| Literature DB >> 22196374 |
Georgiana F da Cruz1, Suzan P de Vasconcellos, Célio Ff Angolini, Bruna M Dellagnezze, Isabel Ns Garcia, Valéria M de Oliveira, Eugenio V Dos Santos Neto, Anita J Marsaioli.
Abstract
Several studies suggest that petroleum biodegradation can be achieved by either aerobic or anaerobic microorganisms, depending on oxygen input or other electron acceptors and appropriate nutrients. Evidence from in vitro experiments with samples of petroleum formation water and oils from Pampo Field indicate that petroleum biodegradation is more likely to be a joint achievement of both aerobic and anaerobic bacterial consortium, refining our previous observations of aerobic degradation. The aerobic consortium depleted, in decreasing order, hydrocarbons > hopanes > steranes > tricyclic terpanes while the anaerobic consortium depleted hydrocarbons > steranes > hopanes > tricyclic terpanes. The oxygen content of the mixed consortia was measured from time to time revealing alternating periods of microaerobicity (O2 ~0.8 mg.L-1) and of aerobicity (O2~6.0 mg.L-1). In this experiment, the petroleum biodegradation changed from time to time, alternating periods of biodegradation similar to the aerobic process and periods of biodegradation similar to the anaerobic process. The consortia showed preferences for metabolizing hydrocarbons > hopanes > steranes > tricyclic terpanes during a 90-day period, after which this trend changed and steranes were more biodegraded than hopanes. The analysis of aerobic oil degrading microbiota by the 16S rRNA gene clone library detected the presence of Bacillus, Brevibacterium, Mesorhizobium and Achromobacter, and the analysis of the anaerobic oil degrading microbiota using the same technique detected the presence of Bacillus and Acinetobacter (facultative strains). In the mixed consortia Stenotrophomonas, Brevibacterium, Bacillus, Rhizobium, Achromobacter and 5% uncultured bacteria were detected. This is certainly a new contribution to the study of reservoir biodegradation processes, combining two of the more important accepted hypotheses.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22196374 PMCID: PMC3279308 DOI: 10.1186/2191-0855-1-47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Figure 1Proposed arrangement of microorganisms in biofilms in an oxic environment (a) and in an anoxic environment (b).
Figure 2Location of Campos Basin and oil fields. Isolines represent water depth of ocean floor (left). Schematic geological section showing model of oil migration and accumulation in the Campos Basin (right). Marine, transitional and lacustrine refer to the major sedimentary sequences based on the respective depositional environments. P1 and P2 refer to samples described in the text.
Geological and geochemical bulk data.
| Oil | Depth interval | Age | Temp. (°C) | Reservoir | S (%) | Sat. HCs (%) | Arom. HCs (%) | NSOs (%) | ° API | δ1CVPDB (‰) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 2812-2821 | Early Cretaceus | 85 | Lagoa Feia Formation (coquinas) | 0.18 | 50.70 | 25.35 | 23.94 | 30.7 | -23.61 |
| P2 | 2088-2100 | Early Cretaceus | 71 | Macaé Formation (calcarenites) | 0.65 | 42.55 | 23.68 | 33.77 | 19.7 | -24.52 |
Figure 3Total ion chromatograms (GC-MS) of hydrocarbon fractions from oils (Pampo Sul Field, Campos Basin) undergoing .
Biodegradation (%) for n-alkanes and isoprenoids by aerobic, anaerobic and mixed consortium.
| Hydrocarbon Compound | Biodegradation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Aerobic | Anaerobic | Mixed | |
| absent | absent | absent | |
| 96 ± 0.9 | absent | 48 ± 1.6 | |
| > 99 ± 1.60 | 68 ± 1.5 | 51 ± 1.4 | |
| 98 ± 2.4 | 63 ± 1.3 | 33 ± 1.1 | |
| > 99 ± 1.1 | 50 ± 0.9 | 50 ± 0.8 | |
| Pristane | > 99 ± 0.6 | 45 ± 0.5 | 46 ± 0.6 |
| > 99 ± 0.8 | 54 ± 2.1 | 42 ± 2.8 | |
| Phytane | 98 ± 2.7 | 39 ± 1.2 | 39 ± 1.8 |
| > 99 ± 1.7 | 55 ± 0.6 | 57 ± 0.9 | |
| > 99 ± 2.0 | 45 ± 2.2 | 42 ± 1.2 | |
| > 99 ± 1.2 | 69 ± 1.5 | 62 ± 1.8 | |
| > 99 ± 1.6 | 49 ± 0.9 | 47 ± 0.7 | |
| > 99 ± 2.7 | 60 ± 0.8 | 60 ± 0.9 | |
| > 99 ± 1.3 | 65 ± 1.3 | 51 ± 1.5 | |
| > 99 ± 0.9 | 60 ± 1.8 | 59 ± 1.6 | |
| > 99 ± 0.8 | 64 ± 0.6 | 44 ± 0.9 | |
| > 99 ± 2.8 | 68 ± 1.6 | 64 ± 1.8 | |
| > 99 ± 2.6 | 63 ± 1.0 | 41 ± 2.0 | |
| > 99 ± 0.6 | 69 ± 2.0 | 67 ± 1.0 | |
| > 99 ± 1.5 | 44 ± 1.1 | 42 ± 1.3 | |
| > 99 ± 1.2 | 49 ± 1.6 | 59 ± 1.9 | |
| > 99 ± 1.1 | 50 ± 1.1 | 42 ± 1.8 | |
Biomarker ratios for different microbial consortium from laboratory degraded oil and from Pampo Sul field (P2).
| Consortia | Biomarkers ratios | Time (days) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | P2 | ||
| 0.91 | 0.93 | 1.02 | 1.04 | 1.23 | 1.31 | 1.35 | 1.10 | ||
| 1.00 | 1.30 | 1.34 | 1.42 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.63 | 1.47 | ||
| 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.12 | ||
| 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.32 | ||
| 8.41 | 8.24 | 8.13 | 8.10 | 7.50 | 6.90 | 6.71 | 7.36 | ||
| 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.54 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.94 | ||
| Control | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 | 150 | 180 | P2 | ||
| 0.92 | 1.30 | 0.91 | 1.02 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 1.10 | ||
| 0.94 | 1.41 | 1.22 | 1.23 | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.61 | 1.47 | ||
| 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.12 | ||
| 0.43 | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.32 | ||
| 8.31 | 7.14 | 7.70 | 7.94 | 9.22 | 9.42 | 9.63 | 7.36 | ||
| 0.73 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.94 | ||
| Control | 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 | 150 | 180 | P2 | ||
| 0.92 | 1.25 | 1.52 | 1.03 | 1.13 | 0.84 | 0.92 | 1.10 | ||
| 0.94 | 1.17 | 1.30 | 1.55 | 1.75 | 1.43 | 1.16 | 1.47 | ||
| 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.12 | ||
| 0.29 | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.32 | ||
| 8.31 | 7.19 | 6.78 | 7.47 | 7.65 | 7.86 | 8.57 | 7.36 | ||
| 0.36 | 0.95 | 1.16 | 0.72 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.94 | ||
Calculated from m/z 191 mass chromatogram peak areas of the C28 - C29 tricyclic terpanes (TT) (22R + 22S). C35 17α.21β(H)-homohopane (C35H) (22R + 22S) and C30 17α.21β(H)-hopane (C30H); Calculated from m/z 191 mass chromatogram peak areas of the [C35 (22R+22S)/(C31-C35)(22R+22S) homohopanes] × 100; Calculated from m/z 191 mass chromatogram peak areas of the C27 17α(H)-22.29.30-trisnorhopane (Tm) and C27 18α(H)-22.29.30-trisnorneohopane (Ts); Calculated from m/z 191 mass chromatogram peak areas of the [C35 (22R + 22S)/(C31-C35) (22R + 22S) homohopanes] × 100; Calculated from m/z 217 mass chromatogram peak areas of the C27, C28 and C29 ααα (20R + 22S) and αββ (20R + 22S) steranes and from m/z 191 of the C29-C33 17α(H)-hopanes (20R + 22S);
Figure 4Dissolved oxygen versus time in laboratory experiments for all consortium. Dissolved oxygen for aerobic (open square), anaerobic (diamond), mixed aerobic/anaerobic (filled square).
Coverage values and composition of bacterial 16S rRNA gene clone libraries from the aerobic (A), anaerobic (B) and mixed (C) consortium.
| Microorganism | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacillus sp. | 18% | 89% | 14% |
| Brevibacterium sp. | 18% | 14% | |
| Mesorhizobium | 5% | ||
| Achromobacter sp. | 58% | 11% | |
| Acinetobacter | 11% | ||
| Stenotrophomonas sp. | 50% | ||
| Rhizobium sp. | 6% | ||
| Uncultured bacterium | 5% |
Figure 5Rarefaction curves of observed OTU richness (number of different ARDRA ribotypes) in bacterial 16S rRNA libraries from consortia samples.
Figure 6Phylogenetic analysis of partial 16S rRNA gene sequences of clones from aerobic (Co_Aer) and anaerobic (Co-Ana) consortium and related species using the Kimura 2p evolutionary model and the . Bootstrap values (1000 replicate runs, shown as %) greater than 70% are listed. Numbers in brackets correspond to additional clones showing ≥ 97% similarity with the clone represented in the branch. GenBank accession numbers are listed after species names. Methanohalophilus portucalensis was used as the outgroup.