4.7 Article

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TSBSO 3.8, a biosurfactant-producing strain with biotechnological potential for microbial enhanced oil recovery

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 136, 期 -, 页码 14-21

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.08.046

关键词

Biosurfactant; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens; Surfactin; Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR)

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. FAPERJ
  3. CAPES
  4. PETROBRAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A screening for biosurfactant-producing bacteria was conducted with 217 strains that were isolated from environmental samples contaminated with crude oil and/or petroleum derivatives. Although 19 promising biosurfactant producers were detected, strain TSBSO 3.8, which was identified by molecular methods as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, drew attention for its production of a high-activity compound that presented an emulsification activity of 63% and considerably decreased surface (28.5 mN/m) and interfacial (11.4 mN/m) tensions in Trypticase Soy Broth culture medium. TSBSO 3.8 growth and biosurfactant production were tested under different physical and chemical conditions to evaluate its biotechnological potential. Biosurfactant production occurred between 0.5% and 7% NaCl, at pH values varying from 6 to 9 and temperatures ranging from 28 to 50 degrees C. Moreover, biosurfactant properties remained the same after autoclaving at 121 degrees C for 15 mm. The biosurfactant was also successful in a test to simulate microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Mass spectrometry analysis showed that the surface active compound was a surfactin, known as a powerful biosurfactant that is commonly produced by Bacillus species. The production of a high-efficiency biosurfactant, under some physical and chemical conditions that resemble those experienced in an oil production reservoir, such as high salinities and temperatures, makes TSBSO 3.8 an excellent candidate and creates good expectations for its application in MEOR. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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