Next Article in Journal
Biocontrol Ability and Action Mechanism of Meyerozyma guilliermondii 37 on Soft Rot Control of Postharvest Kiwifruit
Next Article in Special Issue
Guts Bacterial Communities of Porcellio dilatatus: Symbionts Predominance, Functional Significance and Putative Biotechnological Potential
Previous Article in Journal
Psycho-Microbiology, a New Frontier for Probiotics: An Exploratory Overview
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Iron Compounds in Anaerobic Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: A Review

by
Ana R. Castro
1,2,
Gilberto Martins
1,2,
Andreia F. Salvador
1,2 and
Ana J. Cavaleiro
1,2,*
1
CEB—Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
2
LABBELS—Associate Laboratory, 4704-553 Braga/Guimarães, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(11), 2142; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112142
Submission received: 1 October 2022 / Revised: 26 October 2022 / Accepted: 26 October 2022 / Published: 29 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbial Biodegradation and Biotransformation 2.0)

Abstract

:
Waste and wastewater containing hydrocarbons are produced worldwide by various oil-based industries, whose activities also contribute to the occurrence of oil spills throughout the globe, causing severe environmental contamination. Anaerobic microorganisms with the ability to biodegrade petroleum hydrocarbons are important in the treatment of contaminated matrices, both in situ in deep subsurfaces, or ex situ in bioreactors. In the latter, part of the energetic value of these compounds can be recovered in the form of biogas. Anaerobic degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons can be improved by various iron compounds, but different iron species exert distinct effects. For example, Fe(III) can be used as an electron acceptor in microbial hydrocarbon degradation, zero-valent iron can donate electrons for enhanced methanogenesis, and conductive iron oxides may facilitate electron transfers in methanogenic processes. Iron compounds can also act as hydrocarbon adsorbents, or be involved in secondary abiotic reactions, overall promoting hydrocarbon biodegradation. These multiple roles of iron are comprehensively reviewed in this paper and linked to key functional microorganisms involved in these processes, to the underlying mechanisms, and to the main influential factors. Recent research progress, future perspectives, and remaining challenges on the application of iron-assisted anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation are highlighted.

1. Introduction

Petroleum-derived oils are still the most important primary energy source in our society and represent an important fraction of the economic markets. Additionally, petroleum is a key raw material for a wide range of non-fuel products, such as solvents, lubricants, and other compounds that are, in turn, used as raw materials in the petrochemical industry (e.g., naphtha, ethane, propane, ethylene, propylene) [1].
In the last decades, the activities of the oil and gas (O&G) industry have contributed to the occurrence of oil spills throughout the world, both on land and in marine environments, with dramatic consequences to the ecosystems and ultimately to human health [2]. Releases of petroleum can occur during routine operations of extraction, production, transportation, refining, and storage processes, and also during illegal disposal practices such as direct wastewater discharge [3,4,5,6]. Given that the O&G industry is prevalent worldwide, and the rate of oil consumption is predicted to increase, minimization of the environmental hazard of its activities will continue to be a challenge [7,8].
Besides oil spills in the environment, considerable amounts of different hydrocarbon-contaminated wastes and wastewaters are produced by several types of oil-based industries. Wastewaters generated during oil production, as well as oily sludge, are considered as the most relevant [9]. The handling and discharge of oily waste and wastewater has been progressively regulated and today the O&G sector needs to cope with tight restrictions. Due to the complex structure, toxicity, and harmful effects of these wastes, an effective treatment is imperative [10].
The use of anaerobic microorganisms, able to consume petroleum hydrocarbons under oxygen-limited conditions, can be a suitable solution to treat both environmental contaminated matrices and oily waste/wastewater. Anaerobic degradation processes can take place in situ, in deep contaminated environments, such as soils, sediments, and aquifers [11,12,13], or can be performed ex situ using different types of bioreactors [14,15]. In this case, part of the energetic value of these compounds can be recovered in the form of biogas, which can be upgraded to biomethane and injected into the natural gas grid, thus contributing to clean and more resilient energy systems.
The positive effects of iron compounds in anaerobic digestion (AD) processes were recently reviewed by Tian and Yu [16] and Li and colleagues [17], mainly reporting iron-assisted AD with some simple substrates (glucose, acetate, propionate, butyrate) and a few complex wastes (waste-activated sludge, food waste, rice straw, and swine wastewater) [16], but only scarcely addressing hydrocarbons. Iron compounds may play multiple roles in the removal and degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons, thus contributing to enhanced biodegradation and bioremediation (Figure 1). Its multiple roles are discussed in detail in Section 5, Section 6 and Section 7. Besides its potential effect as an electron acceptor in microbial hydrocarbon degradation (Figure 1A), iron is also an essential element of different enzymes and co-factors. Depending on the iron species, it can also function as a buffer for organic acids or as an electron donor for enhanced methanogenesis (Figure 1D), thus promoting the conversion of hydrocarbons to methane. Conductive iron minerals have also been reported to stimulate electron transfers in methanogenic processes [18], although only few works addressed this effect in the context of petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation (Figure 1B). Nevertheless, this topic was identified as a “Crystall Ball” feature that will drive innovative research in the field [19]. Iron compounds can also act as hydrocarbon adsorbents (Figure 1C). In sum, the application of iron compounds to anaerobic processes can improve the system’s performance, and potentially lead to increased financial returns of in situ and ex situ hydrocarbon bioremediation processes [20].
This review is focused on the multiple roles of iron compounds in petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation under anaerobic conditions. The presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and iron compounds in industrial waste/wastewaters and in nature is reviewed. Current knowledge on key microorganisms and metabolic steps involved in the anaerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons is summarized. The diverse effects of iron in these biological reactions are highlighted and reviewed, and the most important advances in the field are summarized, as well as their potential to boost hydrocarbon removal and anaerobic degradation.

2. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Types, Sources, and Occurrence in Waste/Wastewater

Petroleum hydrocarbons can be broadly divided into aliphatic (including linear and branched chain alkanes, as well as naphthenic compounds) or aromatic, e.g., BTEX—benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene isomers (o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene)—or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [21,22]. Several mono- and polyaromatic hydrocarbons are among the 30 compounds most frequently detected in groundwater, according to data from the UK Environment Agency’s monitoring program of organic pollutants [23]. In general, hydrocarbons are largely apolar and are chemically stable, presenting minor reactivity at room temperature [24]. Many PAHs are carcinogenic and/or mutagenic, and tend to bioaccumulate within organisms due to their hydrophobicity and low water solubility [25]. A total of 16 PAHs were included in a list of priority-control pollutants defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency [26].
Worldwide, hydrocarbon-contaminated wastewater production was estimated at 5.3 million m3 per day in 2009 [27], resulting from different sources (Figure 2), namely crude oil extraction and refinement, lubricants and petrochemical manufacturing, the metallurgical industry, transportation industries, automotive repair stations and industrial equipment maintenance [28,29]. During crude oil drilling and extraction, produced water (PW) is the main oily wastewater generated [30], and may reach up to 39.5 million m3 day−1 globally [31], although used fracking and drilling fluids, as well as wastewater from maintenance procedures, are also produced [29]. PW is an oily wastewater that consists of a saline aqueous solution containing hydrocarbons. PW results from the injection of large amounts of seawater in offshore reservoirs, to increase the oil recovery rate during the oil extraction process, and subsequent separation of aqueous and oily phases [31]. The worldwide production of PW is increasing concomitantly with the growth of O&G production, despite the fact that the majority is reutilized [32,33,34]. In PW, aliphatic hydrocarbons, BTEX, and PAHs are important pollutants (Table 1). The typical range of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration generally averages 200–500 mg L−1 [35,36,37], although TPH concentrations up to 7220 mg L−1 have also been reported [36].
Another relevant source of oily wastewaters (Figure 2) is the petroleum refining industry (crude oil transformation into several petrochemical products), particularly from the distillation units, cooling, desalting, and boiling systems, hydrotreating, cracking procedures, lubricants for machinery, spent caustic, and ballast water [28,38]. They are formed from the contact of water with crude oil products throughout the refining process, and contain oil and greases, phenols, suspended solids, cyanides, sulfur and nitrogen compounds, and different heavy metals, namely iron [39,40]. The chemical composition of these wastewaters, as well as their hydrocarbon content, varies depending on the processes applied in each refinery [39]. As an example, a petroleum refinery wastewater with 270 mg L−1 TPH was reported by Gargouri and his team [41]. Petroleum refinery wastewater generally has more PAHs and fewer lighter hydrocarbons than crude oil [39].
The metallurgical industry also originates considerable amounts of oily wastewater during metal manufacturing and processing (such as solvent extraction and electroplating). For example, in China, wastewater discharged from primary iron and steel plants reached 0.63 billion m3 in 2011 [42]. Metallurgical wastewaters generally contain emulsified oil, ranging from 2000–6000 mg L−1 up to 14,000 mg L−1, as well as suspended solids, emulsifiers, surfactants, degreasing agents, solvents, metals, and acids/alkalis [42].
The continuous increase in the activities of transport-related industries is contributing as well to the generation of hydrocarbon-containing wastewaters, particularly from automotive repair and wash stations and industrial equipment maintenance units [29].
Oily sludge is composed of oil, solids, and water, and is mainly generated during crude oil routine exploration processes, accumulating in the bottom of storage and transportation tanks and pipelines, and also in hydrocarbon-containing wastewater treatment plants (Figure 2). It includes mud from the drilling process, oily wastes from the wells and emulsified oils from the petroleum refining process [43]. Around 60 million tons of oily sludge are produced every year and more than one billion tons are accumulated around the globe [44]. TPHs account for 0.2 to 521 g kg−1 of sludge dry matter [45], with alkanes and aromatics representing 40–52% and 28–31%, respectively [46].

3. Biogeochemical Iron Cycle and Natural/Anthropogenic Sources of Iron Compounds

Iron is widespread all over the Earth’s crust and it is considered one of the most abundant elements on the planet. Iron redox cycling has an important role in the degradation and fate of organic contaminants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, via oxidative and reductive transformation processes. These processes depend on iron speciation and dosage, accessibility, crystallinity, and microbial activity, as well as on the type of hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon mixtures [47,48,49,50].
In the environment, the different iron species have different physicochemical properties that determine the extent and inhibitory or stimulatory influence on microbial communities [50]. Table S1 presents the chemical formula, the crystal structure, and the appearance of the different iron species. Iron is present essentially in two main redox forms. One is ferric iron [Fe(III)], which is almost insoluble at neutral pH, and precipitates as Fe(III) minerals both in oxic and anoxic systems (Table S1) [47,51]. The other is ferrous iron [Fe(II)], which is mostly soluble at neutral pH and, therefore, more bioavailable. Formation of Fe(II) minerals may occur in anoxic environments, but not in the presence of oxygen, since O2 quickly oxides Fe(II) to Fe(III) [47,51]. Crystallinity critically affects the extent of the bioavailability of iron and refers to the degree of the 3D order of the atomic lattice [50]. For example, ferrihydrite and Fe(III) oxyhydroxide present short-range ordered structures, while hematite, magnetite, and goethite present a long-range ordered structure [52]. Another important property is the electric conductivity. The different iron species present different values of electric conductivity, ranging from the insulative (e.g., ferrihydrite), semiconductive (e.g., hematite), and conductive forms (e.g., iron (III) chloride) [50]. Electric conductivity could influence the way iron compounds interact with microorganisms, such as in the case of the enhancement of methane production by anaerobic microbial communities [18]. Regarding magnetism, this property could influence the electrostatic exchange between iron and the surrounding environment. More detailed discussions about the physicochemical properties of the different iron compounds (namely solubility, crystallinity, conductivity, and magnetism) were summarized by Baek and colleagues [50].
Besides the referenced chemical reactions, iron cycling is also influenced by the biological activity of different microorganisms. In fact, microbial-based iron transformations are faster than chemical transformations [52]. These processes can take place in several natural systems, such as aquatic environments, sediments, and soils, as well as in anthropogenic environments (e.g., anaerobic bioreactors). In anoxic and/or oxic environments, microorganisms are able to oxidize Fe(II) into Fe(III) and reduce Fe(III) to Fe(II). The activity of Fe(II)-oxidizing microorganisms results in the formation of Fe(III) (oxyhydr)oxide minerals (e.g., ferrihydrite—Fe(OH)3; goethite—α-FeOOH; haematite—α-Fe2O3) and, to a lesser extent, dissolved organic Fe(III) complexes (Table S1) [52,53]. Under reducing conditions, Fe(II)-Fe(III) minerals such as magnetite (Fe3O4) and green rust prevail, as well as dissolved Fe2+ ions or Fe(II) minerals such as siderite (FeCO3) or vivianite (Fe3(PO4)2·8H2O) (Table S1) [53,54]. Detailed information regarding all these different roles of microbial reactions in the iron redox cycle, which were summarized here, can be found in the reviews of Melton and his team [47] and Weber and colleagues [53]. The redox potential of different redox couples important for microbial iron cycling can vary from −0.314 V (Fe3O4solid/Fe2+) to +0.385 V (Fe(III)-citrate/Fe(II)-citrate) at pH 7, thus affecting the energy available for microbial carbon oxidation [55]. For example, Fe(III) oxides with relatively lower redox potential (e.g., magnetite, hematite) can provide more energy for growth, but their crystalline structure is generally less accessible for microbes [55].
Besides natural environments, iron is also abundant in several industrial wastewaters (e.g., from mining activities, metal plating, iron and steel industry) and solid wastes, due to its intensive use in the productive processes [56,57]. The iron and steel industry generates large amounts of toxic compounds, namely PAHs, cyanides, phenols, BTEX, metal fines, and dissolved metals (including iron) [58,59]. According to the World Steel Association, in 2018, the average water consumption per ton of crude steel produced was approximately 28 m3 [60]. Around 0.6 billion m3 of iron and steel industry wastewaters were discharged in Asia during 2011 [42].
Another iron-rich wastewater is acid mine drainage (AMD). AMD is acidic and mainly composed of sulfate, salts, and several metals, where iron and aluminum are present in higher amounts [61]. It is formed from the oxidation of sulfide minerals (particularly pyrite—FeS2) in the presence of oxygen, water, and microorganisms [62,63], by mining activities, road construction, mill tailings, and several industrial activities [63,64,65,66]. Due to its toxic characteristics, AMD is a worldwide human and environmental threat, particularly affecting underground and surface water, as well as biodiversity loss [67,68,69]. Although several studies have been performed in the last decades [68], few were conducted towards developing cost-effective procedures to manage, store, treat, and dispose of AMD.
Red mud (RM) is an important waste from mining and metallurgy activities [70,71], which is composed of several minerals (including hematite and goethite), with iron oxides accounting for approximately 30% w/w [72]. The composition of this residue can vary according to the extraction area, production, and storage processes [73]. For one ton of alumina produced, up to two tons of RM are generated. The annual global production of this waste in 2020 surpassed five billion tons [74] and around 7.6 billion m3 has been accumulated around the globe [72]. As a toxic industrial solid waste, due to its alkaline, chemical, and mineralogical characteristics [75], RM requires an adequate treatment before discharge. However, considering the high disposal and treatment cost (around 5% of alumina production) [76], this waste is commonly discharged in soil and groundwater systems [77]. This represents a significant impact on human health and on ecosystems, affecting productive land and groundwater, and promoting the accumulation of particles in living organisms [78]. The cytotoxic effects of iron compounds should also be considered, as at certain concentrations, they can affect living organisms. The effects of different iron forms on bacteria, algae, fish, and plants were comprehensively reviewed by Lei and colleagues [79]. However, RM can be seen as a valuable resource, instead of being considered a waste with no added value. In the last years, several studies have been performed on the recovery and potential application of RM, namely for sewage and wastewater treatment [80,81,82], polluted ecosystem remediation [83], composting [84], metal recovery [85], and particularly in the construction industry, as reviewed by Lima and colleagues [73].
Additionally, iron compounds such as ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate, or ferric chloride (Table S1) are frequently used for organic matter and phosphorous removal in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants [86,87]. Therefore, iron ends up in the resultant sludge, and may also appear in low concentrations in the water line.

4. Anaerobic Hydrocarbon Degradation and the Effect of Iron

The iron cycling promoted by anaerobic microorganisms can directly influence the concentration of different environmental contaminants, namely those derived from industrial activities, such as hydrocarbons [53]. Therefore, the decontamination of oily waste/wastewater in anaerobic bioreactors may be improved by naturally present iron compounds or anthropogenic supplements of iron (namely by mixing different waste/wastewaters).
The microbiology of petroleum hydrocarbon degradation under anaerobic conditions was previously reviewed [88,89,90] and is concisely presented in this section. Current knowledge on these processes in the presence of iron was only briefly addressed before and is reviewed in detail here.
Due to the chemical stability of petroleum hydrocarbons, the initial activation reaction (step 1—Figure 3) is often the crucial step in the degradation of these compounds [91]. Different activation mechanisms have been proposed, among which fumarate addition is the best characterized and the most widely reported, for both saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons, either under sulfate, nitrate-, metal-reducing or methanogenic conditions [91,92,93]. Fumarate addition is catalyzed by a glycyl radical enzyme named benzylsuccinate synthase (BSS) or (1-methyl)alkylsuccinate synthase (ASS/MAS). Alternative activation mechanisms include oxygen-independent hydroxylation, carboxylation, or methylation [92]. The main metabolic pathways, enzymes, and functional genes involved in anaerobic hydrocarbon biodegradation have been presented in several reviews [91,92,93,94,95,96,97] and are not addressed in this review.
The products of hydrocarbon activation (e.g., benzylsuccinate, phenol, (1-methylalkyl)succinate) are then converted by fermentative bacteria into smaller molecules, such as fatty acids and alcohols [90] (step 2—Figure 3). For example, benzoyl-CoA has been recognized as a central intermediate in the anaerobic degradation of many aromatic compounds [88], and 4- and 2-methylalkanoates have been identified during alkane degradation [98,99]. Beta-oxidation (or analogous reactions) is accepted as the metabolic pathway involved in the conversion of these intermediates [98], leading to the formation of acetate (step 3—Figure 3).
In the absence of external electron acceptors other than bicarbonate, the reactions involved in step 3 (Figure 3, grey line) are coupled to the reduction of protons, with the formation of hydrogen or formate. These reactions are only thermodynamically feasible if the end products are kept at low concentrations [90]—e.g., alkane degradation to methane is only possible at hydrogen partial pressures lower that 4 Pa [100]. This is generally accomplished by methanogenic archaea (steps 4 and 5—Figure 3), leading to the formation of biogas (mainly composed by methane (CH4) and CO2). Therefore, methanogenic hydrocarbon biodegradation is a syntrophic process that requires a close relationship between syntrophic bacteria (e.g., Smithella, Pelotomaculum) and methanogens [88,101,102].
In the presence of Fe(III) compounds, iron-reducing bacteria (IRB) may be involved in hydrocarbon degradation (Figure 1A), obtaining energy for growth via dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction. Some IRB can oxidize hydrocarbons completely to CO2 (step 8—Figure 3), while others convert the hydrocarbons to acetate (steps 1, 2 and 3—orange line—Figure 3), in both cases coupled to Fe(III) reduction to Fe(II) [88,103]. Most IRB are also able to grow with acetate (step 6—Figure 3), and some can use hydrogen or formate as electron donors (step 7—Figure 3) [47,103]. Thus, IRB may work as syntrophic partners of other hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria, contributing to complete hydrocarbon biodegradation [101,104]. Additionally, some IRB are capable of growing with benzoate or fatty acids with different chain lengths (long, medium, or short) [103,105,106] and hence may also play a role in the degradation of these intermediates (step 3—Figure 3). These topics are further developed in Section 5.

5. Fe(III) as Electron Acceptor in Anaerobic Hydrocarbon Degradation

5.1. Axenic Cultures Performing Hydrocarbon Degradation Coupled to Fe(III) Reduction

Hydrocarbon degradation by IRB has been reported, either in pure cultures, enrichments, or in the environment. However, IRB able to utilize n-alkanes are yet unknown, and only a limited number of microorganisms able to anaerobically consume aromatic hydrocarbons coupled to Fe(III) reduction has been isolated and characterized thus far (Table 2).
Among the BTEX, benzene is considered the most recalcitrant, and microbial isolates capable of anaerobic benzene degradation have been described only recently [85,104]. Ferroglobus placidus, a hyperthermophilic archaeon, was the first microorganism known to couple benzene oxidation to dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction, using amorphous Fe(III) oxyhydroxide as an electron acceptor (Table 2) [107]. Gene expression analysis revealed that F. placidus performs carboxylation of benzene to benzoate, which is the main metabolite of benzene oxidation by this microorganism [108].
Two Geobacter species, Geobacter sp. strain Ben and G. metallireducens GS-15T, are able to degrade benzene anaerobically coupled to the reduction of Fe(III) [109]. The stoichiometry of the reactions indicates that both species oxidize benzene to carbon dioxide [109], and for G. metallireducens GS-15T this was shown to occur through a phenol intermediate [110].
Regarding toluene oxidation with Fe(III) as an electron acceptor, four Geobacter species with this ability were isolated from environmental samples (Table 2): Geobacter sp. strain Ben, recovered from sediments of an oil-contaminated aquifer; G. metallireducens GS-15 [111,112] and two strains of G. grbiciae, isolated from freshwater sediments [113]; and G. toluenoxydans TMJ1, isolated from sludge of a monitoring well at a tar oil-contaminated aquifer [114,115]. All Geobacter species that are capable of degrading aromatic compounds also degrade benzoate.
Table 2. Overview of axenic microbial cultures able to degrade aromatic hydrocarbons coupled to Fe(III) reduction.
Table 2. Overview of axenic microbial cultures able to degrade aromatic hydrocarbons coupled to Fe(III) reduction.
SubstrateIron CompoundsMicroorganismSource/InoculumNotesRef.
BenzeneAmorphous Fe(III) oxyhydroxideFerroglobus placidusHydrothermal vent sedimentOptimum growth at 85 °C.
Complete benzene oxidation to CO2.
Benzoate, 4-hydroxybenzoate, and phenol also support growth.
First report of an axenic Fe(III)-reducing culture degrading benzene.
[108]
Benzene
Toluene
Amorphous Fe(III) oxideGeobacter strain BenSediments from the Fe(III) reduction zone of a petroleum-contaminated aquiferBenzene and toluene are oxidized to CO2.
Also degrades benzoate.
[109]
Benzene
Toluene
Fe(III) citrate
Amorphous Fe(III) oxide
Geobacter metallireducens GS-15TFreshwater aquatic sedimentBenzene and toluene are oxidized to CO2.
Also degrades benzoate, phenol, and p-cresol.
Grows with acetate, but not with H2, nor formate.
[109,111,112]
TolueneFe(III)-citrate
Fe(III)-pyrophosphate
Fe(III)-NTA
Amorphous Fe(III) oxide
Geobacter grbiciae
strains TACP-2T
and TACP-5 (*)
Freshwater aquatic sedimentOxidizes acetate and other
Simple fatty acids, ethanol, H2, and formate.
Also oxidizes benzoate.
[113]
TolueneFerrihydrite
Amorphous Fe(III) oxyhydroxide
Fe(III) citrate
Geobacter toluenoxydans TMJ1Tar oil-contaminated aquiferElectron recovery of 99 ± 14%.
Also oxidizes acetate, benzoate, phenol, m- and p-cresol.
[114,115]
TolueneFe(III)-NTAGeorgfuchsia toluolicaAquifer polluted with BTEX-containing landfill leachateToluene degradation rate of 38–40 mmol L−1 d−1.[116]
Ethylbenzene
TolueneFerrihydrite
Amorphous Fe(III) oxyhydroxide
Fe(III) citrate
Desulfitobacterium
aromaticivorans UKTLT
Soil of a former coal gasification siteComplete toluene oxidation to CO2.
Electron recovery of 93 ± 1%.
It also uses acetate, benzoate, phenol, and p-cresol, but not H2.
[115]
o-Xylene
Pyrene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Fe(III) citrateHydrogenophaga
sp. PYR1
PAH-contaminated river sedimentsSignificant pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene degradation.[117]
PhenantreneFe(III) citrateAnaerobic bacteria closely related to Trichococcus
alkaliphilus (strain PheF2)
Mixture of petroleum-polluted soil and anaerobic sludge100% anaerobic biodegradation of
phenanthrene within 10 days of incubation
[118]
(*) Strain TACP-5 does not grow with Fe(III)-citrate.
Besides the Geobacter species, two other IRB were isolated that are able to degrade monoaromatic hydrocarbons under iron-reducing conditions—Georgfuchsia toluolica, which grows on toluene and ethylbenzene [116], and Desulfitobacterium aromaticivorans, which grows on toluene and o-xylene [115]. Georgfuchsia toluolica G5G6 was shown to degrade toluene and ethylbenzene at average degradation rates of about 40 μmol L−1 d−1 and 5–7 μmol L−1 d−1, respectively [119], and compound-specific stable isotope analysis (CSIA) showed that the metabolic pathways of toluene activation by this bacterium differed depending on the terminal electron acceptor [119].
PAH biodegradation under Fe(III)-reducing conditions was only reported for two axenic cultures of facultative anaerobic bacteria. Hydrogenophaga sp. PYR1 was isolated from PAH-contaminated river sediments and is capable of growing on pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene, using Fe(III) or oxygen as an electron acceptor [117]. The use of ferric citrate as the sole electron acceptor stimulated the production of a lipopeptide biosurfactant by this bacterium, which facilitated PAH degradation [117,118]. Zhang and colleagues [118] isolated a facultative anaerobic bacterium closely related to Trichococcus alkaliphilus (99.79% 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity), designated strain PheF2, which is able to degrade phenanthrene coupled to Fe(III) or O2 reduction. This was the first report of a pure culture capable of anaerobic phenanthrene biodegradation with Fe(III). This bacterium also degrades benzene, naphthalene, anthracene, pyrene, and benzo[a]pyrene.
Most of the known IRB involved in the oxidation of aromatic hydrocarbons are capable of utilizing various forms of soluble Fe(III) (namely ferric citrate, ferric-nitrilotriacetate (Fe(III)-NTA), or ferric-pyrophosphate) as an electron acceptor, as well as poorly crystalline Fe(III) oxide (Table 2). Regarding Geobacter species, effective extracellular electron transfer to insoluble Fe(III) minerals may be accomplished through various mechanisms, including microbial nanowires and c-type cytochromes [103]. The ability of Geobacter species to use humic substances as redox mediators in the reduction of insoluble Fe(III) oxides has also been reported [120].

5.2. Complex Microbial Communities Mediating Hydrocarbon Degradation Coupled to Fe(III) Reduction: Enrichment Cultures and Microcosm Studies

Current knowledge on the microorganisms involved in hydrocarbon degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction is still limited. Laboratory-based studies have searched for information regarding the occurrence of this process in nature, as well as on the structure and dynamics of the microbial communities able to reduce Fe(III) and degrade hydrocarbons. Microcosm experiments and the establishment of enrichment cultures have been carried out, using different inocula, substrates, and iron compounds.
Only two studies report n-alkane degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction. So and Young developed Fe(III)-reducing enrichment cultures able to grow with decane, dodecane, and hexadecane, although the alkane degradation proceeded at a slow rate (e.g., only 0.38 µmol of hexadecane were converted to CO2 per week) [121]. The inoculum used was a sediment from a highly contaminated estuary, showing that environments chronically contaminated by hydrocarbons can be a source of Fe(III)-reducing alkane-degrading microorganisms. Rizoulis and colleagues [122] used sediments from an arsenic-rich aquifer containing Fe(III) to develop microcosms supplemented with 13C-hexadecane. After 8 weeks of incubation, 11.2% of the sedimentary Fe(III) was microbially reduced, leading to Fe(II) formation, and 65% of the added 13C-hexadecane was degraded. 13C was incorporated into the heavy DNA fractions retrieved from the enrichments, showing that this degradation was microbially mediated, but the authors reported unsuccessful sequencing of the labelled fractions, possibly due to the low DNA concentration in the heavy DNA fraction. Bacterial community analysis was performed by 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing and revealed an enrichment of IRB closely related to Geobacter psychrophilus strain P35, Geobacter luticola, and Geothrix fermentans strain H5.
Concerning BTEX and PAH biodegradation with Fe(III), an overview of most of the works reported in the literature are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Anderson and his team [123] suggested the possible occurrence of in situ degradation of benzene, toluene, and naphthalene, based on the development of enrichment cultures from sediments of a petroleum-contaminated aquifer rich in Fe(III). These cultures were able to perform a relatively fast and almost complete mineralization of the hydrocarbons, with simultaneous Fe(II) production. Anderson and Lovley [124] showed that, contrary to what was previously thought, anaerobic benzene degradation may be widespread in nature. Kazumi and co-authors [125] reported benzene degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction in microcosms inoculated with sediments obtained from various locations, presenting different redox conditions, contamination levels, and salinity, highlighting the benzene degradation potential of the different sediment types.
Further studies performed in microcosms inoculated with sediments from a petroleum-contaminated aquifer showed that the addition of different Fe(III) chelators, such as NTA, EDTA, phosphates, and humic acids, can increase the biodegradation rates of hydrocarbons, namely benzene and alkylbenzene (e.g., toluene), coupled to Fe(III) reduction [123,124]. This was attributed to the fact that Fe(III) is present in a wide range of hydrocarbon-contaminated sites, mainly as insoluble Fe(III) oxides, and thus chelated iron would become more bioavailable [103,126] Additionally, Jahn and his team [127] reported faster Fe(III) reduction and BTEX utilization in enrichment cultures amended with AQDS (9,10-anthraquinone-2,6-disulfonic acid). These authors developed enrichment cultures able to degrade all BTEX substrates to CO2, with amorphous Fe(III) oxide as an electron acceptor, and this was the first report on anaerobic degradation of o-xylene and ethylbenzene coupled to Fe(III) reduction. Enrichments with AQDS and benzene showed a lag phase of only 16 days, and benzene was completely degraded within 77 days, while in the absence of AQDS, a lag phase of 61 days was recorded, and complete exhaustion of benzene was attained after 162 days of incubation. Toluene and o-xylene degradation started immediately and was completed after 39 days in the presence of AQDS, while complete ethylbenzene degradation required 69 days of incubation with AQDS. In the absence of AQDS, degradation of ethylbenzene and o-xylene was much slower and did not lead to a complete depletion, even after 162 days of incubation.
Analysis of the microbial communities revealed the predominance of members of the Geobacteraceae family in benzene-degrading enriched cultures, indicating an important role of these microorganisms in the degradation of benzene coupled to Fe(III) reduction [123,127,128]. Kunapuli and colleagues [129] studied a highly enriched benzene-degrading iron-reducing culture, and proposed that an uncommon syntrophic relationship was involved in benzene degradation by this culture. DNA-SIP analysis revealed the dominance of a phylotype affiliated to the Peptococcaceae family (distantly related to cultured representatives of the genus Thermincola) that assimilated most carbon from the 13C-labeled benzene. Therefore, the Peptococcaceae phylotype seems to be responsible for the initial benzene activation and primary oxidation, since it assimilates the label more efficiently than the other two predominant phylotypes, i.e., bacteria affiliated to the Desulfobulbaceae familiy and members of Actinobacteria. The authors hypothesized that the Peptococcaceae phylotype transferred the electrons from benzene oxidation mainly to Fe(III), and partially to the Desulfobulbaceae sp., in a syntrophic relationship. The Actinobacteria were probably fermenting secondary carbohydrates or dead biomass.
Table 3. Overview of monoaromatic hydrocarbons degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction in microcosms and enrichment cultures.
Table 3. Overview of monoaromatic hydrocarbons degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction in microcosms and enrichment cultures.
SubstrateIron CompundsSource/InoculumCommunity CompositionNotesRef.
Benzene
(10 µmol kg−1 sediment)
Toluene
(10 µmol kg−1 sediment)
Fe(III)-NTA
(2 mmol kg−1)
Sediments and groundwater from a petroleum-contaminated aquiferNot analyzedNTA adition stimulated biodegradation.
No lag phases were observed after adaptation.
[125]
Benzene
(10 µmol L−1)
Fe(III)-NTA
(2 mmol L−1)
Sediment and groundwater from a petroleum polluted aquiferNot analyzedFe-NTA stimulated biodegradation.[130]
Benzene
(3 μmol L−1)
Amorphous Fe(III)
(10 mmol L−1)
River sedimentNot analyzedAfter 60 days of incubation, the culture was re-fed 4 times, over which degradation was sustained and became faster.[131]
Benzene
(140 mmol L−1)
Fe(III) oxide
(30 mmol L−1)
Sediment from a remote forested area contaminated by a leak in a pipelineEnriched in members of Geobacteraceae familyUncultivated Geobacter spp. seem to be related with benzene removal in this aquifer.[127]
Benzene
(900 µmol L−1)
Amorphous Fe(III) oxide
(50 mmol L−1)
Soil of a former coal gasification site3 major clone clusters: within the Clostridia (Peptococcaceae) (37%), Deltaproteobacteria (Desulfobulbaceae) (20%), and Actinobacteria (29%)DNA-SIP was used to identify the microorganisms involved in benzene degradation in an iron-reducing enrichment culture.[128]
Toluene
(1 mmol L−1)
Fe(III) oxyhydroxide
(40 mmol L−1)
Sediment from a tar oil-contaminated aquiferThe dominating labelled phylotype was related to the genus ThermincolaTo ensure constantly low in situ-like concentrations, toluene was loaded in amberlite XAD7 absorber resin.[132]
Toluene
(0.96 mmol L−1)
Fe(III)-NTA
(60 mmol L−1)
Contaminated tidal flat sedimentDominant member affiliated with the Desulfuromonas genus100 % toluene degradation in 35 d.
DNA-SIP and metagenomic sequencing were used.
[56]
BTEX
(5 mg L−1 each)
Amorphous Fe(III)
Goethite
(20 mmol L−1 each)
Contaminated river sediment and waterNot analyzedAll BTEX were degraded, in the following order: benzene ≤ p-xylene ≤ (toluene = o-xylene = m-xylene) ≤ ethylbenzene[133]
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
o-xylene
(1 mmol L−1 each)
Amorphous Fe(III) hydroxide
(50 mmol L−1)
Groundwater from a tar oil-contaminated former gasworks siteNot analyzedAQDS accelerated Fe(III) reduction and BTEX oxidation.[134]
Benzene
(20 µmol L−1)
Toluene
(100 µmol L−1)
o-, m-, p-Xylene
(60 µmol L−1 each)
Amorphous Fe(III) oxyhydroxide
(10 mmol L−1)
Sediment and groundwater from a polluted iron-reducing aquiferNot analyzedSubstrate swap suggested that the same group of bacteria could be involved in the removal of more than one BTEX compound. When in a mixture, benzene and toluene were degradaded simultaneouly.[135]
Benzene
(10–30 µmol L−1)
Toluene
(300–400 µmol L−1)
o-, m-, p-Xylene
(300–400 µmol L−1 each)
Amorphous Fe(III)Sediment and groundwater from a polluted iron-reducing aquiferNot analyzedBTX degradation rates in enrichments progressively increased in time.[136]
BTEX
(15 mg L−1)
FeCl3
(3.58 mmol L−1)
Pristine sediment and groundwater collected from a shallow wellNot analyzedBTEX and trimethylbenzene isomers were degradaded in microcosms containing both nitrate and Fe(III).[137]
BTEX
(100 mg L−1)
Goethite
Akaganeite
(0.1 g L−1 each)
Contaminated aquiferConcentration not mentionedBTEX removal was higher with akaganeite (46%, 58%,
59%, and 70 % for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, respectively).
[138]
BTEX
(concentration not determined)
Fe(III)-NTA
(5 mmol L−1)
Groundwater sample from a BTEX-contaminated aquifer (leakage of a petrol station)Enriched in Geobacter-related bacteria and a Rhodoferax phylotypeIn the laboratory, Rhodoferax-related bacteria were not enriched. Geobacter was readly enriched, but the diversity of BSS gene, both in the enrichments and in the initial groundwater sample, suggested that Geobacter was not a key player in toluene degradation in this site.[128]
Table 4. Overview of PAH degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction in microcosms and enrichment cultures.
Table 4. Overview of PAH degradation coupled to Fe(III) reduction in microcosms and enrichment cultures.
SubstrateIron CompundsSource/InoculumCommunity CompositionNotesRef.
[C14]Naphthalene
(1 µCi)
Fe(III) oxide
(9.6 µmol g−1)
Sediments from petroleum-contaminated aquifersNot analyzedAfter 85 days of incubation, around 90% naphtalene degradation.[124]
Naphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Fluoranthene
(above solubility concentration)
FerrihydriteCoal tar-contaminated sediment from a former coal gasification plantNot analyzedPAH solubility was enhanced by hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPCD) concentrations up to 5 g L−1.
Low HPCD concentrations (0.05–0.5 g L−1) also enhanced phenanthrene mineralization by 25%.
The culture was still able to mineralize PAHs at 10 °C.
[139]
Naphthalene
(2 mmol L−1)
Ferrihydrite
(50 mmol L−1)
Sediment from an aquifer contaminated with tar oilEnriched in bacteria belonging to the Peptococcaceae family7.5 ± 3 µmol naphthalene degraded after 180 days.
Also grows with 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene.
[140]
Phenanthrene
(20–30 mg L−1)
Ferric citrate
(20 mmol L−1)
Petroleum-contaminated soil + coking sludge + domestic sludge (5:1:1 as volatile suspended solids)Bacterial community: Carnobacteriaceae (18%), Geobacteraceae (9%), Anaerolinaceae (9%)
Archaeal community: Methanobacteriaceae (28%), Methanosarcinaceae (14%)
At the end of the enrichment process (244 days), phenanthrene degradation rate stabilized at 2.7 μmol L−1 d−1.[141]
Besides benzene, this syntrophic community was able to grow on phenol, benzoate, and 4-hydroxybenzoate, but not on toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylene isomers as the sole carbon source [129]. The enzymes involved in benzene oxidation by this culture were further studied through a combined proteomic and genomic approach [142]. The authors proposed that the identified gene sequences are constituents of a putative benzene degradation gene cluster, composed of carboxylase-related genes, which probably catalyze the initial activation reaction in benzene degradation by this culture.
Within the Peptococcaceae family, relatives of the genus Thermincola were identified by Pilloni and colleagues [132] as iron-reducing toluene degraders, in microcosms prepared with sediment from a tar oil-contaminated aquifer [127]. 13C-toluene and amorphous Fe(III) oxyhydroxide were used as the electron donor and acceptor, respectively. In this study, DNA stable-isotope probing (DNA-SIP) was combined with high-throughput pyrosequencing of amplicons from SIP incubations.
DNA-SIP and metagenomics sequencing were also used by Kim and colleagues to study toluene degradation by IRB [143]. 13C-toluene degradation and close-to-stoichiometric 13C-CO2 production were verified in the microcosms experiments, as well as concomitant Fe(II) formation. The microbial community was dominated by members of the Desulfuromonas genus. The reconstruction of the metabolic pathways from the Desulfuromonas sp. genome demonstrated its metabolic versatility for degrading aromatic hydrocarbons and utilizing different electron acceptors.
The potential of using insoluble Fe(III) oxide to stimulate hydrocarbon degradation in petroleum-contaminated harbor sediments, in which sulfate reduction was the terminal electron-accepting process, was investigated by Coates and colleagues [144]. The authors proposed that the addition of Fe(III) could switch the electron flow from sulfate to Fe(III) reduction. Benzene, toluene, and naphthalene were tested, but hydrocarbon degradation was not stimulated by Fe(III), most probably due to the reduced number of IRB originally present in the sediments studied. Similar results were also obtained by Li and his team [145] when studying the effect of Fe(III) on the anaerobic biodegradation of a mixture of PAHs (fluorene, phenanthrene, fluroanthene, and pyrene) in mangrove sediment slurries [145]. Fe(III) amendment did not significantly affect PAH biodegradation, nor microbial population sizes (as indicated by most probable number, MPN). This was attributed to the abundance of sulfate and nitrate in the sediment, which were possibly used by the indigenous microorganisms, even in the groups amended with Fe(III).

5.3. Complex Microbial Communities Mediating Hydrocarbon Degradation Coupled to Fe(III) Reduction: Sediment Columns and Field Studies

Several limitations have been associated with laboratory assays, e.g., their relevance in the representation of the natural conditions and processes, difficulties in collecting representative samples of the subsurface microbial communities, due to their inherent heterogeneity, as well as potential disturbance of the microbial communities by the sampling, preservation, and laboratory incubation procedures [146]. Therefore, in order to mimic environmental conditions, and to study the microbial physiology, ecology, and interactions involved in anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation in a more realistic way, laboratory soil/sediment columns or field studies (e.g., in situ microcosms, push–pull tests, and tracer tests) have been performed. The studies utilizing such methodologies applied to hydrocarbon biodegradation under iron-reducing conditions are described in this section.
Langenhoff and colleagues [147] studied the biodegradation of a mixture of naphthalene, toluene, and benzene (25 μmol L−1 individual concentrations) under iron-reducing conditions by using sediment columns. The columns were filled with of a mixture of anaerobic soil, PAH-contaminated sediment, and granular sludge. The hydrocarbon mixture was continuously fed, whilst amorphous Fe(III) oxide was mixed through the column material (approximately 5 mmol) and re-added upon depletion. Naphthalene and benzene were not degraded, but toluene degradation increased, leading to an undetectable concentration of this hydrocarbon in the effluent after about 2 months of operation. Another sediment column experiment was performed by Zheng and his team [148], for the analysis of intrinsic toluene biodegradation coupled to microbial Fe(III) reduction in a polluted aquifer. Columns were packed with contaminated aquifer sediment, and ferric iron was used as an electron acceptor. Biodegradation of toluene coupled to Fe(II) production was observed, and slower pore water velocity led to a higher biodegradation rate.
Enhanced degradation of phenanthrene and pyrene was reported by Yan and colleagues [149] in sediment microbial fuel cells amended with amorphous ferric hydroxide (0.01 g g−1, relative to sediment wet weight). Sediment column bioreactors were set up, electrodes composed of stainless steel cylinders were installed, and a fixed external resistance of 100 Ω was applied. PAHs were removed mainly within the first 22 days of experiments, at degradation rates of 0.0836 d−1 and 0.1363 d−1 for phenanthrene and pyrene, respectively. After this initial period, their concentration decreased slowly but steadily, reaching 99.5 ± 0.2% and 94.8 ± 0.6% removal for phenanthrene and pyrene, respectively, after 240 days. In this system, Fe(III)-reducing activity was three times higher than in the natural attenuation control, and the phylogenetic analysis indicated that many clones retrieved from the anode biofilm corresponded to dissimilatory metal-reducing bacteria, namely Geobacter. The authors conclude that PAH removal in this system was due to the combination of electrode-reducing processes and other anaerobic redox pathways that coexisted in the sediment and were not mutually exclusive. Similar results were obtained by Yu and his team [150] in soil microbial fuel cells (SMFC) prepared with PAH-contaminated soil from a petrochemical industrial zone. The removal rates of anthracene, phenanthrene, and pyrene were higher in the closed rather than open SMFC and were accompanied by electricity generation. The microbial community at the anode surface was dominated by bacteria belonging to the Geobacter genus.
Regarding field studies, a cross-section of a crude oil-contaminated aquifer was monitored by Bekins and colleagues [151], to analyze the effect of hydrocarbon contamination on microbial activity and distribution. Samples were collected horizontally from the source of the contamination plume to 66 m down-gradient, and vertically from above the water table to the base of the plume. It was possible to outline a map of defined physiological zones, with iron-reducing microorganisms representing one of the most abundant microbial communities in the contaminated area. Müller and his team [152] tested a novel strategy to enhance in situ biodegradation of BTEX and PAHs. This strategy consisted in the combined stimulation of iron and sulfate reduction processes as terminal electron acceptors for the biological removal of these contaminants. For that, a sustainable and low-cost product, retrieved from acid mine drainage, was used, which contained 88.3% w/w iron oxide (goethite) and 1.7% total sulfates. Acetate was also supplemented, to promote the initial growth of the hydrocarbon-degrading Fe(III)-reducing microorganisms. Lower levels of benzene and naphthalene were always detected in the biostimulated experiment, relative to the natural attenuation site, showing that the combined addition of iron and sulfate enhanced the degradation of aromatics. An increase in the dominance of members of the Geobacter genus and of the Thermodesulfovibrionaceae family was detected, indicating their potential role in aromatic hydrocarbon degradation.
Cozzarelli and colleagues [146] measured the degradation rates of BTEX and eight alkyl-benzene isomers over a time period of three years, in a crude oil-contaminated aquifer. An in situ microcosm was set up within a well-defined Fe(III)-reducing zone, which allowed the encasement of a small region of the aquifer. The in situ microcosms were perfused with native groundwater and could be amended with the aromatic compounds of interest without disturbing the indigenous microbial populations. Microorganisms of the Geobacter cluster were previously shown to be enriched in the sediments from this location [130]. Biodegradation of the BTEX compounds followed the order: toluene ≥ o-xylene > m-, p-xylenes > benzene > ethylbenzene. Benzene and ethylbenzene degradation was preceded by a long lag phase (~200 days), and threshold concentrations, below which no degradation occurred, were identified for these compounds. In situ microcosm systems have also been used by several authors to study the degradation of aromatic and chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons coupled to Fe(III) reduction in landfills [153,154,155].
Winderl and his team [156] performed a high-resolution monitoring of the microbial community present in a tar oil-contaminated aquifer, covering between 6 and 13 m depth below ground surface. Underneath the contaminated plume core, distinct biogeochemical gradients could be identified in the centimeter scale, and a highly specialized toluene-degrading microbial community was found, mainly composed of bacteria related to the Geobacter and Desulfocapsa genera (which are known iron and sulfate reducers, respectively). The results obtained reinforce the hypothesis previously stated by Bauer and co-workers [157] that plume fringes are the actual spots of contaminant degradation, and highlight the close relation between redox processes, contaminant degradation, and microbial distribution in contaminated aquifers.

5.4. Fe(III) as Electron Acceptor in the Degradation of Intermediates of Anaerobic Hydrocarbon Conversion

As mentioned in Section 4 and shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3, it is possible that IRB may also have a role in the complete degradation of hydrocarbons by working as syntrophic partners (consuming acetate or hydrogen/formate), or by utilizing intermediary products of hydrocarbon conversion. The continuous consumption of the intermediates most probably facilitates the chain of reactions involved in hydrocarbon degradation. Long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) have been appointed as potential intermediates of aliphatic hydrocarbon degradation, and some IRB are capable of growing with LCFAs, e.g., Desulfuromonas palmitatis [103] and Geothrix fermentans [103]. Oleic acid degradation was stimulated by lepidocrocite and ferric-NTA in batch assays, i.e., mineralization reached 98% and 67%, respectively, relative to 58% in unamended incubations [158]. Li and his team [159] reported faster canola oil biodegradation in the presence of ferric hydroxide. A syntrophic relationship between bacteria from the Syntrophomonas and Geobacter genera was also described during oleate (unsaturated C18 LCFA) degradation in the presence of Fe(OH)3 [160]. Regarding the intermediaries of aromatic hydrocarbon degradation, some IRB are reported to grow with phenol or benzoate coupled to Fe(III) reduction (see Table 2 and Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 for examples). Tang and colleagues reported faster phenol degradation and methane production in the presence of Fe(III) citrate or poorly crystalline ferrihydrite, relative to control assays without Fe(III) oxides. IRB such as Trichococcus and Caloramator species were enriched by Fe(III) citrate, and these bacteria were possibly involved in phenol or benzoate degradation into fatty acids via dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction. Further degradation of the metabolic intermediates most probably occurred through syntrophic interactions with Methanothrix species [161]. Similar results were obtained by Li and his team [162], who reported a 1.3-fold increase in the phenol degradation rate, as well as higher cumulative methane production, due to the simultaneous addition of citrate and sub-stoichiometric Fe(OH)3 amounts, relative to assays amended only with Fe(OH)3. Citrate increased the solubility and consequent bioavailability of Fe(OH)3 and lowered the reduction potential of Fe(III)/Fe(II), promoting the enrichment of IRB that most probably proceeded syntrophic metabolism with methanogens.
Using a contaminated soil from a former coal gasification site as the inoculum, Marozava and colleagues reported the enrichment of an anaerobic culture able to degrade naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene using Fe(OH)3 as terminal the electron acceptor. By performing SIP and metagenome analysis of the culture grown with fully labeled 13C-naphthalene, the authors revealed the presence of mainly two bacteria related to the Thermoanaerobacteraceae and Desulfobulbaceae families. The labeled carbon was mostly incorporated by the Thermoanaerobacteraceae species, and putative genes involved in naphthalene degradation were identified in the genome of this organism via assembly-based metagenomics. Therefore, the authors suggested that these bacteria degraded PAHs and excreted electrons, e.g., as hydrogen or 3,4-dihydroxybutanoic acid (which was detected in the culture supernatant), which were further oxidized by the Desulfobulbaceae species coupled to Fe(III) reduction [163].
Ferrihydrite was also shown to accelerate hexadecane-dependent methanogenesis [164]. The methanogenesis rate was 2.3 times higher in microcosms amended with iron and hexadecane, comparative to the controls (without an added electron acceptor). An increase of Methanosarcina mcrA gene copies, and the fact that ferrihydrite addition did not trigger the growth of Geobacteraceae or other IRB, suggests that Methanosarcina species performed Fe(III) reduction (which concurs with the report of van Bodegom and colleagues [165]. Proteobacteria members able to degrade hydrocarbons were also identified, reinforcing that the direct positive effect of Fe(III) on methanogenesis indirectly enhanced bacterial degradation of hexadecane.

6. Iron as a Catalyst in Anaerobic Hydrocarbon Degradation

6.1. Effect of Iron-Based Conductive Materials in Interspecies Electron Transfer

In the last years, conductive materials (CMs) have been reported to enhance methane production by anaerobic microbial communities in various ecosystems [18]. This effect has been ascribed to the so-called conductive particle-mediated interspecies electron transfer (CIET), a process that may occur as an alternative or as a complement to direct interspecies electron transfer, or to indirect electron transfer via hydrogen or formate [166]. Interspecies electron transfer (IET) is crucial for the syntrophic conversion to methane of diverse substrates (e.g., hydrocarbons) or their key intermediates (e.g., butyrate, acetate, benzoate), as mentioned in Section 4.
Fe(III) oxides with a relatively high electrical conductance, such as magnetite, were reported to promote CIET between syntrophic partners in methanogenic communities, as well as other iron-containing materials such as RM, stainless steel, and waste iron scraps [167,168,169]. Moreover, iron-based CMs may take the place of outer membrane c-type cytochromes (OmcS), acting as electron conduits and forming an electrically conductive network which assists the long-distance extracellular electron transport [165].
Carbon-based CMs, such as graphene oxide and biochar, have been reported to promote the biodegradation and the electrochemical activity of anaerobic cultures that degrade petroleum hydrocarbons [170]. The effect of iron-based CMs on the anaerobic degradation of hydrocarbons or their intermediate compounds (Figure 1B) was only recently addressed by a few authors. For example, Ye and his team [171] used magnetite as an iron-based CM and evaluated its effect on phenanthrene degradation by a methanogenic community enriched from petroleum-contaminated soil. Phenanthrene degradation and methane production rates were improved by 26% and 22%, respectively, in the presence of the magnetite, but no significant effect was verified on the relative abundance of methanogens in the enrichments. By inhibiting the methanogens with 2-bromoethanesulfonate, the authors were able to verify that syntrophic cooperation between bacteria and methanogens was necessary for complete phenanthrene degradation and pointed to the occurrence of CIET promoted by magnetite.
Similar results were verified by Tang and colleagues [161] during methanogenic phenol degradation. These authors reported that the presence of magnetite and hematite resulted in high electron recovery efficiencies (i.e., 93–97% and 86–89%, respectively) and stimulated the growth of IRB such as Shewanella and Enterococcus. It was suggested that magnetite served as an electron conduit, facilitating IET between Enterococcus and Methanothrix species in the syntrophic degradation of phenol intermediates, such as fatty acids, to methane. Enhanced phenol degradation by magnetite was also reported by Yan and colleagues [172], mainly due to the role of magnetite as an electron conduit, but also to the enrichment of certain extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs), such as proteins and humic substances, which can act as electron shuttles, benefiting IET. In this work, the addition of magnetite enriched phenol-degrading bacteria (e.g., Syntrophorhabdus, Syntrophus), as well as methanogens assigned to Methanosaeta.
The addition of conductive iron oxides (hematite and magnetite) enhanced the anaerobic degradation of benzoate, both under methanogenic and sulfate-reducing conditions [173,174]. Under methanogenic conditions, 89–94% of the electrons released from benzoate were recovered as methane, and the methane production rates were 25% and 53% higher with hematite and magnetite, respectively, than in the controls without iron oxides [173]. Under sulfate-reducing conditions, benzoate degradation rates were enhanced 82% and 92% with hematite and magnetite, respectively, compared with the controls, and increased with magnetite concentrations. Microbial reduction of iron oxides only accounted for 2% to 11% of electrons produced by benzoate oxidation [174]. In both studies, acetate was detected as an intermediate product, implying the occurrence of syntrophic benzoate degradation. Therefore, the stimulatory effects of the iron oxides on benzoate degradation were probably associated to CIET between syntrophic bacteria and methanogenic [173]) or sulfate-reducing partners [174]. Aromokeye and colleagues [175] also reported accelerated benzoate degradation coupled to enhanced methanogenesis, which occurred concurrently with Fe(III) reduction, in incubations with marine sediments and crystalline iron oxides (i.e., magnetite and hematite). Therefore, crystalline iron oxides acted as conduits for direct electron transfer, and simultaneously as electron acceptors. In contrast, Fe(III) reduction was the main pathway in the incubations with poorly crystalline lepidocrocite, inhibiting methanogenesis, as well as benzoate degradation. Novel bacteria, belonging to the Thermincola and Dethiobacter genera (phylum Firmicutes), Melioribacter (phylum Ignavibacteria), and Deltaproteobacteria bacterium SG8_13 (phylum Proteobacteria, family Desulfosarcinaceae) were identified as capable of degrading benzoate in marine sediments.
Magnetite was also reported to enhance pollutant removal and methane production during Fischer–Tropsch wastewater treatment [176]. These wastewaters are characterized by high chemical oxygen demand (COD) values, generally up to 30 g L−1, mainly consisting of alcohols, monocarboxylic organic acids, and hydrocarbons (typically alkanes and alkenes) [177]. Anaerobic sequential batch reactors were operated to treat a raw Fischer–Tropsch wastewater (COD of ~31 g L−1) over a period of 240 days, in the presence of different magnetite dosages (0–0.6 g). The optimum magnetite dose (0.4 g) resulted in a COD removal efficiency of 84 ± 2% and in a cumulative methane production 49% higher than in the absence of the conductive material. Lower CO2 and hydrogen concentrations pointed to the occurrence of magnetite-facilitated CO2 reduction to methane.
A novel three-dimensional mesh magnetic loofah sponge biochar (magnetized with Fe3O4) was applied to remediate PAH-contaminated sediment [178]. Compared to other carbon-based materials, this magnetic biochar achieved the highest PAH removal, mainly due to its adsorption capacity and biostimulation. Microorganisms associated with aromatic hydrocarbon degradation were specifically enriched, and methanogenesis became the main electron-accepting process. The biostimulation effect of this material was shown to be closely related with its superior conductive property, relative to the other carbon-based materials tested. The beneficial effects of biochar are also extended to AD by improving biogas desulfurization and bioenergy recovery [179], thus contributing to the economic and environmental progress.
Lin and colleagues [180] investigated the performance of AD reactors containing a bioelectrode system, operated with a voltage of 0.8 V applied from an external power supply (microbial electrolysis cell, AD-MEC), for the treatment of phenanthrene in wastewater sludge. Metallic cathodes composed by stainless steel mesh (SSM) and titanium mesh (TM) enhanced phenanthrene degradation and methane production relative to the control, which was a typical AD reactor (without electrodes). In particular, phenanthrene removal and cumulative methane production in the SSM reactor were 40% and 19% higher, respectively, than in the control. Analysis of the microbial communities’ showed that Geobacter spp. were enriched on the anode biofilms and were absent in the control reactor. Members of the Geobacter genus are known to be electrochemically active and able to transfer electrons to electrodes, as well as capable of PAH degradation [150]. Additionally, the high relative abundance of Methanobacterium in the SSM and TM reactors suggested that AD-MEC with metallic cathodes promoted the release of hydrogen, enhancing CO2 reduction to methane. The SSM reactor produced around 10% more methane than the TM reactor, which was ascribed to the etching of the SSM electrode during digestion, which may have separated iron into the system. Iron may have been used as the electron acceptor, thus contributing to the enrichment of Geobacter spp.; zero-valent iron (ZVI) has been previously shown to increase the methane yield in AD systems [16,50].

6.2. Effect of Zero-Valent Iron (ZVI) in Anaerobic Hydrocarbons Degradation

Zero-valent iron (ZVI) has been widely studied and applied to enhance the degradation of refractory organic compounds in wastewater, groundwater, and contaminated soils. ZVI undergoes several possible reactions (see the reviews [16,17] for details) from which hydroxide radicals can be formed and work as an oxidant to increase contaminants’ biodegradability and removal. Alternatively, ZVI can donate electrons and reduce organic compounds, such as halogenated hydrocarbons (e.g., trichloroethylene, dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane), resulting in the oxidation of Fe0 to Fe(II) [16,181]. Most studies on hydrocarbon removal with ZVI in AD processes are focused on halogenated hydrocarbons (reviewed by Li and colleagues [15], and the toxicity of these compounds was generally reduced [15,182].
In AD systems, the enhancement of methane production by nano- and microscale ZVI (nZVI and mZVI) has also been frequently reported and was recently reviewed in different works [16,17,50]. However, the occurrence of ZVI-enhanced methanogenic hydrocarbon degradation (Figure 1D) is only poorly explored. The positive effect of ZVI on methanogenesis has been ascribed to several mechanisms (see the reviews of Tian and Yu [158] and Li and colleagues [17]). Briefly, the anaerobic iron corrosion donates electrons that can be used directly for biological CO2 reduction or can lead to the formation of H2, enhancing the abundance and activity of H2-consuming microorganisms, namely hydrogenotrophic methanogens. For example, Zhu and his team [183] showed that the addition of ZVI shavings enhanced hydrogen production. Accelerated CO2 reduction to methane by ZVI was reported by Ma and colleagues [184] in enrichment cultures developed from oil reservoir PW. The archaeal community in the ZVI-amended enrichment cultures was dominated by thermophilic hydrogenotrophic methanogens belonging to the Methanothermobacter genus. By coupling magnetite and ZVI, the AD of phenol was increased [185]. ZVI improved the growth of hydrogenotrophic methanogens and magnetite enhanced the growth of syntrophic acetate-oxidizing bacteria (Clostridium spp.), which interacted in syntrophy, thus contributing to the observed synergistic effect on phenol degradation [186].
Due to its reductive character, ZVI also decreases the oxidation reduction potential (ORP), inducing a more favorable environment for the activity of anaerobic microorganisms. For example, ZVI addition significantly enhanced the removal of COD, phenolics, and nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compounds in the anaerobic treatment of coking wastewater [187]. By decreasing ORP, ZVI distinctly altered the microflora structure and enriched functional microbes involved in the anaerobic degradation of the aromatic pollutants.
Synergistic interactions between nZVI and different functional microbial groups have also been studied and were presented in different reviews [49,181,186,188]. In this approach, nZVI acts as a reducing agent in the conversion of higher halogenated compounds into lower halogenated organics, which are further degraded by organohalide-respiring bacteria (e.g., Dehalococcoides). Additionally, nZVI corrosion influences the ORP and generates hydrogen, as was previously mentioned, thus creating conditions that stimulate the abundance and activity of organohalide-respiring bacteria, which are able to synergistically degrade organohalides. As such, coupling abiotic and biotic degradation processes led to a more efficient degradation of halogenated hydrocarbons. Similar results were obtained by Wu and colleagues [186] with mZVI in a field study. These authors demonstrated that mZVI coupled with biostimulation was an effective method to promote the degradation of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in contaminated groundwater. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that toxic effects may occur, depending on the ZVI species and dosage. Coupling of nZVI with IRB is another possible approach to enhance hydrocarbon degradation, since IRB can reduce the iron (hydr)oxides, which were formed on the surface of nZVI during its chemical corrosion, to ferrous iron compounds, therefore solubilizing the precipitate layers and reactivating the passivated nZVI [49,189].

7. Indirect Roles of Iron in Anaerobic Hydrocarbons Degradation

Magnetic iron-based nanomaterials can be used as hydrocarbon adsorbents (Figure 1C), with the potential to reduce the toxicity of these compounds towards anaerobic microorganisms and indirectly enhancing its biodegradation [190]. Magnetic nanoparticles (magnetite Fe3O4) can be simply recovered after use by the application of a magnetic field. These nanoparticles present a high surface area, but they easily aggregate, which decreases the removal efficiency. To overcome this limitation, surface modifications have been applied, namely by coating the surface of Fe3O4 particles with multiwalled carbon nanotubes [191], carbon [192], SiO2-graphene [193], and polyaniline [194], with successful applications in the removal of PAHs. For example, Fe3O4@polyaniline presented a good adsorption capacity for fluoranthene, pyrene, and benzo[a]pyrene from environmental water samples and could be reutilized up to 20 times with consistently good adsorption efficiencies [194]. Sarcletti and colleagues [195] functionalized commercial Fe3O4 nanoparticles with hexadecylphosphonic acid, to render them superhydrophobic and superoleophilic. These nanoparticles were able to extract single hydrocarbons (such as alkanes and aromatics) from water, as well as complex hydrocarbon mixtures, up to 14 times the sorbent volume. The sorbent material maintained the extraction rate over 10 consecutive extraction cycles. Magnetic shell cross-linked knedel-like nanoparticles (MSCK) were constructed, using magnetic iron nanoparticles, for hydrocarbon sequestration from crude oil, and were capable of removing hydrocarbons up to 10 times their own weight [196]. Once loaded, these nanoparticles were easily recovered by applying an external magnetic field.
Another indirect effect of iron was reported by Beller and colleagues [197] in the degradation of toluene coupled to sulfate reduction. The addition of millimolar concentrations of amorphous Fe(OH)3 facilitated the onset of toluene degradation and accelerated the degradation rate. This positive effect was attributed to secondary abiotic reactions between Fe(III) and H2S, thus decreasing the toxicity of the latter towards the toluene-degrading bacteria.

8. Knowledge Gaps and Future Perspectives

Different iron species and iron-containing nanomaterials have a high potential to mitigate hydrocarbon pollution in natural and engineered environments, mainly by acting as electron acceptors, as electron transfer mediators, or as electron donors for enhanced methane production. Significant progress has been made in the past decades regarding the identification of the microorganisms involved in the degradation of petroleum-based alkanes, monoaromatics, and PAHs, directly or indirectly coupled to the reduction of soluble and less soluble Fe(III) compounds. Nevertheless, despite these advances, current knowledge on the microbial diversity, interactions, and mechanisms responsible for these transformations is still scarce and is still far from being accurately understood. This knowledge gap is even more evident when considering the novel strategies of conductive iron-containing nanomaterials and ZVI addition, or the use of novel reactor configurations such as microbial electrolysis cells.
Multi-omics technologies can contribute to a better understanding of the metabolic pathways through the identification of relevant genes and enzymes, further advancing the comprehensive knowledge on this topic. As such, metagenomic and metatranscriptomic studies are important to unveil the roles of different iron species/materials on the microbial ecology in anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation processes. These may pave the way for the development of novel treatment strategies, targeting a more efficient management of the microbial activities towards increasing hydrocarbon biodegradation. Currently, the addition of conductive iron oxides or ZVI are forefront strategies for enhancing the anaerobic conversion of hydrocarbons to methane. Furthermore, the combination of abiotic processes (e.g., adsorption; ZVI as reducing agent) with biological degradation also presents a high potential for research and development.
The addition of different iron compounds to an extended range of complex substrates, including hydrocarbon-contaminated wastes, must be considered, since the AD process performance can potentially be improved, resulting in higher energy recovery rates through biomethane production. This approach could also translate into the better economic performance of anaerobic digesters.
In general, the complexity of the microbial systems, as well as of the hydrocarbon mixtures in crude oil, the possible occurrence of iron speciation, and the fact that the microbial processes are generally slow, constitute important obstacles to the research, development, and innovation in the field. Moreover, most studies were performed at laboratory scale and, therefore, pilot-scale and full-scale experiments are lacking. The effect of the different iron forms should also be studied in continuous systems, to assess its medium/long-term impacts, as well as the optimum iron dosage that maximizes the system’s performance, while avoiding its overload. Considering nanomaterials, stringent monitoring and control strategies should be implemented.
In conclusion, the use of iron compounds to assist anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation still requires further research efforts to achieve efficient and sustainable processes that are technically and economically feasible and can be further translated into the market.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10112142/s1, Table S1: Chemical formula, structure and aspect of various iron compounds.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.C., G.M. and A.J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.C. and A.J.C.; writing—review and editing, G.M., A.F.S. and A.J.C.; supervision, A.J.C.; funding acquisition, A.J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under the scope of project MORE (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016575) and of the strategic funding of UIDB/04469/2020 unit. It was also funded by LABBELS—Associate Laboratory in Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Microelectromechanical Systems, LA/P/0029/2020, and by the European Regional Development Fund under the scope of Norte2020—Programa Operacional Regional do Norte—BioEcoNorte project (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000070).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Jafarinejad, S. Petroleum Waste Treatment and Pollution Control, 1st ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  2. Perera, F.P.; Tang, D.; Wang, S.; Vishnevetsky, J.; Zhang, B.; Diaz, D.; Camann, D.; Rauh, V. Prenatal polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure and child behavior at age 6–7 years. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Essaid, H.I.; Bekins, B.A.; Godsy, E.M.; Warren, E.; Baedecker, M.J.; Cozzarelli, I.M. Simulation of aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation processes at a crude oil spill site. Water Resour. Res. 1995, 31, 3309–3327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Thorn, K.; Aiken, G. Biodegradation of crude oil into nonvolatile organic acids in a contaminated aquifer near Bemidji, Minnesota. Org. Geochem. 1998, 29, 909–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kingston, P.F. Long-term Environmental Impact of Oil Spills. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 2002, 7, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Das, N.; Chandran, P. Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminants: An Overview. Biotechnol. Res. Int. 2011, 2011, 941810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Hu, G.; Li, J.; Zeng, G. Recent development in the treatment of oily sludge from petroleum industry: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 261, 470–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. U.S. Energy Administration Information. Short-Term Energy Outlook. 2022. Available online: https:///outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php (accessed on 22 August 2022).
  9. Castro, R. Hydrocarbonoclastic Bacteria: From Bioremediation to Bioenergy Feedstock. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 2015. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/40436 (accessed on 12 May 2021).
  10. Ghimire, N.; Wang, S. Chapter 5—Biological Treatment of Petrochemical Wastewater. In Petroleum Chemicals—Recent Insight; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/petroleum-chemicals-recent-insight/biological-treatment-of-petrochemical-wastewater. (accessed on 5 September 2022).
  11. Sierra-Garcia, I.N.; Oliveira, V.M. Chapter 3H—Microbial Hydrocarbon Degradation: Efforts to Understand Biodegradation in Petroleum Reservoirs. In Biodegradation—Engineering and Technology; Chamy, R., Rosenkranz, R., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2007; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/biodegradation-engineering-and-technology/microbial-hydrocarbon-degradation-efforts-to-understand-biodegradation-in-petroleum-reservoirs. (accessed on 5 September 2022).
  12. Head, I.M.; Aitken, C.M.; Gray, N.D.; Sherry, A.; Adams, J.; Jones, D.M.; Rowan, A.K. Hydrocarbon degradation in petroleum reservoirs. In Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology; Timmis, K.N., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 3097–3109. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gray, N.D.; Sherry, A.; Hubert, C.; Dolfing, J.; Head, I.M. Methanogenic degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface environments remediation, heavy oil formation, and energy recovery. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 72, 137–161. [Google Scholar]
  14. Boopathy, R. Use of anaerobic soil slurry reactors for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2003, 52, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Godambe, T.; Fulekar, M. Bioremediation of petrochemical hydrocarbons (BTEX)—Review. J. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 3, 189–199. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tian, T.; Yu, H.-Q. Iron-assisted biological wastewater treatment: Synergistic effect between iron and microbes. Biotechnol. Adv. 2020, 44, 107610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, J.; Li, C.; Zhao, L.; Pan, X.; Cai, G.; Zhu, G. The application status, development and future trend of nano-iron materials in anaerobic digestion system. Chemosphere 2020, 269, 129389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Martins, G.; Salvador, A.F.; Pereira, L.; Alves, M.M. Methane Production and Conductive Materials: A Critical Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 10241–10253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Aulenta, F.; Tucci, M.; Viggi, C.C.; Dolfing, J.; Head, I.M.; Rotaru, A.-E. An underappreciated DIET for anaerobic petroleum hydrocarbon-degrading microbial communities. Microb. Biotechnol. 2020, 14, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tsui, T.-H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Dai, Y.; Tong, Y.W. Methodological framework for wastewater treatment plants delivering expanded service: Economic tradeoffs and technological decisions. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Meslé, M.; Dromart, G.; Oger, P. Microbial methanogenesis in subsurface oil and coal. Res. Microbiol. 2013, 164, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Varjani, S.J. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 223, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stuart, M.; Lapworth, D.; Crane, E.; Hart, A. Review of risk from potential emerging contaminants in UK groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 416, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Widdel, F.; Rabus, R. Anaerobic biodegradation of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2001, 12, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hung, C.-M.; Huang, C.-P.; Lam, S.S.; Chen, C.-W.; Dong, C.-D. The removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from marine sediments using persulfate over a nano-sized iron composite of magnetite and carbon black activator. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Keith, L.; Telliard, W. ES&T Special Report: Priority pollutants: I-a perspective view. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1979, 13, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Doggett, T.; Rascoe, A. Global Energy Demand Seen Up 44 Percent by 2030; Reuters: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eia-global-demand-idUSN2719528620090527 (accessed on 13 May 2021).
  28. Diya’Uddeen, B.H.; Daud, W.M.A.W.; Aziz, A.A. Treatment technologies for petroleum refinery effluents: A review. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2011, 89, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kuyukina, M.S.; Krivoruchko, A.V.; Ivshina, I.B. Advanced Bioreactor Treatments of Hydrocarbon-Containing Wastewater. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bashat, H. Managing waste in exploration and production activities of the petroleum industry. Environm. Adv. SENV 2002, 1, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fakhru’L-Razi, A.; Pendashteh, A.; Abdullah, L.C.; Biak, D.R.A.; Madaeni, S.S.; Abidin, Z.Z. Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 530–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bakke, T.; Klungsøyr, J.; Sanni, S. Environmental impacts of produced water and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Mar. Environ. Res. 2013, 92, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Ottaviano, J.G.; Cai, J.; Murphy, R.S. Assessing the decontamination efficiency of a three-component flocculating system in the treatment of oilfield-produced water. Water Res. 2014, 52, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Veil, J.A. U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012; Veil Environmental, LLC.: Annapolis, MD, USA, 2015; p. 119. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zheng, J.; Chen, B.; Thanyamanta, W.; Hawboldt, K.; Zhang, B.; Liu, B. Offshore produced water management: A review of current practice and challenges in harsh/Arctic environments Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 104, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ozgun, H.; Ersahin, M.E.; Erdem, S.; Atay, B.; Kose, B.; Kaya, R.; Altinbas, M.; Sayili, S.; Hoshan, P.; Atay, D.; et al. Effects of the pre-treatment alternatives on the treatment of oil-gas field produced water by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2012, 88, 1576–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jiménez, S.; Micó, M.; Arnaldos, M.; Medina, F.; Contreras, S. State of the art of produced water treatment. Chemosphere 2018, 192, 186–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barthe, P.; Chaugny, M.; Roudier, S.; Delgado Sancho, L. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. EUR 27140; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015; JRC94879.
  39. Wake, H. Oil refineries: A review of their ecological impacts on the aquatic environment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2005, 62, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kundu, P.; Mishra, I.M. Treatment and reclamation of hydrocarbon-bearing oily wastewater as a hazardous pollutant by different processes and technologies: A state-of-the-art review. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2018, 35, 73–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gargouri, B.; Karray, F.; Mhiri, N.; Aloui, F.; Sayadi, S. Application of a continuously stirred tank bioreactor (CSTR) for bioremediation of hydrocarbon-rich industrial wastewater effluents. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 189, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wu, P.; Jiang, L.Y.; He, Z.; Song, Y. Treatment of metallurgical industry wastewater for organic contaminant removal in China: Status, challenges, and perspectives. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2017, 3, 1015–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hui, K.; Tang, J.; Lu, H.; Xi, B.; Qu, C.; Li, J. Status and prospect of oil recovery from oily sludge:A review. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 6523–6543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. da Silva, L.J.; Alves, F.C.; de França, F.P. A review of the technological solutions for the treatment of oily sludges from petroleum refineries. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 30, 1016–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aguelmous, A.; El Fels, L.; Souabi, S.; Zamama, M.; Hafidi, M. The fate of total petroleum hydrocarbons during oily sludge composting: A critical review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2019, 18, 473–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khazaal, R.M.; Ismail, Z.Z. Bioremediation and detoxification of real refinery oily sludge using mixed bacterial cells. Pet. Res. 2021, 6, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Melton, E.D.; Swanner, E.D.; Behrens, S.; Schmidt, C.; Kappler, A. The interplay of microbially mediated and abiotic reactions in the biogeochemical Fe cycle. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014, 12, 797–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Borch, T.; Kretzschmar, R.; Kappler, A.; Van Cappellen, P.; Ginder-Vogel, M.; Voegelin, A.; Campbell, K. Biogeochemical Redox Processes and their Impact on Contaminant Dynamics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dong, H.; Li, L.; Lu, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ning, Q.; Wang, B.; Zhang, L.; Zeng, G. Integration of nanoscale zero-valent iron and functional anaerobic bacteria for groundwater remediation: A review. Environ. Int. 2019, 124, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Baek, G.; Kim, J.; Lee, C. A review of the effects of iron compounds on methanogenesis in anaerobic environments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Straub, K.L.; Benz, M.; Schink, B. Iron metabolism in anoxic environments at near neutral pH. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2001, 34, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Thompson, A.; Chadwick, O.A.; Rancourt, D.G.; Chorover, J. Iron-oxide crystallinity increases during soil redox oscillations. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2006, 70, 1710–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Weber, K.A.; Achenbach, L.A.; Coates, J.D. Microorganisms pumping iron: Anaerobic microbial iron oxidation and reduction. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2006, 4, 752–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Bryce, C.; Blackwell, N.; Schmidt, C.; Otte, J.; Huang, Y.-M.; Kleindienst, S.; Tomaszewski, E.; Schad, M.; Warter, V.; Peng, C.; et al. Microbial anaerobic Fe(II) oxidation-Ecology, mechanisms and environmental implications. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 20, 3462–3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Bird, L.J.; Bonnefoy, V.; Newman, D.K. Bioenergetic challenges of microbial iron metabolisms. Trends Microbiol. 2011, 19, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kim, D. Adsorption characteristics of Fe(III) and Fe(III)–NTA complex on granular activated carbon. J. Hazard. Mater. 2004, 106, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Das, P.; Mondal, G.C.; Singh, S.; Singh, A.K.; Prasad, B.; Singh, K.K. Effluent Treatment Technologies in the Iron and Steel Industry—A State of the Art Review. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ghose, M. Complete physico-chemical treatment for coke plant effluents. Water Res. 2002, 36, 1127–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sun, W.; Zhou, Y.; Lv, J.; Wu, J. Assessment of multi-air emissions: Case of particulate matter (dust), SO2, NO and CO2 from iron and steel industry of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. World Steel Association. Steel’s Contribution to a Low Carbon Future and Climate Resilient Societies; World Steel Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; Available online: https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:66fed386-fd0b-485e-aa23-b8a5e7533435/Position_paper_climate_2018.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2021).
  61. Macingova, E.; Luptakova, A. Recovery of metals from acid mine drainage. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2012, 28, 109–114. [Google Scholar]
  62. Johnson, D.B.; Hallberg, K.B. Acid mine drainage remediation options: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2005, 338, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ali, M.S. Remediation of acid mine waters. Proccedings of the 11th International Mine Water Association Congress–Mine Water–Managing the Challenges Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 1 September 2011; pp. 253–257. [Google Scholar]
  64. Akcil, A.; Koldas, S. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD): Causes, treatment and case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 1139–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Johnson, D.B. Chemical and Microbiological Characteristics of Mineral Spoils and Drainage Waters at Abandoned Coal and Metal Mines. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 2003, 3, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sheoran, A.; Sheoran, V. Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage in wetlands: A critical review. Miner. Eng. 2006, 19, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Reference Guide to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water. EPA 542-R-14-001; 2014; p. 94. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/reference_guide_to_treatment_technologies_for_miw.pdf. (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  68. Ngure, V.; Davies, T.; Kinuthia, G.; Sitati, N.; Shisia, S.; Oyoo-Okoth, E. Concentration levels of potentially harmful elements from gold mining in Lake Victoria Region, Kenya: Environmental and health implications. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 144, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mulopo, J. Continuous pilot scale assessment of the alkaline barium calcium desalination process for acid mine drainage treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 1295–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Luptáková, A.; Bálintová, M.; Jenčárová, J.; Mačingová, E.; Praščáková, M. Metals recovery from acid mine drainage. Nova Biotechnol. Chim. 2021, 10, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ye, J.; Zhang, P.; Hoffmann, E.; Zeng, G.; Tang, Y.; Dresely, J.; Liu, Y. Comparison of Response Surface Methodology and Artificial Neural Network in Optimization and Prediction of Acid Activation of Bauxsol for Phosphorus Adsorption. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Liu, Z.; Li, H. Metallurgical process for valuable elements recovery from red mud—A review. Hydrometallurgy 2015, 155, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lima, M.S.S.; Thives, L.P.; Haritonovs, V.; Bajars, K. Red mud application in construction industry: Review of benefits and possibilities. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 251, 012033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Qi, Y. The neutralization and recycling of red mud—A review. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1759, 012004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hind, A.R.; Bhargava, S.K.; Grocott, S.C. The surface chemistry of Bayer process solids: A review. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 1999, 146, 359–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, B.; Luan, Z. Feasibility study of iron mineral separation from red mud by high gradient superconducting magnetic separation. Phys. C Supercond. 2011, 471, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bhatnagar, A.; Vilar, V.J.P.; Botelho, C.M.S.; Boaventura, R.A.R. A review of the use of red mud as adsorbent for the removal of toxic pollutants from waterand wastewater. Environ. Technol. 2011, 32, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Liu, Y.; Naidu, R.; Ming, H. Red mud as an amendment for pollutants in solid and liquid phases. Geoderma 2011, 163, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lei, C.; Sun, Y.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Lin, D. Environmental transformations and ecological effects of iron-based nanoparticles. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 232, 10–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Salim, N.A.M.; Ajit, A.; Naila, A.; Sulaiman, A.Z. Potential of red mud as an adsorbent for nitrogen and phosphorous removal in the petrochemical industry wastewater. Int. J. Water Wastewater Treat. 2018, 4, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gupta, V.K.; Ali, I.; Saini, V.K. Removal of Chlorophenols from Wastewater Using Red Mud: An Aluminum Industry Waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4012–4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. López, E.; Soto, B.; Arias, M.; Núñez, A.; Rubinos, D.; Barral, M. Adsorbent properties of red mud and its use for wastewater treatment. Water Res. 1998, 32, 1314–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F.L.; Stensel, H.D. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw Hill Companies: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lombi, E.; Zhao, F.-J.; Wieshammer, G.; Zhang, G.; McGrath, S.P. In situ fixation of metals in soils using bauxite residue: Biological effects. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 118, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Liu, W.; Yang, J.; Xiao, B. Application of Bayer red mud for iron recovery and building material production from alumosilicate residues. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 161, 474–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Bratby, J. Coagulation and Flocculation in Water and Wastewater Treatment, 2nd ed.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  87. Wilfert, P.; Kumar, P.S.; Korving, L.; Witkamp, G.-J.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. The Relevance of Phosphorus and Iron Chemistry to the Recovery of Phosphorus from Wastewater: A Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9400–9414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Weelink, S.A.B.; van Eekert, M.H.A.; Stams, A.J.M. Degradation of BTEX by anaerobic bacteria: Physiology and application. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2010, 9, 359–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mbadinga, S.M.; Wang, L.-Y.; Zhou, L.; Liu, J.-F.; Gu, J.-D.; Mu, B.-Z. Microbial communities involved in anaerobic degradation of alkanes. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2011, 65, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jiménez, N.; Richnow, H.H.; Vogt, C.; Treude, T.; Krüger, M. Methanogenic Hydrocarbon Degradation: Evidence from Field and Laboratory Studies. Microb. Physiol. 2016, 26, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Rabus, R.; Boll, M.; Heider, J.; Meckenstock, R.U.; Buckel, W.; Einsle, O.; Ermler, U.; Golding, B.T.; Gunsalus, R.P.; Kroneck, P.M.; et al. Anaerobic Microbial Degradation of Hydrocarbons: From Enzymatic Reactions to the Environment. Microb. Physiol. 2016, 26, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Abbasian, F.; Lockington, R.; Mallavarapu, M.; Naidu, R. A Comprehensive Review of Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Biodegradation by Bacteria. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2015, 176, 670–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Foght, J. Anaerobic Biodegradation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Pathways and Prospects. Microb. Physiol. 2008, 15, 93–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Meckenstock, R.U.; Safinowski, M.; Griebler, C. Anaerobic degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2004, 49, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Gieg, L.M.; Toth, C.R.A. Signature metabolite analysis to determine in situ anaerobic hydrocarbon biodegradation. Anaerobic Utilization of Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Lipids. In Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology; Boll, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  96. Tremblay, P.L.; Zhang, T. Functional genomics of metal-reducing microbes degrading hydrocarbons. Anaerobic Utilization of Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Lipids. In Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology; Boll, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  97. von Netzer, F.; Granitsiotis, M.S.; Szalay, A.R.; Lueders, T. Next-generation sequencing of functional marker genes for anaerobic degraders of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated environments. Anaerobic Utilization of Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Lipids. In Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology; Boll, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 257–276. [Google Scholar]
  98. Grossi, V.; Cravo-Laureau, C.; Guyoneaud, R.; Ranchou-Peyruse, A.; Hirschler-Réa, A. Metabolism of n-alkanes and n-alkenes by anaerobic bacteria: A summary. Org. Geochem. 2008, 39, 1197–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rabus, R.; Jarling, R.; Lahme, S.; Kühner, S.; Heider, J.; Widdel, F.; Wilkes, H. Co-metabolic conversion of toluene in anaerobic n-alkane-degrading bacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 2576–2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Dolfing, J.; Larter, S.; Head, I. Thermodynamic constraints on methanogenic crude oil biodegradation. ISME J. 2007, 2, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Gieg, L.M.; Fowler, S.J.; Berdugo-Clavijo, C. Syntrophic biodegradation of hydrocarbon contaminants. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 27, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gray, N.D.; Sherry, A.; Grant, R.J.; Rowan, A.K.; Hubert, C.R.J.; Callbeck, C.M.; Aitken, C.M.; Jones, D.M.; Adams, J.J.; Larter, S.R.; et al. The quantitative significance of Syntrophaceae and syntrophic partnerships in methanogenic degradation of crude oil alkanes. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 2957–2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Lovley, D.R.; Ueki, T.; Zhang, T.; Malvankar, N.S.; Shrestha, P.M.; Flanagan, K.A.; Aklujkar, M.; Butler, J.E.; Giloteaux, L.; Rotaru, A.E.; et al. Geobacter: The microbe electric’s physiology, ecology, and practical applications. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 2011, 59, 1–100. [Google Scholar]
  104. Vogt, C.; Lueders, T.; Richnow, H.H.; Krüger, M.; von Bergen, M.; Seifert, J. Stable Isotope Probing Approaches to Study Anaerobic Hydrocarbon Degradation and Degraders. Microb. Physiol. 2016, 26, 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Coates, J.D.; Lonergan, D.J.; Philips, E.J.P.; Jenter, H.; Lovley, D.R. Desulfuromonas palmitatis sp. nov., A marine dissimilatory Fe(III) reducer that can oxidize long-chain fatty acids. Arch. Microbiol. 1995, 164, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Coates, J.D.; Ellis, D.J.; Gaw, C.V.; Lovley, D.R. Geothrix fermentans gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel Fe(III)-reducing bacterium from a hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifer. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1999, 49, 1615–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Aburto-Medina, A.; Ball, A. Microorganisms involved in anaerobic benzene degradation. Ann. Microbiol. 2014, 65, 1201–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Holmes, D.E.; Risso, C.; Smith, J.; Lovley, D.R. Anaerobic Oxidation of Benzene by the Hyperthermophilic Archaeon Ferroglobus placidus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 5926–5933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Zhang, T.; Bain, T.S.; Nevin, K.P.; Barlett, M.A.; Lovley, D.R. Anaerobic Benzene Oxidation by Geobacter Species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 8304–8310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Zhang, T.; Tremblay, P.-L.; Chaurasia, A.K.; Smith, J.A.; Bain, T.S.; Lovley, D.R. Anaerobic Benzene Oxidation via Phenol in Geobacter metallireducens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 7800–7806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Lovley, D.R.; Lonergan, D.J. Anaerobic oxidation of toluene, phenol, and para-cresol by the dissimilatory iron-reducing organism. GS-15. Appl. Environ. Microb. 1990, 56, 1858–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Lovley, D.R.; Giovannoni, S.J.; White, D.C.; Champine, J.E.; Phillips, E.J.P.; Gorby, Y.A.; Goodwin, S. Geobacter metallireducens gen. nov. sp. nov., A microorganism capable of coupling the complete oxidation of organic compounds to the reduction of iron and other metals. Arch. Microbiol. 1993, 159, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Coates, J.D.; Bhupathiraju, V.K.; Achenbach, L.A.; Mclnerney, M.J.; Lovley, D.R. Geobacter hydrogenophilus, Geobacter chapellei and Geobacter grbiciae, three new, strictly anaerobic, dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducers. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2001, 51, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Winderl, C.; Schaefer, S.; Lueders, T. Detection of anaerobic toluene and hydrocarbon degraders in contaminated aquifers using benzylsuccinate synthase (bssA) genes as a functional marker. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 1035–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kunapuli, U.; Jahn, M.K.; Lueders, T.; Geyer, R.; Heipieper, H.J.; Meckenstock, R.U. Desulfitobacterium aromaticivorans sp. nov. and Geobacter toluenoxydans sp. nov., iron-reducing bacteria capable of anaerobic degradation of monoaromatic hydrocarbons. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 686–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Weelink, S.A.B.; van Doesburg, W.; Saia, F.T.; Rijpstra, W.I.; Röling, W.F.M.; Smidt, H.; Stams, A.J.M. A strictly anaerobic betaproteobacterium Georgfuchsia toluolica gen. nov., sp. nov. Degrades aromatic compounds with Fe(III), Mn(IV) or nitrate as an electron acceptor. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2009, 70, 575–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Yan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, H.; Yang, M.; Zhang, H.; Hao, Z.; Jiang, H. Isolation and characterization of a bacterial strain Hydrogenophaga sp. PYR1 for anaerobic pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene biodegradation. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 46690–46698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Zhang, Z.; Guo, H.; Sun, J.; Gong, X.; Wang, C.; Wang, H. Exploration of the biotransformation processes in the biodegradation of phenanthrene by a facultative anaerobe, strain PheF2, with Fe(III) or O2 as an electron acceptor. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 750, 142245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Dorer, C.; Vogt, C.; Neu, T.R.; Stryhanyuk, H.; Richnow, H.-H. Characterization of toluene and ethylbenzene biodegradation under nitrate-, iron(III)- and manganese(IV)-reducing conditions by compound-specific isotope analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 211, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Lovley, D.R.; Coates, J.D.; Blunt-Harris, E.L.; Phillips, E.J.P.; Woodward, J.C. Humic substances as electron acceptors for microbial respiration. Nature 1996, 382, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. So, C.M.; Young, L.Y. Anaerobic biodegradation of alkanes by enriched consortia under four different reducing conditions. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rizoulis, A.; Al Lawati, W.M.; Pancost, R.D.; Polya, D.A.; van Dongen, B.E.; Lloyd, J.R. Microbially mediated reduction of FeIII and AsV in Cambodian sediments amended with 13C-labelled hexadecane and kerogen. Environ. Chem. 2014, 11, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Anderson, R.T.; Rooney-Varga, J.N.; Gaw, C.V.; Lovley, D.R. Anaerobic Benzene Oxidation in the Fe(III) Reduction Zone of Petroleum-Contaminated Aquifers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32, 1222–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Anderson, R.T.; Lovley, D.R. Naphthalene and Benzene Degradation under Fe(III)-Reducing Conditions in Petroleum-Contaminated Aquifers. Bioremediation J. 1999, 3, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Lovley, D.R.; Woodward, J.C.; Chapelle, F.H. Stimulated anoxic biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons using Fe(III) ligands. Nature 1994, 370, 128–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Lovley, D.R.; Holmes, D.E.; Nevin, K.P. Dissimilatory Fe(III) and Mn(IV) Reduction In Advances in Microbial Physiology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; Volume 49, pp. 219–286. [Google Scholar]
  127. Rooney-Varga, J.N.; Anderson, R.T.; Fraga, J.L.; Ringelberg, D.; Lovley, D.R. Microbial Communities Associated with Anaerobic Benzene Degradation in a Petroleum-Contaminated Aquifer. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 3056–3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Farkas, M.; Szoboszlay, S.; Benedek, T.; Révész, F.; Veres, P.G.; Kriszt, B.; Táncsics, A. Enrichment of dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducing bacteria from groundwater of the Siklós BTEX-contaminated site (Hungary). Folia Microbiol. 2016, 62, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kunapuli, U.; Lueders, T.; Meckenstock, R.U. The use of stable isotope probing to identify key iron-reducing microorganisms involved in anaerobic benzene degradation. ISME J. 2007, 1, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Lovley, D.R.; Woodward, J.C.; Chapelle, F.H. Rapid anaerobic benzene oxidation with a variety of chelated Fe(III) forms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 288–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Kazumi, J.; Caldwell, M.E.; Suflita, J.M.; Lovley, A.D.R.; Young, L.Y. Anaerobic Degradation of Benzene in Diverse Anoxic Environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 813–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Pilloni, G.; Von Netzer, F.; Engel, M.; Lueders, T. Electron acceptor-dependent identification of key anaerobic toluene degraders at a tar-oil-contaminated aquifer by Pyro-SIP. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 78, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Villatoro-Monzón, W.; Mesta-Howard, A.; Razo-Flores, E. Anaerobic biodegradation of BTEX using Mn(IV) and Fe(III) as alternative electron acceptors. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Jahn, M.K.; Haderlein, S.B.; Meckenstock, R.U. Anaerobic degradation of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and o-xylene in sediment-free iron-reducing enrichment cultures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 3355–3358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Botton, S.; Parsons, J.R. Degradation of BTEX compounds under iron-reducing conditions in contaminated aquifer microcosms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2006, 25, 2630–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Botton, S.; Parsons, J.R. Degradation of BTX by dissimilatory iron-reducing cultures. Biogeochemistry 2006, 18, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chen, Y.D.; Barker, J.F.; Gui, L. A strategy for aromatic hydrocarbon bioremediation under anaerobic conditions and the impacts of ethanol: A microcosm study. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2008, 96, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Jun, D.; Xiaolan, M.; Jingjie, L. Removal of aromatic hydrocarbons from aquifers by oxidation coupled with dissimilatory bacterial reduction of iron. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 2013, 49, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ramsay, J.A.; Robertson, K.; Acay, N.; Ramsay, B.A. Enhancement of PAH biomineralization rates by cyclodextrins under Fe(III)-reducing conditions. Chemosphere 2005, 61, 733–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Kleemann, R.; Meckenstock, R.U. Anaerobic naphthalene degradation by Gram-positive, iron-reducing bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 78, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Zhang, Z.; Wang, C.; He, J.; Wang, H. Anaerobic phenanthrene biodegradation with four kinds of electron acceptors enriched from the same mixed inoculum and exploration of metabolic pathways. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2019, 13, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Abu Laban, N.; Selesi, D.; Rattei, T.; Tischler, P.; Meckenstock, R.U. Identification of enzymes involved in anaerobic benzene degradation by a strictly anaerobic iron-reducing enrichment culture. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 12, 2783–2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Kim, S.-J.; Park, S.-J.; Cha, I.-T.; Min, D.; Kim, J.-S.; Chung, W.-H.; Chae, J.-C.; Jeon, C.O.; Rhee, S.-K. Metabolic versatility of toluene-degrading, iron-reducing bacteria in tidal flat sediment, characterized by stable isotope probing-based metagenomic analysis. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Coates, J.D.; Anderson, R.T.; Woodward, J.C.; Phillips, A.E.J.P.; Lovley, D.R. Anaerobic Hydrocarbon Degradation in Petroleum-Contaminated Harbor Sediments under Sulfate-Reducing and Artificially Imposed Iron-Reducing Conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 30, 2784–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Li, C.-H.; Wong, Y.-S.; Tam, N.F.-Y. Anaerobic biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with amendment of iron(III) in mangrove sediment slurry. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8083–8092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Cozzarelli, I.M.; Bekins, B.A.; Eganhouse, R.P.; Warren, E.; Essaid, H.I. In situ measurements of volatile aromatic hydrocarbon biodegradation rates in groundwater. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2010, 111, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Langenhoff, A.; Zehnder, A.J.B.; Schraa, G. Behaviour of toluene, benzene and naphthalene under anaerobic conditions in sediment columns. Biogeochemistry 1996, 7, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Zheng, Z.; Aagaard, P.; Breedveld, G.D. Intrinsic biodegradation of toluene coupled to the microbial reduction of ferric iron: Laboratory column experiments. Environ. Earth Sci. 2002, 42, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Yan, Z.; Song, N.; Cai, H.; Tay, J.-H.; Jiang, H. Enhanced degradation of phenanthrene and pyrene in freshwater sediments by combined employment of sediment microbial fuel cell and amorphous ferric hydroxide. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 199, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Yu, B.; Tian, J.; Feng, L. Remediation of PAH polluted soils using a soil microbial fuel cell: Influence of electrode interval and role of microbial community. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 336, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Bekins, B.; Godsy, E.; Warren, E. Distribution of Microbial Physiologic Types in an Aquifer Contaminated by Crude Oil. Microb. Ecol. 1999, 37, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Müller, J.B.; Ramos, D.T.; Larose, C.; Fernandes, M.; Lazzarin, H.S.; Vogel, T.M.; Corseuil, H.X. Combined iron and sulfate reduction biostimulation as a novel approach to enhance BTEX and PAH source-zone biodegradation in biodiesel blend-contaminated groundwater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 326, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Bjerg, P.L.; Riigge, K.; Cortsen, J.; Nielsen, P.H.; Christensen, T.H. Degradation of Aromatic and Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in the Anaerobic Part of the Grindsted Landfill Leachate Plume: In Situ Microcosm and Laboratory Batch Experiments. Ground Water 1999, 37, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Nielsen, P.H.; Albrechtsen, H.-J.; Heron, G.; Christensen, T.H. In situ and laboratory studies on the fate of specific organic compounds in an anaerobic landfill leachate plume, 1. Experimental conditions and fate of phenolic compounds. J. Contam. Hydrol. 1995, 20, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Nielsen, P.H.; Bjarnadóttir, H.; Winter, P.L.; Christensen, T.H. In situ and laboratory studies on the fate of specific organic compounds in an anaerobic landfill leachate plume, 2. Fate of aromatic and chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J. Contam. Hydrol. 1995, 20, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Winderl, C.; Anneser, B.; Griebler, C.; Meckenstock, R.U.; Lueders, T. Depth-Resolved Quantification of Anaerobic Toluene Degraders and Aquifer Microbial Community Patterns in Distinct Redox Zones of a Tar Oil Contaminant Plume. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 792–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Bauer, R.D.; Maloszewski, P.; Zhang, Y.; Meckenstock, R.U.; Griebler, C. Mixing-controlled biodegradation in a toluene plume—Results from two-dimensional laboratory experiments. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2008, 96, 150–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Azama, H.M.; Finneran, K.T. Ferric iron amendment increases Fe(III)-reducing microbial diversity and carbon oxidation in on-site wastewater systems. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Li, Z.; Brian, A.; Wrenn, B.A.; Mukherjee, B.; Lee, K.; Venosa, A.D. Impacts of iron, nutrients, and mineral fines on anaerobic biodegradation of canola oil in freshwater sediments. Soil Sediment Contam. 2010, 19, 244–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Cavaleiro, A.; Guedes, A.; Silva, S.; Arantes, A.; Sequeira, J.; Salvador, A.; Sousa, D.; Stams, A.; Alves, M. Effect of Sub-Stoichiometric Fe(III) Amounts on LCFA Degradation by Methanogenic Communities. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Tang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Xiong, P.; Liu, L.; Bao, Y.; Zhao, Z. Link between characteristics of Fe(III) oxides and critical role in enhancing anaerobic methanogenic degradation of complex organic compounds. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Li, Y.; Ren, C.; Zhao, Z.; Yu, Q.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, Y. Enhancing anaerobic degradation of phenol to methane via solubilizing Fe(III) oxides for dissimilatory iron reduction with organic chelates. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Marozava, S.; Mouttaki, H.; Müller, H.; Abu Laban, N.; Probst, A.J.; Meckenstock, R.U. Anaerobic degradation of 1-methylnaphthalene by a member of the Thermoanaerobacteraceae contained in an iron-reducing enrichment culture. Biogeochemistry 2017, 29, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Siegert, M.; Cichocka, D.; Herrmann, S.; Gründger, F.; Feisthauer, S.; Richnow, H.-H.; Springael, D.; Krüger, M. Accelerated methanogenesis from aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons under iron- and sulfate-reducing conditions. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2010, 315, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Van Bodegom, P.M.; Scholten, J.C.; Stams, A. Direct inhibition of methanogenesis by ferric iron. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2004, 49, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. Rotaru, A.-E.; Yee, M.O.; Musat, F. Microbes trading electricity in consortia of environmental and biotechnological significance. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021, 67, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Xu, H.; Chang, J.; Wang, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liang, P.; Huang, X. Enhancing direct interspecies electron transfer in syntrophic-methanogenic associations with (semi)conductive iron oxides: Effects and mechanisms. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 695, 133876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Hao, X.; Wei, J.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.; Cao, D. Analysing the mechanisms of sludge digestion enhanced by iron. Water Res. 2017, 117, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Ma, S.; Wang, J.; Han, Y.; Yang, F.; Gu, C.; Wang, F. Enhancement of tribromophenol removal in a sequencing batch reactor via submicron magnetite. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 43, 851–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Li, K.; Shi, J.; Han, Y.; Xu, C.; Han, H. Enhanced anaerobic degradation of quinoline, pyriding, and indole with polyurethane (PU), Fe3O4@PU, powdered activated carbon (PAC), Fe(OH)3@PAC, biochar, and Fe(OH)3@biochar and analysis of microbial succession in different reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Ye, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, Y.; Fang, T.; Cui, Q.; He, C.; Wang, H. Enhancing electron transfer by magnetite during phenanthrene anaerobic methanogenic degradation. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 129, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Yan, W.; Sun, F.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Y. Enhanced anaerobic phenol degradation by conductive materials via EPS and microbial community alteration. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 352, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Zhuang, L.; Tang, J.; Wang, Y.; Hu, M.; Zhou, S. Conductive iron oxide minerals accelerate syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic benzoate degradation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 293, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Zhuang, L.; Tang, Z.; Ma, J.; Yu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tang, J. Enhanced Anaerobic Biodegradation of Benzoate Under Sulfate-Reducing Conditions With Conductive Iron-Oxides in Sediment of Pearl River Estuary. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Aromokeye, D.A.; Oni, O.E.; Tebben, J.; Yin, X.; Richter-Heitmann, T.; Wendt, J.; Nimzyk, R.; Littmann, S.; Tienken, D.; Kulkarni, A.C.; et al. Crystalline iron oxides stimulate methanogenic benzoate degradation in marine sediment-derived enrichment cultures. ISME J. 2020, 15, 965–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Wang, D.; Han, Y.; Han, H.; Li, K.; Xu, C.; Zhuang, H. New insights into enhanced anaerobic degradation of Fischer-Tropsch wastewater with the assistance of magnetite. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 257, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Majone, M.; Aulenta, F.; Dionisi, D.; D’Addario, E.N.; Sbardellati, R.; Bolzonella, D.; Beccari, M. High-rate anaerobic treatment of Fischer–Tropsch wastewater in a packed-bed biofilm reactor. Water Res. 2010, 44, 2745–2752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Hao, Z.; Wang, Q.; Yan, Z.; Jiang, H. Novel magnetic loofah sponge biochar enhancing microbial responses for the remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons-contaminated sediment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 401, 123859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Tsui, T.-H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Dai, Y.; Tong, Y.W. Engineering interface between bioenergy recovery and biogas desulfurization: Sustainability interplays of biochar application. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Lin, C.; Wu, P.; Liu, Y.; Wong, J.W.; Yong, X.; Wu, X.; Xie, X.; Jia, H.; Zhou, J. Enhanced biogas production and biodegradation of phenanthrene in wastewater sludge treated anaerobic digestion reactors fitted with a bioelectrode system. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 365, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Wang, X.; Xin, J.; Mengjiao, Y.M.; Zhao, F. Electron competition and electron selectivity in abiotic, biotic, and coupled systems for dechlorinating chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in groundwater: A review. Water Res. 2020, 183, 116060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Zhang, W. Nanoscale ironpParticles for environmental remediation: An overview. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2003, 5, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Zhu, H.; Seto, P.; Parker, W.J. Enhanced dark fermentative hydrogen production under the effect of zero-valent iron shavings. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 19331–19336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Ma, L.; Zhou, L.; Mbadinga, S.M.; Gu, J.-D.; Mu, B.-Z. Accelerated CO2 reduction to methane for energy by zero valent iron in oil reservoir production waters. Energy 2018, 147, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. He, C.; Lin, W.; Zheng, X.; Wang, C.; Hu, Z.; Wang, W. Synergistic effect of magnetite and zero-valent iron on anaerobic degradation and methanogenesis of phenol. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Wu, N.; Zhang, W.; Wei, W.; Yang, S.; Wang, H.; Sun, Z.; Song, Y.; Li, P.; Yang, Y. Field study of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon degradation in contaminated groundwater via micron zero-valent iron coupled with biostimulation. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 384, 123349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Xu, W.; Zhao, H.; Cao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Sheng, Y.; Li, T.; Zhou, S.; Li, H. New insights of enhanced anaerobic degradation of refractory pollutants in coking wastewater: Role of zero-valent iron in metagenomic functions. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 300, 122667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Xie, Y.; Dong, H.; Zeng, G.; Tang, L.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Deng, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y. The interactions between nanoscale zero-valent iron and microbes in the subsurface environment: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 321, 390–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Van Nooten, T.; Springael, D.; Bastiaens, L. Positive Impact of Microorganisms on the Performance of Laboratory-Scale Permeable Reactive Iron Barriers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 1680–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Kumari, B.; Singh, D. A review on multifaceted application of nanoparticles in the field of bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 97, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Zhao, Q.; Wei, F.; Luo, Y.-B.; Ding, J.; Xiao, N.; Feng, Y.-Q. Rapid Magnetic Solid-Phase Extraction Based on Magnetic Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes for the Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Edible Oils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 12794–12800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Zhang, S.; Niu, H.; Hu, Z.; Cai, Y.; Shi, Y. Preparation of carbon coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles and their application for solid-phase extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from environmental water samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 4757–4764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Wang, W.; Ma, R.; Wu, Q.; Wang, C.; Wang, Z. Magnetic microsphere-confined graphene for the extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from environmental water samples coupled with high performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1293, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Zhou, Q.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, J.; Fan, H.; Chen, C. Preparation and characterization of magnetic nanomaterial and its application for removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 371, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Sarcletti, M.; Vivod, D.; Luchs, T.; Rejek, T.; Portilla, L.; Müller, L.; Dietrich, H.; Hirsch, A.; Zahn, D.; Halik, M. Superoleophilic Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Effective Hydrocarbon Removal from Water. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1805742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Pavía-Sanders, A.; Zhang, S.; Flores, J.A.; Sanders, J.E.; Raymond, J.E.; Wooley, K.L. Robust Magnetic/Polymer Hybrid Nanoparticles Designed for Crude Oil Entrapment and Recovery in Aqueous Environments. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 7552–7561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Beller, H.R.; Grbić-Galić, D.; Reinhard, M. Microbial degradation of toluene under sulfate-reducing conditions and the influence of iron on the process. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1992, 58, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Scheme of the potential roles of different iron compounds in anaerobic degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: Fe(III) as electron acceptor (A); conductive iron oxides as electron transfer mediators in hydrocarbon conversion to methane (B); magnetic iron compounds as hydrocarbon adsorbents (C); and zero-valent iron (ZVI) as electron donor for methanogenesis (D). IRB—iron-reducing bacteria; LCFA—long chain fatty acids; VFA—volatile fatty acids; Ac—acetate; ORP—oxidation-reduction potential.
Figure 1. Scheme of the potential roles of different iron compounds in anaerobic degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: Fe(III) as electron acceptor (A); conductive iron oxides as electron transfer mediators in hydrocarbon conversion to methane (B); magnetic iron compounds as hydrocarbon adsorbents (C); and zero-valent iron (ZVI) as electron donor for methanogenesis (D). IRB—iron-reducing bacteria; LCFA—long chain fatty acids; VFA—volatile fatty acids; Ac—acetate; ORP—oxidation-reduction potential.
Microorganisms 10 02142 g001
Figure 2. Different sources and average hydrocarbon concentrations found in oily wastewater and oily sludge.
Figure 2. Different sources and average hydrocarbon concentrations found in oily wastewater and oily sludge.
Microorganisms 10 02142 g002
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the various stages (numbers 1 to 8) potentially involved in microbial hydrocarbon conversion under methanogenic conditions (grey arrows) and in the presence of iron (III) (orange arrows).
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the various stages (numbers 1 to 8) potentially involved in microbial hydrocarbon conversion under methanogenic conditions (grey arrows) and in the presence of iron (III) (orange arrows).
Microorganisms 10 02142 g003
Table 1. Typical ranges of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons in produced water (PW).
Table 1. Typical ranges of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons in produced water (PW).
Saturated HydrocarbonsBTEXPAHRef.
-0.068–578 mg L−140–3000 μg L−1[33]
-0–48 mg L−1-[34]
17–30 mg L−10.39–35 mg L−1-[35]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castro, A.R.; Martins, G.; Salvador, A.F.; Cavaleiro, A.J. Iron Compounds in Anaerobic Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: A Review. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112142

AMA Style

Castro AR, Martins G, Salvador AF, Cavaleiro AJ. Iron Compounds in Anaerobic Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: A Review. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(11):2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112142

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castro, Ana R., Gilberto Martins, Andreia F. Salvador, and Ana J. Cavaleiro. 2022. "Iron Compounds in Anaerobic Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: A Review" Microorganisms 10, no. 11: 2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112142

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop