Protocol for Evaluating the Biological Stability of Fuel Formulations and Their Relationship to Carbon Steel Biocorrosion
The microbial metabolism of conventional and alternative fuels can be associated with the biocorrosion of the mostly carbon steel energy infrastructure. This phenomenon is particularly acute in anaerobic sulfate-rich environments. It is therefore important to reliably assess the inherent susceptibility of fuels to anaerobic biodegradation in marine waters as well as provide a measure of the impact of this metabolism on the integrity of steel. Such an assessment of fuels is increasingly important since the exact chemical makeup of both traditional and biofuels can vary and even subtle changes have a profound impact on steel biocorrosion. Herein, we describe a simple protocol involving the incubation of carbon steel coupons in seawater under anaerobic conditions. The increased depletion of sulfate in fuel-amended seawater incubations relative to both autoclaved and fuel-unamended negative controls is monitored as a function of time. We also recommend the incorporation of a known hydrocarbon-degrading sulfate-reducing bacterium as a positive control in the assay to verify that the protocol is not predisposed to failure for unrecognized reasons. At the end of the incubation, corrosion is assessed by both coupon weight loss and a mass balance of the total iron released. Lastly, three-dimension noncontact profilometry is used to assess the degree of damage (e.g., pitting) to the coupons. The integration of the interdisciplinary approaches in this protocol allows for a critical assessment of the biological stability of both traditional and alternative fuel formulations and their potential in exacerbating biocorrosion.
Keywords:Alternative fuels Biocorrosion Biodegradation Biofuel Carbon steel Hydrocarbons Petroleum fuels Pitting Sulfate reduction
We acknowledge the financial support from the Office of Naval Research (Award no. N0001408WX20857) and the advice and expertise of the many investigators on this project who contributed to the development of this protocol.
- 12.Lee JS, Ray RI, Little BJ (2012) An investigation of anaerobic processes in fuel/natural seawater environments. Document, DTICGoogle Scholar
- 17.Conkle H, Marcum G, Griesenbrock E, Edwards E, Chauhan S (2012) Development of Surrogates of Alternative Liquid Fuels Generated from Biomass. ASC Document Number 88ABW-2012-2132Google Scholar
- 18.Hamilton LJ, Williams SA, Kamin RA, Carr MA, Caton PA, Cowart JS (2011) Renewable fuel performance in a legacy military diesel engine. Document number AIAA-2008-6412, In ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, pp. 1095–1107Google Scholar
- 19.Rodriguez B, Bartsch TM (2008) The United States Air Force’s process for alternative fuels certification. Document number AIAA-2008-6412, 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Honolulu, HI, 18—21 August 2008.Google Scholar
- 21.Sarisky-Reed V (2009) Advanced Biofuels: Infrastructure Compatible Biofuels. US Department of Energy, Ed, ed, presentation to Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee. (www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/advanced_biofuels_doejg.pdf)
- 23.Owsianiak M, Chrzanowski Ł, Szulc A, Staniewski J, Olszanowski A, Olejnik-Schmidt AK, Heipieper HJ (2009) Biodegradation of diesel/biodiesel blends by a consortium of hydrocarbon degraders: effect of the type of blend and the addition of biosurfactants. Bioresour Technol 100(3):1497–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.ASTM, G 1–03 (2003), Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating corrosion test specimens.ASTM International, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
- 32.Widdel F, Bak F (1992) Gram-negative mesophilic sulfate-reducing bacteria. In: The prokaryotes. Springer New York, pp 3352–3378Google Scholar