Article Search
닫기

Microbiology and Biotechnology Letters

보문(Article)

View PDF

Food, Environment, and Other Topics in Biotechnology

Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014; 42(1): 32-40

https://doi.org/10.4014/kjmb.1310.10005

Received: October 29, 2013; Accepted: January 9, 2014

도심 학교 토양의 메탄 산화 및 생성 잠재력 평가

Evaluation of Methane Oxidation and the Production Potential of Soils in an Urban School

Yun-Yeong Lee 1, Tae Gwan Kim 1, Hee Wook Ryu 2 and Kyung-Suk Cho 1, 3*

1Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120-750, Republic of Korea, 2Department of Chemical Engineering, Soongsil University, Seoul 156-743, Republic of Korea, 2Global Top 5 Research Program, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120-750, Republic of Korea

Methane oxidation and the production potentials of ground soil (soil A) and garden soil (soil B, C, & D) in an urban school were evaluated, and the methanotrophic and methanogen communities in the soil samples were quantified using quantitative realtime PCR. The methanotrophic community in the raw soil A sample possessed a 6.1×103 gene copy number/g dry weight soil, whereas those in the raw soils B~D samples were 1.6-1.9 × 105 gene copy numbers/g dry weight soil. Serum bottles added with the soil samples were enriched with methane gas, and then evaluated for their methane oxidation potential. The soil A sample had a longer induction phase for methane oxidation than the other soils. However, soil A showed a similar methane oxidation potential with soils B~D after the induction phase. The methanotrophic community in the enriched soil A sample was increased by up to 2.3 × 107 gene copy numbers/g dry weight soil, which had no significantly difference compared with those in soils B~D (1.2-2.8 × 108 gene copy numbers/g dry weight soil). Methane production showed a similar tendency to methane oxidation. The methanogens community in raw soil A (1.7 × 105 gene copy number/g dry weight soil) was much less than those in raw soils B~D (1.3-3.4 × 107 gene copy numbers/g dry weight soil). However, after methane gas was produced by adding starch to the soils, soil samples A~D showed 107 gene copy numbers/g dry weight soil in methanogens communities. The results indicate that methanotrophic and methanogenic bacteria have coexisted in this urban school’s soils. Moreover, under appropriate conditions for methane oxidation and production, methanotrophic bacteria and methanogens are increased and they have the potential for methane oxidation and production.

Keywords: Methane, Methanotroph, Methanogen, Soil bacteria, Urban school

  1. Amani T, Nosrati M, Mousavi S. 2011. Using enriched cultures for elevation of anaerobic syntrophic interactions between acetogens and methanogens in a high-load continuous digester. Bioresour. Technol. 102: 3716-3723.
    CrossRef
  2. Archer D, Eby M, Brovkin V, Ridgwell A, Cao L, Mikolajewicz U, Caldeira K, Matsumoto K, Munhoven G, Montenegro A, Tokos K. 2009. Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37: 117-134.
    CrossRef
  3. Cho K-S, Ryu H-W. 2009. Biotechnology for the mitigation of methane emission from landfills. Korean J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37: 293-305.
  4. Hallam SJ, Girguis PR, Preston CM, Richardson PM, DeLong EF. 2003. Identification of methyl coenzyme M reductase A (mcrA) genes associated with methane-oxidizing archaea. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 5483-5491.
    CrossRef
  5. Hanson RS, Hanson TE. 1996. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 60: 439-471.
  6. Kampmann K, Ratering S, Baumann R, Schmidt M, Zerr W, Schnell S. 2012. Hydrogenotrophic methanogens dominate in biogas reactors fed with defined substrates. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 35: 404-413.
    CrossRef
  7. Kim S-Y, Lee S-H, Freeman C, Fenner N, Kang H. 2008. Comparative analysis of soil microbial communities and their responses to the short-term drought in bog, fen, and riparian wetlands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40: 2874-2880.
    CrossRef
  8. Kim TG, Moon K-E, Lee E-H, Choi S-A, Cho K-S. 2011. Assessing effects of earthworm cast on methanotrophic community in a soil biocover by concurrent use of microarray and quantitative real-time PCR. Appl. Soil Ecol. 50: 52-55.
    CrossRef
  9. Kim YB, Park PS. 2004. Analysis of comparative on the regional soil ingredients of grounds in elementary school. Korean J. Elem. Phys. Edu. 10: 157-169.
  10. Knief C, Kolb S, Bodelier PL, Lipski A, Dunfield PF. 2006. The active methanotrophic community in hydromorphic soils changes in response to changing methane concentration. Environ. Microbiol. 8: 321-333.
    CrossRef
  11. Kolb S, Knief C, Dunfield PF, Conrad R. 2005. Abundance and activity of uncultured methanotrophic bacteria involved in the consumption of atmospheric methane in two forest soils. Environ. Microbiol. 7: 1150-1161.
    CrossRef
  12. Kolb S, Knief C, Stubner S, Conrad R. 2003. Quantitative detection of methanotrophs in soil by novel pmoA-targeted real-time PCR assays. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 24232429.
    CrossRef
  13. Le Mer J, Roger P. 2001. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: a review. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 37: 25-50.
    CrossRef
  14. Ma K, Qiu Q, Lu Y. 2010. Microbial mechanism for rice variety control on methane emission from rice field soil. Glob. Change Biol. 16: 3085-3095.
  15. Oh HJ, Lee JY. 2003. A study on the characteristical evaluation of metals and fluorine concentrations in the Southern part of Seoul. J. Soil Ground. Environ. 8: 68-73.
  16. Rahman MT, Crombie A, Chen Y, Stralis-Pavese N, Bodrossy L, Meir P, et al. 2010. Environmental distribution and abundance of the facultative methanotroph Methylocella. ISME J. 5: 1061-1066.
    CrossRef
  17. Reay DS, Nedwell DB. 2004. Methane oxidation in temperate soils: effects of inorganic N. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36: 20592065.
    CrossRef
  18. Scavino AF, Ji Y, Pump J, Klose M, Claus P, Conrad R. 2013. Structure and function of the methanogenic microbial communities in Uruguayan soils shifted between pasture and irrigated rice fields. Environ. Microbiol. 15: 2588-2602.
    CrossRef
  19. Skopp J, Jawson M, Doran J. 1990. Steady-state aerobic microbial activity as a function of soil water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54: 1619-1625.
    CrossRef
  20. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, et al. 2007. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. p.100. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  21. Steinberg LM, Regan JM. 2008. Phylogenetic comparison of the methanogenic communities from an acidic, oligotrophic fen and an anaerobic digester treating municipal wastewater sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74: 6663-6671.
    CrossRef
  22. Yimga MT, Dunfield PF, Ricke P, Heyer J, Liesack W. 2003. Wide distribution of a novel pmoA-like gene copy among type II methanotrophs, and its expression in Methylocystis strain SC2. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 5593-5602.
    CrossRef
  23. Yuan Y, Conrad R, Lu Y. 2009. Responses of methanogenic archaeal community to oxygen exposure in rice field soil. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 1: 347-354.
    CrossRef

Starts of Metrics

Share this article on :

  • mail

Related articles in MBL

Most KeyWord ?

What is Most Keyword?

  • It is most registrated keyword in articles at this journal during for 2 years.