产生了不同浓度的共提取有机化合物。总体而言,直接蒸汽平衡法优于所有其他方法。
尽管低温真空蒸馏很受欢迎,但在挥发性有机化合物的共提取有限、样品通量高以及能近乎即时返回稳定同位素结果方面,直接蒸汽平衡法优于低温真空蒸馏法。现在需要对其他植物物种,特别是木本植物进行更多研究,以了解本研究的结果能推广到何种程度。