4.2 Article

Efficacy of natural biocide on control of microbial induced corrosion in oil pipelines mediated by Desulfovibrio vulgaris and Desulfovibrio gigas

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1394-1402

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60549-9

关键词

microbially induced corrosion; biocide; biofilm; extraploymeric substances; H2S production; Fe(II) production

资金

  1. Corporate Health Safety Environment, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., India
  2. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared the efficacy of a natural biocide with four chemical tetrakishydroxymethyl phosphonium sulfonate, benzyl trimethyl ammonium chloride, and formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, to control microbial induced corrosion in oil pipelines. The efficacy of biocides were monitored against Desulfovibrio vulgaris and Desulfovibrio gigas in experimental pipes by measuring cell counts, H2S production, Fe(H) production, production of extracellular polymeric substances and structure of biofilm. The treatment with cow urine had minimum planktonic cell counts of 3 x 10(2) CFU/mL as well as biofilm cell counts of 9 x 10(1) CFU/mL as compared with tetrakishydroxyl methyl phosphonium sulfonate, benzyl trimethyl ammonium chloride, formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde. Sulfide production was the lowest with cow urine (0.08 mmol/L), followed by tetrakishydrozymethyl phosphonium sulfonate 0.72 mmol/L. On day 90 of treatment, Fe(II) production was also found to be the lowest with cow urine. The scanning electron microscopic studies indicated that the biofilm bacteria were killed by cow urine. These results demonstrate the cow urine mediated control of microbially induced corrosion, and this is indicative of its potential as a viable substitute of toxic biocides. To the best of our knowledge, this seems to be the first report which screens possible biocidal activity by cow urine as compared to the most common biocides which oil industry is currently using.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据