Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

TOWARDS SULFIDE RESISTANT BIOPRODUCTION; UNDERSTANDING SULFIDE TOXICITY DURING HOMOACETOGENIC FERMENTATION

Eleftheria Ntagia UGent (2018)
abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO2) contained in gaseous streams, such as biogas and geothermal gases, can be reduced into commodity chemicals through fermentation. A major concern is that in most of these streams hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is present, which is toxic, already at concentrations of a few ppm [1]. Several pretreatment strategies for H2S removal exist [2]. An electrochemical cell is such an example where H2S is oxidized to elemental sulfur [3] and hydrogen is produced, which can boost the CO2 conversion into soluble chemicals. The pretreatment steps lower the concentration of H2S, but a fraction of it will inevitably end up in the fermentation reactor where it can hamper bacterial activity. The extend of inhibition is expected to be determined by the operational pH of the fermentation, since this affects directly the sulfide speciation. So far in literature it has not been stated clearly whether H2S, or the sulfide ion (HS-) is responsible for the toxicity effect [4]. In this study, the main objective was to investigate the tolerance level of homoacetogenic bacteria to H2S, in terms of inhibition of commodity chemicals bioproduction. Therefore, a series of toxicity experiments were conducted in serum flasks, inoculated with a mixed homoacetogenic microbial culture and a range of sulfide concentrations, from 0 up to 5 mM total sulfide. Sulfide toxicity was assessed at pH 5,6 and 7, to make a distinction between H2S and HS- toxicity. Inhibition was evaluated based on acetate production by the microbial community. Increasing sulfide concentrations had an inhibitory effect to both acetate and biomass production. At 1 mM total sulfide the acetate production rate was 0.05 ±0.01, 0.08 ±0.00 and 0.09 ±0.01 mM/h for incubations at pH 5,6 and 7, respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of total sulfide was calculated at 4.29 ±0.26, common for all pH tests. [1] G. Wu, F. Wan, H. Fu, N. Li, and H. Gao, “A Matter of Timing : Contrasting Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on Oxidative Stress Response in Shewanella oneidensis,” vol. 197, no. 22, pp. 3563–3572, 2015. [2] I. Pikaar, E. M. Likosova, S. Freguia, J. Keller, K. Rabaey, and Z. Yuan, “Electrochemical abatement of hydrogen sulfide from waste streams,” Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 3389, no. November, pp. 00–00, 2014. [3] K. R. Eleni Vaiopoulou, Thomas Provijn, Antonin Prevoteau, Ilje Pikaar, “Electrochemical sulfide removal and caustic recovery from spent caustic streams,” Water Res., vol. 92, pp. 38 – 43, 2016. [4] R. A. Eberhard Küster, Falk Dorusch, “EFFECTS OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE TO VIBRIO FISCHERI , SCENEDESMUS VACUOLATUS , AND DAPHNIA MAGNA,” Environ. Toxicol. Chem., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2621–2629, 2005.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
conference (poster)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
CO2 fixation, homoacetogenesis, sulfide toxicity
conference name
5th International Symposium on Microbial Sulfur Metabolism (ISMSM-5)
conference organizer
University of Vienna
conference location
Vienna
conference start
2018-04-16
conference end
2018-04-18
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
U
copyright statement
I don't know the status of the copyright for this publication
id
8559587
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8559587
date created
2018-04-22 16:26:21
date last changed
2018-04-22 16:37:16
@inproceedings{8559587,
  abstract     = {Carbon dioxide (CO2) contained in gaseous streams, such as biogas and geothermal gases, can be reduced into commodity chemicals through fermentation. A major concern is that in most of these streams hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is present, which is toxic, already at concentrations of a few ppm [1]. Several pretreatment strategies for H2S removal exist [2]. An electrochemical cell is such an example where H2S is oxidized to elemental sulfur [3] and hydrogen is produced, which can boost the CO2 conversion into soluble chemicals. The pretreatment steps lower the concentration of H2S, but a fraction of it will inevitably end up in the fermentation reactor where it can hamper bacterial activity. The extend of inhibition is expected to be determined by the operational pH of the fermentation, since this affects directly the sulfide speciation. So far in literature it has not been stated clearly whether H2S, or the sulfide ion (HS-) is responsible for the toxicity effect [4].
In this study, the main objective was to investigate the tolerance level of homoacetogenic bacteria to H2S, in terms of inhibition of commodity chemicals bioproduction. Therefore, a series of toxicity experiments were conducted in serum flasks, inoculated with a mixed homoacetogenic microbial culture and a range of sulfide concentrations, from 0 up to 5 mM total sulfide. Sulfide toxicity was assessed at pH 5,6 and 7, to make a distinction between H2S and HS- toxicity. Inhibition was evaluated based on acetate production by the microbial community. Increasing sulfide concentrations had an inhibitory effect to both acetate and biomass production. At 1 mM total sulfide the acetate production rate was 0.05 {\textpm}0.01, 0.08 {\textpm}0.00 and 0.09 {\textpm}0.01 mM/h for incubations at pH 5,6 and 7, respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of total sulfide was calculated at 4.29 {\textpm}0.26, common for all pH tests. 

[1]\unmatched{0009}G. Wu, F. Wan, H. Fu, N. Li, and H. Gao, {\textquotedblleft}A Matter of Timing\unmatched{202f}: Contrasting Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on Oxidative Stress Response in Shewanella oneidensis,{\textquotedblright} vol. 197, no. 22, pp. 3563--3572, 2015.
[2]\unmatched{0009}I. Pikaar, E. M. Likosova, S. Freguia, J. Keller, K. Rabaey, and Z. Yuan, {\textquotedblleft}Electrochemical abatement of hydrogen sulfide from waste streams,{\textquotedblright} Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 3389, no. November, pp. 00--00, 2014.
[3]\unmatched{0009}K. R. Eleni Vaiopoulou, Thomas Provijn, Antonin Prevoteau, Ilje Pikaar, {\textquotedblleft}Electrochemical sulfide removal and caustic recovery from spent caustic streams,{\textquotedblright} Water Res., vol. 92, pp. 38 -- 43, 2016.
[4]\unmatched{0009}R. A. Eberhard K{\"u}ster, Falk Dorusch, {\textquotedblleft}EFFECTS OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE TO VIBRIO FISCHERI , SCENEDESMUS VACUOLATUS , AND DAPHNIA MAGNA,{\textquotedblright} Environ. Toxicol. Chem., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2621--2629, 2005.},
  author       = {Ntagia, Eleftheria},
  keyword      = {CO2 fixation,homoacetogenesis,sulfide toxicity},
  language     = {eng},
  location     = {Vienna},
  title        = {TOWARDS SULFIDE RESISTANT BIOPRODUCTION; UNDERSTANDING SULFIDE TOXICITY DURING HOMOACETOGENIC FERMENTATION},
  year         = {2018},
}

Chicago
Ntagia, Eleftheria. 2018. “Towards Sulfide Resistant Bioproduction; Understanding Sulfide Toxicity During Homoacetogenic Fermentation.” In .
APA
Ntagia, E. (2018). TOWARDS SULFIDE RESISTANT BIOPRODUCTION; UNDERSTANDING SULFIDE TOXICITY DURING HOMOACETOGENIC FERMENTATION. Presented at the 5th International Symposium on Microbial Sulfur Metabolism (ISMSM-5).
Vancouver
1.
Ntagia E. TOWARDS SULFIDE RESISTANT BIOPRODUCTION; UNDERSTANDING SULFIDE TOXICITY DURING HOMOACETOGENIC FERMENTATION. 2018.
MLA
Ntagia, Eleftheria. “Towards Sulfide Resistant Bioproduction; Understanding Sulfide Toxicity During Homoacetogenic Fermentation.” 2018. Print.