Impact of Preservation Method, Storage Temperature, and Processing Time on Microbiological Community Shift in Solid Samples Collected from Crude Oil Transmission Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microbiological monitoring of samples collected from oilfield operations is crucial for understanding microbial impacts on metal infrastructure. As many oilfields and related infrastructure are in remote locations, the time between sample collection, shipping to laboratory and sample processing for microbiological analysis can vary from days to weeks. Hence, robust sample handling and preservation methodology to arrest microbiological activity at the time of sample collection is needed. To identify the best preservation methodologies that can be adopted for solids, oily sludge samples were collected twice from the nose of the same pig trap during a routine pipeline pigging operation of a crude oil transmission pipeline over a span of two years. Samples were chemically preserved at the time of sample collection (with different alcohols or commercially available nucleic acid preservation reagents) or remained unpreserved, and all samples were stored either at 4°C or at room temperature following collection. Samples were assessed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing to determine microbial community composition at day 0 (time of sample collection) and at different intervals for up to 50 days of storage, and comparisons in microbial community composition were made to the day 0 results. A substantial shift in microbial community composition was observed in samples that were not chemically preserved or not kept cold at 4°C in as little as 7 days following sludge collection. In addition, greater microbial diversity and community shift was observed in samples kept at room temperature compared to cold storage. Chemical preservation reagents showed varying efficacies at preserving microbial community composition with increased lengths of storage. These results emphasize the need for careful sample preservation and handling of sludge samples for accurate monitoring of microbial communities, an analysis that can play a pivotal role in the early identification of potentially corrosive microorganisms during the routine inspection of pipelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".