| Literature DB >> 34845279 |
Gabriela Feix Pereira1,2, Harry Luiz Pilz-Junior1, Gertrudes Corção3.
Abstract
Extreme conditions and the availability of determinate substrates in oil fields promote the growth of a specific microbiome. Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and acid-producing bacteria (APB) are usually found in these places and can harm important processes due to increases in corrosion rates, biofouling and reservoir biosouring. Biocides such as glutaraldehyde, dibromo-nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA), tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) and alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC) are commonly used in oil fields to mitigate uncontrolled microbial growth. The aim of this work was to evaluate the differences among microbiome compositions and their resistance to standard biocides in four different Brazilian produced water samples, two from a Southeast Brazil offshore oil field and two from different Northeast Brazil onshore oil fields. Microbiome evaluations were carried out through 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. To evaluate the biocidal resistance, the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the standard biocides were analyzed using enriched consortia of SRB and APB from the produced water samples. The data showed important differences in terms of taxonomy but similar functional characterization, indicating the high diversity of the microbiomes. The APB and SRB consortia demonstrated varying resistance levels against the biocides. These results will help to customize biocidal treatments in oil fields.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34845279 PMCID: PMC8630110 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02494-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Map of Brazil with detailed locations of the sample collection points in Bahia State (right) and Rio de Janeiro State (botton). Created using the component ArcMap from the software ArcGIS 10.6.1 (https://www.arcgis.com/).
Figure 2Heatmap of taxonomic analysis at the phylum level (A) and genus level (B).
Figure 3Ordination tri plot of canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) between study sites and abiotic factors and phyla.
Figure 4Ordination tri plot of canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) between study sites and abiotic factors and genera.
Figure 5Predictions using KEGG Database of functional abundance orthologous classes (A) and genes involved in sulfur metabolism (B).
Prediction by KEGG Orthology of the relative abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes in produced water samples.
| Metabolic process | Predicted gene | Relative abundance (%)a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore 1a | Offshore 1b | Onshore 1 | Onshore 2 | ||
| Efflux mechanisms | 5.54 | 6.52 | 12.88 | 6.49 | |
| 4.90 | 6.06 | 9.55 | 5.84 | ||
| 3.39 | 0.71 | 8.03 | 2.82 | ||
| – | – | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||
| – | – | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||
| – | – | 0.08 | 0.01 | ||
| – | – | 0.27 | 0.73 | ||
| Target modification | 7.20 | 8.81 | 12.48 | 7.67 | |
| 7.07 | 8.85 | 11.44 | 7.58 | ||
| 4.10 | 5.97 | 8.64 | 5.86 | ||
| Modification/degradation of antimicrobial compounds | 4.04 | 3.39 | – | 3.96 | |
| – | – | 0.11 | 0.03 | ||
| 1.71 | 0.68 | 4.68 | 1.49 | ||
| 1.39 | 0.01 | 1.02 | 0.76 | ||
| – | – | 0.46 | – | ||
aAbundance relative to total antimicrobial resistance mechanisms.
MICs of glutaraldehyde, THPS, DBNPA and ADBAC against APB and SRB consortia from produced water samples in Modified Postgate E medium (for SRB) and Phenol Red Glucose Broth (for APB). + , positive growth; –, negative growth.
| Biocide | SRB | APB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dosage (mg·L−1) | Offshore 1a | Onshore 2 | Offshore 1a | Onshore 1 | Onshore 2 | |
| Positive control | 0 | + | + | + | + | + |
| Glutaraldehyde 50% | 25 | – | + | + | + | + |
| 50 | – | + | + | + | + | |
| 100 | – | – | + | + | + | |
| 250 | – | – | + | + | + | |
| 500 | – | – | + | + | + | |
THPS 50% | 25 | + | + | + | + | + |
| 50 | + | + | + | + | + | |
| 100 | + | – | + | + | + | |
| 250 | – | – | + | + | + | |
| 500 | – | – | + | + | + | |
DBNPA 50% | 25 | + | + | + | + | + |
| 50 | + | + | + | + | + | |
| 100 | + | + | + | + | + | |
| 250 | + | – | – | – | – | |
| 500 | + | – | – | – | – | |
ADBAC 50% | 25 | + | + | + | + | + |
| 50 | + | + | + | + | + | |
| 100 | + | + | + | + | – | |
| 250 | + | + | + | + | – | |
| 500 | + | + | – | + | – | |