Abstract Traditional acid hydrolysis is the main method used for carbohydrates characterization in soils and sediments. It has been used to cleave the glycosidic bond, yielding monomers that compose polysaccharides of the non-cellulosic pool (free, ligno-cellulosic and hemicellulosic carbohydrates). In this study, the widely used chemical and thermochemical degradation procedures have been compared with the derivatisation followed by reductive cleavage (DFRC) method. This method presented efficiency in specifically cleaving the aryl ether bonds, yielding for sugar moieties linked to aromatic structures (ligno-cellulosic fraction). Once applied for peat samples, some discrepancies were observed. DFRC method revealed some information about the origin of carbohydrates that was hidden from the traditional chemical and thermochemical degradation methods. Several patterns of carbohydrates have been obtained with DFRC indicating difference in the origin and/or degradation rates between monosaccharides. For xylose, it showed an increase in the catotelm (deepest layer of the peatland), indicating an angiosperm vegetation input at the early stage of the peatland formation. Ribose, commonly known as a microbial indicator, showed the same profile as for hexoses and deoxyhexoses, with acid hydrolysis. The difference in the profile yielded in the case of DFRC method, revealed its microbial input. These information were hindered from acid hydrolysis and thermochemolysis, as the first showed nearly the same profile for all monosaccharides and the second one didn't have the capacity to analyze arabinose and ribose. Generally, higher similarity was obtained between DFRC and acid hydrolysis than between DFRC and thermochemolysis. This is due to the difference of mechanisms involved in chemolytic and thermochemolytic methods. For the first group, both methods shared acid conditions and milder temperature conditions if compared to the second group. In addition thermochemolysis is performed under alkaline conditions.

中文翻译：

---

DFRC 方法在泥炭沼泽中碳水化合物分析中的应用：与传统化学和热化学降解技术的验证和比较

摘要 传统的酸水解是表征土壤和沉积物中碳水化合物的主要方法。它已被用于裂解糖苷键，产生构成非纤维素库多糖（游离、木质纤维素和半纤维素碳水化合物）的单体。在这项研究中，广泛使用的化学和热化学降解程序与衍生化后还原裂解 (DFRC) 方法进行了比较。这种方法在特异性裂解芳醚键方面表现出效率，产生与芳香结构（木质纤维素部分）连接的糖部分。一旦应用于泥炭样品，就会观察到一些差异。DFRC 方法揭示了一些隐藏在传统化学和热化学降解方法中的碳水化合物来源信息。已经用 DFRC 获得了几种碳水化合物模式，表明单糖之间的起源和/或降解率存在差异。对于木糖，它显示出泥炭地（泥炭地的最深层）的增加，表明在泥炭地形成的早期阶段被子植物植被输入。核糖，通常被称为微生物指示剂，显示出与己糖和脱氧己糖相同的特征，具有酸水解作用。DFRC 方法产生的剖面差异揭示了其微生物输入。这些信息受到酸水解和热化学分解的阻碍，因为第一个对所有单糖显示出几乎相同的特征，而第二个没有分析阿拉伯糖和核糖的能力。一般来说，DFRC 和酸水解之间的相似性高于 DFRC 和热化学分解之间的相似性。这是由于化学分解和热化学分解方法所涉及的机制不同。对于第一组，如果与第二组相比，两种方法共享酸性条件和更温和的温度条件。此外，热化学分解是在碱性条件下进行的。如果与第二组相比，两种方法共享酸性条件和温和的温度条件。此外，热化学分解是在碱性条件下进行的。如果与第二组相比，两种方法共享酸性条件和温和的温度条件。此外，热化学分解是在碱性条件下进行的。