Assessing Crude oil degradation Potential by Biosurfactant-producing Bacteria Isolated from Marine Ecosystem in Nigeria
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Optimization of petroleum hydrocarbons degradation process in contaminated environments process could be feasible through the use of biosurfactant-producing bacteria. The aim of this study was to investigate crude oil degradation potential of biosurfactant-producing bacteria isolated from marine ecosystem in Nigeria. Sediment and water samples were collected from ten marine ecosystem locations within Nigeria and physicochemical analyses were carried out on them. Isolates were identified and screened for biosurfactant production and crude oil degradation for 7 days. The screened isolates were assayed for biosurfactant production and crude oil degradation for 35 days and analysed every 7 days interval for changes in pH, OD and TPH content. The strains with the highest yield were identified using molecular method. The results showed that twenty bacterial isolates were isolated from the ecosystem. The identified screened isolates revealed Pseudomonas sp.-ILAw, Pseudomonas sp.-OGUw, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-IDDOs, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-IDDOw, Escherichia sp.-MAKs, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-MAKw, Pseudomonas sp.-OWOs, Micrococcus sp.-OWOw, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-UNIw, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-AGBw, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-DSBs, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-DSBw, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-OKOs, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-OKOw and Pseudomonas aeruginosa-MIDw to have potentials for biosurfactant production and crude oil degradation. From the assay, isolates with the highest biosurfactant production using Emulsification index were Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain sihong_820_11, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain P73 and Escherichia hermannii strain K167 with values 68%, 56% and 56% respectively while the isolates with the lowest yield of crude oil degradation of 50% efficacy are Pseudomonas aeruginosa-IDDOw and Pseudomonas sp.-ILAw. From these results, it is inferred that biosurfactant-producing bacteria isolated from marine ecosystem within Nigeria can efficiently degrade crude oil in contaminated sites.
Article activity feed
-
Thank you for submitting your paper to Access Microbiology. It has now been reviewed and I thank you for revising the paper in line with the reviewers' reports and any Editorial Office requirements below. There remain several issues with the revision namely: 1. Figure 1 is of poor quality. Please revise to an appropriate map. 2. The graph do not show the deviations. Please amend all graphs. 3. It is difficult to find out where and how the reviewer's comments were made in the revision. Please in your response letter provide details of page and line number or highlight the added text for confirming the revision made.
-
-
This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. Please include more rigour criteria and resources in your methods section, as highlighted by the SciScore reports. Including RRIDs and negative statements to explain why things were not performed should increase the rigour and reproducibility of your work. You can find tips on how to improve your article here: https://sciscore.com/reports/Core-Report.php The language used is poor, which can cause ambiguity at times. Please carefully rewrite it. We offer a discounted translation service, Editage (https://www.editage.com/; see https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/prepare-an-article#13 for more information).
-
Comments to Author
The manuscript is aiming the investigation of biosurfactant producing bacteria for crude oil degradation. The study focuses on important but very basic research which is not suits to the journal standards. The author has put the effort in interesting area and resulted in to isolation of bacterial isolate which is already known. Manuscript needs to be check for proper terminology and grammatical issues. The organization of section is also need to be fix by adding connecting links between the sections. Unnecessary details should be removed. Method section is well written; however, it is overloaded with verbose at many points. Complex sentences need to be simplified. Ensure all referenced protocols and tools are properly cited. All graphs need to be corrected, as Y-axis is absent in every graph. Picture …
Comments to Author
The manuscript is aiming the investigation of biosurfactant producing bacteria for crude oil degradation. The study focuses on important but very basic research which is not suits to the journal standards. The author has put the effort in interesting area and resulted in to isolation of bacterial isolate which is already known. Manuscript needs to be check for proper terminology and grammatical issues. The organization of section is also need to be fix by adding connecting links between the sections. Unnecessary details should be removed. Method section is well written; however, it is overloaded with verbose at many points. Complex sentences need to be simplified. Ensure all referenced protocols and tools are properly cited. All graphs need to be corrected, as Y-axis is absent in every graph. Picture of gels should be corrected and ladder should label properly. The size of amplicon is missing.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
Yes: Images are of poor quality and less accurate.
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Some detailed analytical results presented, the authors are to be commended on this. pp3 line 87 'A total number of 10 water samples and 10 sediment samples' - to confirm, is this one water sample per site at 10 locations i.e. a total of 10 water samples or is it 10 water samples per location at 10 locations i.e. 100 water samples in total? presumably the latter given the mean and SD values displayed in table 1, i suggest this is clarified further in the methods The images in Plates 1 and 2 are unclear. Were any multi-variate statistical tests considered to identify if any relationships between bacteria species and water chemical properties that were present? was their effectiveness influenced by the chemical properties? page 15 'hydrocarbon removal efficiencies can reach up to 87% using …
Comments to Author
Some detailed analytical results presented, the authors are to be commended on this. pp3 line 87 'A total number of 10 water samples and 10 sediment samples' - to confirm, is this one water sample per site at 10 locations i.e. a total of 10 water samples or is it 10 water samples per location at 10 locations i.e. 100 water samples in total? presumably the latter given the mean and SD values displayed in table 1, i suggest this is clarified further in the methods The images in Plates 1 and 2 are unclear. Were any multi-variate statistical tests considered to identify if any relationships between bacteria species and water chemical properties that were present? was their effectiveness influenced by the chemical properties? page 15 'hydrocarbon removal efficiencies can reach up to 87% using Pseudomonas aeruginosa-MIDw' - the discussion would benefit from the ecology of key species being discussed in greater detail and their role in the ecosystem and how the environment may be managed to facilitate numbers. Also the discussion is poorly referenced, there are many paragraphs where there is an un-referenced block of text with references at the end of the paragraph. This is poor academic writing. It needs to be addressed throughout.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Assessing Crude oil degradation Potential by Biosurfactant-producing Bacteria Isolated from Marine Ecosystem in Nigeria Aina, O.R., Omotayo A.E., Efthimiou G., Olaleye, O.N. and Oshoma C.E The work presented by the authors Aina, O.R. et al is an initial characterization very interesting in the field of bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons, as well as the opportunity provided by biosurfactant-producing bacteria to enhance the efficacy of this biodegradation. My main comment regarding the paper is that the authors need to improve their writing in terms of making it easier to read, eliminating repetitive paragraphs. Regarding the abstract: Please improve the compression of the abstract according to the results presented without the reader having to read the results to understand it. From line 21:
Comments to Author
Assessing Crude oil degradation Potential by Biosurfactant-producing Bacteria Isolated from Marine Ecosystem in Nigeria Aina, O.R., Omotayo A.E., Efthimiou G., Olaleye, O.N. and Oshoma C.E The work presented by the authors Aina, O.R. et al is an initial characterization very interesting in the field of bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons, as well as the opportunity provided by biosurfactant-producing bacteria to enhance the efficacy of this biodegradation. My main comment regarding the paper is that the authors need to improve their writing in terms of making it easier to read, eliminating repetitive paragraphs. Regarding the abstract: Please improve the compression of the abstract according to the results presented without the reader having to read the results to understand it. From line 21: From the text it is unclear if there are isolates with a clear correlation between oil degradation and biosurfactant production or if there are isolates that produce biosurfactants but incapable of oil biodegradation? For example, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain sihong_820_11, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain P73 and Escherichia hermannii strain K167 which are not included among the 15 listed above are the best in oil biodegradation or only in biosurfactant production or both? Introduction Lines 68-74: this paragraph please should be better contextualized. Are the authors aiming to emphasize the advantages of bacteria that naturally produce biosurfactants?. It seems that something is missing in the exposition. Methods Had the sediment samples some treatment with specific buffers, such as disruption buffers, etc. to better detach those bacteria that remain tightly adhered to the sediment? If so, please include. Results a spread diameter of > 50mm and the least spread diameter of ≤5 mm was recorded in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-DSBs, Escherichia sp.-MAKs, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-UNIw, Pseudomonas aeruginosa-AGBs and Pseudomonas aeruginosa-AGBw. It is not clear which one has the diameter greater than 50, please include it. The results in Table 5 and the text are repetitive. I suggest that the authors organize the table from highest to lowest growth. Line 278. Seven isolates with high potentials for biosurfactant production and crude-oil degradation were selected for further investigated to determine the three isolates with the highest potentials for biosurfactant production and crude oil degradation. This sentence is confusing at this point, as the experiments it refers to are discussed later in the text. Please consider rephrasing it for clarity. I consider Figure 1 that this graph should be presented clearly. In the copy that I have, the days are not labeled and instead of showing the absorbance, it would be more appropriate to represent the logarithm of the absorbance, so that in the different phases of growth can be seen properly. The same in Figure 2 in the copy that I have there is no quality representation of this graph, please represent it properly, there are practically no pH variations that can be observed.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: subjects been treated in an ethical manner
-