Danish University Colleges
Microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC): Development of a model system to investigate the role of biofilm communities within MIC and their control using industrial biocides
Jones, Liam; Webb, Jeremy; Wharton, Julian; Skovhus, Torben Lund; Salta, Maria; Thomas, Kathryn; Illson, Timothy
Publication date:
2021
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication
Citation for pulished version (APA):
Jones, L., Webb, J., Wharton, J., Skovhus, T. L., Salta, M., Thomas, K., & Illson, T. (2021). Microbiologically- influenced corrosion (MIC): Development of a model system to investigate the role of biofilm communities within MIC and their control using industrial biocides. Abstract from EuroCorr 2021. https://eurocorr.org/
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Download policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 10. Sep. 2022
Microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC): Development of a model system to investigate the role of biofilm communities within MIC and their
control using industrial biocides.
Liam Jones
1, Jeremy Webb
1, Julian Wharton
2, Maria Salta
3, Torben Lund Skovhus
4, Kathryn Thomas
5, Timothy Illson
51School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
2School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
3School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
4Research Center for Built Environment, Energy, Water and Climate, VIA University College, Denmark
5DNV, Holywell Park, Ashby Road, Loughborough, United Kingdom
• One of the key challenges in understanding microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is the lack of robust and reproducible model biofilm systems that reflect real-worldand operating environments.
• There are no nationally or internationally recognised standards or test methods with which to evaluate control strategies effective against biofilm-mediated corrosion.
Introduction
Methodology
Results – Gravimetric analysis & Surface roughness
Acknowledgements
References Aims & objectives
1. Rachel, N.M et al., 2020. Microbiol. 11:581387. doi:
10.3389/fmicb.2020.581387
2. Wood, J.L et al., 2019. MethodsX. 6: 2248–2257.
doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2019.09.036
3. ASTM G161-00., 2018. ASTM International 4. NACE., 2018. SP0775-SG. NACE International This work was supported by the South Coast Biosciences Doctoral Training
Partnership (SoCoBio DTP), a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) funded research training programme in affiliation with DNV GL; the National Biofilms Innovation Centre (NBIC) and the Southampton Marine
and Maritime Institute (SMMI). Liam Jones
lmj1n20@soton.ac.uk
Results – Microbial viability & ATP bacterial activity
• Low CFU count for sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB); not significant.
• 25M & 1MF samples had lower ATP (nmol/coupon) compared to AR samples; planktonic samples had greater ATP than biofilm samples.
2,452 2,361 2,425
329,797
289,063 294,340
260,000 280,000 300,000 320,000 340,000
0,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
AR 25M 1MF
ATP (nmol/coupon)
Log10 CFU/mL
Fig. 1 -Colony Forming Units & ATP for AR, 25M, 1MF coupons
• Commission the anaerobic CDC biofilm reactor, ensuring the system can be run for multiple days while maintaining an anaerobic environment.
• Investigate the effect of surface roughness on MIC and biofilmformation.
• Microbial consortia used in the study were collected1 from the Solent/Langstone Harbour (50°50'11.9"N 0°58'47.5"W) and grown in ATCC 1249 ModifiedBaar’s(MB) medium for 30 days at 37oC in an anaerobic CDC reactor.
• The reactor was operated in a batch mode for the first 6 days to allow settlement and facilitate biofilm formation. After this period, the reactor was switched to continuous flow of fresh MB media at a rate of 0.21 mL/min. Agitation of the baffle in the reactor was set to 60 rpm.
• 1018 mild carbon steel (CS) coupons (RD128-CS, Biosurface Technologies, 0.5 inch diameter x 0.15 inch thickness) were used as received (AR) or polished with a Kemet 15 Lapping machine to 25m finish (25M) or 1m/mirror finish (1MF).
• Microbial viability in biofilms via enumeration was calculated by a culture dependent CFU method using ATCC Medium 260 Trypticase Soy Agar (TSA) with 5% horse blood2.
• ATP (bacterial activity) was measured using the BacTiter-Glo™
Microbial Cell Viability and followingthe Promega protocol.
• Gravimetric analysis of CS coupons was performed as per NACE SP07753,4before and after the experiment using a Mettler AT201 5 d.p.
scale.There were six CS coupon replicates for each sample type.
• Surface roughness profiles for CS coupons were taken before the experiment using a Talysurf Intra Touch; and after the experiment using an Alicona imaging infinite focus microscope IFM G4 3.5.
Conclusions
• Low corrosion rate across all three sample types; significant difference (P<0.05) between the AR and 1MF samples.
• Low CFU data for SRB from biofilm taken from each coupon sample type.
• 25M & 1MF samples had lower ATP compared to AR samples.
• AR & 1MF samples; Rz had statisticallysignificantchange (P<0.05).
• Surface roughness was statistically significant between groups before and after experiment (P<0.05).
• Surface roughness appears to effect MIC and biofilm formation, when comparing AR & 1MF samples.
1,06260 0,99776 0,87590
0,00000 0,50000 1,00000 1,50000
AR 25M 1MF
Corrosion Rate (mils per year)
Fig. 2 -Corrosion Rates for 1018 mild carbon steel samples against a multi-species microbial consortia
3,35881
2,63450
0,85786 1,07967
0,49206 0,64883 0,00000
1,00000 2,00000 3,00000 4,00000 5,00000
Ra (µm)
Fig. 4 -Average Ra (µm) day 0 & day 30 of experiment
Fig. 5 - 3D surface profile for sample 1MF_3 at 50x magnification.
• 3D surface profile showingpitting corrosionfor sample 1MF_3.
• Low corrosion rate across all three sample types.
• Significant difference(P<0.05) between AR and 1MF samples.
• Rz is the mean peak to valleyheight of roughness profile.
• AR & 1MF samples; Rz had statisticallysignificantchange (P<0.05).
• Ra is the arithmetic mean deviation; no significantchanges found.
22,97380
15,99800
7,43439 9,38483
3,57574 5,54633 0,00000
10,00000 20,00000 30,00000
Rz (µm)
Fig. 3 -Average Rz (µm) day 0 & day 30 of experiment
AR - Day 0 AR - Day 30 25M - Day 0 25M - Day 30 1MF - Day 0 1MF - Day 30
