Talk:Iron-oxidizing bacteria

Biology

Is it worth adding more to this article on the biology of Fe-oxidising bacteria? Seems to be mostly about prevention in water systems at present... Master gopher (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a referenced section on biochemical habitat. Thewellman (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would advocate for using the more precise term, iron-oxidizing bacteria, throughout this page rather than simply iron bacteria, which is how all scientific literature and most related Wikipedia articles refer to it (see Chemotroph as an example). Simply referring to iron bacteria creates confusion between iron-reducing bacteria and iron-oxidizing bacteria, which are two entirely separate classes of bacteria. Divemast (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the concept, but page movement may have been premature. I suggest discussion to devise a format which will retain the ability of laymen to readily find information about the chemolithotrophs whose visually distinctive deposits of iron oxide are widely encountered in water supplies, plumbing fixtures, laundry stains, and environmental situations leading to bog iron deposits. While the dissimilatory metal-reducing bacteria may be equally significant from a biological standpoint, I suggest public interest will be significantly less than the former category. Perhaps a disambiguation note at the top of this article would be preferable to a See Also note buried at the end of the article; and a disambiguation page at the new name might be preferable to routing those interested in the iron-reducing species. Thewellman (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a case of conflict between how the topic is referred to in an engineering context vs. a scientific context. Although I realize the term ″iron bacteria″ has been widely used in the past, Google Scholar indicates that ″iron-oxidizing bacteria″ has been used far more frequently in the last 15 years as other types of iron-metabolizing bacteria have been discovered. So perhaps the broader term is a bit dated now? I also would argue that using the more specific term is more suitable in terms of providing encyclopedic information, even if it doesn't appeal quite as much to public interest. I suggest that both the microbiological and geochemical aspects as well as the engineering aspects of public interest can be described under different headings. Note that I I removed a large portion of the text on plagiarism grounds as it was copied directly from a Minnesota Dept. of Health brochure. Perhaps somebody with expertise in this area can summarize this information without the "how-to" components. More primary sources in this area would also help. Alternatively, maybe a separate article on bacterially produced iron deposits in water supply structures and in nature could be created in addition to the article about the bacteria themselves? Divemast (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Shock chlorination

The recommendation to use 1000 mg/L of chlorine for shock chlorination is an obsolete one. Too much chlorine can change the pH and make the chlorination treatment less effective than it could be. A concentration of 200 mg/L is recommended for treatment of iron bacteria. For fecal coliform contamination a dose of 50 mg/L could be used. To deal with the slime that builds up and blocks the pores of the well screen and poses problems for the distribution system an acid should be used in combination with the chlorine. Information about this can be found at the following address. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/wwg411?opendocument This address does not contain updated information about the use of acid (vinegar). The address may be updated in the future.

Iron bacteria on Mars

The section about iron bacteria on Mars appears to be largely conjecture with some theoretical basis; but neglecting major temperature and chemical concentration issues about Martian iron bacteria habitat. In the absence of objections, I propose to move the section to the talk page until reference citations are provided.Thewellman (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This section is in storage until a reference citation can be provided.Thewellman (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fe₂O₃ makes up a large portion of Martian rocks and is, in fact, the reason why Mars is distinctly reddish in color. Because of the abundance of Fe₂O₃ in Martian rocks, the forward reaction that forms Fe(OH)₂ and oxygen gas will be highly favorable provided two conditions are met: first, that there is surface or subsurface water in the liquid phase and second, that there is a source of organic material that acts as the reducing agent. If life does not exist on Mars, meaning that the latter condition is not met, organic material (i.e. biomass) can be sent to Mars via spacecraft in addition to colonies of live iron bacteria in order to initiate the evolution of O₂.

Perhaps an expert can address hydrothermal vents, early life, etc?

This has some great info but seems like stub, from what (very) little I know if the topic. Would a section on their presence in hydrothermal vents, including evidence of quite early life, & possibly first occured, in such environments be appropriate? Sample ref: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1536298/1/Dodd_et_al_2017_Nature_accepted.pdf Fitzhugh (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Iron-oxidizing bacteria require unreacted oxygen, thought to have been essentially absent in the reducing environment of early earth history until cyanobacteria produced oxygen through photosynthesis. I suggest potential early micro-environments favoring both species might better be described here, here or here with links to or from this article. Thewellman (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)