2011
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1106032108
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Carbon and sulfur back flux during anaerobic microbial oxidation of methane and coupled sulfate reduction

Abstract: The authors note that on page E1484, right column, first full paragraph, line 8, "the anaerobic oxidation of methane with sulfate (AOM) (1)" should instead appear as "the anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) with sulfate (1)."Also on page E1484, right column, Eq. 2 and its explanation appeared incorrectly. The corrected equation and its corrected explanation appear below.[2](Index e indicates activity ratio applying for equilibrium, viz. ΔG = 0; {H 2 O} is taken as 1) and thus one of the least exergonic proces… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
117
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(125 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
7
117
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The seep sediments used in these experiments were selected because they (or adjacent cores) were shown to have active net anaerobic oxidation of methane; however, the methane concentration results from our experiments suggest some additional, if slight, production of methane of about 100 μM in all nonkilled bottles (Fig. 1B), maybe due to back reaction of AOM process, as suggested by Holler et al (47) and Yoshinaga et al (62). It seems also that methane was released by diffusion from the slurries to the headspace in all bottles, explaining the increase in methane concentration after the initial first day measurement also in the killed bottles (63).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…The seep sediments used in these experiments were selected because they (or adjacent cores) were shown to have active net anaerobic oxidation of methane; however, the methane concentration results from our experiments suggest some additional, if slight, production of methane of about 100 μM in all nonkilled bottles (Fig. 1B), maybe due to back reaction of AOM process, as suggested by Holler et al (47) and Yoshinaga et al (62). It seems also that methane was released by diffusion from the slurries to the headspace in all bottles, explaining the increase in methane concentration after the initial first day measurement also in the killed bottles (63).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…Therefore, AOM coupled to nitrite reduction could be more likely to occur than AOM coupled to sulfate reduction in freshwater habitats. Moreover, nitrogen input to marine ecosystems via river runoff has been increasing, providing electron acceptors (nitrite/nitrate) for AOM other than sulfate which is thought to be the most common electron acceptor for AOM in anoxic marine environments (27,28). Therefore, the n-damo process may be globally important and has the potential to be an important methane sink in natural ecosystems due to increasing nitrogen pollution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, clumped isotopologue data also assist in diagnosing presence or absence of isotope exchange during enzymatic abstraction of H from methane by MMO, and are consistent with a minor (not detectable) degree of reversibility for this process. The minor degree of reversibility indicated by the data for aerobic methane oxidation here contrasts sharply with the anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM), an oxidation process in which much greater degrees of reversibility 4For example, when methane effuses through a small orifice, γ (when defined as the ratio of the isotopologue fractionation factor for have been demonstrated using carbon and hydrogen isotopes (Holler et al, 2011;Yoshinaga et al, 2014). The environmental implications are discussed in § 4.4.2.2.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Next, we used this framework to place constraints on the origins of methane at two sites of present-day serpentinization in Phanerozoic ophiolites [The Cedars (Morrill et al, 2013) enables the differentiation of methane that has been formed at extremely low rates in the subsurface (Pohlman et al, 2009;Bates et al, 2011;Holler et al, 2011) from methane formed in cattle and surface environments in which methanogenesis proceeds at comparatively high rates (Johnson and Johnson, 1995;Varadharajan and Hemond, 2012).…”
Section: Main Textmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation