Selective Inhibition by 2-Bromoethanesulfonate of Methanogenesis from Acetate in a Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestor

Zinder, Stephen H.; Anguish, T.; Cardwell, S. C.

doi:10.1128/aem.47.6.1343-1345.1984

Cited by 141 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the non-inhibited cul- In the presence of 2-bromoethanesulfonate, more acetate and less methane was formed than in non-inhibited cultures. The fermentation balance was shifted to the overall equations: These shifts in the fermentation balance indicate that bromoethane sulfonate inhibited the acetatecleaving methane bacteria more effectively than the hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria [20]. In hydroquinone-degrading cultures, some phenol accumulated in cultures with high bromoethane sulfonate additions.…”

Section: Stoichiometry and Chemistry Of Substrate Degradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methanogenic degradation of hydroquinone and catechol via reductive dehydroxylation to phenol

Szewzyk

Schink

1985

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fermentative degradation of hydroquinone, catechol, and phenol was demonstrated with nearly‐homogeneous mixed methanogenic cultures obtained from freshwater sediments and sewage sludge by enrichment with the respective phenolic substrates. Gram‐negative short rods predominated in these cultures, together with hydrogen‐ and acetate‐utilizing methanogens. Acetate and methane were the only degradation products. Bacteria enriched with hydroquinone or catechol also degraded phenol and p‐hydroxy‐benzoate, but not resorcinol or resorcylic acids. Phenol was formed as an intermediate during catechol and hydroquinone degradation, indicating that reductive dehydroxylation was the primary event in degradation of these substrates. Inhibition experiments with bromoethanesulfonate and acetylene indicated that catechol, hydroquinone, and phenol degradation depended on a syntrophic co‐operation of fermenting bacteria and hydrogen‐oxidizing methanogens.

show abstract

Section: Stoichiometry and Chemistry Of Substrate Degradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methanogenic degradation of hydroquinone and catechol via reductive dehydroxylation to phenol

Szewzyk

Schink

1985

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compounds that inhibit methanogenesis have been important in research to study pure cultures of methanogens (Ungerfeld et al 2004;Watkins et al 2012), carbon cycling in soils (Sugimoto and Wada 1993;Wu et al 2001), ruminal methanogens (Ungerfeld et al 2006;Zhou et al 2011b), dechlorination (Perkins et al 1994;Chiu and Lee 2001), mercury methylation (Han et al 2010;Avramescu et al 2011), production of volatile fatty acids (Zhang et al 2013;Jung et al 2015), anaerobic digestion (Zinder et al 1984;Navarro et al 2014), and the degradation of nitrosamines (Tezel et al 2011) and methanethiol (Sun et al 2015). Further, inhibitors have been useful in elucidating the activity of methanogens related to metal and metalloid methylation (Meyer et al 2008; Thomas et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is especially important given that a wide diversity of methanogenic inhibitors with varying properties and mechanisms of action are available. Methanogenic inhibitors can be divided into several categories (as reviewed by (Liu et al 2011)), including analogs of coenzyme M (Gunsalus et al 1978;Zinder et al 1984), inhibitors of methanopterin biosynthesis (Dumitru et al 2003), medium-and long-chain fatty acids (Prins et al 1972;Soliva et al 2003), nitrocompounds (Zhou et al 2011b), halogenated hydrocarbons (Denman et al 2007), ethylene (Oremland and Taylor 1975), acetylene (Oremland and Taylor 1975;Sprott et al 1982), and unsaturated analogs of propionate and butyrate (Ungerfeld et al 2003(Ungerfeld et al , 2004(Ungerfeld et al , 2006Zhou et al 2011b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaerobic microbial community response to methanogenic inhibitors 2‐bromoethanesulfonate and propynoic acid

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methanogenic inhibitors are often used to study methanogenesis in complex microbial communities or inhibit methanogens in the gastrointestinal tract of livestock. However, the resulting structural and functional changes in archaeal and bacterial communities are poorly understood. We characterized microbial community structure and activity in mesocosms seeded with cow dung and municipal wastewater treatment plant anaerobic digester sludge after exposure to two methanogenic inhibitors, 2‐bromoethanesulfonate (BES) and propynoic acid (PA). Methane production was reduced by 89% (0.5 mmol/L BES), 100% (10 mmol/LBES), 24% (0.1 mmol/LPA), and 95% (10 mmol/LPA). Using modified primers targeting the methyl‐coenzyme M reductase (mcrA) gene, changes in mcrA gene expression were found to correspond with changes in methane production and the relative activity of methanogens. Methanogenic activity was determined by the relative abundance of methanogen 16S rRNA cDNA as a percentage of the total community 16S rRNA cDNA. Overall, methanogenic activity was lower when mesocosms were exposed to higher concentrations of both inhibitors, and aceticlastic methanogens were inhibited to a greater extent than hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Syntrophic bacterial activity, measured by 16S rRNA cDNA, was also reduced following exposure to both inhibitors, but the overall structure of the active bacterial community was not significantly affected.

show abstract

“…The current laboratory-scale study demonstrated that 1-g L −1 slurry (and perhaps lower) rates of Na 2 S 2 O 8 could significantly reduce CH 4 production when compared with untreated slurries. The highest rate (9 g L −1 slurry) of Na 2 S 2 O 8 tested had almost similar effects to 0.05 mole L −1 slurry of BES, a known inhibitor that can stop both the hydrogenotrophic and aceticlastic methanogenesis (Zinder et al, 1984). Despite its impressive effect in mitigating CH 4 production, BES is highly expensive (e.g., US$0.92 for 1 g L −1 slurry) when compared with the chemical oxidants (e.g., <US$0.06 for 1 g L −1 of Na 2 S 2 O 8 or KMnO 4 ) (ebiochem, China).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…By including Na 2 S 2 O 8 (98%, Fisher Scientific), the current incubation experiment was set using different rates (R1 = 1, R2 = 3, R3 = 6, or R4 = 9 g or mL L −1 slurry) of KMnO 4 , Na 2 S 2 O 8 , 3% NaOCl, or their combinations (1:1:1, g, g, mL) to assess potential impacts on the abundance of methanogens and bacteria in stored liquid dairy manure. In addition to untreated manure (negative control), manure treated with 0.05 mol L −1 sodium 2-bromoethanesulfonate (BES) (98%, Sigma-Aldrich), which is known to stop both hydrogenotrophic and aceticlastic methanogenesis (Zinder et al, 1984), was used as a positive control. As a reference point, an acidification treatment was also included.…”

Section: Experimental Design and Manure Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sodium Persulfate and Potassium Permanganate Inhibit Methanogens and Methanogenesis in Stored Liquid Dairy Manure

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stored liquid dairy manure is a hotspot for methane (CH) emission, thus effective mitigation strategies are required. We assessed sodium persulfate (NaSO), potassium permanganate (KMnO), and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) for impacts on the abundance of microbial communities and CH production in liquid dairy manure. Liquid dairy manure treated with different rates (1, 3, 6, and 9 g or mL L slurry) of these chemicals or their combinations were incubated under anoxic conditions at 22.5 ± 1.3°C for 120 d. Untreated and sodium 2-bromoethanesulfonate (BES)-treated manures were included as negative and positive controls, respectively, whereas sulfuric acid (HSO)-treated manure was used as a reference. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify the abundances of bacteria and methanogens on Days 0, 60, and 120. Headspace CH/CO ratios were used as a proxy to determine CH production. Unlike bacterial abundance, methanogen abundance and CH/CO ratios varied with treatments. Addition of 1 to 9 g L slurry of NaSO and KMnO reduced methanogen abundance (up to ∼28%) and peak CH/CO ratios (up to 92-fold). Except at the lowest rate, chemical combinations also reduced the abundance of methanogens (up to ∼17%) and CH/CO ratios (up to ninefold), although no impacts were observed when 3% NaOCl was used alone. With slurry acidification, the ratios reduced up to twofold, whereas methanogen abundance was unaffected. Results suggest that NaSO and KMnO may offer alternative options to reduce CH emission from stored liquid dairy manure, but this warrants further assessment at larger scales for environmental impacts and characteristics of the treated manure.

show abstract

Selective Inhibition by 2-Bromoethanesulfonate of Methanogenesis from Acetate in a Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestor

Cited by 141 publications

References 10 publications

Methanogenic degradation of hydroquinone and catechol via reductive dehydroxylation to phenol

Methanogenic degradation of hydroquinone and catechol via reductive dehydroxylation to phenol

Anaerobic microbial community response to methanogenic inhibitors 2‐bromoethanesulfonate and propynoic acid

Sodium Persulfate and Potassium Permanganate Inhibit Methanogens and Methanogenesis in Stored Liquid Dairy Manure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About