Antibiotic and Heavy Metal Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aegean Sea Water and Sediment in Güllük Bay, Turkey

Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2020, 64, (4), 507

1. Introduction

In the era of Industry 4.0, with global climate change, increasing population and developing technology, the spread of heavy metal pollutants in aquatic areas is increasing. Bacterial resistance and metal accumulation capability are common phenomena that can be exploited for the bioremediation of the environment, hence these resistant bacteria may be potential candidates for biotechnological applications. Despite the risks caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, heavy metal-resistant bacteria can be used in detoxification processes to convert a toxic form to a harmless form of a substance by developing biotransformation mechanisms. Bioremediation studies have been carried out to identify candidate species (14).

In recent years, the increase in pollution by toxic compounds and heavy metals in marine areas makes it increasingly important to study the relationships between bacteria and toxic compounds. Studies related to the transformation of compounds into different forms via bacterial metabolic processes for the removal of toxic substances from the environment have gained importance. Detection of bacteria that are resistant to heavy metals in natural environments constitutes the first step to provide data for remediation studies.

Bacteria are some of the most important components in marine ecosystems. Since bacteria adapt to new conditions created by environmental variables around them, knowledge of bacteria provides data in terms of defining environmental factors, public health status and ecosystem function. Marine areas are exposed to domestic and industrial wastes depending on local technology levels and population. Many xenobiotic micro pollutants, antibiotic derivatives and metabolites reach the sea from human activity. This concerning issue is considered an important factor for global health with respect to the evolution and detection of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens (5). Since the spread of antimicrobial resistance is not restricted by phylogenetic, geographic or ecological borders, studies describing regional status of bacterial resistance in natural areas are important.

Antibiotic resistance can spread rapidly among bacterial species (6). It is known that the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in natural environments reduces the effectiveness of antibiotics in the treatment of infectious diseases. Due to the increasing global resistance of bacteria against antibiotics, humanity is constantly being forced to develop new antibiotic derivatives. This vicious circle is one of the most important problems of our age and poses a threat for the future. Thus, it is important to know the resistance levels of bacteria and to produce regional antibiotic resistance profiles in natural areas. Aquatic environments constitute a way to disseminate not only antibiotic-resistant bacteria but also the resistant genes in natural bacterial habitats (7). It has been well documented that the aquatic environment is a potential reservoir of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, furthermore the prevalence and persistence of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens is a threat and a source of considerable concern to public health (815). It is known that environmental factors such as overpopulation, livestock farming, insufficient drainage and sanitation infrastructure may provide hotspots for environmental antibiotic-resistant bacteria transmission (16).

In aquatic environments, antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be accompanied by heavy metal-resistant bacteria that are often induced by the presence of metal caused by anthropogenic activities and environmental factors (16, 17). Heavy metals are introduced into the marine environment in different ways. Accumulation in sediment can affect aquatic life negatively for a long time. Bacteria that will take part in the transformation of heavy metal salts into harmless forms must be resistant to the heavy metals. Bacteria that cannot adapt to the changes metabolically will be eliminated and therefore various pollution inputs accumulated in the sediment will affect the composition of microbial diversity. Sediments containing harmful, inorganic or organic particles are relatively heterogeneous in terms of physical, chemical and biological properties and are an important source of heavy metal contamination (11). It has been reported that microplastics mediate the spread of metal- and antibiotic-resistant pathogens due to their ability to adsorb various pollutants (18, 19). Bacteria resistant to heavy metals in marine areas have developed various resistance mechanisms to counteract heavy metal stress. Only bacteria that can withstand the current heavy metal concentration can survive in these areas.

Heavy metals accumulate in biota via food chains and are transferred between organisms in marine environments. This cumulative process, named biomagnification, is higher in the sea than in terrestrial environments (15, 20) and this implies significant effects of heavy metal pollution in marine areas. On the other hand, heavy metal-resistant bacteria can play a role in detoxification by converting a toxic form into a harmless form through biotransformation mechanisms that develop in natural environments. These mechanisms include the formation and sequestration of heavy metals in complexes and the reduction of a metal to a less toxic species (21, 22).

Metal-resistant bacteria have developed very efficient and varying mechanisms for tolerating high levels of toxic metals and thus they carry an important potential for controlling heavy metal pollution (23). In many prokaryotes, it has been shown that the mechanism for resisting heavy metals develops over time. This process has been studied in species such as Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. It is reported that many different species of Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Providencia and Chryseobacterium are efficient for reducing heavy metals (14).

It is known that the occurrence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and heavy metal salts in the sea is related to the pollutants present in the environment. For the reasons highlighted above, it is important to determine the profile of antibiotic and heavy metal-resistant bacteria in marine environments. Marine areas which have different environmental inputs present novel media for bacterial studies.

For the present study, the Güllük Bay of the Aegean Sea, Turkey, was chosen since it is a dynamic area due to marine transportation, seasonal population growth depending on tourism, aquaculture, recreational and agricultural activities and terrestrial pollution inputs transported from rivers.

Probable faecal source analysis conducted in Güllük Bay showed that the primary source of the detected bacteriological pollution is anthropogenic (24). A significant part of domestic wastewater in the region collects in sealed septic tanks. It is possible for the wastewater to reach the sea by mixing the sedimentary septic tanks with groundwater. Chemical and biological studies (2433) confirm that regional pollutants have reached Güllük Bay.

It is well known that sewage transported via domestic wastewater carries antibiotics to marine environments. This has an effect on metabolic capabilities of bacteria in marine environments. For example, β-lactam antibiotic derivatives used for human infection treatment may enter marine environments via domestic wastewater. Bacteria may obtain resistance via intercellular contact mostly using a conjugation mechanism (34). The existence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is an indicator of domestic pollution. Furthermore, antibiotic-resistant bacteria may cause a vicious cycle. This problem has grown in recent years due to systematic use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and overuse of antibiotics (35, 36).

The frequencies of heavy metal-resistant bacteria and antibiotic-resistant bacteria were investigated in seawater and sediment samples collected from Güllük Bay in the period between May 2011 and February 2013.

2. Material and Methods

2.1 Sampling Area

Güllük Bay is an important location due to its natural resources. The region is open to different environmental influences and inputs due to tourism, port activities, marine transportation, domestic and industrial wastes and fish farms. The bay is also affected by the presence of Sarıçay Creek, Kazıklı Port, Güllük Port and Akbük Port (2426). Fish farms were operated in Güllük Bay until 2008. Although they have been relocated away from the coastal regions to an offshore area, the indirect effects of this long-time pollution may have contributed to the sediment.

The export of feldspar and bauxite from the region has been conducted from ports within the borders of Güllük Bay. The port is mainly used by dry cargo and other cargo-type ships. It is reported that an annual average of 800,000 tonnes of ballast water is transported to the bay from 157 different ports. The amount of ballast water carried is reported as: 68% from the Mediterranean, 21% from the Aegean Sea, 7% from the Sea of Marmara, 2% from the Atlantic Ocean and 1% from the Black Sea and Red Sea, respectively (37). The operation of many tourism-oriented boats in Güllük Bay is also among the possible polluters of the bay due to bilge water and wastewater. More than half of Turkey’s sea bream and sea bass production was in farms operating in the coastal areas of the Güllük Bay for many years. These farms have been operating in the offshore areas of the region for the past 10 years. The domestic wastewater of the human population, reaching approximately 50,000 around the region in the summer months, and the wastes of small industrial establishments such as yogurt, yeast and olive oil producers that directly reach streams are the other main sources of pollution in Güllük Bay. The population of the Bodrum peninsula, which is 25,000 in winter, can reach 1,500,000 in summer (27). The change in the population between the seasons was among the biggest pollution sources according to the terrestrial bioindicator bacteria distribution in coastal areas in the region (24, 26).

Sampling stations were selected to represent tourist areas (G1, G5, G7, G8); harbours (G4, G6); fresh water entry-exit points of the Sarıçay Creek (G9); fish farms (G11, G12, G13); and the deepest point in the bay as a reference station (G14). Figure 1 shows the location of Güllük Bay and the sampling stations.

Fig. 1

Location of Güllük Bay and seawater (0–30 cm surface, mid-point and bottom-point) and sediment sampling stations

Location of Güllük Bay and seawater (0–30 cm surface, mid-point and bottom-point) and sediment sampling stations

2.2 Sampling

Seawater and sediment samples were collected from 12 different sampling stations in Güllük Bay between May 2011 and February 2013. Three units of seawater samples were taken from each station at surface (0–30 cm), mid-point and bottom-point water (Figure 1). In each sampling process covering 12 stations, 36 seawater samples were collected. In the spring and summer months monthly, at other times seasonally, a total of 432 seawater samples were collected in the period between May 2011 and February 2013. The seawater samples were collected using a Nansen bottle that was cleaned with acid (10% HCl in distilled water), sterilised with alcohol (50:50, v/v) and rinsed with sterile water. The seawater samples were then transferred into brown sterile glass bottles and transported to the laboratory as a cold chain.

Surface sediment samples were collected using Ekman grab (HYDRO-BIOS Apparatebau GmbH, Germany, 15 × 15) from the sampling stations which have various depths from 8 m to 66 m (Figure 1). A total of 144 units of sediment samples were collected during the two-year study from 12 stations (one from each station). The sediment samples were transferred into sterile zip seal bags from Ekman grab and transferred in the cold chain to the laboratory.

2.3 Bacterial Isolation and Identification

Bacterial heavy metal and antibiotic resistance were tested in heterotrophic aerobic bacteria isolated from seawater and sediment samples. Heavy metal and antibiotic resistance of indicator bacteria (faecal coliform, coliform and faecal Streptococcus) isolated from the seawater samples were also tested.

2.3.1 Seawater Samples

Indicator bacteria and heterotrophic aerobic bacteria analyses were performed on the seawater samples. The membrane filtration technique was used to detect indicator bacteria. A sample containing 300 ml seawater was diluted serially (10−5 dilution) and filtered through membrane filters (0.45 μm, Sartorius AG, Göttingen, Germany). The filters were placed on m-Endo, m-FC and m-Azide media (Sartorius AG). The plates were incubated for 24 h (at 37 ± 0.1°C; at 44 ± 0.1°C for m-FC). Brown‐red colonies growing on the azide medium were considered as suspicious faecal Streptococcus, blue colonies growing on the m-FC medium as suspicious faecal coliform and yellow-green colonies with yellow-metallic gloss on the m-Endo medium as suspicious coliform. Cytochrome oxidase test (API® 20 Strep, bioMérieux, France) was performed on suspicious coliform colonies and oxidase negative colonies were evaluated numerically. Cytochrome oxidase (API® 20 Strep, bioMérieux) and indole tests were performed on the suspicious colonies of faecal coliform.

Colonies with oxidase negative and indole positive results were evaluated as faecal coliform. Suspicious Streptococcus colonies, to which the catalase test was applied (1 ml, 3% H2O2), were incubated on Bile Esculin Agar (BEA) for 18 h at 37°C for esculin hydrolysis and 40% bile resistance control. Blackening in the medium and the formation of black shadow around the colony, positive of esculin hydrolysis, and the number of colonies showing growth in the medium were evaluated as 40% bile resistant, and catalase negative and breeding colonies in BEA were evaluated as faecal Streptococcus. Counted colonies were multiplied by the 10−5 dilution factor to determine the number of colony forming units (CFU) 100 ml−1 in the original sample (38).

The spread plate technique was used for heterotrophic aerobic bacteria analyses in seawater. Seawater samples 0.1 ml with 10−5 dilution were used for duplicate spreading on the DifcoTM Marine Agar 2216 (Becton, Dickinson and Company, USA) and the plates were incubated for five days at 22 ± 0.1°C. At the end of the incubating period, counted colonies were multiplied by the 10−5 dilution factor to determine the number of CFU ml−1 in the original sample. An average of 10 different colonies were picked and restreaked several times to obtain pure cultures. The pure isolates were Gram-stained. For identification of spore-forming bacilli, the isolates were stained with Indian ink according to the negative staining technique and were evaluated using a light microscope (Nikon E110, Nikon, Japan). The isolates were then tested using Gram‐negative fermenting and non‐fermenting bacilli (GN), Gram-positive cocci and non-spore-forming bacilli (GP) and Gram‐positive spore-forming bacilli (BCL) cards in the automated micro identification system VITEK® 2 Compact 30 (bioMérieux) (39).

2.3.2 Sediment Samples

The spread plate technique was used for heterotrophic aerobic bacteria analyses in sediment samples. Each sediment sample was mixed and homogenised. Then 1 g sample was taken from each and serially diluted with sterile commercial seawater. 0.1 ml samples of 10−5 dilutions were taken and spread on DifcoTM Marine Agar 2216. The plates were incubated for five days at 22 ± 0.1°C. Growing colonies were evaluated as CFU g−1 (40). Further processes related to heterotrophic bacteria identification were continued by using VITEK® 2 Compact 30 similarly to the seawater samples described above.

2.4 Bacterial Resistance Against Antibiotics

The antibiotic resistance of the isolates was examined by the Kirby–Bauer method with slight modifications. Two or three colonies of each isolate were suspended with 5 ml of DifcoTM Marine Broth 2216 and diluted with sterile water against the 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard to approximately 106 cells ml−1 and swabbed as 2 ml on DifcoTM Marine Agar 2216. Antibiotic discs (Oxoid, UK) containing ampicillin (10 μg), nitrofurantoin (300 μg), oxytetracycline (30 μg), sulfonamide (300 μg), rifampicin (2 μg), tetracycline (10 μg) and tetracycline (30 μg) were incubated for two to three days at 37°C. The results were interpreted according to the guidelines of the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) (41). All isolates that showed resistance were classified as ‘resistant’. Other isolates that did not show resistance were classified as ‘sensitive’ or ‘susceptible’.

2.4.1 Multiple Antibiotic Resistance

The multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index of a given sample was calculated by the equation: a/(bc), where a represents the aggregate antibiotic resistance score of all isolates from a sample; b is the total number of isolates; and c is the number of isolates from a sample (42). Bacterial isolates that displayed resistance to three or more antibiotic agents were designated as multiple antibiotic resistant (ranging from two to 10).

2.5 Bacterial Resistance Against Heavy Metal Salts

Different concentrations (50 μg ml−1, 100 μg ml−1, 150 μg ml−1, 200 μg ml−1 and 250 μg ml−1) of heavy metal salts (FeSO4, ZnSO4, CuSO4, Cr2(SO4)3 and Pb(NO3)2) were used to test the bacteria resistivity against iron, zinc, copper, chromium and lead. The microdilution method was followed with minor modifications to determine the resistance of isolates to heavy metals (43). Stock solutions of metal salts prepared in distilled water were sterilised by filtration (0.20 μm). In U-well microtiter plates, serial dilutions of heavy metals were prepared and then each well was inoculated with bacteria inoculation. The OxoidTM Turbidometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, USA) provides the inoculum density standardisation for 0.5 McFarland which is necessary to ensure accurate reproducible results. Before the addition of bacterial inoculation, no precipitation was seen. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h and then examined for visual turbidity. The lowest concentration of the metal salt, at which growth was inhibited (indicated by lack of turbidity), was taken as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (44) Samples of 10 μl were drawn from each well without turbidity and were subcultured on agar plates to determine bactericidal concentration.

Reference strains of Escherichia coli (ATCC® 25922TM), Salmonella enterica (ATCC® 2577TM) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC® 12228TM) which are susceptible to Cu2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cr2+ and Fe3+ and metal-free plates were used in the control tests to evaluate the viability of the strains and culture media. All of the experiments were carried out in triplicate.

3. Results

3.1 Bacterial Resistance Against Antibiotics

Table I shows the antibiotic-resistant, intermediate or susceptible bacteria species isolated from the seawater and sediment samples in this study.

Table I

Antibiotic Resistant, Intermediate or Susceptible Bacteria Species Isolated from Seawater and Sediment

Sample Order/class tested (%) Bacterial isolates tested (n) Antibioticsa
AM (10 μg) TE (30 μg) S (300 μg) TE (10 μg) RD (2 μg) F/M (300 μg) OT (30 μg)
Seawater Proteobacteria/Alpha proteobacteria (27%) Brevundimonas diminuta (3) R: 66.7%I: 33.3%S: 0.0% R: 33.3%I: 0.0%S: 66.7% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 33.3%I: 33.3%S: 33.3% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.7%I: 33.3%S: 0.0%
Brevundimonas vesicularis (4) R: 75%I: 0.0%S: 25% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 25%I: 0.0%S: 75%
Sphingomonas paucimobilis (38) R: 71.05%I: 2.63%S: 26.31% R: 31.57%I: 5.26%S: 63.15% R: 97.38%I: 0.0%S: 2.63% R: 42.10%I: 7.89%S: 50% R: 97.36%I: 0.0%S: 2.63% R: 60.52%I: 0.0%S: 39.47% R: 26.31%I: 34.21%S: 39.47%
Sphingomonas thalpophilum (4) R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0%I: 25%S: 75% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 75%I: 0%S: 25% R: 25%I: 25%S: 50%
Proteobacteria/Beta proteobacteria (%) Burkholderia cepacia (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100%
Burkholderia mallei (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Neisseria animaloris (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0% S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Proteobacteria/Gamma proteobacteria (53%) Acinetobacter lwoffii (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0%
Aeromonas hydrophila (4) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 0.0%I: 50%S: 50%
Aeromonas salmonicida (4) R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50%
Aeromonas sobria (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0%
Aeromonas veronii (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0% S: 100%
Citrobacter sedlakii (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Cronobacter dublinensis subsp. lausannensis (3) R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Enterobacter aerogenes (6) R: 33.3%I: 33.3%S: 33.3% R: 33.3%I: 0.0%S: 66.6% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 33.3%I: 0.0%S: 66.6% R: 33.3%I: 66.6%S: 0.0%
Enterobacter cloacae subsp. dissolvens (4) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100%
Enterobacter cloacae (4) R: 0.0%I: 50%S: 50% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100%
Enterobacter cloacae complex (4) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 50%S: 0%
Escherichia coli (30) R: 78.5%I: 10.7%S: 10.7% R: 71.4%I: 10.7%S: 17.8% R: 92.9%I: 3.5%S: 3.5% R: 89.3%I: 0.0%S: 10.7% R: 100.0%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100.0%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 75%I: 0.0%S: 25%
Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. ozaenae (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Pasteurella canis (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100%
Proteus vulgaris group Proteus penneri (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 90.91%I: 0.0%S: 9.09% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 90.91%I: 0.0%S: 9.09% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 90.91%I: 0.0%S: 9.09% R: 90.91%I: 0.0%S: 9.09%
Raoultella ornithinolytica (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100%
Raoultella ytica (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Serratia marcescens (5) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.4% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.4% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.4%
Shewanella putrefaciens (13) R: 81.81%I: 0.0%S: 18.18% R: 45.45%I: 18.18%S: 36.36% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 72.72%I: 0.0%S: 27.27% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 63.63%I: 0.0%S: 36.36% R: 54.54%I: 36.36%S: 9.06%
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (7) R: 80%I: 0.0%S: 20% R: 40%I: 0.0%S: 60% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 20%I: 50%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 20%I: 0.0%S: 80%
Vibrio vulnificus (4) R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 50%S: 50%
Enterococcus faecium (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Firmicutes/Bacilli (9%) Alicyclobacillus acidocaldarius (3) R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0%
Bacillus cereus (7) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 60%I: 0.0%S: 40% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 80%I: 20%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 60%I: 20%S: 20%
Bacillus pumilus (5) R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3%
Staphylococcus xylosus (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Staphylococcus aureus (3) R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Staphylococcus warneri (5) R: 33.3%I: 0.0%S: 66.7% R: 33.4%I: 0.0%S: 66.7% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 33.3%I: 66.7%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 33.3%I: 0.0%S: 66.7%
Bacteroidetes/Flavobacteriia (8%) Chryseobacterium indologenes (13) R: 54.54%I: 18.18%S: 27.27% R: 36.36%I: 0.0%S: 63.63% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 45.45%I: 0.0%S: 54.54% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 54.54%I: 0.0%S: 45.45% R: 45.45%I: 18.18%S: 36.36%
Myroides spp. (5) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.6%I: 0.0%S: 33.3%
Actinobacteria/Actinomycetales (3%) Dermacoccus nishinomiyaensis (3) R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100%
Kocuria kristinae (4) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50%
Kocuria varians (3) R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 0.0%I: 0.0%S: 100% R: 0.0%I: 1000%S: 0.0%
Micrococcus luteus (4) R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 50%I: 0.0%S: 50% R: 0.0%I: 100%S: 0.0%
Sediment Proteobacteria/Alpha proteobacteria (7%) Brevundimonas diminuta (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Sphingomonas paucimobilis (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Sphingomonas thalpophilum (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Proteobacteria/Beta proteobacteria (7%) Neisseria animaloris (3) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Chromobacterium violaceum (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Proteobacteria/Gamma proteobacteria (43%) Aeromonas caviae (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Aeromonas sobria (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (1) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Serratia marcescens (5) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Shewanella algae (15) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Shewanella putrefaciens (11) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Vibrio alginolyticus (14) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3% R: 66.7%I: 0.0%S: 33.3%
Vibrio fluvialis (11) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Vibrio parahaemolyticus (13) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Vibrio vulnificus (11) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Firmicutes/Bacilli (34%) Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris (11) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Bacillus cereus (23) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Bacillus pumilus (11) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Lactococcus garvieae (13) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Bacteroidetes/Flavobacteriia (7%) Chryseobacterium indologenes (12) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Myroides spp. (12) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%
Actinobacteria/Actinomycetales (2%) Micrococcus lylae (11) R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0% R: 100%I: 0.0%S: 0.0%

Bacterial species isolated from the seawater samples showed considerable resistance to rifampicin (98%), sulfonamide (98%) and ampicillin (76%) and considerable sensitivity to tetracycline-30 μg (52%), tetracycline-10 μg (39%) and oxytetracycline (33%). Almost all the bacterial species isolated from sediment samples showed resistance to rifampicin (100%), sulfonamide (100%), ampicillin (100%), nitrofurantoin (98%), tetracycline-30 μg (100%), tetracycline-10 μg (100%) and oxytetracycline (98%) while they showed almost no sensitivity to antibiotics except nitrofurantoin (2%) and oxytetracycline (2%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa (24%) and Sphingomonas paucimobilis (20%), isolated from seawater samples, showed higher resistance to antibiotics than did Raoultella oxytica, Staphylococcus xylosus, Kocuria kristinae, Aeromonas salmonicida and Proteus vulgaris strains. On the contrary, Aeromonas caviae, Alicyclobacillusacidoterrestris, Brevundimonas diminuta, Chryseobacterium indologenes, Lactococcus garvieae, Neisseria animaloris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, Shewanella algae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolates from the sediment samples showed resistance to all antibiotics (Table I).

The highest number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria were detected from the sediment samples. The frequency of resistant bacteria (%) to oxytetracycline (30 μg), nitrofurantoin (300 μg), rifampicin (2 μg), tetracycline (10 μg), tetracycline (30 μg), sulfonamide (300 μg) and ampicillin (10 μg) from the seawater and sediment samples are shown in Figure 2. The frequencies of antibiotic resistance in bacteria species from seawater and sediment samples are shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 2

The frequency of bacteria resistant to specific antibiotics (%) in the seawater and sediment samples

The frequency of bacteria resistant to specific antibiotics (%) in the seawater and sediment samples

Fig 3

The frequencies of antibiotic resistance in bacteria species from (a) seawater samples and (b) sediment samples

The frequencies of antibiotic resistance in bacteria species from (a) seawater samples and (b) sediment samples

A total of 258 and 158 isolates were tested against antibiotics from seawater and sediment samples, respectively. The frequencies of resistance against seven antibiotics in bacteria species isolated from the seawater samples were recorded as 49% in Gammaproteobacteria, 22% in Alphaproteobacteria, 3% in Betaproteobacteria, 14% in Bacilli, 8% in Flavobacteriia and 4% in Actinomycetales. The resistance frequencies against seven antibiotics in bacteria isolated from the sediment samples were recorded as 43% in Gammaproteobacteria, 34% in Bacilli, 7% in Alphaproteobacteria, 7% in Betaproteobacteria, 7% in Flavobacteriia and 2% in Actinomycetales.

3.2 Multiple Antibiotic Resistance Indexes

The MAR index was calculated for each of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria. If the MAR index is lower than 0.2, it shows a non-point based source of pollution and if it is higher than 0.2 it shows point‐based pollution and a high risk of contamination by excessive antibiotic presence (23). Table II shows the MAR indexes.

Table II

Multiple Antibiotic Resistance Indexes and Resistance Ratios

Number of antibiotics to which bacteria show resistance MAR Index Resistance, % p-value
1 0.0052 0.75187 0.3635
2 0.0104 18.0451 0.6513
3 0.0022 12.7819 0.1323
4 0.0294 12.7819 0.1325
5 0.048 9.7744 0.3635
6 0.0576 14.2857 0.4084
7 0.0208 31.57894 0.1234

The MAR indexes of the study showed possible exposure of these bacterial isolates to the tested antibiotics. The MAR index of bacteria isolated from all stations around fish farm areas (0.0576) was 2.6 times greater than the MAR index for the combined non-fish farm areas (0.022).

3.3 Bacterial Resistance Against Heavy Metals

The frequencies of heavy metal resistance in the bacteria species isolated from the seawater samples were recorded as 76.72% in Gammaproteobacteria, 71.82% in Alphaproteobacteria, 80.01% in Bacilli, 56.92% in Flavobacteriia and 75% in Actinomycetales. The frequencies of resistance to Cu2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cr2+ and Fe2+ were detected as an average of 58.3%, 33.8%, 32.1%, 31.0% and 25.2% respectively in 258 bacterial strains isolated from seawater samples.

The frequencies of heavy metal resistance in bacteria species isolated from the sediment samples were recorded as 100% in Alphaproteobacteria, 100% in Betaproteobacteria, 97.5% in Flavobacteriia, 95% in Gammaproteobacteria, 72.5% in Bacilli and 66.6% in Actinomycetales. The frequencies of resistance to Cu2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cr2+ and Fe2+ were detected as an average of 33.3%, 30.3%, 25.5%, 35.3% and 28.4% respectively in 158 strains isolated from the sediment samples.

The frequencies of heavy metal-resistant bacteria isolated from sediment samples were higher than the frequencies of heavy metal-resistant bacteria isolated from the seawater samples. Table III shows the heavy metal resistance in bacteria isolates from seawater and sediment in Güllük Bay.

Table III

Heavy Metal Resistance in Bacteria Species from Seawater and Sediment in Güllük Bay, Turkey

Heavy metals Sampling sides Metal concentrations, μg ml−1 Isolates Resistant isolates
0.8 1.6 3.1 6.5 12.5 25 50 100 200 >200 n n %
Cu2+ Seawater 3 3 3 7 8 9 10 11 6 258 149 58.3
Sediment 7 4 9 3 6 17 17 29 11 158 53 33.3
Zn2+ Seawater 3 6 4 9 8 7 11 8 2 258 86 33.8
Sediment 4 2 2 8 4 19 36 22 6 158 48 30.3
Pb2+ Seawater 1 8 2 7 7 10 11 12 2 258 82 32.1
Sediment 1 9 4 4 3 18 13 23 17 158 40 25.5
Cr2+ Seawater 3 2 7 4 6 7 12 6 4 16 258 79 31.0
Sediment 3 4 5 8 4 9 11 10 27 32 158 56 35.3
Fe2+ Seawater 1 2 9 24 15 6 258 67 25.2
Sediment 3 13 3 5 9 15 24 29 158 45 28.4
Total number of tested isolates 416

The MICs of the isolates ranged from 0.004 mM to 2.5 mM. The isolates from sediment samples obtained from stations close to fish farms showed higher frequency of resistance against chromium, copper and zinc than other stations. The highest resistance (MIC value: 2.5 mM) was displayed against Cr+ by all isolates. Bacillus isolates showed a higher resistance to chromium, lead and copper than Pseudomonas isolates, and Vibrio isolates showed higher resistance to zinc, copper and chromium than Escherichia coli. Tolerance to the maximum MIC (>2.5 mM) for chromium was 10.1% for Bacillus and 0.8% for Pseudomonas isolates. Bacillus isolates from sediment samples showed higher resistance to chromium, lead, iron and copper than Klebsiella spp. and Escherichia coli strains from seawater samples. Similarly, Shewanella spp. and Serratia spp. strains from the sediment samples also showed higher resistance than the species mentioned above.

4. Discussion

Indicator bacteria levels reported in Güllük Bay and the presence of pathogenic bacteria (25, 26) support the relationship between the resistance data detected in the current study with bacteriological pollution levels. In the present study, bioindicator bacteria showing human-induced pollution input isolated from seawater had the highest frequency of resistance against nitrofurantoin (100%) and sulfonamide (95%). Sulfonamides were the first antibiotics developed for clinical use. Sulfonamides have been widely used to treat bacterial and protozoan infections in humans, domestic animals and fish since their introduction to clinical practice in 1935 (4547). The results of higher resistance against sulfonamide in the present study were similar to the findings of sulfonamide resistance in another study (48). For example, there were significant increases in numbers of bacteria resistant to oxytetracycline, oxolinic acid and florfenicol in sediments from an aquaculture site compared with those from a non-aquaculture control site. Interestingly, in another study a similar number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria were isolated from aquaculture and non-aquaculture sites (49). Gram-negative bacteria (predominantly Plesiomonas shigelloides and Aeromonas hydrophila) were isolated from aquaculture ponds in the south-eastern USA and it was reported that antibiotic resistance to tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chloramphenicol, ampicillin and nitrofurantoin were higher in antibiotic-treated ponds compared to non-treated rivers (50). It was determined that bacteria isolated from Sopot Beach, Poland, were resistant to ampicillin (51). A high percentage of bacteria were reported as resistant to streptomycin (100%), cefazolin (89.8%), ampicillin (83.7%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (69.4%), whereas a low percentage of bacteria were resistant to cefepime (12.3%) and meropenem (14.3%) in the aquaculture region of İskenderun Bay, Turkey (52).

In the current study, higher numbers of sulfonamide, rifampicin and ampicillin-resistant bacteria were recorded in the stations around aquaculture areas than other stations. Sphingomonas paucimobilis, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae isolated from both seawater and sediment at the stations around aquaculture areas had the highest levels of antibiotic resistance. The development of resistant pathogens in aquaculture environments is well documented (53, 54) and evidence of transfer of resistance encoding plasmids between aquaculture environments and humans has been presented recently (55). It has been reported that antibiotic‐resistant bacteria are present in a seafood ecosystem where antibiotics have never been used (56). This is interesting in terms of showing that aquaculture areas may be adversely affected by the presence of environmental antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

In the present study, a high percentage of the bacteria Sphingomonas paucimobilis were isolated, which was especially prevalent in Güllük Bay. The natural habitat of Sphingomonas has not been defined, but it is widely distributed in the natural environment especially in water and soil (57). The second most prevalent species were Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae. Escherichia coli is an indicator of faecal contamination in aquatic environments. Enterobacter cloacae is the most frequent species associated with nosocomial infections along with Klebsiella pneumoniae that is a growing problem in human healthcare. The highest number of Bacillus cereus was isolated from the sediment underneath fish farms. A few Bacilli of marine origin have been reported to produce unusual metabolites different from those isolated from terrestrial bacteria (58). Due to the ubiquity and ability of the Bacillus species to survive under difficult circumstances, Bacillus strains are considered to be species of certain habitats (59, 60). In the current study, Bacillus pumilus, B. thuringiensis, B. mycoides and B. cereus were isolated from the sediment samples of the stations around fish farms.

The high frequency of resistance among bacterial isolates in the present study confirms the earlier reports regarding the role of antimicrobial use that plays a role in selecting antibiotic-resistant bacteria in water and aquatic sediments (4652). Many previous studies have shown that the increases in antibiotic resistance in human medicine, agriculture and aquaculture are directly related to the amounts of antimicrobials used (6165).

Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are one of the most important public health concerns worldwide. Currently, MARs have been reported in a wide range of human pathogenic or opportunistic bacteria such as Vibrio sp. (66), Klebsiella pneumoniae (67), Salmonella sp. (68), Pseudomonas aeruginosa and also in pathogens (69, 70). Reservoirs of antibiotic resistance can interact between different ecological systems and potential transfer of resistant bacteria or resistant genes from animals to humans may occur through the food chain (70). In the current study, the MAR index of multiple antibiotic-resistant bacteria was found to be 2.6 times greater in the stations around fish farm areas (0.057) than the other stations (0.022).

Marine sediments offer more informative results than seawater about environmental pollution due to the accumulation of various pollutants at the bottom of the sea, therefore analysis of sediments is widely used in tests. The association of microorganisms with sediment particles is one of the primary factors in assessing microbial fate in aquatic systems. In this study, the bacteria isolated from sediment in all samples showed a higher resistance rate than bacteria isolated from seawater. Detection of higher antibiotic resistance in sediment bacteria than bacteria isolated from seawater showed that sediment bacteria were exposed to more antibiotics. Natural ecosystems containing high concentrations of heavy metals are also frequent. Heavy metal resistance genes are commonly found in environmental bacteria (71). The resistance to seven heavy metals has been reported in the order Cu > Mn > Ni > Zn > Pb > Cd > Fe for seawater bacteria isolated from the Golden Horn, Istanbul, Turkey (17). Heavy metal resistance in bacteria found in seawater from the Mediterranean has been reported as Cd > Cu > Cr = Pb > Mn; in Karataş, Turkey Cd > Cu > Cr = Mn > Pb; and İskenderun Bay, Cu > Cd > Mn > Cr > Pb (72).

In the present study, resistance to five different heavy metals (Zn2+, Pb2+, Cu2+, Cr3+ and Fe3+) were investigated for all isolates. Trends in heavy metal resistance vary depending on the sample sites: Güllük Bay, fish farm water column: Cu > Zn > Pb > Cr > Fe; sediment: Cr > Cu> Zn > Fe > Pb. Frequency of bacteria resistance to heavy metals shows the direct effects of metal pollution. Neisseria animaloris, Aeromonas caviae and Bacillus cereus isolated from sediment samples were the most tolerant of all the heavy metal salts. Chryseobacterium indologenes displayed the highest degree of sensitivity to all metal salts while Lactococcus garvieae showed the highest degree of sensitivity to Zn2+, Pb2+, Cu2+ and Fe3+. Kocuria kristinae, Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter lwoffii, which were isolated from the seawater underneath the fish farm, displayed similar sensitivities to all tested heavy metal salts. Resistances to heavy metals for Aeromonas and Pseudomonas isolates were similar to those from İskenderun Bay, with cadmium, 35.0% and 56.5%; copper, 98.3% and 75.4%; chromium, 38.3% and 31.9%; lead, 1.7% and 7.2%; manganese, 43.3% and 44.9%; and zinc 35.0% and 41.3%, respectively (72).

Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria can resist heavy metals (73). Resistance to toxic metals in bacteria probably reflects the level of environmental contamination with these substances and it may be related to the concentration of bacteria (74). The present project found heavy metal pollution in Güllük Bay sediment samples at all stations. In the sediment samples, the heavy metal contents were reported at varying rates: between 1 μg g−1 and 209 μg g−1 for lead; 10 μg g−1 and 259 μg g−1 for zinc; 1 μg g−1 and 59 μg g−1 for copper; 0.1 μg g−1 and 46 μg g−1 for chromium; <0.01 μg g−1 and 2.8 μg g−1 for cadmium; <0.01 μg g−1 and 0.4 μg g−1 for arsenic; and 0.6% and 5.9% for aluminium, respectively. The region was defined according to cadmium, lead and zinc levels as moderately polluted. Recorded high metal values were evaluated as an indicator of domestic and industrial inputs, carried via Sarıçay Creek, port operations and tourism activities within Güllük Bay (75). In the current study, the high frequencies of heavy metal-resistant bacteria detected in the sediment samples support this data. Bacterial heavy metal resistance detected in the study may depend on many factors. A possible explanation for differences in heavy metal resistance is the proximity of Güllük Bay to iron-steel factories. Additionally, Güllük Harbour is a serious pollution source. It was reported that 2862‐unit ships carried 4.8 million tonnes of ballast water to Güllük Harbour during 2007–2012 (37). Another potential source of increased resistance may be the discharge of thermal power plants located 107 km, 46 km and 39 km away from Güllük Bay. The effects of thermal power plant discharge on the accumulation of heavy metals have been reported in other studies (29, 75).

The association between antibiotic resistance and resistance to heavy metals is quite common in the same organism. The increasing numbers of antibiotic and heavy metal-resistant bacteria could be a result of gene transfer activities demonstrating that industrial pollution most likely selects for antibiotic resistance and vice versa (58). In this study, similarly, the most antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as Sphingomonas paucimobilis, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae were also resistant to heavy metals. Metal‐resistant isolates from Güllük Bay also showed high resistance to sulfonamide, rifampicin and ampicillin. Bacteria from different sources such as humans, animals and soil can transfer or exchange their resistance genes. At the same time, water contaminated with antibiotics, disinfectants, pesticides and heavy metals might encourage selection and result in antibiotic and heavy metal resistance. Marine environmental conditions are extremely dynamic compared to the terrestrial environment, allowing bacteria to bring resistance mechanisms they have developed together while being adapted to the varying conditions. This makes the isolation of various bacteria useful to assess environmental pollution and provides a pathway to possible solutions to remove pollution from marine environments. For bacteria to take part in the transformation of any heavy metal salt into a harmless form, those bacteria must firstly be resistant to the heavy metal; thus the data related to frequency of metal resistant bacteria can provide knowledge on the continual accumulation or transformation of heavy metals in the marine environment.

The findings of the current study provide data regarding the distribution of heavy metal- and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in seawater and sediment samples of Güllük Bay, Aegean Sea, Turkey. As a result, preliminary data on candidate bacteria will offer opportunities for further studies on the elimination of heavy metal contamination by the detection of heavy metal-resistant bacteria.

5. Conclusions

Analyses of the presence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria provide knowledge on pollution sources such as septic systems on regional ecosystems. Since antibiotic-resistant bacteria can affect pathogen virulence, these pollution sources can induce pathogens and can create health risks for both humans and the ecosystem. In the present study, bacteria resistant to antibiotics and heavy metals in seawater and sediment were investigated. The bacterial information obtained provides essential data for identifying the regional distribution of resistant bacteria. Levels of resistance against heavy metals and antibiotics in bacteria isolated from seawater and sediments of the Aegean Sea were quantified. Bacteria isolated from Güllük Bay sediment were resistant to all antibiotics tested and exhibited higher resistance than those isolated from seawater. The frequency of antibiotic-resistant bacteria was higher around fish farms and near the exit of Sarıçay Creek. The widespread resistances of indicator bacteria to antibiotics suggest the presence of anthropogenic influences due to domestic waste and maritime transport.

In order for bacteria to take part in the transformation of heavy metal salts into harmless forms, they must initially be resistant to heavy metals. The frequency of resistance thus provides information regarding the continual accumulation or transformation of heavy metal salts in the marine environment. The findings of the present research have shown the existing contamination status of Güllük Bay via heavy metal and antibiotic resistance tests. The study region is under pressure of pollution as stated in previous research (25, 26, 75) and the bacterial resistance data of the current study showed that there is a prevalence of resistant bacteria in the region that may be due to indirect effects of environmental dynamics and pollution.

In this study, the presence of higher levels of resistant bacteria in sediment compared to seawater may indicate the presence of microplastics in the sediment as well as the probability that the sediment is a suitable medium for accumulation of metals and antibiotics. Further studies on this subject will provide detailed data on the spread of antibiotic- and metal-resistant bacteria in marine sediments.

The present study showed bacterial responses to environmental stress and influences in terms of antibiotic and heavy metal resistance both in sediment and seawater samples at Güllük Bay, Turkey. These findings highlight the necessity of holistic assessments with a ‘one health’ approach and the need to control bacteria entering marine areas due to human activities, considering the contributions of resistant bacteria to global distribution. The data may also provide a useful resource to help identify strains of bacteria for environmental remediation applications.

  • 1.
  • 2.
  • 3.
  • 4.
  • 5.
  • 6.
  • 7.
  • 8.
  • 9.
  • 10.
  • 11.
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14.
  • 15.
  • 16.
    M. L. Nadimpalli, S. J. Marks, M. C. Montealegre, R. H. Gilman, M. J. Pajuelo, M. Saito, P. Tsukayama, S. M. Njenga, J. Kiiru, J. Swarthout, M. A. Islam, T. R. Julian and A. J. Pickering, Nat. Microbiol., 2020, 5, (6), 787 LINK https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0722-0
  • 17.
  • 18.
  • 19.
    P. Laganà, G. Caruso, I. Corsi, E. Bergami, V. Venuti, D. Majolino, R. La Ferla, M. Azzaro and S. Cappello, Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health, 2019, 222, (1), 89 LINK https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.08.009
  • 20.
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
  • 24.

    G. Altuğ, M. Çardak and P. S. Ciftci, J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2007, 22, (23), 39 (in Turkish)

  • 25.

    G. Altuğ, M. Çardak, P. S. Ciftci, S. Gürün, and S. Kalkan, ‘Bacterial Diversity in Güllük Bay’, Tübitak Project Workshop, 10th May, 2013, Güllük, Muğla, Turkey, ed. G. Altuğ, Istanbul University, Turkey, 2013, pp. 3– 7 (in Turkish)

  • 26.
  • 27.
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30.

    P. Çiftçi, G. Altuğ, M. Çardak and S. Gürün, ‘Distribution of Indicator Bacteria in Recreational and Fish Farming Areas of Gulluk Bay, Turkey’, Effective Utilization of Ocean Resources and Future Maritime Industries, Tokyo, Japan, 2nd–11th November, 2011, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology (TUMSAT), Japan, p. 25

  • 31.
  • 32.
  • 33.
  • 34.
  • 35.
  • 36.
  • 37.

    A. Olgun, ‘Evaluation in Terms of Vessels and Ballast Waters entering Güllük Bay’, Bacteriology of Güllük Bay, Tübitak Project Workshop, 10th May, 2013, Güllük, Muğla, Turkey, ed. G. Altuğ, Istanbul University, Turkey, pp. 33–37 (in Turkish)

  • 38.

    “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water”, eds. E. W. Rice, R. B. Baird, A. D. Eaton and L. S. Clesceri, 22nd Edn., American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, 2012

  • 39.

    D. H. Pincus, ‘Microbial Identification Using the bioMérıeux VITEK® 2 System’, in “Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods”, ed. M. J. Miller, Vol. 2, Parenteral Drug Association, Bethesda, USA, 2006, pp. 1–32

  • 40.
  • 41.

    M. A. Wikler, F. R. Cockerill, W. A. Craig, M. N. Dudley, G. M. Eliopoulos, D. W. Hecht, J. F. Hindler, D. E. Low, D. J. Sheehan, F. C. Tenover, J. D. Turnidge, M. P. Weinstein, B. L. Zimmer, M. J. Ferraro and J. M. Swenson, ‘Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Sixteenth Informational Supplement’, M100– S16, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, USA, 2006, 192 pp

  • 42.
  • 43.

    J. A. Washington, and V. L. Sutter, ‘Dilution Test Procedures’, in “Manual of Clinical Microbiology”, eds. E. H. Lennette, A. Balows, W. J. Hausler and J. P. Truant, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA, 1981, pp 549–555

  • 44.
  • 45.
  • 46.
  • 47.
  • 48.
  • 49.
    A. H. Buschmann, A. Tomova, A. López, M. A. Maldonado, L. A. Henríquez, L. Ivanova, F. Moy, H. P. Godfrey and F. C. Cabello, PLoS One, 2012, 7, (8), e42724 LINK https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042724
  • 50.
  • 51.
  • 52.
  • 53.

    H. Sørum, Acta Vet. Scand. Suppl., 1999, 92, 29

  • 54.
    V. Inglis, ‘Antibacterial Chemotherapy in Aquaculture: Review of Practice, Associated Risks and Need for Action’, Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia, Tigbauan, Philippines, 20th–22nd May, 1996, “Proceedings of the Meeting on the Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia”, eds. J. R. Arthur, C. R. Larilla-Pitogo and R. P. Subasinghe, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department, Tigbauan, Philippines, 2000, pp. 7–22 LINK http://hdl.handle.net/10862/611
  • 55.
    G. Rhodes, G. Huys, J. Swings, P. McGann, M. Hiney, P. Smith and R. W. Pickup, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2000, 66, (9), 3883 LINK https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.66.9.3883-3890.2000
  • 56.
  • 57.
    P.-R. Hsueh, L.-J. Teng, P.-C. Yang, Y.-C. Chen, H.-J. Pan, S.-W. Ho and K.-T. Luh, Clin. Infect. Dis., 1998, 26, (3), 676 LINK https://doi.org/10.1086/514595
  • 58.
  • 59.
  • 60.

    D. Claus, and R. C. W. Berkeley, ‘Genus Bacillus, Cohn 1872’, in “Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology” eds. P. H. A. Sneath, N. S. Mair, M. E. Sharpe and J. G. Holt, Vol. 2, Williams and Wilkins Co, Baltimore, USA, 1986, pp 1105–1139

  • 61.
  • 62.
  • 63.
  • 64.
    N. van de Sande-Bruinsma, H. Grundmann, D. Verloo, E. Tiemersma, J. Monen, H. Goossens and M. Ferech, Emerg. Infect. Dis., 2008, 14, (11), 1722 LINK https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1411.070467
  • 65.
    E. Gullberg, S. Cao, O. G. Berg, C. Ilbäck, L. Sandegren, D. Hughes and D. I. Andersson, PLoS Pathog., 2011, 7, (7), e1002158 LINK https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002158
  • 66.
  • 67.
  • 68.
  • 69.
  • 70.
  • 71.
  • 72.
  • 73.
  • 74.
  • 75.
  • Acknowledgments

    The authors wish to thank the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK, project number: 110Y243, 2011) and Istanbul University Scientific Research Project Unit (İÜ BAP Project/19347) for their financial support.

    The Authors


    Gülşen Altuğ is a professor in the Department of Marine Biology of the Faculty of Aquatic Science at Istanbul University, Turkey. Her research focuses on marine bacteriology, including bacterial diversity and micro-geographical variations, clinical, industrial and ecological uses of marine isolates, bacterial pollution, epibiotic bacterial communities and anti-bacterial characteristics, bacterial remediation (oil degrading capacity of marine isolates) and resistant bacterial isolates against heavy metals and antibiotics. She is also the inventing founder of the biotechnology company named BIYOTEK15 R&D Training and Consulting Industry and Trade Ltd Company in Entertech of Istanbul University Technocity.


    Mine Çardak is an associate professor at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, School of Çanakkale Applied Sciences, Department of Fisheries Technology, Turkey. Her researches focus on marine bacteriology, bacterial resistance against heavy metals and antibiotics, bacterial pollution and biotechnology. She has worked as a scientist since 2000.


    Pelin Saliha Çiftçi Türetken is a researcher at İstanbul University, Faculty of Aquatic Sciences, Department of Marine Biology. Her research focus on marine bacteriology, bacterial remediation, bacterial resistance and biotechnology. She has a PhD degree in marine biology. She has worked as an academic at university since 2005.


    Samet Kalkan has a PhD degree from Istanbul University, Institute of Graduate Studies in Science and Engineering, Department of Marine Biology. He currently works as a doctor scientist at Recep Tayyip Erdogan University- Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Marine Biology, Turkey. He has worked as academic at university since 2010. His main researches focus on marine bacteria, bacterial diversity, bacterial pollution, resistant bacteria against heavy metals-antibiotics, also marine biotechnology. He has scientific abroad experiences in Italy and Portugal.


    Sevan Gürün graduated with a degree in Biology from Istanbul University. He has a PhD degree from Istanbul University, Institute of Graduate Studies in Science and Engineering, Department of Marine Biology. He worked as a researcher in various scientific projects. He has been working as a researcher in a private company since 2016. His expertise focuses on bacterial diversity, marine bacteria, bacterial pollution, bacterial biotechnology, resistant bacteria against heavy metals and antibiotics.

    By |2020-10-09T11:56:50+00:00October 9th, 2020|Weld Engineering Services|Comments Off on Antibiotic and Heavy Metal Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aegean Sea Water and Sediment in Güllük Bay, Turkey

    Antibacterial Potential of Six Lichen Species against Enterococcus durans from Leather Industry

    The leather industry produces and exports high-quality products with high added value to the world market. However, several bacterial problems during leather-making processes are reflected in finished products and lead to economic losses. After the flaying process in slaughterhouses, microflora on hide or skin surfaces change due to bacterial contamination originating from faeces, air, dust or the animal skin itself and some bacteria easily colonise (14).

    The soaking process is the first tannery operation that recovers water loss during raw hide or skin curing applications. There are some criteria to be taken into consideration during the soaking process of raw hides or skins. Especially prolonged soaking provides a convenient milieu for bacterial activity and damage to hides or skins may occur. Due to reduced salt content and high protein and lipid constituents, hides or skins become defenceless against bacterial attacks in the soaking process (58). It has been reported that the number of bacterial populations in soak liquors may be up to 105 colony forming unit (CFU) ml−1 (5). But in a previous study, it was demonstrated that total bacterial numbers were considerably higher than 105 CFU ml−1 in soak liquor samples (9). The adverse effects of the soaking process on the hide quality originate from degradative enzymatic properties of bacteria such as protease and lipase activities. These enzymatic activities can irreversibly affect the structure of hide or skin substances that cannot be fixed at the subsequent stages of hide processing (10). High numbers of bacteria with protease and lipase activities cause unwanted defects such as hair-slip, putrefaction, grain peeling, loose grain, holes on the hides or skins and light stains on the suede surface (1, 3, 1115).

    Antibiotics are used in various industries as well as in the treatment of diseases. The World Health Organization declared that antimicrobial resistance in most countries and industrial sectors has increased dramatically (16, 17). The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria due to improperly used antibiotics in humans, animals and agriculture has been reported in the literature (17). In the leather industry, to control bacterial numbers and their degradative properties on hides or skins, various antibacterial agents are utilised during the soaking process of beam house operations. The normal microflora in animals comprises many harmless bacteria but any of them may become resistant to commonly utilised antibacterial agents due to intrinsic or acquired resistance (17, 18). The resistant bacteria may survive despite bactericides and may transfer their resistance properties to others through horizontal gene transfer (5, 9, 18). Bactericides may remain ineffective against proteolytic and lipolytic bacteria in soak liquors because of high organic content in soak liquors (9, 19). The existence of many non-halophilic bacteria was demonstrated in the presence of an antimicrobial agent at twofold increased concentration (0.8 g l−1) (19). This finding emphasises the antibacterial resistance of bacteria in the soaking process. More recently, it was reported that antimicrobial agents used in the soaking process could not control multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from soaked sheepskins and cattle hides treated with an antibacterial agent (20).

    Over the past decades, it has been suggested that alternative compounds from natural resources may overcome the antimicrobial resistance of many bacteria. Previously, the potential of lichen derived extracts from P. furfuracea (L.) Zopf was reported in the leather industry (21). Lichens are symbiotic organisms between a fungus and one or more algae or cyanobacteria. They synthesise unique secondary metabolites that cannot be synthesised by higher plants (22, 23). Secondary metabolites from numerous lichen extracts have been reported to have biological activities such as antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (2427). It has been reported that approximately 2000 of the 20,000 lichen species in the world are in Turkish lichen mycota. There are many studies evaluating the bioactivities of lichen species in Turkey against different bacterial species (2527). In the previous study, the acetone extracts of H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea and Usnea sp. at different concentrations were tested on some Bacillus species which were isolated from soak liquor samples. These extracts were detected to have potential antibacterial effects (28).

    From this point, lichen species may have potential antibacterial efficacies against various antibacterial-resistant bacterial strains in the soaking process which cannot be exterminated by antimicrobial agents. Therefore, the antibacterial effects of acetone extracts of lichen species H. tubulosa, H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea, P. sulcata and Usnea sp. against Isolate 1 (E. durans), which has protease and lipase acitivities, was evaluated in the present study.

    2.1 Sample Collection

    Three soak liquor samples were collected from Istanbul Leather Organized Industrial Zone, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey. These samples were immediately placed into sterile sample bags and carried on ice during transportation. Direct and serial dilutions were spread onto nutrient agar plates. The morphologically different colony was picked up to obtain the pure culture of the isolate and was numbered as Isolate 1.

    2.2 Biochemical and Molecular Analyses

    Gram staining, catalase, oxidase, lipase and protease activities were examined. Protease activity of Isolate 1 was examined on gelatin agar medium containing 2% gelatin (w/v). The agar plates were flooded with Frazier solution following 24 h incubation. Clear zones around the colonies were evaluated as positive for protease activity. Lipase activity was tested on Tween® 80 agar medium containing 1% (w/v) Tween® 80. After incubation, opaque zones around the colonies were accepted as evidence of lipase activity (29, 30).

    Genomic DNA of Isolate 1 which was determined to have protease and lipase activities were extracted by phenol/chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation. DNA isolation was confirmed by agarose gel electrophoresis. DNA samples were stored at −20°C until use. The 16S rRNA gene was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with the universal bacterial primers 27F (5-AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG) and 1492R (5-TACCTTGTTACGACTT). Negative control was included in PCR amplifications. PCR amplification was carried out by an initial denaturation at 95°C for 4 min, followed by 30 cycles at 95°C for 1 min, 57°C for 1 min and 73°C for 1 min. The reactions were finished by a final extension at 73°C for 7 min. The PCR products were also monitored by agarose gel electrophoresis. These products were purified by GeneJETTM Gel Extraction Kit (Thermo ScientificTM, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). These purified samples were analysed by Medsantek Ltd Co, Istanbul, Turkey. The 16S rRNA sequence contigs were generated by the software ChromasPro version 2.1.8 (Technelysium Pty Ltd, Australia). Then, consensus sequences were exported in FASTA format for each sample for data analysis. These sequences were compared with sequences in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST®) search program.

    2.3 Lichen Samples

    The lichen samples belonging to H. tubulosa, H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea, P. sulcata and Usnea sp. were collected from fir trees of Kastamonu province in the north-west of Turkey. They were identified through classical taxonomical methods by microscopic examination.

    H. tubulosa, H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea, P. sulcata and Usnea sp: Turkey, Kastamonu province, Kapaklı Village, 41.24492, 34.18330, G. Çobanoğlu.

    2.4 Extraction of Lichen Samples

    The experiment steps included washing, drying in air, weighing, pulverising by liquid nitrogen, adding acetone (ACS, ISO, Reag. Ph. Eur.), keeping in a dark place for 24 h followed by filtration through filter paper. Then, the evaporation of acetone in a rotary evaporator was performed and crude lichen acetone extracts were obtained (27).

    2.5 Determination of Antibacterial Efficacies of Lichen Samples

    The test isolate was grown on Tryptic soy agar media at 37°C for 24 h. The tests were performed in 96-well CELLSTAR®, F-bottom microplates with lid (Greiner Bio-One GmbH, Austria). Tryptic soy broth was added to each well and nine-fold serial dilutions of the acetone extracts of H. tubulosa, H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea, P. sulcata and Usnea sp. were made. Final concentrations of all lichen extracts were 240 μg ml−1, 120 μg ml−1, 60 μg ml−1, 30 μg ml−1, 15 μg ml−1, 7.5 μg ml−1, 3.75 μg ml−1, 1.9 μg ml−1 and 0.9 μg ml−1. Overnight culture of the isolate was added to obtain a total volume of 100 μl with an optical density (OD) 600 nm of 0.01. The experiments included untreated and blank controls. The tests were performed in three replicates. Bacterial growth ratios at an OD 600 nm were measured using CytationTM 3 Multi-Mode microplate reader (BioTek Instruments Inc, USA).

    In the present study, Isolate 1, which was obtained from soak liquor samples collected from different tanneries in Istanbul Leather Organized Industrial Zone, Turkey, was identified by biochemical and molecular techniques. To our knowledge, there is no study on the antibacterial efficacies of lichen extracts against E. durans from soak liquor samples. For the first time, H. tubulosa, H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea, P. sulcata and Usnea sp. acetone extracts were examined against E. durans isolated from soak liquor samples.

    Isolate 1 was Gram-positive, oxidase and catalase-negative, protease and lipase positive. The degradative protease and lipase activities of bacteria have an important role in the production of high-quality leather. There are many studies focused on protease and lipase activities of halophilic, extremely halophilic and non-halophilic bacteria on hides or skins in the literature. McLaughlin and Highberger reported that bacterial strains with proteolytic activity were present in high percentages on salt-cured goat skins (31). The proteolytic and lipolytic activities of halophilic and extremely halophilic bacteria were also reported in previous studies. Birbir reported that 91% of 35 salt-cured skins had halophilic bacteria and 67% of 85 extremely halophilic bacterial strains had proteolytic activities (32). Bailey and Birbir detected that 98% of 131 brine-cured skin samples had extremely halophilic microorganisms and 94% of 332 isolates from these samples showed proteolytic activity (12). Bitlisli et al. demonstrated that 53–74% of halophilic bacteria from salt-cured sheepskins had proteolytic activity and 47–62% of them had lipolytic activity (33). There are also several studies revealing the proteolytic and lipolytic activities of non-halophilic bacteria from soak liquor samples. Veyselova et al. showed proteolytic activity of some bacteria belonging to the genera Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Lactococcus, Aerococcus, Vibrio, Kocuria, Staphylococcus and Micrococcus and lipolytic activity of B. licheniformis, B. pumilus, P. luteola and E. cloacae from soak liquor samples (10).

    In molecular analyses, the tested isolate was identified by comparative partial 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis with the sequences deposited in the GenBank® database via the BLAST® program. The Isolate 1 had similarities with E. durans CMGB-120 (99.86%, GenBank® accession number MF348232.1). The existence of Enterococcus species was previously reported from hides or skins in the leather industry (6, 34). It is well known that Enterococcus species are common in surface water, soil, vegetables and animal products and they are naturally commensal members of gut microflora of human and warm-blooded animals. Enterococcus avium, E. casseliflavus, E. durans, E. faecalis, E. faecium and E. gallinarum have been isolated from salted hide samples (34). Furthermore, despite increasing the concentration of antimicrobial agents containing didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride from 0.4 g l−1 to 0.8 g l−1, several bacteria including E. avium and E. faecium were reported from soak liquor samples (19). These results suggest that some Enterococcus species may come from salted hides and can survive in soak liquor samples even in the presence of antibacterial agents. Fluckey et al. isolated 279 Enterococcus isolates from faecal and hide samples. Among them, 169 isolates were detected to be E. durans by biochemical tests (35). E. durans is mostly found in pre-ruminant calves and young chickens and can survive in moderately harsh conditions such as various temperature ranges, pH degrees and salt concentrations as well as detergents (3638). Similarly to our results, the proteolytic and lipolytic activities of E. durans were also demonstrated in previous studies. Aslan and Birbir detected that six E. durans isolates had proteolytic and lipolytic activities (34). In this regard, Isolate 1 may have the potential to cause several unwanted defects on finished products due to its enzymatic activities.

    Antibacterial agents that are commonly used in the soaking process seem to be ineffective due to random or insufficient application and lead to antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in soak liquors (12, 19). From this point, we can suggest that E. durans from salted hides or skins could not be exterminated by curing methods and also in the soaking process despite the use of antibacterial agents. There are several studies focused on the determination of effective concentrations of several antimicrobial agents against various species of bacteria. Both the ineffectiveness of antibacterial agents in some cases and possible harmful and toxic effects for the environment and human health of some synthetic antimicrobial agents were emphasised in the literature (19, 21). In this respect, the need for safer, more ecological and effective materials has come into prominence for the leather industry. In the previous study, the potential antibacterial effects of acetone extracts of H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea and Usnea sp. at the concentrations of 240 μg ml−1, 120 μg ml−1, 60 μg ml−1 and 30 μg ml−1 were demonstrated against Bacillus toyonensis, B. mojavensis, B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. velezensis, B. cereus and B. licheniformis which were isolated from soak liquor samples (28). In respect to these findings, we suggested that H. tubulosa, H. physodes, E. divaricata, P. furfuracea, P. sulcata and Usnea sp. acetone extracts may have antibacterial potential against E. durans which has protease and lipase activities.

    According to our results, the acetone extracts of P. sulcata had no antibacterial effect at all tested concentrations against E. durans (Figure 1).

    Fig. 1

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of P. sulcata against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of P. sulcata against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    On the other hand, we observed a considerable antibacterial effect for the acetone extracts of H. tubulosa and H. physodes against E. durans. High inhibitory effects of these tested extracts for the growth of E. durans (above 50% inhibition) were detected at the concentrations of 240 μg ml−1, 120 μg ml−1 and 60 μg ml−1 with inhibition ratios of 82.54%, 79.53% and 79.98% for H. tubulosa, and 86.8%, 78.2%, 77.75% for H. physodes, respectively (Figures 2 and 3).

    Fig. 2

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of H. tubulosa against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of H. tubulosa against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Fig. 3

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of H. physodes against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of H. physodes against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    The acetone extracts of P. furfuracea also had antibacterial effect against E. durans at the concentrations of 240 μg ml−1 and 120 μg ml−1 by the inhibition percentages of 80.63% and 85.2%. The other tested concentrations had also inhibitory effects on the tested bacteria but the inhibition ratios recorded were below 50% (Figure 4).

    Fig. 4

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of P. furfuracea against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of P. furfuracea against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Potential antibacterial efficacy was also detected for the acetone extracts of E. divaricata against E. durans. At the concentration of 240 μg ml−1, we detected 91% inhibition on the bacterial growth. Antibacterial effects were observed at the concentrations of 120 μg ml−1 and 60 μg ml−1 with inhibition ratios of 81% and 79% (Figure 5).

    Fig. 5

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of E. divaricata against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of E. divaricata against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Usnea sp. acetone extract was determined to be the most successful among the tested lichen extracts. 240 μg ml−1, 120 μg ml−1, 60 μg ml−1, 30 μg ml−1 and 15 μg ml−1 of the extracts belonging to Usnea sp. had an antibacterial effect above 80% inhibition. The inhibition ratios at these concentrations were similar and recorded as 88.7%, 84.2%, 92%, 87.8% and 89.5% respectively. Furthermore, a 58.1% inhibition ratio was noted for the concentration of 7.5 μg ml−1 (Figure 6).

    Fig. 6

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of Usnea sp. against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    Antibacterial effect of acetone extracts of Usnea sp. against E. durans from soak liquor samples

    All data showed that the acetone extracts of H. tubulosa, H. physodes, P. furfuracea, E. divaricata and Usnea sp. had potential antibacterial efficacies at varying concentrations against E. durans. Usnea sp. acetone extracts were found to have a stronger inhibitory effect on the bacterial growth of E. durans, even at a low concentration of 15 μg ml−1 (89.5% inhibition) compared to other extracts. These results emphasise the potential of lichens to be utilised as an antibacterial agent in the leather industry. Further studies are needed to detect potential compounds of these lichen species and then these compounds may be used in formulations in the industry.

    By |2020-10-08T09:49:31+00:00October 8th, 2020|Weld Engineering Services|Comments Off on Antibacterial Potential of Six Lichen Species against Enterococcus durans from Leather Industry

    The Destructive Effects of Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Strains on Sheepskins, and Proposals for Remedial Curing Processes

    Extremely halophilic archaea have been found in hypersaline salt lakes, salterns, salt mines, salted foods and salted hides. There have been numerous studies on the presence of extremely halophilic archaea in these hypersaline environments (112). Due to the high salt requirements of extreme halophiles (15–30% NaCl), these microorganisms have been denominated as extremely halophilic archaea (13, 14). Cells of Haloarchaea staining Gram-negatively are irregular rods, cocci, pleomorphic rods, cups, irregular disks, flattened disks, irregular triangles, rectangles and squares (2, 5, 15). Chemoorganotroph extremely halophilic archaea, which can be motile or non-motile, grow aerobically and use different amino acids. Colonies of these microorganisms are pink, red and orange due to C50-carotenoid pigments called bacterioruberins (15, 16).

    Observation of red or violet discolorations on the flesh side of salted hides and skins is the key for detecting extremely halophilic archaea in the leather industry. These discolorations are a sign of bacterial deterioration of hides and skins (17, 18). Previous experiments reported that microorganisms in curing salts and raceway brines contaminated hides and skins and caused red heat (10). The brine cured hides and skins were often stored in hot warehouses, trucks or ships, and these high temperature conditions, combined with moisture, offer an ideal medium for proteolytic extremely halophilic archaea to grow and potentially digest collagen fibres in the hides and skins (10).

    Extremely halophilic archaea (102–105 colony forming units (CFU) g−1), proteolytic (102–104 CFU g−1) and lipolytic (102–104 CFU g−1) extremely halophilic archaea were detected in 40 curing salt samples collected from different tanneries in Turkey (19). Almost all salted hides and skins contained extremely halophilic archaea, proteolytic and lipolytic extremely halophilic archaea originating in the curing salt. Extremely halophilic archaea were also detected on 94% of 131 brine-cured cattle hides collected from USA, 91% of 35 salted hides cured in France and Russia and all salted hides cured in Turkey, Greece, the UK, USA, Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia, South Africa and Australia (2022). Five extremely halophilic archaeal species, Halorubrum saccharovorum, Halorubrum tebenquichense, Halorubrum lacusprofundi, Natrinema pallidum and Natrinema gari were isolated from five salted hides originating in England and Australia (22). Also, 101 extremely halophilic archaeal strains (Halorubrum tebenquichense, Halorubrum saccharovorum, Halorubrum kocurii, Halorubrum terrestre, Halorubrum lipolyticum, Halococcus dombrowskii, Halococcus qingdaonensis, Halococcus morrhuae, Natrinema pellirubrum, Natrinema versiforme, Halostagnicola larsenii and Haloterrigena saccharevitans) were isolated from four salted sheepskin samples (Spain) exhibiting bad odour, a slimy layer, hair slip, red and yellow discolorations (23). Moreover, 28 extremely halophilic archaeal strains (Natrialba aegyptia, Halovivax asiaticus, Halococcus morrhuae, Halococcus thailandensis, Natrinema pallidum, Halococcus dombrowskii, Halomicrobium zhouii, Natronococcus jeotgali, Haloterrigena thermotolerans, Natrinema versiforme and Halobacterium noricense) were isolated from eight salted hide and skin samples from Turkey, Iraq, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan (24).

    While there are many reports that detect the presence of extremely halophilic archaea on salted hides and skins (10, 17, 2025), the destructive effects of these microorganisms on salted hides have been studied much less (25, 26). In our previous investigation, we found that extremely halophilic archaeal strains, isolated from hides brine cured in the USA, damaged grain the surface of hides at 41°C after 49 days (25). An experiment with extremely halophilic Haloferax gibbonsii (ATCC® 33959TM) and Haloarcula hispanica (ATCC® 33960TM) obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), USA, demonstrated that Haloferax gibbonsii caused hair slip, loss of hide substance and deterioration of brine cured hide after 45 days at 40°C (26).

    The adverse effects of extremely halophilic archaeal hide isolates and ATCC strains of extremely halophilic archaea on brine cured hides have been reported in these studies, respectively (25, 26). However, the destructive effects of salted sheepskin strains of extremely halophilic Haloarcula salaria, Halobacterium salinarum and Haloarcula tradensis on brine cured sheepskins have not been examined yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine adverse effects of proteolytic and lipolytic archaeal sheepskin strains (Haloarcula salaria AT1, Halobacterium salinarum 22T6, Haloarcula tradensis 7T3) and the mixed culture of these strains on sheepskins during a 47-day storage period at 33°C. We also investigated effective curing methods to prevent the destructive effects of these microorganisms on sheepskins. Additionally, we evaluated pH values, ash contents, moisture contents, salt saturations, total counts of extremely halophilic archaea and organoleptic properties of the brine cured sheepskin samples during different storage periods to determine the brine curing procedure’s efficiency and the test microorganisms’ adverse effects of on sheepskins.

    2.1 Isolation of Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Strains from Deteriorated Salted Sheepskins

    Two deteriorated salted sheepskins containing red discolorations were collected from two tanneries in the Istanbul Leather Organized Industrial Zone (40°52′39.7″N,29°20′25.3″E) in Tuzla, Turkey. The samples were immediately placed into sterile sample bags and transported on ice to the laboratory. Then, 20 g of the salt-pack cured sheepskin samples were weighed and separately soaked in flasks containing 180 ml 30% NaCl (Merck KGaA, Germany) solution. The flasks were placed into a shaking incubator at 90 rpm, 24°C for 3 h. The suspension of the skin was diluted with sterile physiological saline water (30% NaCl). An aliquot of 100 μl each of direct and serial skin suspension dilutions was spread onto the surface of modified Brown agar media containing (per litre): 1 g CaCl2·H2O, 2 g KCl, 20 g MgSO4·7H2O, 3 g trisodium citrate, 250 g NaCl, 5 g yeast extract, 20 g agar, pH 7 (5, 27). The plates were incubated at 39°C for 10 days. Following incubation, red pigmented colonies on the agar media were selected and restreaked several times to obtain pure cultures. A total of 22 isolates were obtained from the sheepskins and then, these strains were examined the proteolytic and lipolytic activities. Proteolytic activity of each strain was detected on gelatin agar medium containing 2% gelatin. After incubation, clear zones around the colonies on the gelatin agar medium indicated protease production (5, 10). Lipolytic activity of each strain was screened on Tween® 80 agar medium containing 1% Tween® 80. After growth was obtained, opaque zones around the colonies were interpreted as positive lipase activity (5). In the present study three red pigmented proteolytic and lipolytic strains (AT1, 22T6 and 7T3) were obtained from two salted sheepskins and these strains were used in the present study.

    2.2 Phenotypic Characteristics of Test Strains

    Exponentially growing pure cultures of three strains designated as AT1, 22T6 and 7T3 were used in all experiments. First, the strains’ salt requirement and salt tolerance were examined on Brown agar plates containing different salt concentrations (0%, 0.5%, 3%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%) (27). After detection of optimum salt concentration for each strain, pH and temperature ranges for growth of each strain (AT1, 22T6, 7T3) were respectively examined at Brown agar plates with different pH values (pH 4, pH 5, pH 6, pH 7, pH 7.5, pH 8, pH 9, pH 10, pH 11 and pH 12) and different temperatures (4°C, 10°C, 15°C, 24°C, 28°C, 35°C, 37°C, 39°C, 45°C, 50°C, 55°C, 60°C) according to the methods described in Proposed Minimal Standards for Description of New Taxa in the Order Halobacteriales (28). Based on the pH, and temperature range of each test strain, the optimal pH and growth temperature of each test strain were determined.

    Pigmentation, size, margin, elevation and opacity of colonies of the strains grown on Brown agar media were examined under optimal growth conditions (28). Cell morphology, cell length, cell width and motility of each strain were examined using both light microscopy and electron microscopy. Microscopic observation of each strain was made by using freshly prepared wet mount (28). For SEM observations, 20 ml of each test strain were separately passed through 0.2 μm pore size cellulose nitrate membrane filter placed in the stainless steel funnel via vacuum pump (Sartorius AG, Germany). The archaeal cells of each strain trapped on the membrane filters were observed under SEM (QuantaTM 450 FEG (FEI, USA)). Gram staining was performed with acetic acid-fixed slides (2830). Catalase and oxidase activities, indole production, methyl red test, H2S and NH3 productions of each strain were investigated according to the procedures described previously (4, 28, 31). Furthermore, each strain’s caseinase activity was determined on the agar medium containing 2% skim milk. After incubation, clear zones around the colonies were evidence of positive caseinase activity (4). Urease production was investigated on Christensen urea agar medium. The tubes were examined for pink or red colour change in the medium after seven days of incubation (28, 31). β-galactosidase activity was screened in test tubes containing ortho-nitrophenyl-β-galactoside (ONPG) discs and 1 ml of sterile saline water (30% NaCl). The yellow colour formation in the test tube was accepted as positive β-galactosidase activity (5, 31). Amino acid utilisation of each strain was examined in the test medium containing 1% amino acid, 0.5% beef extract, 0.5% peptone, 0.05% dextrose, 0.0005% cresol red, 0.001% bromocresol purple, 0.0005% pyridoxal and saline water (30% NaCl). Purple colour formation in the test tube containing archaeal culture was accepted as a positive test after 10 days incubation period at 39°C (31).

    2.3 Amplification and Sequencing of 16S rRNA Genes of Test Strains

    Chromosomal DNA was isolated by QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germany) and purified by QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s directions. The 16S rRNA genes of the strains were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using forward primer 21F and reverse primer 1492R (32). The 16S rRNA gene sequences of three strains (AT1, 22T6 and 7T3) were determined by IONTEK Laboratory (Turkey). The sequences of these strains were analysed using ChromasPro v.2.1.8 software (Technelysium, Australia) and then compared with the sequence on the EZBioCloud Database (ChunLab, South Korea) (33).

    2.4 Preparation of Test Strains and Sheepskin Samples for Brine Curing Treatments

    2.4.1 Preparation of Strains and Cultures Used in Brine Curing Processes

    Pure cultures of each test strain (AT1, 22T6, 7T3) were separately grown in liquid Brown test medium containing 30% NaCl for 10 days at 39°C. Each archaeal cell suspension’s turbidity was adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard (108 CFU ml−1) using densitometer (DEN-1, BIOSAN, Latvia). Each cell suspension was diluted in sterile saline solution (30% NaCl) to adjust the cell suspension to 107 CFU ml−1. In addition, mixed cultures of these strains (107 CFU ml−1) were prepared. Then, 20 ml of each test strain, 20 ml of the mixed culture were used in the brine curing solutions of T1–T4 (Table I).

    Table I

    Protocol for Brine Curing Treatments of Sheepskins Brine Curing Compositions

    Control Treatments 59.5 g sheepskin sample + 200 ml sterile brine solution
    T1 59.5 g sheepskin sample + 180 ml sterile brine solution + 20 ml strain AT1 (107 CFU ml−1)
    T2 59.5 g sheepskin sample + 180 ml sterile brine solution + 20 ml strain 22T6 (107 CFU ml−1)
    T3 59.5 g sheepskin sample + 180 ml sterile brine solution + 20 ml strain 7T3 (107 CFU ml−1)
    T4 59.5 g sheepskin sample + 180 ml sterile brine solution + 20 ml mixed culture (107 CFU ml−1)
    T5 59.5 g sheepskin sample + 180 ml sterile brine solution containing 20 ml electrically inactivated mixed culture

    To prepare brine curing solution containing electrically inactivated mixed culture (T5), 20 ml of the mixed culture containing AT1, 22T6, 7T3 strains (107 CFU ml−1) were placed into the electrolysis cell consisting of a glass beaker having two internally attached platinum wire electrodes and 180 ml of sterile brine solution (30% NaCl) (34, 35). To detect the archaeal numbers of the mixed culture in the electrolysis cell before the electric current application, 100 μl of the test medium was removed from the electrolysis cell and diluted to 10−2–10−4 using sterile 30% NaCl solution. The diluted archaeal suspensions were spread over the Brown agar media. Then, 1.5 A DC was applied to the electrolysis cell for 22 min (Figure 1). A 100 μl quantity of test medium was removed from the cell at intervals of 1 min, 4 min, 7 min, 10 min, 13 min, 16 min, 19 min and 22 min of electric current application. Direct and diluted suspensions of electrically inactivated the mixed culture were spread over Brown agar media. All inoculated Brown media were incubated for 10 days at 39°C, and colonies on the agar plates were counted. This test medium was used for curing process of the sheepskin (T5) after 22 min of electric current application on the mixed culture (Table I).

    Fig. 1

    Electrolysis cell system used 1.5 A DC treatment in this study (R: phase, Mp: ground)

    Electrolysis cell system used 1.5 A DC treatment in this study (R: phase, Mp: ground)

    2.4.2 Preparation of Sheepskin Samples for Brine Curing Treatments

    One freshly slaughtered, de-fleshed whole sheepskin sample was obtained from a slaughterhouse in Istanbul, Turkey. Then, the sheepskin sample was immediately placed into sterile sample bag and transported on ice to the laboratory. The sheepskin was cut into six pieces perpendicular to backbone, from backbone to belly. Next, we carried out the following six treatments for brine curing of the sheepskin samples. In each treatment, sterile 30% NaCl (Merck KGaA) solution was used. In all treatments, a 400% float of the brine solution (238 g of the brines without test strain, with each test strain or mixed culture/59.5 g of sheepskin) was used (25). Sterile 30% NaCl solution containing the sheepskin sample was used as Control. The sheepskin samples (T1–T4) were separately placed in a glass beaker containing the brine solution, each test strain or mixed culture (T1–T4, Table I). In the Treatment 5, the sheepskin sample was placed in a glass beaker containing the brine solution with electrically inactivated mixed culture (T5, Table I).

    The curing processes of all sheepskins were carried out the protocol described in Table I. The sheepskin samples were separately cured in the brine solutions at 90 rpm for 18 h at 24°C. After the curing processes, all sheepskins were taken from the brine solutions and stored for 47 days at 33°C.

    2.5 Determination of Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Counts in Curing Solutions and Cured Sheepskin Samples

    To determine total counts of extremely halophilic archaea in the curing solutions before the curing processes, 100 μl of the test medium was removed from the each curing solution and diluted to 10−2–10−4 using sterile 30% NaCl solution. The diluted archaeal suspensions were spread over the Brown agar media. In addition, subsequent to each brine curing process detailed above (T1–T5), the suspensions of cured sheepskin samples were prepared at intervals of 5 days, 16 days, 28 days and 47 days of storage. 2 g of each skin sample were put into a flask containing 18 ml sterile 30% NaCl solution and incubated for 1 h at 24°C and 100 rpm. Direct and serial dilutions of the suspensions were spread onto the surface of Brown agar media. All inoculated Brown media were incubated at 39°C for 10 days and the colonies grown on the test media were counted.

    2.6 Determination of pH, Moisture Content, Ash Content and Salt Saturation of Cured Sheepskin Samples

    After curing processes, 5 g of the sheepskins were cut and placed into flasks containing 100 ml of sterile distilled water. The flasks were placed in a shaking incubator for 1 h at 100 rpm and then pH was measured with a pH meter. Hairs and dirt on the samples were removed to properly determine the samples’ moisture content. 3 g of the samples were placed into an oven at 102°C for 6 h. The dried samples were weighed, returned to the oven for 1 h, and then were weighed again. The drying procedure was repeated until the first dry weight was equal to the second dry weight. The samples were put into a desiccator for 30 min to cool. Next, we calculated the skins’ moisture contents (20, 21). The dry sheepskins samples were placed in ceramic crucibles and ashed in a muffle furnace at 600°C for 8 h. After cooling, the samples were weighed to determine ash content. Moisture content, ash content and salt saturations of skin samples were calculated according to the aforementioned methods (30, 36). The pH value, ash content, moisture content and salt saturation of all cured sheepskin samples were examined at different storage periods.

    2.7 Organoleptic Examination of Brine Cured Sheepskin Samples During Storage Periods

    All cured sheepskin samples were examined organoleptically (hair slip, deterioration of skins, bad odour, sticky appearance, red heat, hole formation) during different storage periods.

    2.8 Preparation of Sheepskin Samples for Scanning Electron Microscopy Observation

    After a 47-day storage period, the sheepskin samples were prepared for SEM observation. The samples were fixed in 4% glutaraldehyde solution prepared in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) for 30 min. The samples were washed three times with 0.1 M phosphate buffer for 10 min and were treated with 1% OsO4 prepared in 0.1 M phosphate buffer at room temperature for 1 h. The samples were washed two times in sterile distilled water for 10 min. Then, the water in the sheepskins was gradually removed by 35%, 50%, 75%, 95% and absolute ethanol. The mixtures of ethanol-hexamethyldisilazane (ethanol-HMDS) [1:1 (v/v)] (1 × 30 min), ethanol-HMDS [1:2 (v/v)] (1 × 30 min) and HMDS (2 × 30 min) were used for air drying process. After drying, HMDS was poured from petri dishes and the samples were placed in a desiccator for 12 h. Later, the sheepskin samples were examined under SEM (QuantaTM 450 FEG) using sample stub with double-sided sticky tape (37).

    3.1 Isolation and Selection of Test Strains from Sheepskins

    A total of 22 red coloured strains were isolated from two deteriorated salted sheepskin samples obtained from two tanneries in the Istanbul Leather Organized Industrial Zone in Tuzla, Turkey. While nine, seven and three strains respectively produced protease, lipase, both protease and lipase, three strains did not produce either lipase or protease enzymes. The red coloured three extremely halophilic strains producing both protease and lipase enzymes were selected and used as test strains (AT1, 22T6 and 7T3) in the present study.

    3.2 Phenotypic Characteristics of Test Strains

    Strains AT1, 22T6 and 7T3 grew at 15–30% NaCl, 15–30% NaCl, 20–30% NaCl concentrations, respectively. Optimum salt concentrations of strains AT1, 22T6 and 7T3 were determined as 25% NaCl. Hence, these strains were accepted as extremely halophilic archaea. The pH and temperature ranges for growth of strains AT1, 22T6 and 7T3 were respectively found as pH 6–11 and 20–50°C, pH 6–11 and 15–55°C, pH 5–11 and 15–55°C. All extremely halophilic archaeal strains optimally grew at 39°C and pH 7. The colony pigmentation, size, margin, elevation and opacity of strains AT1, 22T6, 7T3 were respectively observed as: red, 0.6– 2 mm, entire, convex, translucent; red, 1–2 mm, entire, convex, translucent; red, 0.8–1.9 mm, entire, convex, translucent. The cells of strains AT1 (Figure 2(a)) and 7T3 (Figure 2(c)) were non-motile, extremely pleomorphic (triangle, square, irregular disk, short rod). The cells of strains AT1 and 7T3 were approximately 0.4–1.3 μm × 0.4–2.0 μm and 0.3–0.7 μm × 0.3–4 μm, respectively. The cells of strain 22T6 (Figure 2(b)) were motile, pleomorphic rods, approximately 0.5–1.2 μm × 3.2–6.6 μm. All strains were Gram-negative (Table II). While all strains showed positive catalase, oxidase, protease, lipase activities, indole production, the methyl red, caseinase, urease and β-galactosidase reactions of all strains were negative. The strains did not produce H2S and NH3 (Table II).

    Fig. 2

    SEM micrographs of pleomorphic test strains of (a) Haloarcula salaria (AT1) cells; (b) Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) cells; (c) Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) cells trapped on the membrane filter

    SEM micrographs of pleomorphic test strains of (a) Haloarcula salaria (AT1) cells; (b) Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) cells; (c) Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) cells trapped on the membrane filter

    Table II

    Phenotypic Characteristics of Haloarcula salaria, Halobacterium salinarum, Haloarcula tradensis

    Characteristics Haloarcula salaria Halobacterium salinarum Haloarcula tradensis
    Strain code AT1 22T6 7T3
    Motility Non-motile Motile Non-motile
    Cell morphology Extremely pleomorphic Pleomorphic rods Extremely pleomorphic
    Cell width, μm 0.4–1.3 0.5–1.2 0.3–0.7
    Cell length, μm 0.4–2 3.2–6.6 0.3–4
    Gram staining Negative Negative Negative
    Pigmentation Red Red Red
    Colony size, mm 0.6–2 1–2 0.8–1.9
    Colony margin Entire Entire Entire
    Colony elevation Convex Convex Convex
    Colony opacity Translucent Translucent Translucent
    NaCl concentration, % 15–30 15–30 20–30
    pH range 6–11 6–11 5–11
    Temperature range, °C 20–50 15–55 15–55
    Optimum NaCl 25 25 25
    Optimum Temperature, °C 39 39 39
    Optimum pH range 7 7 7
    Catalase activity + + +
    Oxidase activity + + +
    Methyl red reaction
    Caseinase activity
    Urease activity
    β-galactosidase activity
    Indole production
    H2S production
    NH3 production
    Protease activity + + +a
    Lipase activity + + +

    Our experimental results showed that Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6), Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) strains have protease activities which can breakdown proteins in corium of sheepskin causing loss of skin substance. When the protein structure of salted skins is broken down by proteolytic extremely halophilic archaea, these microorganisms can utilise some amino acids as a source of carbon, nitrogen and energy. Haloarcula salaria AT1 and Halobacterium salinarum 22T6 utilised most of the amino acids examined. While Haloarcula salaria AT1, Halobacterium salinarum 22T6 utilised 17 amino acids, Haloarcula tradensis 7T3 used only three amino acids (Table III). In another study, the liquid test media containing calfskin samples, 30% NaCl and proteolytic red and pink strains of the extremely halophilic archaea were separately prepared to show disintegration of the skin proteins. After an incubation period, decomposition of the skin samples in the media was detected by visual observation. While contents of asparagine, threonine, serine, glutamine, proline, glycine, alanine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, lysine and arginine in the test tubes were detected at high levels, contents of methionine, tyrosine and histidine were low (10).

    Table III

    Utilisation of Amino Acids by Strains

    Amino acids Haloarcula salaria (AT1) Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) Haloarcula tradensis (7T3)
    L-arginine + + +
    L-cysteine
    L-glycine + +
    L-alanine + +
    L-tyrosine + +
    L-proline + +
    L-hydroxyproline + +
    L-glutamic acid
    L-methionine + +
    L-serine + +
    L-isoleucine + +
    myo-inositol + +
    L-lysine + + +
    L-phenylalanine + +
    L-leucine +
    L-valine + +
    L-threonine + +
    L-ornithine + +
    L-histidine + + +
    L-aspartic acid
    L-cystine +

    Phenotypic features of extremely halophilic AT1, 7T3 and 22T6 strains detected in this study were fairly similar to phenotypic features of Haloarcula salaria, Haloarcula tradensis and Halobacterium salinarum isolated by other researchers (15, 38, 39).

    3.3 16S rRNA Gene Sequences of Test Strains

    The phylogenetic analysis revealed that three strains shared highly similar identities with their closest phylogenetic relatives. Strains AT1, 22T6, 7T3 were respectively assigned to Haloarcula salaria (98.36%-1344 base pairs), Halobacterium salinarum (99.78%-1345 base pairs), Haloarcula tradensis (98.37%-1355 base pairs). The gene sequence data of the strains AT1, 22T6, 7T3 were respectively deposited in GenBank® (National Center for Biotechnology Information, USA) under accession numbers as MN585896, MN585803, MN585804.

    In our previous study, extremely halophilic archaeal strains were isolated from Tuz Lake and its salterns (5). In Turkish leather industry, curing salt is mostly obtained from Tuz Lake and its salterns. Hence, we suspect that contaminations of our sheepskin samples with Haloarcula salaria AT1, Halobacterium salinarum 22T6 and Haloarcula tradensis 7T3 were due to the curing salt obtained from Tuz Lake and its salterns.

    3.4 Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Counts in Curing Solutions Before Curing

    In the study carried out with 25 salted sheepskin samples (Australia, Bulgaria, Dubai, Greece, Israel, Kuwait, South Africa, Turkey, USA) and 25 salted goat skin samples (Australia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Israel, South Africa, Russia, China, France), proteolytic extremely halophilic archaea and lipolytic extremely halophilic archaea were detected as 102–105 CFU g−1; 102–106 CFU g−1 and 102–106 CFU g−1; 102–106 CFU g−1 on salted sheepskins and goat skins, respectively (40). The highest number of proteolytic and lipolytic extremely halophilic archaea on the salted skins was found as 106 CFU g−1 (40). Therefore, the archaeal cell numbers of test strains in the brine curing solutions were adjusted to 106 CFU ml−1. Before the curing processes of sheepskins, while the archaeal cell numbers in the brine solutions of Treatments 1, 3 and 4 were detected as 2.1 × 106 CFU ml−1, the archaeal cell numbers in the brine solution of Treatment 2 was detected as 2.2 × 106 CFU ml−1.

    The archaeal cell numbers in the mixed culture was detected as 2.1 × 106 CFU ml−1 in the electrolysis cell before 1.5 A DC application. While the archaeal cell numbers in the mixed culture were reduced from 2.1 × 106 CFU ml−1 to 3.2 × 105 CFU ml−1 after 1 min of DC treatment, the cell numbers of 1.24 × 102 CFU ml−1 was detected after 4 min of DC treatment. All archaeal cells in the mixed culture were completely killed in 7 min of DC treatment. In the present study, log10 value of the mixed culture of extremely halophilic archaea in the brine solution before the DC treatment was 6.32. After 1 min, 4 min and 7 min of 1.5 A DC treatment; 0.82, 4.23 and 6.32 log10 reduction values (CFU ml−1) of the mixed culture in the brine were detected, respectively.

    Temperature and pH of the electrolysis cell were respectively measured as 31°C and pH 6 prior to the electric current treatment. After treating the brine solution with the electric current, the temperature of the brine was adjusted to 24°C for using in curing process of sheepskin in the Treatment 5. While the temperature and pH of the test medium respectively increased from 31°C to 41°C and from pH 6 to pH 8.5 during the electric current treatment, voltage values slightly decreased from 4.7 V to 4.3 V.

    We also demonstrated the inactivation of extremely halophilic strains via DC and alternating electric current (AC) in our previous studies (35, 41, 42). A 0.5 A DC was applied for 30 min to several strains of extremely halophilic archaea (107 CFU ml−1) isolated from Tuz Lake, Kaldırım and Kayacık salterns (35). While the mixed culture of extremely halophilic archaea was exterminated in 10 min, protease producing extremely halophilic archaea were killed in 5 min. However, lipase or lipase and protease producing extremely halophilic archaea were exterminated in 20 min (35). In another experiment, lipase and protease producing extremely halophilic strains (105–106 CFU ml−1), separately grown in liquid Brown media, were inactivated by a 10 min treatment with 0.5 A DC (41). It was also detected that 1 min of 2 A AC treatment was enough to kill extremely halophilic archaea found in brine solution (102–104 CFU ml−1). When 2 A AC was applied to lipolytic extremely halophilic archaea, proteolytic extremely halophilic archaea, both proteolytic and lipolytic extremely halophilic archaea, and a mixed culture of these strains (106 CFU ml−1), all test microorganisms found in 25% NaCl solution were exterminated in 5 min (42).

    3.5 Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Counts on Cured Sheepskin Samples During Storage

    After the curing processes of sheepskins, we did not detect any extremely halophilic archaea on the sheepskin sample cured with the sterile brine solution (Control) and the sheepskin sample cured with the brine solution containing electrically inactivated mixed culture (T5) during the all storage periods.

    While extremely halophilic archaeal numbers on both skin samples cured with each strain and the skin sample cured with mixed cultures of the strains slowly increased from 106 CFU ml−1 to 107 CFU during five days and 16 days storage periods, the numbers of these strains slowly decreased 28 days and 47 days storage periods due to attachment of these cells to sheepskins (Table IV).

    Table IV

    pH, Ash Content, Moisture Content and Salt Saturation Values, Total Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Counts of the Sheepskin Samples After Different Storage Periods

    Experiment pH Ash content, % Moisture content, % Salt saturation, % Total count of extremely halophilic archaea
    After 5 days
    Control 7.55 20 55 >100 0
    T1 6.72 24 50 >100 2.0 × 107
    T2 6.59 23 50 >100 3.4 × 107
    T3 6.65 21 57 >100 2.2 × 107
    T4 6.53 26 52 >100 3.8 × 107
    T5 7.80 21 57 >100 0
    After 16 days
    Control 7.43 25 50 >100 0
    T1 6.52 30 47 >100 3.0 × 107
    T2 6.70 27 51 >100 6.0 × 107
    T3 6.65 22 50 >100 3.4 × 107
    T4 6.85 32 46 >100 8.4 × 107
    T5 7.32 23 55 >100 0
    After 28 days
    Control 7.40 28 45 >100 0
    T1 7.70 29 40 >100 1.2 × 107
    T2 7.52 29 43 >100 2.0 × 107
    T3 7.36 33 44 >100 2.0 × 107
    T4 7.51 32 39 >100 3.4 × 107
    T5 7.81 29 46 >100 0
    After 47 days
    Control 7.26 41 30 >100 0
    T1 7.58 34 26 >100 1.0 × 107
    T2 7.47 34 35 >100 1.8 × 107
    T3 7.31 44 24 >100 1.7 × 107
    T4 7.60 37 38 >100 2.0 × 107
    T5 7.64 33 33 >100 0

    3.6 pH, Moisture Content, Ash Content and Salt Saturation Values of Cured Sheepskin Samples

    After the curing processes of skins, pH values of the sheepskin samples were measured as pH 7.35 for Control; pH 6.89 for T1; pH 7.09 for T2; pH 7.05 for T3; pH 7.16 for T4; pH 8.05 for T5. While salt saturation values of all cured sheepskins were higher than 100% during all storage periods, pH, ash content and moisture content values changed during different storage periods. pH, ash content and moisture content values of the cured skins were detected between pH 6.52–7.81, 20–44%, 24–57%, respectively (Table IV).

    Moisture, minimum and maximum ash contents, salt saturation values of adequately cured salted hides were suggested as 40–48%, 14–48%, higher than 85%, respectively (36). Due to detection of high moisture content in all samples (between 50–57%) after five days storage, sterile salt was added to all sheepskins to reduce their moisture contents according to curing procedure described in the previous study (43). While all skin samples reached the suggested moisture content values (39–46%) after 28 days, the suggested saturation values were detected after five days. The samples’ lowest moisture content values were detected after 47 days. Ash contents of all skins (20–44%) were close to suggested values (36). While the skins’ pH values changed during storage periods, all values were found sufficient to support the growth of extremely halophilic strains (Table IV). The pH, moisture content, ash content and salt saturation values detected in this study were also consistent with pH range (pH 6.53–8.01), moisture content (32–68%), ash content (12–30%) and salt saturation (58–100%) values of 25 salted sheepskin samples determined in the previous experiment (40).

    3.7 Organoleptic Characteristics of Brine Cured Sheepskin Samples During Storage

    While hair slip and bad odour were detected on the sheepskin samples cured with each strain and the mixed culture after five days at 33°C, sticky appearance and red heat were observed on the cured sheepskin samples after 16 days (T1–T4, Figure 3). In addition to the aforementioned organoleptic properties, hole formations were observed on these sheepskin samples after 28 days. However, we did not detect any organoleptic properties on sheepskin samples cured with sterile brine and the brine treated with 1.5 A DC (Control and T5, Figure 3).

    Fig. 3

    Organoleptic characteristics of brine cured sheepskin samples after 16 days storage period: (a) Control, sheepskin sample cured with sterile brine (30% NaCl); (b) T1, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing Haloarcula salaria AT1; (c) T2, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing Halobacterium salinarum 22T6; (d) T3, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing Haloarcula tradensis 7T3; (e) T4, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing mixed culture; (f) T5, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing electrically inactivated mixed culture

    Organoleptic characteristics of brine cured sheepskin samples after 16 days storage period: (a) Control, sheepskin sample cured with sterile brine (30% NaCl); (b) T1, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing Haloarcula salaria AT1; (c) T2, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing Halobacterium salinarum 22T6; (d) T3, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing Haloarcula tradensis 7T3; (e) T4, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing mixed culture; (f) T5, sheepskin sample cured with brine containing electrically inactivated mixed culture

    In another study, the commercially cured hides stored one year in the USA were also examined for proteolytic activity of extremely halophilic archaea. Experimental results of that study showed that the flesh side of hides containing extremely halophilic archaea had pink discolorations called red heat. When these hides were incubated at 35°C–40°C, bad odour, hair slip and severe grain damage were detected. Damaged grain surfaces were observed on leather made from these hides (10). In another experiment researchers emphasised that temperatures of the brines and hides should be maintained below 20°C to prevent growth of extremely halophilic archaea (44).

    3.8 Scanning Electron Microscopy Observation of Mixed Culture and Treated Sheepskin Samples

    Figure 4 shows extremely halophilic archaeal cells of the mixed culture on 0.2 μm pore-size cellulose nitrate membrane filter in pleomorphic shapes such as triangle, square, irregular disk and rod. As seen in the SEM micrograph, 1.5 A DC treatment significantly debilitated structural integrity of the cells in the mixed culture trapped on the filter (Figure 5). The SEM images clearly showed that electric current application damaged cell structures of each strain in the mixed culture (Figure 5). As seen in Figure 6, the sterile brine curing process protected the sheepskin against microbial damage during 47 days of storage.

    Fig. 4

    SEM micrograph of mixed culture of undamaged pleomorphic cells of Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) and Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) trapped on the membrane filter

    SEM micrograph of mixed culture of undamaged pleomorphic cells of Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) and Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) trapped on the membrane filter

    Fig. 5

    SEM micrograph of mixed culture of damaged Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) and Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) cells treated with 1.5 A DC trapped on the membrane filter

    SEM micrograph of mixed culture of damaged Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) and Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) cells treated with 1.5 A DC trapped on the membrane filter

    Fig. 6

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of undamaged sheepskin structure treated with sterile brine (Control) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of undamaged sheepskin structure treated with sterile brine (Control) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    Attachment of Haloarcula salaria AT1, Halobacterium salinarum 22T6 and Haloarcula tradensis 7T3 to corium fibres and the consequent destructive effects on sheepskins are seen in Figures 710. Haloarcula salaria AT1, Halobacterium salinarum 22T6 and the mixed culture of the strains caused fibres in the corium to split and weaken (Figures 7, 8 and 10). In contrast with the skin samples treated with Haloarcula salaria AT1, Halobacterium salinarum 22T6, skin sample treated with Haloarcula tradensis 7T3 had compact appearance, although the shredding of the fibres was still present in corium (Figure 9). That damage was due to the proteolytic activities of these microorganisms.

    Fig. 7

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with Haloarcula salaria (AT1) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with Haloarcula salaria (AT1) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    Fig. 8

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with Halobacterium salinarum (22T6) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    Fig. 9

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    Fig. 10

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with mixed culture of Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6), Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of damaged corium layer of sheepskin treated with mixed culture of Haloarcula salaria (AT1), Halobacterium salinarum (22T6), Haloarcula tradensis (7T3) stored for 47 days at 33°C

    Figure 11 clearly shows that the curing process of sheepskin with the brine containing mixed culture treated with DC prevented extremely halophilic archaea from contaminating the sheepskin and furthermore protected the skin very well against microbial damage during a long storage period.

    Fig. 11

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of undamaged sheepskin structure treated with electrically inactivated mixed culture stored for 47 days at 33°C

    SEM micrograph of the longitudinal section of undamaged sheepskin structure treated with electrically inactivated mixed culture stored for 47 days at 33°C

    The present study proved that organoleptic changes detected in the sheepskins were closely related to proteolytic and lipolytic activities of extremely halophilic archaeal strains on the skin. Electron micrographs also showed that each test isolate and a mixed culture of extremely halophilic strains destroyed the skins’ collagen fibres. We did not detect any difference when assessing the efficacy of sterile brine and electrically treated brine curing processes of sheepskin samples throughout 47 days. We did not observe any damage to the compactness of sheepskin structure cured with both the sterile brine and electrically treated brine containing the mixed culture. Both methods were found very effective for preventing archaeal growth and damage on the brine cured sheepskins.

    Our results were consistent with those of other experimental studies on the extremely halophilic strains and culture collection strains of extremely halophilic archaea (25, 26). In our previous experiment, SEM images showed that hides cured with proteolytic extremely halophilic archaeal strains had red heat and severe grain damage after 49 days of storage at 41°C (25). In another study, the cured hides with extremely halophilic Haloferax gibbonsii (ATCC® 33959TM) exhibited hair loss, thinner and flaccid structure; these consequences of deterioration and loss of hide substance. The open fibre structure was also detected in the corium of the hide inoculated with Haloferax gibbonsii (27). The SEM images showed that the fibre structures of hide were broken down into the smaller fibres after 43 days (27).

    By |2020-10-06T10:00:58+00:00October 6th, 2020|Weld Engineering Services|Comments Off on The Destructive Effects of Extremely Halophilic Archaeal Strains on Sheepskins, and Proposals for Remedial Curing Processes

    Royal Academy of Engineering Enterprise Hub sets up first regional base in Northern Ireland

    The Royal Academy of Engineering has today established the first regional base for its Enterprise Hub – in Belfast. The Enterprise Hub: Northern Ireland, supported by Invest Northern Ireland, is based at Ormeau Baths co-working space in Belfast.

    Senior Regional Business Development Manager Gillian Gregg will be based at the Belfast hub to champion ambitious engineering entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland, supporting the region’s brightest technology and engineering entrepreneurs to realise their potential. She will be growing a local network of engineering entrepreneurs, mentors, institutions, accelerators and investors.

    The Academy established its Enterprise Hub in 2013 to run programmes for entrepreneurial engineers at different career stages. Each one offers equity-free funding, an extended programme of mentorship and coaching and a lifetime of support through connection to an exceptional community of engineers and innovators from among the Academy’s Fellows, many of whom have set up highly successful companies.

    The Enterprise Hub currently supports more than 200 engineering and technology entrepreneurs and leaders of high-growth SMEs who have attracted over £200 million in external funding. Only seven of these entrepreneurs are based in Northern Ireland, and the Belfast hub is looking to significantly grow this number by providing financial support, training and coaching to early stage and scale up entrepreneurs as well as exceptional connections to the nation’s best engineering minds. According to a report[1] by Beauhurst there are 612 active, ambitious companies in Northern Ireland, and 35% of these are at seed stage. Only 32% of high-growth companies in Northern Ireland have raised equity investment, which is far lower than the UK average of 52%.

    David Cleevely CBE FREng, Chair of the Royal Academy of Engineering Enterprise Committee and serial entrepreneur and investor, said:

    “There is a great entrepreneurial culture in Northern Ireland with strong focus on engineering and technology, building on its rich innovation heritage. The Enterprise Hub can add value here by providing specialist support to entrepreneurs and giving them access to the Royal Academy of Engineering’s network of world-leading engineers. We want to help this vibrant start-up community to grow.”

    Stephen Wightman, Director for Technology Solutions at Invest NI, said:

    “We are pleased to welcome the establishment of the Royal Academy’s first regional hub to Northern Ireland. Our team has helped to bring the investment here, and we have offered support towards the Senior Regional Business Development Manager role. Northern Ireland has a vibrant and diverse engineering and technology sector, exporting to all corners of the globe. The addition of the Royal Academy’s facilities, connections and mentoring will support and enhance the development of new and existing Northern Ireland entrepreneurial talent in the field of engineering and technology.”

    Notes for Editors

    The Royal Academy of Engineering Enterprise Hub supports the UK’s brightest technology and engineering entrepreneurs to realise their potential.

    Our goal is to encourage creativity and innovation in engineering for the benefit of all. By fostering lasting, exceptional connections between talent and expertise, we aim to create a virtuous cycle of innovation that can deliver on this ambition.

    The Enterprise Hub was formally launched in April 2013. Since then, we have supported over 130 researchers, recent graduates and SME leaders to start up and scale up businesses that can give practical application to their inventions. We’ve awarded over £4 million in grant funding, and our Hub Members have gone on to raise over £100 million in additional funding.

    The Royal Academy of Engineering is harnessing the power of engineering to build a sustainable society and an inclusive economy that works for everyone.

    In collaboration with our Fellows and partners, we’re growing talent and developing skills for the future, driving innovation and building global partnerships, and influencing policy and engaging the public.

    Together we’re working to tackle the greatest challenges of our age.

    For more information please contact: Jane Sutton at the Royal Academy of Engineering Tel. 0207 766 0636; email: jane.sutton@raeng.org.uk


    [1] https://www.beauhurst.com/research/high-growth-northern-ireland/

    By |2020-10-05T23:01:02+00:00October 5th, 2020|Engineering News|Comments Off on Royal Academy of Engineering Enterprise Hub sets up first regional base in Northern Ireland

    PPE could be safely decontaminated and reused to conserve supplies and save waste, say engineers

    • Advice published on critical issues for reprocessing of single-use PPE for critical shortages as second wave of Covid-19 infection looms and government publishes its PPE strategy
    • Government encouraged to pursue more sustainable use of PPE as pandemic continues

    Serious consideration should be given to decontaminating and reusing some types of PPE in order to maintain supplies and reduce waste, provided it can be safely reprocessed and suitable quality assurance procedures established, according to a paper published today by the National Engineering Policy Centre. The paper, following the government’s publication of its PPE Strategy for England, was drawn up following international consultation with engineers and manufacturers in other countries where various methods of reprocessing have been tested and evaluated.

    With a winter surge in Covid-19 cases looming across the UK, the NHS should consider developing appropriate reprocessing facilities, the paper says. This would need to be done in consultation with experts across the delivery pipeline to ensure all the component parts including validated reprocessing facilities, logistics, and the provision of skilled personnel can scale simultaneously to meet potential demand.

    Over 2 billion items of PPE were delivered to the health and social care system in England alone between March and July 2020, including over 400 million masks, 300 million aprons, 4 million gowns and half a billion pairs of gloves. The UK has rapidly scaled domestic PPE manufacturing capability, with UK-based supply anticipated to meet 70% of forecasted demand in December for all categories of PPE, excluding gloves – by far the biggest component of PPE by number. However, this may be tested by the challenges of winter if there are sustained periods of high transmission rates and increased hospital admissions or supply disruptions due to adverse weather events and the end of the EU transition period. The paper outlines how reprocessing could help to reduce pressure on supplies.

    The potential decontamination methods detailed in the paper have been studied and trialled in the US, China, Finland, Japan and Germany, including treatment with hydrogen peroxide vapour, ultraviolet light, moist heat, dry heat and irradiation. The method of decontamination chosen would determine which items of PPE were applicable, necessary validations, potential risks and how many times the PPE could be reprocessed. Adopting a standardised approach across the UK would be beneficial.

    Quality management records for any decontamination methods adopted would be critical to ensure good practice, traceability, and auditability alongside robust health and safety protocols to assess and manage risk assessments. Rigorous validation and verification would be required of any approach to the reprocessing of single use PPE to ensure that the PPE decontamination process was effective and did not introduce other risks. This would include assessments to ensure the elimination of Sars-CoV-2 and other micro-organisms, quantitative fit tests and performance tests.  Any soiled or damaged PPE has to be disposed of appropriately and reprocessed PPE must be tracked to ensure that that reuse does not exceed the recommended number of cycles.

    Healthcare professionals would need to be consulted to ensure that the risks of reprocessing PPE are fully understood and any process deployed should be validated locally but remain under review as scientific evidence continues to emerge.

    Professor David Delpy CBE FREng FRS FMedSci, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, says:

    “We welcome the government’s PPE strategy, which outlines how it aims to move away from disposable by default and assess new types of PPE that are designed for reuse from the outset. Some UK pilot studies are now in progress.

    “However, as the pandemic continues, we think there should be more emphasis on decontamination methods, which if properly used could enable more sustainable use of PPE that is specifically designed for reuse and reprocessing. We need to be conscious of the environmental impact of using and disposing of so much plastic waste, particularly when much of it has to be incinerated after use.

    “It is vital to ensure that critical care workers have access to PPE if there is another sustained period of high Covid-19 transmission and emergency reprocessing of single-use PPE should not be seen as an alternative to increasing the supply of vital protective clothing and equipment for our frontline staff.”

    Notes for Editors

    1.    The National Engineering Policy Centre commentary on considerations for PPE reprocessing based on international practices was developed in consultation with Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering, experts in the Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Management, the Institution of Engineering Designers, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering UK Affiliate and through the Academy’s international networks with other engineering Academies.

    2.    National Engineering Policy Centre

    We are a unified voice for 43 professional engineering organisations, representing 450,000 engineers, a partnership led by the Royal Academy of Engineering.

    We give policymakers a single route to advice from across the engineering profession.

    We inform and respond to policy issues of national importance, for the benefit of society.

    3.    The Royal Academy of Engineering is harnessing the power of engineering to build a sustainable society and an inclusive economy that works for everyone.

    In collaboration with our Fellows and partners, we’re growing talent and developing skills for the future, driving innovation and building global partnerships, and influencing policy and engaging the public.

    Together we’re working to tackle the greatest challenges of our age.

    For more information please contact:

    Jane Sutton at the Royal Academy of Engineering

    T: 0207 766 0636

    E:  Jane Sutton

    By |2020-10-04T23:01:00+00:00October 4th, 2020|Engineering News|Comments Off on PPE could be safely decontaminated and reused to conserve supplies and save waste, say engineers

    Academy invests £22 million in emerging technologies that could have global benefits

    Academy’s largest funding scheme selects eight global visionaries

    The Royal Academy of Engineering has announced that eight engineering academics at universities across the UK are to receive support from its largest research funding scheme—the Chairs in Emerging Technologies. A total of £22 million has been allocated to support these innovative researchers and global leaders in their fields whose projects made it through the rigorous selection process in the face of stiff competition.

    Research being funded this year includes the development of electronic textiles; multifunctional composites that could revolutionise sectors from aerospace to portable electronic devices; and machine learning techniques that could improve the sustainability of the chemical industry and help to reduce the £20 billion of waste produced globally during the manufacture of medicines.

    Other projects will use novel materials in semiconductors to improve energy efficiency; find new ways to deal with nuclear waste; and improve the delivery of clean drinking water and wastewater treatment in rural communities. Our future healthcare also stands to gain from the development of new biosensing technology platforms.

    Professor Sir Jim McDonald FREng FRSE, President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: “When I see such exciting projects as these, I am genuinely heartened and optimistic about the engineering talent we have working in this country and the critical role our engineers can play in helping to tackle global challenges. These visionary engineers and the projects they will be working on are outstanding examples of why the Academy places such importance on supporting excellence in engineering as part of its strategy to achieve a sustainable society and inclusive economy that works for everyone. We expect great things of them all and I’m confident they will deliver results that will benefit the economy and society as a whole.”

    The Chairs in Emerging Technologies scheme is made possible through funding from the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The eight Chairs and their research projects are:

     

    Professor Stephen Beeby, University of Southampton
    Electronic textiles engineering: towards invisible and ubiquitous wearable technologies

    Professor Beeby will develop electronic textiles into a practical platform technology for wearable applications and beyond. His research will exploit printed active materials, flexible circuit technologies and textile engineering to integrate sensing, electronic and energy harvesting/storage functionality within a single textile. This will create reliable e-textile systems that are invisible to the user and require minimal intervention for a range of health and work-related applications.

     

     

    Professor Emile Greenhalgh, Imperial College London
    Structural power and multifunctional structural materials

    Professor Emile Greenhalgh will develop structural power composites, which are mechanically load-bearing materials that can also store and deliver electrical energy. These multifunctional composites are a completely new way of using structural materials, heralding an emerging technology that could revolutionise sectors such as aerospace, automotive, portable electronics and infrastructure. If successful, such ‘massless energy’ could ultimately consign conventional batteries to history.

     

     

    Professor Jonathan Hirst, University of Nottingham
    Machines learning chemistry

    Professor Hirst will develop machine learning techniques to help chemical engineers and chemists make their manufacturing processes more sustainable. Working with scientists at the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Sustainable Chemistry, Professor Hirst aims to build interactive machine learning models of sustainability that can be used early in the discovery phase by researchers in the pharmaceutical sector and related chemical-based industries.

     

     

    Professor Martin Kuball, University of Bristol
    Ultra-wide bandgap emerging power electronics for a low-carbon economy

    Professor Kuball wants to develop a new class of semiconductor power electronic devices using ultra-wide bandgap materials such as gallium oxide, boron nitride and aluminium nitride. Thanks to the outstanding properties of these materials, the new devices will be compact, highly versatile and energy efficient. This new generation of power electronics is the key to transforming a wide range of real-life applications from data centres and motor drives to electric vehicle chargers to smart grids.

     

     

    Professor Bruno Merk, University of Liverpool
    iMAGINE – a breakthrough technology to make more out of spent nuclear fuel

    Professor Merk aims to develop an advanced nuclear technology to turn spent fuel, currently declared as nuclear waste, into an asset that can be used as fuel for future nuclear reactors without the expensive reprocessing technologies currently used at Sellafield. His innovative approach could significantly reduce the cost of nuclear energy, reduce the amount of nuclear waste for disposal and create a valuable net-zero energy resource for future generations. He will work with key industrial stakeholders and government institutions to develop this technology.

     

     

    Professor Douglas Paul, University of Glasgow
    Single-chip cold-atom systems: a quantum navigator in your mobile phone

    Professor Paul aims to develop cold-atom atomic clocks, accelerometers and rotation sensors that can be manufactured on single silicon chips and used for navigation without relying on satellites. Laser light is already used to slow atoms down by quantum processes and reduce their temperature close to absolute zero, enabling accurate atomic clocks and quantum sensors. However, present systems are large, heavy and expensive and his research aims to develop chip-scale quantum navigators that can fit inside a mobile phone and could enable resilient position, navigation and timing systems for all forms of transport.

     

    Professor William Sloan, University of Glasgow
    Off-grid water biotechnologies

    Professor Bill Sloan will develop new technologies to simultaneously tackle the most pressing global water problems and help decarbonise the water industry. Some 35% of the world’s population, most of whom live in rural communities, lack access to either improved sanitation or safe drinking water. The western, centralised model for water supply and treatment is too energy- and capital-intensive to deliver sustainable solutions. Professor Sloan will harness the bioprocessing power of microorganisms to deliver clean drinking water and treat wastewater in rural communities using low-energy, sustainable, off-grid technologies.

     

    Professor Molly Stevens FREng FRS, Imperial College London
    Multidimensional Target-Agnostic Sensing (MTAS): the next generation of biosensors

    The Stevens Group is very active in the development of bioengineering strategies for the biosensing and regenerative medicine fields. Professor Stevens aims to develop next-generation biosensing technology platforms, including a new MTAS platform. Working closely with clinical and industrial partners, her research will enable applications in point-of-care diagnostics, disease profiling and monitoring of biotech processes.

     

     


    Notes for Editors

    1. The Academy’s Chair in Emerging Technologies scheme aims to identify global research visionaries and provide them with long-term support to lead on developing emerging technology areas with high potential to deliver economic and social benefit to the UK.
       

    For more information please contact: Pippa Cox at the Royal Academy of Engineering Tel. 020 7766 0745; email: Pippa.Cox@raeng.org.uk

    By |2020-10-01T23:01:00+00:00October 1st, 2020|Engineering News|Comments Off on Academy invests £22 million in emerging technologies that could have global benefits

    The Biotechnological Potentials of Bacteria Isolated from Parsık Cave, Turkey

    Caves are dark environments with high humidity, low nutrients, stable temperature and high mineral diversity. They are natural geological formations constituting ecological niches for microorganisms (1). Each cave is singular in its physical, chemical, biological and ecological factors. These conditions contribute to the formation of unique microbial communities in every cave. Moreover, caves contain some unique microorganisms which lead to rock weathering process and biomineralisation by carrying out various enzymatic reactions as a result of their metabolism. These microorganisms play an important and major role in the formation of cave structures such as stalactites, stalagmites, cave pearls and curtains (25). Studies have shown that cave isolates have biotechnological and industrial applications such as microplastic degradation (6), biological treatment of metal contaminated soil and groundwater (7) and use in self-healing concrete (8).

    The insufficient nutrient levels in caves stimulate competition among microorganisms by forcing them to develop survival strategies such as producing high amounts of exopolymeric substances, enzymes and antimicrobial metabolites. Hence, caves could be considered as incomparable environments for the discovery of new antibiotics and production of novel enzymes (911).

    Since microorganisms have the capacity to produce a high quantity of stable enzymes in a short period of time, they become the preferred source of industrial enzymes. Microbial enzymes are used in the clinical field for diagnosis, treatment, biochemical tests and monitoring of various diseases. Furthermore, cave microbial enzymes are used in biotechnological and industrial fields such as biodegradation, recycling of waste (12), purification and dirt or waste-dissolving products. It is reported that enzymes from microorganisms isolated from cold cave or ocean environments offer economic benefits and contribute to energy conservation due to their activation at low temperatures (13, 14).

    Apart from the importance of enzymes isolated from cave microorganisms, it is interesting to investigate the potential of producing new antimicrobial agents. Since the World Health Organization pointed out the need for new antibiotics because of increasing microbial resistance (15), studies in this field are multiplying and many cave isolates producing antimicrobial substances have been discovered. Cervimycin A, B, C and D from Streptomyces tendae strain HKI 0179 isolated from Grotta dei Cervi in Italy (16), Xiakemycin A from Streptomyces sp. CC8-201 isolated from Chongqing City karst soil in China (17), and Hypogeamicin A, B, C and D from Nonomuraea specus isolated from Hardin’s cave system in Tennessee, USA (18) were the first produced and purified bioactive substances from microorganisms of caves situated in different geographical regions.

    Bacteria in environments far away from human influence are not expected to have antibiotic resistance. However, studies have shown that bacteria isolated from such environments do have antibiotic resistance. Some bacteria have resistance genes by which they can produce neutralising or detoxifying products which act against microorganisms in the same environment. This explains the imperative production of antibiotics in these bacteria. Since the resistance and antimicrobial biosynthesis genes are often linked and coregulated, antibiotic resistance in environmental bacteria remains a major indicator of antibiotic production, as is the case of bacteria isolated from soil (19, 20). Therefore, it is important to establish antibiotic resistance profiles as well as the antibacterial properties of bacteria.

    This study has two main goals:

    • Detection of enzyme profiles of the isolates and determination of isolates that have potential uses in biotechnology

    • Investigation of antimicrobial agents and antibiotic resistance of cave bacteria.

    2.1 Studying Area and Sampling

    Parsık cave is located in Izmit-Aksığın village (Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates 40° 37′ 50.1060″N, 29° 57′ 56.5056″E), in the north-west of Turkey. It is a horizontal cave with a length of 778 m and a depth of 166 m. There is an intense water inlet in Parsık cave throughout four seasons. Samples were taken from water, soil and surface formations (‘moonmilk’) (Figure 1). The selected sampling zones are the sole area away from the entrance area, trip and running water pathway. Although Parsık cave is not a show cave, it is open to cavers and researchers.

    Fig. 1

    Map of Parsık cave (red dots show the sampling areas) from the Anatolian Speleology Association, Turkey

    Map of Parsık cave (red dots show the sampling areas) from the Anatolian Speleology Association, Turkey

    Surface formation samples were collected by sterile swabs under aseptic conditions and cultivated on starch casein agar (SCA), inorganic salt-starch agar (ISP4), soil extract agar (SEA) and Actinomycetes isolation agar (AIA-G) in duplicate for each region. Once the plates reached the laboratory, they were incubated aerobically for a period of 5–30 days at 20°C (21). All water and soil samples were taken in sterile sample containers.

    2.2 Physicochemical Measurements of Sampling Areas

    Humidity and temperature values of the sampling areas were measured by a portable temperature/humidity meter. In addition, the temperature, conductivity, amount of dissolved substances and pH values of the sampled water sources were measured during sampling and recorded by a HQ40D digital two channel multimeter (Hach Lange GmbH, Germany).

    2.3 Total (Live/Dead) Bacteria Number

    The redox dye 5-cyano-2,3-ditolyl-tetrazolium chloride (CTC) was used together with the DNA-binding fluorescent dye 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) to determine the total number of bacterial cells and the viable count of bacteria which actively respire. The concept is to distinguish between the metabolically active cells and the dead cells present in each of the water and soil samples. The experimentation procedure is the same as previously described by Güngör and Yurudu (22).

    2.4 Enumeration and Isolation of Culturable Aerobic Heterotrophic Bacteria

    1 l of water samples were condensed by using polyamide filters of 0.22 μm pore size. Filters were re-suspended in 20 ml of sterile physiological saline water. 1 g of the soil samples was homogenised in 9 ml of sterile physiological saline water. All samples were cultivated using the 10-fold serial dilution method. Diluted samples were cultured on tap water agar (TWA) and Reasoner’s 2A agar (R2A) for enumeration and isolation of bacteria from water and soil samples. In addition, bacterial isolation from soil samples was on SCA, ISP4, AIA-G, SEA and 1/2 tryptic soy agar (TSA) media, and that from water samples was on 1/2 TSA only.

    Plates were incubated aerobically for a period of 5–30 days at 20°C (21). At the end of incubation, plates which contained between 30 and 300 colonies were considered for both soil and water samples. Colonies which appeared different were selected for identification, then stored at −86°C for subsequent uses.

    2.5 Identification of Cave Isolates and Their Enzymatic Reactions

    Cave isolates were identified through biochemical tests performed in the VITEK® 2 system (bioMérieux SA, France). One of the three formats of this system is the VITEK® 2 Compact 30 which focuses mainly on the industrial microbiology-testing environment. Based on this industrial software, three reagent cards of VITEK® 2 Compact 30, named Gram-negative fermenting and non-fermenting bacilli (GN), Gram-positive cocci and non-spore-forming bacilli (GP) and Gram-positive spore-forming bacilli (BCL), were used to characterise the isolated bacteria following the procedure and data given by the system manufacturers. Reagent cards are based on established biochemical methods and developed substrates (23). The results of biochemical reactions were interpreted to establish enzymatic profiles of isolates.

    2.6 Ability of Cave Bacteria to Produce Antimicrobial Materials

    The ability of Bacilli or Actinobacteria to produce antimicrobial agents was tested on standard strains of fungi species of Candida albicans (ATCC® 10231TM) and bacterial species of Escherichia coli (ATCC® 8739TM), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC® 9027TM), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC® 6538TM), Bacillus subtilis (ATCC® 6633TM), Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC® 12228TM), Klebsiella pneumoniae (ATCC® 4352TM), Enterococcus hirae (ATCC® 10541TM), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE) (ATCC® 51299TM) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (ATCC® 33591TM).

    Bacterial suspensions containing 3 × 108 cells ml−1 of the selected isolates were prepared. 2.5 μl of each suspension were incubated on Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) plates at 20°C for 24 h. After incubation, all media in which bacterial colonies were observed, were exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation in an open laminar flow cabinet. Therefore, the vitality of the bacteria was destroyed. 1.5 × 108 cells ml−1 of 24 h fresh cultures of the standard strains were prepared. 100 μl of each suspension was mixed with TSA medium at 45°C. Subsequently, it was poured into the previously UV exposed plates, then incubated for 24 hours at 37°C after solidification. At the end of the incubation period, the growth of the standard bacteria in the TSA was investigated and the zone diameters were measured (24).

    2.7 Susceptibility to Antibiotics

    The sensitivity of 101 selected isolates to antibiotics was examined by using the disc diffusion method of Kirby-Bauer (21) in which 10 antibiotics were used: piperacillin (100 μg), erythromycin (15 μg), vancomycin (30 μg), ampicillin (10 μg), neomycin (10 μg), gentamycin (10 μg), chloramphenicol (30 μg), tetracycline (10 μg), rifampicin (30 μg) and ofloxacin (10 μg). The incubation conditions were 24 h at 20°C. Escherichia coli (ATCC® 8739TM), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC® 9027TM) and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC® 6538TM) were tested against the same antibiotics as control microorganisms (25).

    3.1 Physicochemical Measurements of Sampling Areas

    Temperature, pH, conductivity and hardness values of water samples are shown in Table I. The air temperature of the sample areas A, B, C (Figure 1) was determined. The temperature of area A was 9.8°C and that of B and C were determined as 9.4°C. The moisture value was evaluated as 93% in all these areas. The Parsık cave resembles most cave systems with its high level of humidity and stable air temperature (26, 27). It was determined that the pH and hardness values of the waters at points B and C were higher than those at point A. These details highlight the differences in chemical environment that may exist within the cave areas.

    Table I

    Physicochemical Measurements of Water Samples

    Measured values Water sample areas
    A point B point C point
    pH 8.2 9.8 9.8
    Hardness, ppt 0.107 0.145 0.145
    Conductivity, mS 0.22 0.30 0.30
    Temperature, °C 10 9.2 9.2

    3.2 Number of Determined Total (Live/Dead) Bacteria

    The highest vitality percentage of bacteria isolated in soil samples was found in samples from point B with 38.7%, whereas the highest vitality percentage in the water samples was found in samples from point C with 26.3% (Table II). In cave environments, it is observed that bacteria can survive metabolically but cannot be cultured. This is because bacteria enter a viable but nonculturable cell form under extreme environmental conditions such as low or high temperature, nutrient deficiency, osmolarity and light. In addition, cave microorganisms obtain their energy from the cave atmosphere or the cave surfaces to which they are attached (28, 29).

    Table II

    Number of Bacteria in Water and Soil Samples According to DAPI/CTC Method

    Samples Total number of signals, cm2 Vitality, %
    CTC Total
    SA 406,505,880 2,947,167,630 13.8
    SB 135,501,960 643,634,310 21
    SC 508,132,350 1,930,902,930 26.3
    TA 1,084,015,680 5,318,451,930 20.3
    TB 8,130,117,600 21,002,803,800 38.7
    TC 6,097,588,200 20,664,048,900 29.5

    3.3 Number and Classification of Culturable Aerobic Heterotrophic Bacteria

    SCA, ISP4, SEA and AIA-G have been used especially in surface and soil samples to increase the probability of isolating bacteria belonging to phylum Actinobacteria, which have an extremely high potentials in terms of antimicrobial production (30). TWA and R2A medium were used for both isolation and counting of other bacterial groups. Apart from these media, 1/2 TSA was used for isolation of other bacterial groups from all samples. The cave environment in general is oligotrophic and these media provide a similar environment to the culturable cave bacteria. The number of culturable aerobic heterotrophic bacteria from water and soil samples obtained from R2A and TWA media is given in Figure 2.

    Fig. 2

    Number of aerobic heterotrophic bacteria that can be cultured from water and soil samples (TA = soil sample A; TB = soil sample B; TC = soil sample C; SA = water sample A; SB = water sample B; SC = water sample C)

    Number of aerobic heterotrophic bacteria that can be cultured from water and soil samples (TA = soil sample A; TB = soil sample B; TC = soil sample C; SA = water sample A; SB = water sample B; SC = water sample C)

    When the bacterial counts of water and soil samples in R2A and TWA media were examined, the highest bacterial numbers were found in R2A medium. These results were evaluated statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The p value was found to be 0.09 and no significant difference was found between the numbers of bacteria grown on the R2A and TWA media. In a study conducted in 2014 (31), the efficiency of various media (SEA, TWA, SCA, TSA) was compared to their suitability for bacterial counting. Efficient results for both isolation and counting were obtained in TWA.

    A total of 372 bacteria were isolated from all samples. VITEK® analysis was applied to only 321 bacteria which had different characteristics in culture-based analyses. The results of the systematic classification of the bacteria were compiled by biochemical analysis using the VITEK® 2 Compact 30 automated system. Actinobacteria (33%) was determined to be the dominant phylum in this study while the other determined phyla were Firmicutes (25%) and Proteobacteria (16%). In our previous work in Kadıini cave in Turkey, the dominant phylum was Firmicutes (86%), followed by Proteobacteria (12%) and Actinobacteria (2%) respectively (32). In addition, in the study done by Tomova et al. (33), Proteobacteria (51.45%) were found to be the dominant phylum in the samples taken from the Magura cave, Bulgaria, followed by Actinobacteria (43.68%) and Bacteroidetes (3.88%). Although the bacterial habitat of each cave is specific, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes are the most identified groups in culture-based microbiological studies in caves (3436).

    In our study, Firmicutes was the most common phylum in soil samples with a rate of 33%, while the most common phylum determined in surface and water isolates was Actinobacteria with 36% and 35% respectively. Considering all the samples, at the class level, Actinobacteria was the most dominant with 33%, while Bacilli with 23% was detected as the second dominant class. It was demonstrated through previous studies that Actinobacteria existed mainly in cave walls, soil, sediment and on speleothem surfaces, which might have considerably contributed to the formation of cave structures and the biomineralisation in the cave ecosystems (437). Actinobacteria as well as Firmicutes are frequent among the microbial population inhabiting the caves. Compared to the Proteobacteria group, Firmicutes are more resistant to stress caused by dehydration as well as restriction of nutrients (37). Contrary to our findings for Parsık cave, Proteobacteria are a dominant group in heterotrophic bacterial communities in many caves (33, 34, 3840). In the current study, Proteobacteria were determined respectively as 10%, 21% and 17% in the surface, water and soil samples. The dominant classes of this phylum were found to be Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria with 9.2% and 6.4%, respectively. In our previous study in Kadıini cave, Alphaproteobacteria were detected at 2%, while Gammaproteobacteria were at 9% (32). The phylum Proteobacteria, having a key role in biogeochemical cycles, and being abundant in samples from cave sediment, soil, dripping water and cave surface, is a cosmopolitan bacterial group (37).

    3.4 Enzymatic Reactions of Parsık Cave Bacteria

    Enzymatic reactions of microorganisms give us ideas of their metabolic activities which are related to their environment. The biochemical tests of our isolates in the VITEK® system were not only useful for bacterial identification but also to provide more information about nutrients in Parsık cave. In addition, results of these tests were used to evaluate the potentials of the isolates for biotechnological uses in terms of their enzyme production. 76 Gram-negative bacteria, 194 Gram-positive and 51 Gram-positive spore forming bacteria have been tested using the GN, GP and BCL cards respectively in the VITEK® 2 compact device, and results are given in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. Most of the isolates displayed peptidase (arylamidase) while only Gram-negative bacteria (less than 10%) showed lipolytic activity. In the study conducted in Gumki cave, India, 75.5% of bacteria produced lipase, 47% were amylase producers and 24% produced protease (41). Another study screening cave bacteria for enzyme production found 40% lipase and 87% protease producers (33). This variation in enzymatic profiles in cave bacteria reinforces the idea that every cave is unique.

    Fig. 3

    Biochemical properties of Gram-negative bacteria. Tests for Gram-negative bacteria by VITEK® 2 Compact 30 micro device. See Glossary in main text for explanation of terms

    Biochemical properties of Gram-negative bacteria. Tests for Gram-negative bacteria by VITEK® 2 Compact 30 micro device. See Glossary in main text for explanation of terms

    Fig. 4

    Biochemical properties of Gram-positive bacteria. Tests for Gram-positive bacteria by VITEK® 2 Compact 30 micro device. See Glossary in main text for explanation of terms

    Biochemical properties of Gram-positive bacteria. Tests for Gram-positive bacteria by VITEK® 2 Compact 30 micro device. See Glossary in main text for explanation of terms

    Fig. 5

    Biochemical properties of Gram-positive Bacilli bacteria. Tests for Gram-positive Bacilli bacteria by VITEK® 2 Compact 30 micro device. See Glossary in main text for explanation of terms

    Biochemical properties of Gram-positive Bacilli bacteria. Tests for Gram-positive Bacilli bacteria by VITEK® 2 Compact 30 micro device. See Glossary in main text for explanation of terms

    The high activity of amino acids arylamidase determined in our tested isolates indicates their potential for protein catabolism (42). The phyla Firmicutes (31%) and Actinobacteria (30.7%) produced the highest amounts of arylamidases identified among the tested isolates. 85.52%, 65.97% and 82.35% of Gram-negative, Gram-positive and Gram-positive spore forming bacilli revealed tyrosine-arylamidase activity. Tyrosine is a non-essential amino acid which is synthesised through phenylalanine hydrolysis. It plays a major role in most enzyme synthesis as reported by Kalkan and Altuğ (42), since it is the phosphate and sulfate receptor of protein kinase during protein synthesis. It is also used to reinforce the activity of proteins as demonstrated in a study conducted in thrombin inhibitors showing that tyrosine sulfation could open a way for the development of an anti-thrombotic drug (43). Hence, tyrosine arylamidase has a valuable role in biotechnology since it contributes to the liberation of the amino acid tyrosine.

    Enzymes like leucine arylamidase have been reported to be important in food processing industries and the treatment of waste products (44, 45). The degradation of leucine and other amino acids results in volatile molecules responsible for the flavours of some foods like meat products as reported by Papamanoli et al. (46) and Lee et al. (44). In addition, a study showed the roles of bacteria in conversion of paper mill sludge demonstrating the important contribution of amino acid peptidase with leucine arylamidase (45). In our study, 81.95% and 88.23% of Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-positive bacilli showed leucine arylamidase activity. This enzyme was the second most produced enzyme, after the tyrosine arylamidase, by our isolates. Bacteria which can produce this enzyme could be used directly or indirectly by using their enzymes in both composting of sludge and fermentation of food products such as meat and dairy products.

    VITEK® results have showed that some Parsık cave isolates exhibit beta-galactosidase activity which is the more expressed carbohydrate hydrolase in this study. Considering the whole of the tested isolates, most of the bacteria producing beta-galactosidase belong to the Firmicutes phylum with 40.6%, while only 10.9% of beta-galactosidase producers were classified under the phylum Proteobacteria.

    The main role of the beta-galactosidase enzyme is to convert lactose into monosaccharides. Glucose and galactose resulting from this reaction not only contribute to the development of the cell but can also be used in dairy product processing (44, 47). This enzyme is important since it solves the problem of human lactose intolerance. The hydrolysation of lactose by this enzyme results in molecules like galactooligosaccharides which have health benefits as prebiotics (47). Moreover, breakdown of some sugars like D-mannose, D-mannitol and D-glucose by fermentation was reported, especially in Gram-negative bacteria.

    Lipolytic activity was also observed in some of our isolated Gram-negative bacteria (less than 10%). Even if it was produced by a minimum number of isolates, the activity of lipase was fully expressed by bacteria belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria. This class of enzymes which is used in hydrolysation of lipids could be important in bioremediation since it could participate in oil degradation. Sharma et al. reported that microbial lipases are best for biodiesel production (48). Since they can use all types of free fatty acids and glycerides, they exhibit a high activity, thermostability, alcohol resistance, less reaction time as well as less production inhibition (48). Other enzymes were produced by some of the bacteria in Parsık caves. Further studies should be carried out to clarify them and assess their biotechnological uses.

    3.5 Antimicrobial Agent Production Capability

    Microorganisms with broad-spectrum bioactive components, antifungal and antibacterial agents in cave-specific habitats are common in these extreme environments (17). In our study, a total of 129 cave bacteria were tested for their antimicrobial effect against nine different standard bacterial strains and one fungal strain. Experiments have shown that 10 of the selected bacteria (six from Actinobacteria class, four from Bacilli class) have antimicrobial effects against the standard strains.

    Parsık cave isolates displayed variable inhibition rates against the tested microorganisms and the highest inhibition rate was observed against Candida albicans. Some of our cave isolates have been found to have inhibitory effects against S. aureus, S. epidermidis, VRE and P. aeruginosa. The zone diameters of cave bacteria with antimicrobial properties against tested microorganisms are shown in Table III.

    Table III

    Antimicrobial Agent Production Ability

    Isolates/classes of bacteria Resulting zone diameters, mm
    E. coli E. faecalis B. subtilis S. aureus S. epidermidis MRSA VRE P. aeruginosa K. pneumoniae Candida albicans
    SA22/Actinobacteria 9
    TA44/Actinobacteria 16
    TA12/Actinobacteria 13.5
    SA56/Actinomycetes 13
    TB48/Bacilli 13
    SB1/Bacilli 30
    TA62/Actinomycetes 24
    TB27/Bacilli 15
    SC3/Bacilli 30
    TB64/Actinobacteria 13
    Antibiotics
    Piperacillin 11 24 19 13 20 9 31 16 22 ND
    Vancomycin 16 13 8 10 21 18 ND
    Gentamicin 11 6.5 16 8 13 20 11 22 ND
    Tetracycline 10 16 8 14 14 5 19 ND
    Rifampicin 7 16 17 10 18 35 28 8 15 ND
    Ofloxacin 15 18 21 13 15 31 30 23 35 ND

    In our study, the isolate which affected S. epidermidis belongs to the Bacilli class and those which inhibit VRE and S. aureus belong to the Actinobacteria class. Some studies have shown that bacteria with antimicrobial activity inhabiting karst caves are often from the Actinobacteria class (30, 31). However, cave bacteria belonging to phyla Proteobacteria, Firmicutes (especially Bacilli class) and Bacteroides were determined to have antimicrobial and bioactive substances. Thus, approximately 50% of the bacteria isolated from the Magura cave, Bulgaria were detected to inhibit the increase of P. aeruginosa (33). Cave bacteria inhibiting MRSA and VRE clinical strains were determined in a study on Actinomycetes isolated from 19 different caves in Turkey (30). Certainly the bacteria belonging to the class Actinobacteria are the best known in terms of antimicrobial material synthesis, but the isolation of bacteria belonging to the other classes is very important especially in karst environments.

    3.6 Determination of Antibiotic Resistance Profiles of Isolated Bacteria

    Antibiotic resistant bacteria are widespread in several environments. In this study, resistance to 10 different antibiotics of 101 bacteria (76% Gram-positive; 25% Gram-negative) selected from the cave isolates was investigated. Isolates with a metabolic reaction rate of at least 95% similarities to the data in the VITEK® database were selected.

    When the antibiotic resistance profiles of the isolates were examined, 7% of the bacteria belonging to the cave were resistant to all antibiotics. The highest number of bacteria showed resistance against ampicillin with a rate of 38.6%. In addition, 35.6% of the isolates showed resistance against two or more antibiotics.

    Antibiotic resistance profiles of Gram-positive and Gram-negative cave isolates are shown in Figure 6. The lowest resistance was observed to rifampicin (9% for Gram-positive and 8% for Gram-negative). In parallel with our study, it was determined that all the Pajsarjeva jama, Slovenia, isolates were sensitive to rifampicin (49). Likewise, low levels of resistance to ofloxacin, which is a DNA/RNA synthesis inhibitor like rifampicin, were observed in Parsık cave isolates (11% in Gram-positive and 12% in Gram-negative). The resistance rate of Pajsarjeva jama isolates to erythromycin was 73.6% for Gram-negative and 39% for Gram-positive bacteria. The resistance of Parsik cave isolates to erythromycin was determined at lower levels of 20% and 21% for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria respectively. The levels of resistance to protein synthesis inhibitors other than erythromycin (gentamycin, neomycin, tetracycline and chloramphenicol) were determined to range from 12% to 20% for both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Contrary to our study, Lavoie et al. (50) showed that cave isolates were highly resistant to gentamycin, neomycin and chloramphenicol antibiotics (33–66% for Gram-negative bacteria and 61–83% for Gram-positive bacteria).

    Fig. 6

    Resistance levels of Parsık cave bacteria against various antibiotics which are grouped according to their mode of action: (a) Gram-positive isolates; (b) Gram-negative isolates

    Resistance levels of Parsık cave bacteria against various antibiotics which are grouped according to their mode of action: (a) Gram-positive isolates; (b) Gram-negative isolates

    Furthermore, the lowest resistance to cell wall synthesis inhibitors was observed in piperacillin for both Gram-positive (12%) and Gram-negative (16%) bacteria. In the study conducted by Lavoie et al. (50), the resistance to piperacillin, compared to other antibiotic resistance, was found to be lower (average 37.5%).

    In our study, considering the cell wall synthesis inhibitors (vancomycin and ampicillin), Gram-negative bacteria were found to be more resistant than the Gram-positive ones. Similar to our study, Avguštin et al. (49) revealed that cave Gram-negative isolates showed higher resistance to ampicillin.

    According to VITEK® results, except ampicillin and vancomycin, Actinobacteria were determined to be the most resistant (47–70%) phylum to all tested antibiotics. The highest resistance to ampicillin and vancomycin was observed in the phylum Proteobacteria. Like the microbial diversity of caves, antibiotic resistance is also variable. While the antibiotic resistance rates were high, no isolate producing antimicrobial agent was detected in the study conducted by Lavoie et al. (50). However, one of the antibiotic resistance hypotheses in caves is that there is a high rate of antibiotic resistance in the presence of microorganisms producing antimicrobial agents. Studies have shown that bacteria having antibiotic genes can also produce antimicrobial agents (51, 52). In our study, it was found that 50% of the isolates producing antimicrobial agents were resistant to at least two antibiotics. Therefore, study of bacterial antibiotic resistance may contribute to the development of new antibiotics. To clarify this issue, studies in this issue should be continued.

    By |2020-10-01T15:46:14+00:00October 1st, 2020|Weld Engineering Services|Comments Off on The Biotechnological Potentials of Bacteria Isolated from Parsık Cave, Turkey

    Spending Review must support innovation to improve resilience and cut carbon emissions

    Infrastructure, low-carbon energy and skills top priorities for investment

    The government’s Spending Review should include support for innovation, especially to achieve the aims of net zero emissions, resilient infrastructure and nationwide digitalisation, according to recommendations published by the National Engineering Policy Centre (NEPC) todayThe UK should aim to be not just a science superpower, but a science, engineering and innovation superpower, enabling it to deliver the maximum economic and social returns from its investment in science.

    In a joint paper compiled by the NEPCover 40 engineering organisations representing more than 450,000 UK engineers recommend that government invests in its proposed actions to help decarbonise the economy, and create a national workforce planning strategy to create jobs and spread opportunities more evenly across the nation. It says the UK could position itself as a market leader in low carbon technologies but achieving net zero carbon emissions depends on a resilient infrastructure system – the net zero and resilience agendas must be achieved together.

    Read the paper here: Engineering a resilient and sustainable future

    The 2020 Spending Review is one of the most important in a generationcoming at a time when the UK is in recession and the impact of the pandemic has increased inequality. Careful and considered decisions must be made now about physical and digital infrastructure in order to drive economic recovery and provide skilled jobs. The paper calls for long-term evidence-based infrastructure needs to be addressed, with individual regions being given the freedom to create infrastructure strategies. It also recommends building world-class digital connectivity and infrastructure that is fast, secure and resilient enough for an advanced digital economy.

    Read our open letter to the Chancellor here

    The COVID-19 crisis has hugely disrupted further and higher education and risks reducing the diversity of young people going into engineering. The paper highlights that the UK must now plan for its longterm engineering and technical skills needs, with an education system fit for the future and an ambitious plan for training, up-skilling and re-skilling. World-leading ambitions on net zero, infrastructure and digitalisation are threatened, it warns, if we do not have enough people with the engineering and technical skills to deliver them. 

    Key actions for government recommended by the paper include:

    • Education: Address the long-term UK skills challenges across all sectors through the creation of a national workforce planning strategy. Support this with a new evidence-based STEM education strategy to address issues such as chronic shortages of physics, mathematics, computing and technology teachers and diversity challenges in STEM subjects. 

    • EducationEnsure long-term funding sustainability of high-cost, laboratory-based subjects in further and higher education. Boost the number of people completing higher technical qualifications and engineering apprenticeships, which have flatlined over the past five years. 

    • Infrastructure: Incentivise offsite manufacturing for new projects and low-carbon retrofitting for existing buildings to improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.  

    • Digital: Invest in broadband and 5G to support an advanced digital economy and expand the Made Smarter pilot to support small businesses across the UK to upskilladopt digital technologies and create new supply chain opportunities.  

    • Innovation: Make the UK more attractive for businesses to invest in R&D here through funding mechanisms and joint ventures between government and industry and increase Innovate UK’s budget and freedom on how they spend it.  

    • Energy: Invest, at the scale needed to trigger transformational change, in low carbon heat technologies, carbon capture, usage and storage,  low-carbon hydrogen production and nuclear generation capacity.

    Professor Sir Jim McDonald FREng FRSE, President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, says:

    “It is a crucial time for government to take practical actions to help the economy recover while addressing inequalities and reducing our carbon emissions. The actions proposed by the Academy and its partner organisations in the National Engineering Policy Centre reflect the level of UK engineering expertise available to address the challenges of developing the UK’s transport infrastructure, energy supply and digital networks to deliver an inclusive, sustainable economy. Done well, this will create more jobs and prosperity across the nation, addressing the needs of our future society.


    Notes for Editors

    The National Engineering Policy Centre

    We are a unified voice for 43 professional engineering organisations, representing 450,000 engineers, a partnership led by the Royal Academy of Engineering.

    We give policymakers a single route to advice from across the engineering profession.

    We inform and respond to policy issues of national importance, for the benefit of society.

    The Royal Academy of Engineering is harnessing the power of engineering to build a sustainable society and an inclusive economy that works for everyone.

    In collaboration with our Fellows and partners, we’re growing talent and developing skills for the futuredriving innovation and building global partnerships, and influencing policy and engaging the public.

    Together we’re working to tackle the greatest challenges of our age.

    For more information please contact: Victoria Runcie at the Royal Academy of Engineering Tel. 0207 766 0620; email: victoria.runcie@raeng.org.uk

    By |2020-09-29T23:01:45+00:00September 29th, 2020|Engineering News|Comments Off on Spending Review must support innovation to improve resilience and cut carbon emissions

    Bacterial Community Composition in Produced Water of Diyarbakır Oil Fields in Turkey

    Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2020, 64, (4), 452

    1. Introduction

    Although much progress has been made in the use of renewable energy in recent years, fossil fuels (especially oil and gas) still meet most of the global energy demand, and they will continue to be the dominant source of energy worldwide over the next few decades (1).

    Petroleum is a naturally occurring material found in various geological formations (reservoirs) worldwide. Crude oil, the liquid part of petroleum, is primarily composed of hydrocarbons (2). However, it may also include compounds of nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen and metals (3). Because crude oil in reservoirs is found as a mixture containing varying constituents and proportions, each crude oil has its own unique properties. The most important specified properties are density and sulfur content (4). The density of crude oil is reported in terms of American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity (specific gravity). Based on the API gravity, crude oils can be classified into light, medium, heavy and extra heavy oils (3). Depending on the amount of sulfur content (elemental sulfur or sulfur compounds such as hydrogen sulfide), the crude oil is categorised as ‘sweet’ or ‘sour’. In addition to chemical composition and physical properties, crude oil typically is also identified by underground reservoir (4). Reservoir characteristics (depth, temperature, pressure and other factors) vary significantly from one location to another, even in the same geologic formation (5, 6). The fact that microbial community composition and reservoir conditions vary dramatically not only between the different geographical areas, but also among different oil fields in the same region, makes each oil reservoir ecosystem unique.

    Despite the extreme environmental conditions in the oil-bearing formations (i.e. anoxic, high temperature, high salinity), many microorganisms are capable of surviving in the oil and water phases of the oil wells (7, 8). Oil fields harbour mainly facultative aerobic and strictly anaerobic microorganisms due to the low redox potential in the reservoirs (8). These ecosystems contain different types of microbial communities (such as mesophiles, thermophiles and halophiles) which adapt to the reservoir conditions (9). Bacterial and archaeal groups identified in oil fields include sulfate-reducing bacteria (10), sulfur-oxidising bacteria (11), methanogens (12), fermentative microorganisms (13), acetogens (14), nitrate reducers (15), manganese and iron reducers (16) and hydrocarbon degraders (17). Among these microbes, sulfate-reducing bacteria have attracted much attention due to their detrimental effects such as reservoir souring and biocorrosion (7). In addition, different members of the oil microbial community are involved in syntrophic interactions. Fermenting bacteria and methanogenic archaea are involved in methanogenic hydrocarbon biodegradation through their close syntrophic associations (18). This microbial process is undesirable in oil reservoirs because it causes a decrease in oil quality and value (19). Syntrophic microorganisms in oil reservoirs also play important roles in the global biogeochemical cycling of sulfur, carbon and nitrogen. For instance, sulfate-reducing bacteria and sulfur-oxidising bacteria, the key drivers in sulfur transformations, are involved in the sulfur cycle (11). Thus, knowledge of the microbial groups and microbial dynamics in oil fields enable us to obtain detailed insights into the microbial ecology of oil associated environments.

    Understanding the microbial ecology of oil reservoirs is crucial to the petroleum industry because the success of oilfield operations is strongly influenced by the activity of microorganisms. Oil microbes with different metabolic capabilities have significant negative and positive impacts on the petroleum resources and the extraction processes (7). Microbial activity may lead to severe problems such as reservoir souring and microbial corrosion. Reservoir souring, which is characterised by an increase in production of H2S in the reservoir fluids, most commonly occurs when sulfidogenic microorganisms reduce sulfate to sulfide, a toxic and corrosive product (20). Undesirable accumulation of sulfide minerals in reservoirs is one of the major challenging problems in oil production because it causes plugging of reservoirs, decreasing the oil quality and value and increasing the refining costs. Moreover, exposure to H2S can be dangerous in terms of worker health and safety due to its high toxicity. Additionally, the produced H2S promotes corrosion of the metallic equipment and structures used for oil production and processing (21). Another destructive phenomenon is biocorrosion, which is defined as microbial attack on the surface of the metal infrastructure leading to disruption of the material (22). In addition to sulfate-reducing bacteria, which play a major role in biocorrosion, other corrosive microbes, such as acetogenic bacteria and methanogenic archaea, are also associated with corrosion failures (23). Biocorrosion is a great concern because it leads to loss of material, large economic losses and safety issues in the oil industry (24). In contrast, hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria may be used for environmental clean-up processes (6). Bacterial degradation of hydrocarbons was carried out by both aerobic (for example, Rhodococcus sp., Sphingomonas sp., Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas stutzeri, Acinetobacter sp.) and anaerobic bacteria (such as Fe(III)-reducing bacteria, sulfate-reducing bacteria) (6, 17). Furthermore, microbial products such as biopolymers and biosurfactants can be used for facilitating oil movement in a widely used technology, known as microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) (1). Compared with other conventional oil recovery techniques, MEOR has advantages such as low cost, wide application, high efficiency and low environmental pollution (25). Therefore, diversity, metabolic processes and habitat conditions of microbial communities in oil reservoirs should be investigated, so that their negative effects can be decreased and their positive effects can be exploited.

    This study aimed to determine the bacterial community composition and to identify the predominant community members in produced water from oil fields located in the Diyarbakır region in Turkey. To this end, we used PCR-DGGE to analyse 20 produced water samples from the Diyarbakır region. There are limited studies on produced water from the Diyarbakır region and this paper represents the only in situ study available. The results of this study provide not only new data about the microbial ecology of the Diyarbakır oil fields, but also information on the bacterial populations which may have potential roles in terms of increasing or decreasing the efficiency of industrial applications.

    2. Materials and Methods

    2.1 Sampling Procedure

    The sampling site, the Diyarbakır region, is located at the boundary of the Anatolian plate and the Middle Eastern oil region in south-eastern Turkey. A total of 20 crude oil samples (B1, B6, B8, B14, B23, B32, B56, GK8, GS6, GS15, M3, K2, K3, K32, K35, K44, S4, S15, Y18 and Y30) consisting of an oil/water mixture were collected from the production wells of Diyarbakır oil fields (Figure 1). These wells produced oils withdrawn from the oil sandstone deposits (depths from 1600 m to 2620 m, API gravity from 24.3° to 42.3°, water content around 94%, an average pH of 7.0 and salinity from 2966 mg l−1 to 26,961 mg l−1). The samples were aseptically taken at the wellhead and put into sterile 500 ml serum bottles sealed with rubber stoppers and aluminium caps. The samples were shipped at ambient temperature. Upon arrival at the laboratory, the samples were immediately analysed. All samples were treated within 48 h after collection. Decantation was used to separate produced water from the oil/water mixture.

    Fig. 1.

    Sampling locations in Diyarbakır region. Produced water samples were collected from 20 different oil wells © Maphill / Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives (CC BY-ND)

    Sampling locations in Diyarbakır region. Produced water samples were collected from 20 different oil wells © Maphill / Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives (CC BY-ND)

    2.2 DNA Extraction

    Bacteria in the produced water samples were collected by filtration over 0.20 μm pore size polyamide filters (Sartolon®, Sartorius AG, Germany). Genomic DNA was extracted with the UltraClean® Microbial DNA isolation kit (MO BIO Laboratories Inc, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

    2.3 Polymerase Chain Reaction Amplification

    Extracted DNA was used as the template for PCR amplification of partial 16S rRNA fragments. Primer pair consisting of 341F with a GC clamp and 907R was used for DGGE analysis (26). A 40-base GC clamp was used to prevent complete denaturation of the fragment during DGGE (27).

    Due to the low DNA yield, a two-step PCR strategy was used. At the first step, a real-time PCR (quantitative PCR, qPCR) approach was applied to the produced water samples. The reaction mixture in a final volume of 22.5 μl contained 0.2 μl of each primer, 12.5 μl iQTM SYBR® Green Supermix (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc, USA), 9.6 μl RNase-Free Water (Qiagen, Germany) and 0.5 μl DNA template. qPCR was performed in iCycler iQTM Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc, USA) using the following conditions: 5 min at 95°C; 40 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 57°C for 40 s, 72°C for 40 s and 80°C for 25 s; and a final 72°C for 10 min. In the qPCR method, after each cycle, a signal was formed. By observing the signals for each sample, PCR products could be detected. The reaction was terminated when the desired amount of product was reached. At the second step, a conventional PCR approach was applied to the qPCR products. Reaction mixture in a final volume of 25 μl contained 0.2 μl of each primer, 12.5 μl Taq PCR Master Mix (Qiagen, Germany), 9.6 μl RNase-Free Water (Qiagen, Germany) and 0.5 μl DNA template. The PCR was performed in TGradient thermocycler (Biometra, Germany) using the following conditions: 5 min at 95°C; 12 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 57°C for 40 s and 72°C for 40 s; and a final 74°C for 30 min.

    2.4 Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis

    The DCodeTM system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA) was used for DGGE analysis. 25 μl of each PCR product (200–300 ng) were loaded onto 6% polyacrylamide gels (w/v) containing gradients of 20% to 70% denaturants (urea/formamide). The gels were run for 16 h at 100 V and 60°C in 1× Tris-acetate-EDTA buffer. After completion of electrophoresis, the gels were stained with SYBR® Gold Nucleic Acid Gel Stain (InvitrogenTM, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) for 20 min, visualised and photographed. Selected predominant DGGE bands were excised, eluted in 40 μl of 1× Tris buffer (pH 8) for 2 d at 4°C and re-amplified with 25 cycles as described above. Reaction mixture in a final volume of 25 μl contained 0.125 μl of primer 341F, 0.125 μl of primer 907R, 12.5 μl of Taq PCR Master Mix, 9.75 μl of ultra-pure water and 0.5 μl of template. The PCR products were quantified on a 1.5% (w/v) agarose gel and then sequenced by Macrogen Inc (Seoul, South Korea).

    2.5 Comparative Sequence Analysis

    The resulting sequences were first aligned and edited using CodonCode Aligner software (CodonCode Corp, USA). Then they were compared to sequences stored in the database GenBank® using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST®) (28, 29). All obtained partial 16S rRNA gene sequences were deposited in GenBank® database under the following accession numbers: KF720792 – KF720796, KF720798, KF720801 – KF720802, KF720804, KF720806 – KF720808, KF720810 – KF720811, KF720814, KF720818, KF720820, KF720823, KF720825 – KF720826, KF720828, KF720830 – KF720832, KF720839, KF720844, KF720852, KF720855, KF720858, KF720872, KF720877, KF720882 – KF720884, KF720886 – KF720889, KF720891, KF720893 – KF720894, KF720896 and KF720903.

    3. Results

    3.1 Molecular Analysis of Bacterial Communities

    Bacterial DNA isolation could only be achieved for 16 (B1, B8, B6, B14, B23, B32, B56, GS6, GK8, K35, K44, M3, S4, S15, Y18, Y30) of the 20 produced water samples. Because the water phase could not be separated from the oil phase for the other four produced water samples, DNA could not be extracted from these samples. The extracted DNA was used as template DNA for the amplification of 16S rRNA gene fragment. Unfortunately, direct PCR with bacterial primers did not yield a product from any of the produced water samples. For this reason, a two-step PCR was applied: the first step was a qPCR to increase the concentration of genetic material to measurable amounts (30), while the second step was a normal PCR to obtain enough material for DGGE analysis. For produced water samples, a total of 113 DGGE gel bands were analysed, but only 69 bands yielded sequences of satisfactory quality (Figure 2).

    Fig. 2.

    DGGE profiles of 16S rRNA gene fragments amplified from produced water samples. See legend to Figure 1. (a) 1, B32; 2, B6; 3, B14; 4, B23; 5, S4, 6, GK8; (b) 7, GS6; 8, M3; (c) 9, B56; 10, B1; 11, B8; 12, K35; 13, Y30; 14, Y14; 15, S15

    DGGE profiles of 16S rRNA gene fragments amplified from produced water samples. See legend to Figure 1. (a) 1, B32; 2, B6; 3, B14; 4, B23; 5, S4, 6, GK8; (b) 7, GS6; 8, M3; (c) 9, B56; 10, B1; 11, B8; 12, K35; 13, Y30; 14, Y14; 15, S15

    Comparative sequence analysis of the DGGE bands indicated that 50% of the bacterial sequences belonged to ‘unclassified bacteria’. Among the classified bacteria, members of the phyla Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria, and the classes Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Sphingobacteriia, Bacilli and Actinobacteria were identified (Figure 3).

    Fig. 3.

    Phylogenetic distribution of the 16S rRNA sequences of produced water samples from the Diyarbakır oil wells at: (a) the phylum level; and (b) the class level

    Phylogenetic distribution of the 16S rRNA sequences of produced water samples from the Diyarbakır oil wells at: (a) the phylum level; and (b) the class level

    3.1.1 Proteobacteria

    Proteobacteria was the dominant phylum, comprising 29.2% of the total sequences retrieved from the produced water samples (Figure 3). The sequences B6_19 and B14_37 shared 100% and 99% identity with uncultured bacteria (EU044497 and JF421153, respectively) (Table I). The sequence B32_3 was distantly (94%) related to a moderately thermophilic bacterium Phenylobacterium lituiforme, a member of Alphaproteobacteria (31). Within Betaproteobacteria, the sequence represented by B32_55 was identified (98%) as Aquincola sp. THE-49 (JN128637), isolated from water reservoir (published only in GenBank®). The produced water contained different members of the class Gammaproteobacteria . DGGE bands B32_4, B14_35, S4_70, GS6_2 and GK8_79 were affiliated (100%, 94%, 99%, 93%, 99%, respectively) to Pseudomonas stutzeri (Table I), a non-fluorescent denitrifying bacterium (32). The sequence from band B1_20 showed a 100% similarity to Acinetobacter sp. VKPM 2838 (Table I). The genus Acinetobacter comprises important soil organisms where they contribute to the mineralisation of aromatic compounds and they are suited to exploitation for biotechnological purposes, such as biodegradation (33). B8_30 was related (96%) to Marinobacter sp. Trimyema-2, a thermophilic strain that was isolated from the hydrothermally heated sea floor at Vulcano Island, Italy (34). Members of the genus Marinobacter were also identified in the production water retrieved from a Dutch oil field (35). The sequence from B32_2 was distantly related (93%) to Thermithiobacillus sp. ParkerM (HM173631) that is moderately thermophilic and obligately chemolithoautotrophic on reduced inorganic sulfur compounds (36). Another member of the class Gammaproteobacteria was close to the sequence of uncultured hydrocarbon seep bacterium (91% similarity) (AF154088) (Table I).

    Table I

    Phylogenetic Affiliations of Bacterial Sequences Retrieved from Produced Water Samples Based on 16S rRNA Analysis and GenBank® Accession Numbers Assigned to these Sequences

    Well no. DGGE band Accession number Closest BLAST® match BLAST® accession number Similarity, % Phylum Class Isolation source
    B1 B1_20 KF720883 Acinetobacter sp. VKPM 2838 JF891390 100 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria
    B1_23 KF720891 Aeribacillus pallidus strain MCM B-886 JN701188 89 Firmicutes Bacilli Petroleum reservoir
    B1_24 KF720893 Uncultured Firmicutes bacterium HM041942 98 Firmicutes Produced fluid
    B6 B6_14 KF720818 Chitinophagaceae bacterium F1 AB535716 99 Bacteroidetes Sphingobacteriia Compost
    B6_16 KF720830 Uncultured Bacteroidetes bacterium FR871413 92 Bacteroidetes Total copepod extracts
    B6_17 KF720793 Uncultured bacterium GQ259593 98 Bioreactor
    B6_19 KF720802 Uncultured Sphingomonas sp. EU044497 100 Proteobacteria Alpha proteobacteria Soil
    B6_20 KF720808 Uncultured Firmicutes bacterium EU194836 96 Firmicutes Charleston Harbor sediment
    B6_26 KF720798 Coriobacteriaceae bacterium enrichment culture clone B3113 HQ133029 100 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Crude oil contaminated soil
    B8 B8_27 KF720882 Uncultured Bacteroidetes bacterium EF491430 99 Bacteroidetes Steel surfaces immerged in marine water
    B8_29 KF720887 Uncultured bacterium FJ628289 96 Brackish water from anoxic fjord Nitinat Lake at depth of 50 m
    B8_30 KF720888 Marinobacter sp. Trimyema-2 AJ292528 96 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria The hydrothermally heated sea floor
    B14 B14_35 KF720804 Pseudomonas stutzeri HQ189755 94 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria Water/soil mix pile of samples from oil wells
    B14_37 KF720814 Uncultured Caenispirillum sp. clone Ppss_Ma27 JF421153 99 Proteobacteria Alpha proteobacteria Petroleum-contaminated saline-alkali soil with phytoremediation
    B14_38 KF720820 Uncultured bacterium FN429535 98 Wastewater of oil refinery treatment plant
    B14_39 KF720825 Georgenia daeguensis HQ246163 100 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Activated sludge from industrial wastewater treatment
    B14_41 KF720794 Uncultured bacterium GQ457025 96 Rhizosphere
    B23 B23_52 KF720810 Uncultured bacterium FN401244 99 Domestic toilet biofilm
    B23_55 KF720826 Aquincola sp. THE-49 JN128637 98 Proteobacteria Beta proteobacteria Water reservoir
    B23_56 KF720831 Uncultured bacterium HM921144 99 Groundwater from drinking water treatment plant
    B32 B32_1 KF720792 Uncultured soil bacterium AY221598 99 Metal and hydrocarbon contaminated soil
    B32_2 KF720796 Thermithiobacillus sp. ParkerM HM173631 93 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria
    B32_3 KF720801 Phenylobacterium lituiforme AY534887 94 Proteobacteria Alpha proteobacteria Subsurface aquifer
    B32_4 KF720807 Pseudomonas stutzeri FJ345693 100 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria Area contaminated by crude oil and chemicals
    B56 B56_17 KF720903 Uncultured Firmicutes bacterium HM041942 97 Firmicutes Produced fluid
    GK8 GK8_79 KF720828 Pseudomonas stutzeri JF727663 99 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria Petroleum-contaminated saline-alkali soils
    GS6 GS6_1 KF720832 Uncultured bacterium JN030519 99 Fissure water collected from a borehole
    GS6_2 KF720839 Pseudomonas stutzeri JN228329 93 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria
    GS6_4 KF720852 Uncultured bacterium JF497820 90 Activated sludge
    GS6_5 KF720858 Uncultured marine bacterium FM211087 90 Microcosm experiment
    M3 M3_28 KF720855 Uncultured bacterium PHOS-HE31 AF314430 99 Batch reactor
    M3_31 KF720872 Uncultured bacterium HM921144 98 Groundwater from drinking water treatment plant
    M3_32 KF720877 Uncultured bacterium HQ538639 99 Bulking activated sludge
    M3_34 KF720844 Uncultured bacterium AB231448 99 Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) sludge
    K35 K35_44 KF720884 Uncultured hydrocarbon seep bacterium BPC028 AF154088 91 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria Hydrocarbon seep sediment
    K35_46 KF720889 Uncultured bacterium HM921144 98 Groundwater from drinking water treatment plant
    K35_48 KF720894 Uncultured bacterium FJ623379 97 Batch reactor
    K35_49 KF720896 Uncultured bacterium AB231448 99 EBPR sludge
    S4 S4_67 KF720806 Uncultured Bacteroidetes bacterium EF491430 92 Bacteroidetes Steel surfaces immersed in marine water
    S4_68 KF720811 Uncultured bacterium FJ628289 96 Brackish water from anoxic fjord
    S4_70 KF720823 Pseudomonas stutzeri JN228329 99 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria
    S4_73 KF720795 Uncultured bacterium JF514265 100 Sea
    S15 S15_60 KF720886 Uncultured hydrocarbon seep bacterium BPC028 AF154088 91 Proteobacteria Gamma proteobacteria Hydrocarbon seep sediment
    Y18 Y18_70 KF720889 Uncultured bacterium HM921144 98 Groundwater from drinking water treatment plant
    Y30 Y30_66 KF720889 Uncultured bacterium HM921144 98 Groundwater from drinking water treatment plant
    Y30_68 KF720894 Uncultured bacterium FJ623379 97 Batch reactor
    Y30_69 KF720896 Uncultured bacterium AB231448 99 EBPR sludge

    3.1.2 Bacteroidetes

    8.3% of the sequences detected among the produced water samples fell into Bacteroidetes (Figure 3). The sequence of band B6_14 was affiliated to unclassified Chitinophagaceae. It shared 99% identity with Chitinophagaceae bacterium F1 (AB535716), isolated from compost (Table I). DGGE bands B6_16, S4_67 and B8_27 were identified (92% to 99% sequence identity) as uncultured Bacteroidetes bacteria (Table I). The sequences from S4_67 and B8_27 were related to uncultured bacteria that were taught as members of biocorroding microbiota colonising on steel surfaces immerged in coastal seawater (37).

    3.1.3 Firmicutes

    Sequences belonging to members of Firmicutes accounted for 8.3% of the bacteria in the produced water (Figure 3). DGGE band B1_23 was distantly related (89%) to Aeribacillus pallidus strain MCM B-886 (JN701188), isolated from petroleum reservoir (published only in GenBank®) (Table I). In addition, different strains of Aeribacillus pallidus (with sequence similarity values from 98% to 99.6%) were isolated previously from various geothermal sites of Turkey (38). DGGE band B6_20 was distantly related (96%) to an uncultured Firmicutes bacterium, isolated from marine sediment in Charleston, South Carolina, USA (39). B56_17 and B1_24 were affiliated (97% and 98%, respectively) to an uncultured Firmicutes bacterium (Table I), detected in produced fluid from non-water-flooded high-temperature reservoir of the Niibori oilfield, Japan (40).

    3.1.4 Actinobacteria

    The phylum Actinobacteria comprised 4.2% of the bacterial community recovered from the produced water (Figure 3). DGGE band B6_26 displayed 100% sequence similarity to Coriobacteriaceae bacterium enrichment culture clone B3113 (HQ133029) isolated from crude oil contaminated soil of Shengli oil fields, China (41). The sequence B14_39 was closely related (100% similarity) to an aerobic bacterial strain Georgenia daeguensis 2C6-43, isolated from an activated sludge sample collected from an industrial wastewater treatment plant in Daegu, South Korea (42). Although little is known about the presence of G. daeguensis in oil associated environments, it was reported that different strains of G. daeguensis were isolated from hydrocarbon contaminated soil of an industrial zone and oil-saturated soil under laboratory conditions (4345).

    4. Discussion

    In order to increase our knowledge about microbial diversity, culture-dependent and molecular-based approaches are used for describing the diversity of microbes. Molecular-based approaches such as PCR-DGGE methodology, which is a useful tool for monitoring the genetic diversity of complex microbial populations (26), provide valuable information about the microbial community structure and dynamics in nature. For these reasons, PCR-DGGE fingerprinting analysis of environmental samples was used in this study.

    The choice of appropriate primers for PCR amplification is a crucial step to accurately characterise the microbial communities. In this study, primer pair (341F-GC/907R), targeting the V3-V5 region of the 16S rRNA gene fragment, was selected due to its suitability for DGGE analysis of bacterial populations in environmental samples (26). This primer pair designed by Muyzer et al. (27, 28) has been used predominantly for microbial community analysis (26).

    The DNA yield obtained from produced water samples was very low. It is known that crude oil samples contain low amounts of biomass which makes DNA isolation difficult to achieve (46). In this study, the permit included taking up to 500 ml of oil/water mixture from each sampling point so that only ca. 25 ml of each produced water sample could be obtained. In this scope, the low sample volumes of produced water separated from the oil/water mixture may be a reason for the low amount of DNA. It was reported in other studies that higher sample volumes (100–4000 ml) of produced water were used for DNA isolation (35, 4750). The low DNA yield affected the efficiency of the PCR technique and for this reason, a two-step PCR was applied to the produced water samples. Thus, a sufficient amount of PCR product for DGGE for the produced water samples could be obtained.

    Bacterial communities associated with the produced waters was analysed by the PCR-DGGE approach. Although numerous bands were visible on the DGGE gel, only dominant bands could be excised and sequenced. Most of the sequences retrieved from produced water samples were related to unclassified bacteria. Different studies on oil reservoir microbiota have also shown that oil fields harbour new and still unidentified microbial species. For example, Lenchi et al. described microbial communities in production and injection waters from the Algerian oil fields. In their study, they detected that a large number of unclassified bacterial and archaeal sequences were found in the water samples (51). Furthermore, uncultured bacteria such as uncultured Sphingomonas sp. and uncultured Caenispirillum sp. clone Ppss_Ma27 were detected in our study. This result is consistent with the fact that the vast majority of microorganisms are uncultured and do not grow under laboratory conditions as stated by Lewis et al. (52). In order to isolate more microbes, an appropriate identification laboratory protocol should be followed. At this point, different strategies such as mimicking natural conditions via decreased nutrient, extended incubation times, the modification of isolating media formulations and different incubation parameters (for example, temperature) were suggested for the cultivation of microorganisms (53). For instance, pollutant degrader Sphingomonas, which seemed to be previously uncultured by nutrient-rich methods, could be isolated from crude oil contaminated soil by using an in situ method that mimics the original environment (54). In addition, culture-dependent investigation should also be supported by molecular techniques.

    Based on the sequences, organisms related to known mesophilic bacteria were predominant in the produced water samples. In addition, some organisms related to thermophilic bacteria (Aeribacillus pallidus, Marinobacter sp. Trimyema-2, Phenylobacterium lituiforme and Thermithiobacillus sp.) were also identified. Bacteria having different metabolic capabilities (denitrifying, biodegrading and sulfur removing bacteria) were also detected. In addition, bacteria which may cause biocorrosion on steel surfaces were detected.

    The dominant bacterial phylum was the Proteobacteria. The members of this phylum were also frequently found in many other studies on microbial diversity of oil field produced waters (5558). Moreover, it was stated that Proteobacteria are ubiquitous in oil reservoirs over all temperature ranges (59).

    In this study, among the detected genera in produced water samples that potentially contain hydrocarbon degrading bacteria were Aeribacillus, Acinetobacter, Sphingomonas, Marinobacter and Phenylobacterium. It has been known for years that the species belonging to these genera are capable of degrading hydrocarbons (6, 17, 60, 61). In addition, G. daeguensis, a hydrocarbonoclastic bacterium, was detected in produced water sample with a 100% sequence similarity. G. daeguensis has also been demonstrated as a potential microbe for bioremediation due to its hydrocarbon degradation ability (44). Further investigations are needed because our current knowledge of the metabolic capability of G. daeguensis is limited. Moreover, sulfur-oxidising Thermithiobacillus sp. was also identified in produced water sample. Sulfur-oxidising bacteria, which oxidise the sulfur compounds produced by the activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in oil reservoirs, may play a key role in the oil industry because they can be utilised to resolve processing problems such as reservoir souring (11).

    Pseudomonas was the dominant genus detected among the produced water samples. Pseudomonas stutzeri was the species identified in five produced water samples. P. stutzeri was previously isolated not only from formation water, produced from the petroleum wells in Adıyaman (62), but also oil-contaminated soils in Batman petroleum refinery, Turkey (63). These two areas are close to the Diyarbakır region from where the samples in this study were collected and these findings show that P. stutzeri is distributed widely in south-eastern Turkey. In other different geographical areas, this species was also isolated from oil-associated environments, such as oil field production water (64), oil sludge (65) and oil contaminated soil (66). However, although P. stutzeri is often isolated from oil reservoirs, the origin of P. stutzeri in oil reservoirs is a debatable issue. Because oil reservoirs have low redox potentials and contain little oxygen, anaerobic microorganisms are considered as truly indigenous to oil reservoirs (67). In this regard, it is believed that P. stutzeri, most of whose strains are aerobes, is an exogenous organism inoculated into oil reservoirs during the oil production processes. Even if strains of P. stutzeri are introduced into oil reservoirs with injected fluids, they should adapt to the physicochemical characteristics of the reservoir to survive. At this point, it has been proposed that extreme reservoir conditions may act as special factors for the evolution of P. stutzeri, thereby forming mutant strains (68). Furthermore, P. stutzeri, being found in a wide variety of habitats, is known for its diverse metabolism. Some strains of P. stutzeri are capable of denitrification, degradation of aromatic compounds and nitrogen fixation (32). These metabolic features make P. stutzeri highly attractive for biotechnological processes, such as reservoir souring control (69), microbial enhanced oil recovery (64) and bioremediation of oil-polluted environments (65).

    In undisturbed oil reservoirs, microorganisms are found in different phases such as reservoir fluid containing crude oil and formation water, and rock surfaces. While planktonic microbes thrive in the water phase, sessile microbes may attach to oil or rock surfaces (59). In addition, biofilm may form on the metal surfaces of the pipes in the oil-producing wells (70). Oil microbiome studies focus mainly on the analysis of the water phase due to its easy sampling. However, it should be noted that the water phase itself contains only a minor portion of the microbes found in the oil reservoir (59). On the other hand, the sampling of sessile microbes is likely to be more challenging (70).

    5. Conclusion

    This study reported for the first time the bacterial community composition of produced water from Diyarbakır oil reservoirs as obtained by DGGE analysis of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene fragments. DGGE analysis of produced water samples demonstrated that the majority of the bacterial sequences belonged to unclassified bacteria, indicating that oil reservoirs harbour still undescribed microbial species. Among the classified bacteria, the members of Proteobacteria were more abundant. Pseudomonas was the dominant genus detected in the produced water. Although the members of Pseudomonas were known as exogenous organisms inoculated into oil reservoirs, Pseudomonas stutzeri was found in five produced water samples. Bacteria having different metabolic capabilities (denitrifying, biodegrading and sulfur removing bacteria) were also detected. It can be stated that the metabolic capacities of these bacteria make them potential candidates for utilising in biodegradation, bioremediation, the improvement of oil quality and oil recovery processes. The knowledge of the bacterial community composition in oil reservoirs of the Diyarbakır region obtained in this study will be of great interest for both scientific research and applications in the oil industry. To build on the data presented in this study, metagenomic analyses should be performed to explore the undescribed microbes.

    Acknowledgements

    This work was supported by ‘Research Fund of Istanbul University’ (Project number: 28699). Tuğçe Tüccar was awarded an Erasmus LLP Scholarship. Esra Ilhan-Sungur was awarded a Post-doctoral Research Scholarship by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK-BIDEB). We thank the Turkish Petroleum Corporation for permission to collect samples, and Ender Taptık and Hasan Kaya for their assistance with the sample collection. We thank Ben Abbas for his technical assistance. We acknowledge Hakan Hosgormez for his helpful comments and suggestions.

    The Authors


    Tuğçe Tüccar is a PhD candidate in Fundamental and Industrial Microbiology at Istanbul University, Turkey. She received her Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Middle East Technical University, Turkey, in 2009. She obtained her Master’s degree in Fundamental and Industrial Microbiology from Istanbul University, Turkey, in 2011. Her dissertation was on investigation of sulfate-reducing bacteria in petroleum samples. She was awarded an Erasmus LLP Scholarship and conducted her research work at Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Areas of interest are microbial ecology, microbial genetics, petroleum microbiology and microbial corrosion.


    Esra Ilhan-Sungur is professor in the Biology Department at Istanbul University, Turkey, since 2018. A key focus of her research is microbiologically induced corrosion and its prevention. Further research interests lie in the area of anaerobic bacteria (especially sulfate-reducing bacteria), petroleum microbiology, microbial diversity and ecology, microbial genetics and biofilm. She was awarded a postdoctoral research scholarship by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK-BIDEB) and worked as a guest researcher at Delft University of Technology.


    Gerard Muyzer is Professor in Microbial Systems Ecology at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is studying the structure, function and dynamics of microbial communities, their role in biogeochemical cycles and their application in biotechnological processes. For this he is using a systems biology approach in which he combines experimental work, the use of state-of-the-art omics techniques, and mathematical modelling. He is mainly focusing on the microbial sulfur cycle, and in particular on sulfur bacteria that are present in natural ecosystems (such as soda lakes, stratified lakes, rhizosphere of seagrasses) as well as man-made ecosystems, such as full-scale bioreactors removing toxic sulfur compounds from wastewater.

    By |2020-09-28T12:24:18+00:00September 28th, 2020|Weld Engineering Services|Comments Off on Bacterial Community Composition in Produced Water of Diyarbakır Oil Fields in Turkey

    Lewis Hamilton and the Academy announce the board members of The Hamilton Commission

    • The Hamilton Commission, set up by Lewis Hamilton at the beginning of the year, is aimed at improving the representation of Black people in UK motorsport

    Six-Time Formula One™ World Champion, Lewis Hamilton MBE HonFREng and the Royal Academy of Engineering today announced the Board of Commissioners for The Hamilton Commission, a research project that will work to identify the key barriers to recruitment and progression of Black people in UK motorsport, and provide actionable recommendations to overcome them.

    The Hamilton Commission will be co-chaired by Lewis Hamilton and Dr Hayaatun Sillem CBE, Chief Executive of the Royal Academy of Engineering. The Board of Commissioners is an independent group made up of 14 experts and industry leaders from within the UK who represent a range of perspectives on the challenge. The Commissioners have been specially selected to represent a wide range of expertise spanning critical areas of influence including motorsport, engineering, schools, colleges and universities, community / youth groups, as well as major UK political parties.

    Each of the Commissioners will bring valuable expertise, knowledge and experience from their respective fields to The Hamilton Commission. Their responsibilities will be to review and inform the research methodology; to examine the research findings and help identify the key challenges and opportunities facing young Black people entering STEM careers, particularly in UK motorsport; and to advise on the final actions and recommendations that result from the research. Following engagement and consultation with motorsport communities within the UK, the final evidence and recommendations will be published and taken directly to key stakeholders who can help implement change. Commissioners will also support this effort by applying their personal influence to champion the insights and recommendations from the project.

    The Hamilton Commission

     

    The Board of Commissioners for The Hamilton Commission include:

    • KAREN CHOUHAN, Lead Equality Officer with a specialism in race policy for the National Education Union
    • JEREMY CROOK OBE, Chief Executive of the Black Training and Enterprise Group
    • TRACEY CROUCH MP, former Sports Minister and British Conservative Party politician
    • DR NIKE FOLAYAN MBE, Co-founder and Chair of the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers, AFBE-UK
    • PROFESSOR ALICE GAST FREng, President of Imperial College London
    • MARK HAMLIN, Chair of Project 44
    • DR ZUBAIDA HAQUE, Former Interim Director of the Runnymede Trust
    • DR ANNE-MARIE IMAFIDON MBE, Co-founder of Stemettes and Trustee at the Institute for the Future of Work
    • GEORGE IMAFIDON, Co-Founder of Motivez, One Young World Ambassador and Royal Academy of Engineering Scholar
    • GLEN LAMBERT, Head of School of Construction, Science and Engineering at College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London
    • PROFESSOR DAVID MBA, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research and Enterprise, and Dean of the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Media at De Montfort University
    • IZZY OBENG, Managing Director at Foundervine and Non-Executive Director for Capital Enterprise
    • CHI ONWURAH MP, British Member of Parliament representing Newcastle upon Tyne Central and also Shadow Minister Digital, Science & Technology
    • MARTIN WHITMARSH, Former CEO of the McLaren Formula One Team, Member of the Global Advisory Board of Formula E, Chair of the Offshore Wind Growth Partnership Limited and Chairman of BAR Technologies Limited

    Lewis Hamilton said: “Since I began my professional racing career in Formula One, 14 years ago, I was the first driver of colour and to this day, sadly that is still the case. However, what is more concerning is that there are still very few people of colour across the sport as a whole. In F1, our teams are much bigger than the athletes that front them, but representation is insufficient across every skill set – from the garage to the engineers in the factories and design departments. Change isn’t coming quickly enough, and we need to know why. This is why I wanted to set up the Commission and I’m proud to be working with the Royal Academy of Engineering and our incredible Board of Commissioners to identify the barriers facing young Black people to take up STEM careers in motorsport. We are dedicated to this cause and together, we will make a change.”

    Commission Co-Chair Dr Hayaatun Sillem said: “At the Royal Academy of Engineering, one of our priorities is to ensure that the UK has a world-leading and truly inclusive engineering workforce, something that we can only achieve if we boost the numbers and diversity of those choosing engineering careers. This is why we are so delighted to be partnering with Lewis in establishing The Hamilton Commission to improve the representation of Black people in UK motorsport. I was honoured to be asked to co-chair with Lewis our wonderful Board of Commissioners, who have each been carefully selected based on their experience, expertise and commitment to tackling racial injustice. This is a truly unique opportunity to drive transformational change on this crucial issue, and in the process to learn more about how we can enrich diversity in other parts of engineering and society.”

    The first meeting of the Board of Commissioners took place earlier this month, where the Commissioners shared their initial insights and thoughts on the research plan with Lewis and Hayaatun. The Board will meet quarterly to discuss and inform the latest Commission research and explore how the Commissioners can advance agreed upon recommendations through their networks.

    The Hamilton Commission will undertake a range of activities to help inform the research findings. These activities will include an initial data analysis, stakeholder mapping, a literature review in sport, education and employment, as well as in-depth surveying and analysis with youth focus groups and key stakeholders. At the end of the research project, The Hamilton Commission will aim to deliver recommendations about inclusive recruitment and progression practices that will benefit young Black people wishing to work in the sector in the UK, and perhaps internationally too, should the actions be replicable.

    The Hamilton Commission has been in development since December 2019 but publicly launched in June 2020 to coincide with the heightened media and public interest in the Black Lives Matter movement, and greater scrutiny of race inequality in society. The Commission will run for nine months and officially began on September 1st, 2020.


    Notes to editors

    Please contact hamiltoncommission@freuds.com with any requests or questions.

    Please visit www.hamiltoncommission.squarespace.com for more information.

    For the Board of Commissioners headshots and bios, click here: https://hamiltoncommission.squarespace.com/board-of-commissioners

    By |2020-09-23T23:01:00+00:00September 23rd, 2020|Engineering News|Comments Off on Lewis Hamilton and the Academy announce the board members of The Hamilton Commission
    Go to Top