4.7 Article

Biosurfactant production under extreme environmental conditions by an efficient microbial consortium, ERCPPI-2

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 292-300

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2011.01.011

关键词

Enterobacter cloacae; Pseudomonas sp.; Biosurfactant; MEOR process; Interfacial tension reduction; Emulsification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The biosurfactant production potential of a new microbial consortium of Enterobacter cloacae and Pseudomonas sp. (ERCPPI-2) which was isolated from heavy crude oil-contaminated soil in the south of Iran, has been investigated under extreme environmental conditions. The isolated consortium produces a biosurfactant mixture with excessive oil spreading and emulsification properties. This consortium was able to grow and produce biosurfactant at temperatures up to 70 degrees C, pressures up to 6000 psia, salinities up to 15% (w/v), and in the pH range 4-10. Besides, the optimum biosurfactant production conditions were found to be 40 degrees C and 7.0 for the temperature and pH value, respectively. These conditions gave the best biosurfactant production of 1.74 g/1 when the cells were grown on a minimal salt medium containing 1.0% (w/v) olive oil, 1.0% (w/v) sodium nitrate supplemented with 1.39% (w/v) K2HPO4 at 40 degrees C and 150 rpm after 48 h of incubation. The ERCPPI-2 could reduce surface and interfacial tensions to 31.7 and 0.65 mN/m from the original values of 58.3 and 16.9 mN/m, respectively. The isolated consortium produced biosurfactant using heavy crude oil as the sole source of carbon and emulsified the available heavy crude oil up to E-24 = 83.4%. The results of the core holder flooding tests at simulated reservoir conditions demonstrated that the oil recovery efficiency due to the injection of the cell-free biosurfactant solution was 27.2%, and the bacterium injection reduced the final residual oil saturations to below 3% at optimum conditions. (C) 2011 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