| Literature DB >> 28243605 |
Zulfa Al Disi1, Samir Jaoua1, Dhabia Al-Thani1, Saeed Al-Meer2, Nabil Zouari1.
Abstract
Weathering processes change properties and composition of spilled oil, representing the main reason of failure of bioaugmentation strategies. Our purpose was to investigate the metabolic adaptation of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria at harsh conditions to be considered to overcome the limitations of bioaugmentation strategies at harsh conditions. Polluted soils, exposed for prolonged periods to weathered oil in harsh soils and weather conditions, were used. Two types of enrichment cultures were employed using 5% and 10% oil or diesel as sole carbon sources with varying the mineral nitrogen sources and C/N ratios. The most effective isolates were obtained based on growth, tolerance to toxicity, and removal efficiency of diesel hydrocarbons. Activities of the newly isolated bacteria, in relation to the microenvironment from where they were isoalted and their interaction with the weathered oil, showed individual specific ability to adapt when exposed to such factors, to acquire metabolic potentialities. Among 39 isolates, ten identified ones by 16S rDNA genes similarities, including special two Pseudomonas isolates and one Citrobacter isolate, showed particularity of shifting hydrocarbon-degrading ability from short chain n-alkanes (n-C12-n-C16) to longer chain n-alkanes (n-C21-n-C25) and vice versa by alternating nitrogen source compositions and C/N ratios. This is shown for the first time.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28243605 PMCID: PMC5294359 DOI: 10.1155/2017/8649350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Isolation strategy for isolation and screening of the hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria under high selection pressure.
Figure 2Sample of oil-coated and diesel-coated plates with one isolated strain HDB8. (a) Diesel-coated plate; (b) oil-coated plate.
List and origin of the coded 39 isolated isolates.
| Origin of sample | Crude oil-coated MSM plates | Diesel-coated MSM plates |
|---|---|---|
| Autoworkshop 1 (lubricants leak) | HDB11, HDB19 | HDB7 |
| Autoworkshop 2 (diesel leaking site) | HDB1, HDB10 | |
| Autoworkshop 3 (oil waste tanks) | HDB3, HDB8, HDB9, HDB12, HDB15, HDB18, HDB36, HDB37 | HDB6 |
| Autoworkshop 4 (repairing area) | HDB2, HDB4, HDB5, HDB13, HDB14, HDB16, HDB17, HDB20 | |
| Oil waste management site 1 | HDB26, HDB27, HDB28, HDB32, HDB34 | |
| Oil waste management site 2 | HDB22, HDB25 | HDB31, HDB33 |
| Oil waste management site 3 | HDB21, HDB23, HDB24 | HDB29, HDB30, HDB35, HDB38, HDB39 |
Growth (cfu counts) and removal efficiency of bacterial isolates after 2 weeks of incubation in MSM media supplemented with 10% diesel.
| Number | Strain | 2 weeks' incubation (×107 cfu/mL) | Removal efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | HDB2 | 1 ± 1.4 | 3 ± 0.8 |
| (2) | HDB4 | 2 ± 0.12 | 4 ± 0.5 |
| (3) | HDB5 | 11 ± 0.5 | 12 ± 2.1 |
| (4) | HDB8 | 33 ± 1.3 | 31 ± 3.1 |
| (5) | HDB9 | 31 ± 1.3 | 21 ± 2.5 |
| (6) | HDB11 | 8.2 ± 0.3 | 10 ± 1.6 |
| (7) | HDB18 | 20 ± 1.0 | 10 ± 2.9 |
| (8) | HDB19 | 1.5 ± 0.06 | 3 ± 0.3 |
| (9) | HDB38 | 26 ± 1.0 | 19 ± 0.7 |
| (10) | HDB39 | 2 ± 0.1 | 5 ± 0.1 |
Values are means of three replicates ±standard deviation.
Molecular identification of the isolates.
| Isolate | Identity | Accession number | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|
| HDB2 |
| LC093517.1 | 95% |
| HDB4 |
| GU451067.1 | 90% |
| HDB5 |
| KR063563.1 | 98% |
| HDB8 |
| CP015377.1 | 98% |
| HDB9 |
| JF919950.1 | 98% |
| HDB11 |
| KF534713.1 | 98% |
| HDB18 |
| CP014070.1 | 98% |
| HDB19 |
| CP012268.1 | 95% |
| HDB38 |
| JX962695.1 | 97% |
| HDB39 |
| CP014696.1 | 98% |
Figure 3Chromatograms of GC (FID) analysis of control (a), HDB8 (b), HDB9 (c), and HDB18 (d) culture.
Hydrocarbon removal efficiency of HDB8, HDB9, and HDB18, with different nitrogen sources, NH4NO3, NH4Cl, and NaNO3. Results are averages of 3 culture replicates and 3 separate GC analyses.
| Isolate | NH4NO3 | NH4Cl | NaNO3 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Total hydrocarbons removal (%) | 30 ± 3.1 | 31 + 2.4 | 6 ± 0.3 |
| LMW hydrocarbons (%) | 39 ± 4.9 | 28 ± 3.7 | 0 ± 1.2 |
| MMW hydrocarbons (%) | 29 ± 3.9 | 33 ± 2.6 | 3 ± 1.7 |
| HMW hydrocarbons (%) | 24 ± 4.6 | 29 ± 4.0 | 14 ± 2.4 |
|
| |||
| Total hydrocarbons removal ( %) | 21 ± 2.5 | 8 ± 1.3 | 3 ± 1.0 |
| LMW hydrocarbons (%) | 35 ± 4.1 | 11 ± 2.6 | 0 ± 0.5 |
| MMW hydrocarbons (%) | 21 ± 3.9 | 5 ± 1.7 | 0 ± 0.5 |
| HMW hydrocarbons (%) | 6 ± 2.9 | 9 ± 1.2 | 9 ± 1.6 |
|
| |||
| Total hydrocarbons removal (%) | 10 ± 2.9 | 19 ± 1.6 | 3 ± 0.8 |
| LMW hydrocarbons (%) | 16 ± 3.0 | 33 ± 1.7 | 8 ± 2.2 |
| MMW hydrocarbons (%) | 14 ± 1 | 22 ± 2.5 | 0 ± 0.5 |
| HMW hydrocarbons (%) | 4 ± 0.6 | 2 ± 1.2 | 0 ± 0.2 |
LMW: low molecular weight; MMW: medium molecular weight; HMW: high molecular weight.
Hydrocarbon removal efficiency of HDB8, HDB9, and HDB18 with NH4NO3 at different C : N ratios: 70 : 1, 60 : 1, 50 : 1, and 40 : 1. Results are averages of 3 culture replicates and 3 separate GC analyses.
| C/N | C/N 70/1 | C/N 60/1 | C/N 50/1 | C/N 40/1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Total hydrocarbons removal (%) | 11 ± 2.6 | 30 ± 1.4 | 16 ± 2.5 | 20 ± 3.4 |
| LMW hydrocarbons (%) | 20 ± 3.4 | 39 ± 4.5 | 15 ± 2.2 | 20 ± 3.3 |
| MMW hydrocarbons (%) | 12 ± 3.1 | 29 ± 2.9 | 19 ± 3.7 | 20 ± 2.9 |
| HMW hydrocarbons (%) | 7 ± 2.2 | 24 ± 4.1 | 15 ± 2.2 | 20 ± 1.9 |
|
| ||||
| Total hydrocarbons removal (%) | 10 ± 1.6 | 21 ± 0.7 | 10 ± 1.2 | 38 ± 2.9 |
| LMW hydrocarbons (%) | 2 ± 0.9 | 35 ± 4.1 | 0 ± 0.5 | 45 ± 3.3 |
| MMW hydrocarbons (%) | 21 ± 2.5 | 21 ± 3.7 | 28 ± 3.4 | 37 ± 4.2 |
| HMW hydrocarbons (%) | 6 ± 1.7 | 6 ± 2.5 | 2 ± 1.2 | 32 ± 2.2 |
|
| ||||
| Total hydrocarbons removal (%) | 11 ± 2.1 | 10 ± 2.9 | 8 ± 1.7 | 13 ± 2.1 |
| LMW hydrocarbons (%) | 0 ± 0.5 | 16 ± 3.0 | 4 ± 0.8 | 23 ± 1.7 |
| MMW hydrocarbons (%) | 29 ± 3.1 | 14 ± 1 | 1 ± 0.5 | 16 ± 1.7 |
| HMW hydrocarbons (%) | 6 ± 2.1 | 4 ± 0.6 | 19 ± 2.1 | 7 ± 1.7 |
LMW: low molecular weight; MMW: medium molecular weight; HMW: high molecular weight.
Statistical analysis of the significance of hydrocarbon removal efficiency of HDB8, HDB9, and HDB18, with different nitrogen sources and C/N ratios.
| Nitrogen sources |
| C : N ratios |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Total removal (average) |
| 4.42 |
| 4.25 |
| LMW hydrocarbons |
| 6.40 |
| 0.000596589 |
| MMW hydrocarbons |
| 1.76 |
| 0.004427376 |
| HMW hydrocarbons |
| 0.01 |
| 0.001089686 |
|
| ||||
| Total removal (average) |
| 6.56 |
| 9.85 |
| LMW hydrocarbons |
| 3.86 |
| 2.72 |
| MMW hydrocarbons |
| 4.73 |
| 0.005285635 |
| HMW hydrocarbons | NS | 0.08 |
| 1.2505 |
|
| ||||
| Total removal (average) |
| 5.80 |
| 0.021019569 |
| LMW hydrocarbons |
| 2.80 |
| 1.56095 |
| MMW hydrocarbons |
| 3.64 |
| 2.7128 |
| HMW hydrocarbons |
| 0.04 |
| 0.000160478 |
NS: not significant. Significant. Highly significant. Very highly significant.
LMW: low molecular weight; MMW: medium molecular weight; HMW: high molecular weight.