25.02.2013 Views

Water and Solute Permeability of Plant Cuticles: Measurement and ...

Water and Solute Permeability of Plant Cuticles: Measurement and ...

Water and Solute Permeability of Plant Cuticles: Measurement and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4.4 <strong>Water</strong> Vapour Sorption <strong>and</strong> <strong>Permeability</strong> as Affected by pH, Cations <strong>and</strong> Vapour Pressure 77<br />

in Citrus MX the reticulum contains carboxyl groups <strong>and</strong> is continuous across the<br />

entire polymer matrix, including the cuticle proper. This is convincing evidence,<br />

even though such a reticulum is rarely seen in TEM (Sect. 1.4). The aqueous pores<br />

across the polymer matrix formed by the reticulum are further characterised in<br />

Sect. 4.5. Comparable data for MX from other plant species, including those having<br />

a lamellated cuticle proper, are not available.<br />

Polar polymers sorb much more water than hydrophobic ones, <strong>and</strong> permeance<br />

increases with increasing partial pressure (Fig. 4.5) because <strong>of</strong> increased sorption<br />

<strong>of</strong> water (Barrie 1968). Sorption in the polymer matrix was measured with carboxyl<br />

groups in the hydrogen form, that is, in absence <strong>of</strong> inorganic cations (Chamel<br />

et al. 1991). Sorption isotherms are not linear (Fig. 4.7) <strong>and</strong> resemble B.E.T. type<br />

II isotherms. <strong>Water</strong> vapour sorption in tomato <strong>and</strong> Citrus MX was similar to that in<br />

EC. For the MX, sorption close to 100% humidity is not available, but extrapolation<br />

leads to figures somewhere between 70 <strong>and</strong> 80gkg −1 , which is 7–8% by weight.<br />

The plateau seen in Fig. 4.6 for permeance <strong>of</strong> MX is strikingly absent in sorption<br />

data (Fig. 4.7). This may be due to the fact that sorption in MX was measured with<br />

carboxyl groups in the hydrogen form <strong>and</strong> in the absence <strong>of</strong> inorganic counter ions.<br />

COOH <strong>and</strong> OH groups probably sorb similar amounts <strong>of</strong> water, because characteristic<br />

dipole moments for COOH <strong>and</strong> OH groups are similar <strong>and</strong> amount to 1.7 <strong>and</strong><br />

1.65 Debye respectively (Israelachvili 1991).<br />

Sorption in tomato fruit cutin was considerably lower, <strong>and</strong> the isotherm was linear.<br />

Sorption at 100% humidity was 19gkg −1 , which is only about 25% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

amount sorbed in the tomato MX. Cutin was generated by acid hydrolysis <strong>of</strong> tomato<br />

fruit MX (6 N HCl, 110 ◦ C, 12 h). This hydrolysis eliminates polysaccharides <strong>and</strong><br />

polypeptides, <strong>and</strong> probably also liberates phenolic compounds bound covalently to<br />

the MX (Schönherr <strong>and</strong> Bukovac 1973). The bulk (75%) <strong>of</strong> the water in the MX is<br />

sorbed by dipoles contributed by these compounds.<br />

Polyethylene also has a linear sorption isotherm, <strong>and</strong> maximum sorption at 100%<br />

humidity is 0.65kgm −3 (Table 4.1). With a specific gravity <strong>of</strong> 950kgm −3 maximum<br />

sorption is 0.68gkg −1 . Hence, cutin sorbed 28 times more water than PE. Most <strong>of</strong><br />

this water is probably bound to free hydroxyl groups <strong>of</strong> cutin acids. When 19 g water<br />

is sorbed in 1 kg cutin, this amounts to 1.06molkg −1 . Tomato fruit cutin is made up<br />

mainly <strong>of</strong> C16-dihydroxyfatty acids (Baker et al. 1982), which have a molecular<br />

weight around 300gmol −1 . This yields a concentration <strong>of</strong> 3.33 mol hydroxy fatty<br />

acids per kg <strong>of</strong> cutin. Hence, only a third <strong>of</strong> the mid-chain hydroxyl groups sorbed<br />

a water molecule at 100% humidity. Those hydroxyl groups that did not sorb water<br />

were probably engaged in intermolecular hydrogen bonds, <strong>and</strong> this indicates that<br />

they were not distributed at r<strong>and</strong>om but are arranged close to each other.<br />

At a partial pressure <strong>of</strong> 0.22, permeance was smaller by a factor <strong>of</strong> 0.5 than<br />

at p/p0 = 1. Sorption in MX at p/p0 = 0.22 is about 10gkg −1 , while at p/p0 = 1<br />

sorption amounted to about 70–80gkg −1 . With ethyl cellulose the difference is even<br />

larger (Fig. 4.7). It follows that permeance <strong>and</strong> water content <strong>of</strong> the membranes<br />

were not proportional. Apparently, not all water sorbed in the MX participated in<br />

transport.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!