4.4 Article

Distinguishing Biotic and Abiotic Iron Oxidation at Low Temperatures

期刊

ACS EARTH AND SPACE CHEMISTRY
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 905-921

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00016

关键词

iron oxidizing bacteria; iron redox cycling; rate experiments; chemical speciation; metal carbonates; metal bicarbonates; Gallionella

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-1529963]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rates of microbial and abiotic iron oxidation were determined in a variety of cold (T = 9-12 degrees C), circumneutral (pH = 5.5-9.0) environments in the Swiss Alps. These habitats include iron-bicarbonate springs, iron-arsenic-bicarbonate springs, and alpine lakes. Rates of microbial iron oxidation were measured up to a pH of 7.4, with only abiotic processes detected at higher pH values. Iron oxidizing bacteria (FeOB) were responsible for 39-89% of the net oxidation rate at locations where biological iron oxidation was detected. Members of putative iron oxidizing genera, especially Gallionella, are abundant in systems where biological iron oxidation was measured. Geochemical sampling suites accompanying each experiment include field data (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and redox sensitive solutes), solute concentrations, and sediment composition. Dissolved inorganic carbon concentrations indicate that bicarbonate and carbonate are typically the most abundant anions in these systems. Speciation calculations reveal that ferrous iron typically exists as FeCO3(aq), FeHCO3+, FeSO4(aq), or Fe2+ in these systems. The abundance of ferrous carbonate and bicarbonate species appears to lead to a dramatic increase in the abiotic rate of reaction compared to the rate expected from chemical oxidation in dilute solution. This approach, integrating geochemistry, rates, and community composition, reveals locations and geochemical conditions that permit microbial iron oxidation and locations where the abiotic rate is too fast for the biotic process to compete.

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

4.4
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