Electrobiocorrosion by microbes without outer‐surface cytochromes

Abstract

Abstract Anaerobic microbial corrosion of iron‐containing metals causes extensive economic damage. Some microbes are capable of direct metal‐to‐microbe electron transfer (electrobiocorrosion), but the prevalence of electrobiocorrosion among diverse methanogens and acetogens is poorly understood because of a lack of tools for their genetic manipulation. Previous studies have suggested that respiration with 316L stainless steel as the electron donor is indicative of electrobiocorrosion, because, unlike pure Fe0, 316L stainless steel does not abiotically generate H2 as an intermediary electron carrier. Here, we report that all of the methanogens (Methanosarcina vacuolata, Methanothrix soehngenii, and Methanobacterium strain IM1) and acetogens (Sporomusa ovata and Clostridium ljungdahlii) evaluated respired with pure Fe0 as the electron donor, but only M. vacuolata, Mx. soehngenii, and S. ovata were capable of stainless steel electrobiocorrosion. The electrobiocorrosive methanogens required acetate as an additional energy source in order to produce methane from stainless steel. Cocultures of S. ovata and Mx. soehngenii demonstrated how acetogens can provide acetate to methanogens during corrosion. Not only was Methanobacterium strain IM1 not capable of electrobiocorrosion, but it also did not accept electrons from Geobacter metallireducens, an effective electron‐donating partner for direct interspecies electron transfer to all methanogens that can directly accept electrons from Fe0. The finding that M. vacuolata, Mx. soehngenii, and S. ovata are capable of electrobiocorrosion, despite a lack of the outer‐surface c‐type cytochromes previously found to be important in other electrobiocorrosive microbes, demonstrates that there are multiple microbial strategies for making electrical contact with Fe0.

Keywords

• acetogen
• corrosion
• Fe0
• methanogen
• stainless steel