World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 1943–1949 | Cite as

Phenol and n-alkanes (C12 and C16) utilization: influence on yeast cell surface hydrophobicity

  • Łukasz Chrzanowski
  • Katarzyna Bielicka-Daszkiewicz
  • Mikołaj Owsianiak
  • Andreas Aurich
  • Ewa Kaczorek
  • Andrzej Olszanowski
Original Paper

Abstract

This study was focused on the role of two types of diametrically different carbon sources, n-alkanes represented by a mixture of dodecane–hexadecane, and phenol on modification of the cell surface hydrophobicity. Capabilities of using either solely hydrocarbons or hydrocarbons in the mixture with phenol as well as phenol itself by yeast species Candida maltosa, Yarrowia lipolytica and Pichia guilliermondii were investigated. Studies were complemented by cell biomass formation measurements. The corresponding cell surface hydrophobicity was assessed by microbial adhesion to the hydrocarbon test (MATH). Degradation of phenol was examined using GC-SPE technique, whereas hydrocarbons were extracted prior to gravimetric determination. Results obtained indicated that the hydrophobic or hydrophilic nature of the carbon source had significant influence on the cell surface hydrophobicity. Although the results differed for some individual yeast strains, the generalization can be made that there is the correlation between the best hydrocarbon and phenol degradation and corresponding cell wall properties of the yeast examined.

Keywords

Biodegradation Hydrophobicity n-Alkanes Phenol Yeast 

Abbreviations

MATH

Microbial adhesion to the hydrocarbon

PUM

P—Phosphor, U—Urea, M—Magnesium buffer

References

  1. Atlas RM (1981) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons; an environmental perspective. Microbiol Rev 45:180–209Google Scholar
  2. Behrens U, Weißbrodt E, Lehmann W (1978) Zur kinetik der Citronensäurebildung bei Candida lipolytica. Z Allg Mikrobiol 18:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielicka-Daszkiewicz K, Dębicka M, Voelkel A (2004) Comparison of three derivatization ways in the separation of phenol and hydroquinone from water samples. J Chromatogr A 1052:233–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos P, de Bruyn JC (1973) The significance of hydrocarbon assimilation in yeast identification. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 39:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng K, Lin Y, Chen W, Liu Y (2002) Degradation of phenol by PAA-immobilized Candida tropicalis. Enzyme Microb Technol 31:490–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fialkova A, Boschke E, Bley T (2004) Rapid monitoring of the biodegradation of phenol like compounds by the yeast Candida maltosa using BOD measurements. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 54:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heipieper HJ, Loffeld B, Keweloh H, de Bont JAM (1995) The cis/trans isomerization of unsaturated fatty acids in Pseudomonas putida S12: an indicator for environmental stress due to organic compounds. Chemosphere 30:1041–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hofmann KH, Schauer F (1988) Utilization of phenol by hydrocarbon assimilating yeasts. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 54:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kiyohara H, Nago K, Yana K (1982) Rapid screen for bacteria degrading water-insoluble, solid hydrocarbons on agar plates. Appl Environ Microbiol 43:454–457Google Scholar
  10. Lahav R, Fareleira P, Nejidat A, Abeliovich A (2002) The identification and characterization of osmotolerant yeast isolates from chemical wastewater evaporation ponds. Microb Ecol 43:388–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu Y, Woon KH, Yang SF, Tay JH (2002) Influence of phenol on cultures of acetate-fed aerobic granular sludge. Lett Appl Microbiol 35:162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Margesin R, Schinner F (1997) Effect of temperature on oil degradation by a psychrotrophic yeast in liquid culture and in soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 24:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall KC (1991) The importance of studying microbial cell surfactants. In: Mozes N (ed) Microbial cell surface analysis, 1st edn. Wiley-VCH PublishersGoogle Scholar
  14. Miyoshi M (1895) Die durchbohrung von membranen durch pilzfäden. Jahrb Wiss Bot 28:269–289Google Scholar
  15. Olivera NL, Commendatore MG, Delgado O, Esteves JL (2003) Microbial characterization and hydrocarbon biodegradation potential of natural bilge waste microflora. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 30:542–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pijanowska A, Kaczorek E, Chrzanowski Ł, Olszanowski A (2007) Cell hydrophobicity of Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp. bacteria and hydrocarbon biodegradation in the presence of Quillaya saponin. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 23:677–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenberg M, Gutnick D, Rosenberg E (1980) Adherence of bacteria to hydrocarbons: a simple method for measuring cell-surface hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 9:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitz C, Goebel I, Wagner S, Vomberg A, Klinner U (2000) Competition between n-alkane-assimilating yeasts and bacteria during colonization of sandy soil microcosms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 54:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spencer J, Ragout de Spencer A, Laluce C (2002) Non-conventional yeast. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 58:147–156Google Scholar
  20. Walker JD, Collwell RR (1976a) Measuring potential activity of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 31:189–197Google Scholar
  21. Walker JD, Collwell RR (1976b) Enumeration of petroleum-degrading microorganism. Appl Environ Microbiol 31:198–207Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Łukasz Chrzanowski
    • 1
  • Katarzyna Bielicka-Daszkiewicz
    • 1
  • Mikołaj Owsianiak
    • 1
  • Andreas Aurich
    • 2
  • Ewa Kaczorek
    • 1
  • Andrzej Olszanowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Chemical Technology and EngineeringPoznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  2. 2.Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Centre for Environmental Biotechnology (UBZ)LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations