UCA_A4_A3_day45

Tube in darkness
We can see that there's air due to the fact that there was too much sustrat and microorganisms have produced CH4 .
In this column all is dark, it has anaerobic bacteriums.

Tube in light
We can see that in the surface, the tube has turned to light brown due to the presence of aerobic bacteriums.

When we compared both columns, we can see that only in the light column has appeared an extract light brown. Therefore, we deduce that the microorganisms that have grown there, are photosyntetic.

 Darkness                                                                                                           Light

UCA_4B_3B_day44

San Pedro's River sediment + 0.3 g paper + 0.1 g CaSO4

Group 3B: Alvaro Lucero Garófano and José Luis Hernández Fernández.

Group 4B: Paula Gilabert Prieto and Pilar Grosso Rodríguez.

Did you miss us? No problem, we are back again to show you the evolution of  ours Winogradsky's columns after 44 days 

We can appreciate several changes in both columns.

The column 3B, which was in contact with the light has developed different changes.

Firsly, all bacterias which has grown in the column are photosyntetic bacterias due to the fact that they are in contact with light. Then we can classify this bacterias in two groups.

Aerobic bacterias and anaerobic bacterias.

The aerobics bacterias are on the top of the column because all the oxygen of the column are on the top. 

Also we must emphasize that there are a gradient of oxygen in the column, and the more it descends in the column, the less oxygen are in it. The bacterias which are at the bottom maybe can use the sulphate as the last one who accepts electrons. So this is the reason why has grown bacterias in a different colour at the bottom.

The surface which has been in contact with light is lighter than those surface which has not been in contact with it. 

The column 4B, which was in the darkness has developed some changes.

First of all, we can see that  there are a gradrient of oxygen in the column again, so at the bottom has grown anaerboic bacterias.

the difference with the other column is that in this one has grown chemosyntetic organisms, so the colour of this column is darker than the other one. 

Finally, Ours firts ideas of what could happen, are being succesful with our result

3B

4B

 

UCA_5A_6A_7A: Day 44 Winogradsky column´s evolution after a month

Winogradsky column´s evolution after a month:

We are back again, and now, we are going to show the changes in our columns:

5A Winogradsky Column:

The group 5A let his Winogradsky column in an illuminated environment, and after one month, we can observe that there is a colour variation at the top of the test tube because it has acquired a red tonality in the liquid part. The solid part doesn't have colouring. It is quite reasonable, since we put a lot of N and S sources into the tube, therefore, there are a lot of anaerobic bacterias, which are responsible of the colour variation. Since the amount of anaerobic organisms is incredibly big, there aren't any kind of  aerobic organisms in our test tube.

6A Winogradsky Column:

The group 6A let his Winogradsky column in a dark environment, and after approximately 30 days, the column is a little bit darker. But it continues with a little brown part at the bottom, we think it's because there aren't too many nutrients, or it will be because in that zone has grown another variety of bacteria. Throughout the column we can observe various black points and it could be accumulations of bacteria.

7A Winogradsky Column:

The group 7A let his Winogradsky column in an illuminated environment. We have observed changes after a month. The side of the column, in which the light does not reach, has a grey colour produced by anaerobic bacterias. Also, the column has a red colour in the middle. We think it may be produced by aerobic bacterias, which produce a substance with this colour. Secondly, we noticed more bubbles produced with the CH4 that bacterias expel out. Finally, we conclude with a general development of aerobic and anaerobic bacterias through the column along this month, in a way that we expected.

6A Winogradsky Column

7A Winogradsky Column

5A Winogradsky Column

UCA_3C, 4C_1: Day 1. Column’s preparation.

Materials:

- 20 g of Rio San Pedro’s sediment.

- Destilled water/sea water (group 4) and sea water (group 3).

- 0,3 grammes of filter paper (both groups)

- 0,1 grammes of CaSO4 and 0,3 grammes of SO4- (group 3)

- 100 grammes of sand.

Objectives.

The objective of this experiment is to recognise the different microorganisms depending on their metabolism, nutrition, etc. For that, we choose the nutrients and environment of the column depending on the microorganisms that we want to benefit.

Preparation:

We add 20 grammes of Rio san pedro’s sediment in a plastic recipient. With the purpose of getting it viscous, we mix it with some water. Each group add their chosen products (paper, sulfate…), and we keep mixing and adding water until necessary. We achieve a thick mass that we can get into the tube with the help of a funnel. Then we hit it softly so the sediment will go down on the tube, and the trapped bubbles go away. We mark the tube to indicate the level of the preparation, so we know where the nutrients are.

We prepare another mix with 20 grammes of sediment, 100 grammes of sand and some water, and we put it into the tube. On the top of the column, we add some more water (2 cm).

Hypothesis

We think that , in the column with only filter paper, are going to grow the chemoorganoheterotroph organisms, and, in the other hand, in the column with sulfate, are going to grow the chemolithoheterotroph organisms.

UCA_8B,7B_Day 8

Winnogradsky column - Day 8

Group B8(Laura Lucena Del Amo, Noelia Moares Fernández)
GroupB7(Pablo Lucas Ezequiel Garin Ortega, Alba Mejías Gallardo)

We are back one week later to discuss about the changes that we have observed in both columns, the column exposed to sunlight (B8) and the column kept in darkness in which we added glucose (B7).

In the column exposed to sunlight (B8), which had Rio San Pedro sediment + 0.3 g paper + 0.1 g CaSO4, we find these characteristics:

• The column is darker in the bottom, with black sediments. This probably is caused by the FeS precipitate, produced by anaerobic microorganisms from Fe (provided by the Rio San Pedro sediment) and SO4 (from the CaSO4). 
• The top of the tube is much lighter than the bottom, due to the proliferation of photoautotroph microorganisms. These organisms produce O2, which helps keeping a gradient of oxygen.
• Because of this gradient of oxygen aerobic microorganisms will grow close to the top of the column and anaerobic microorganisms will grow in the bottom.
• There are a few of little bubbles in the column, they may be bubbles of N2 (from the sediment) as well as bubbles of H2S (mostly in the bottom).
• The main difference observed this week is that we can perceive two different sides of the tube in the middle:

1. One side lighter ( with an orange hue), this is the side exposed to sunlight. The explanation of this phenomenon is based in the fact that there might have proliferated photoorganoheterotrophic bacteria in the medium.
2. The other side is darker, the same that we observed last week. There might be chemoorganoheterotroph microorganisms.

While in the B7 tube, kept in darkness (absence of light) and in which we added Rio San Pedro sediment + 0.3 g paper + 0.1 g CaSO4 + glucose, we find these changes:

• This week's column is way darker than the last one due to the breathing of the H₂S reacting with Fe²⁺ and obtaining HFe, which gives the black tone. This reaction is produced by anaerobic microorganisms. The Fe²⁺ comes from the sediment of San Pedro river, and the H₂S is caused by the fermentation of present sugar in the column.
• Many small bubbles appear, we think that these bubbles are formed by CO2 and CH4 probably due to the fermentation of the chemo-heterotrophs microorganisms.
• The main difference observed this week is:

1. There aren´t accumulation of fumes and it has been generated a layer of dirty water on the top. In this water seems to have been suspended micro-organisms, although it may also be sediment of San Pedro river.

UCA_GRUPOA1_ENTRADA1

In the A2 group's winogradsky column we added agar, yeast extract and skimmed milk powder. All this apart from the basic components: mud, sand, celullose and CaCO4.
We put this column to light. We have to see the differences between this column and the A1 group's column which have different components and is put to light too.

About column A2 we expect the appereance of  microorganisms able to demean lactose.

UCA_8B,7B_Day 7

Winogradsky column – Day 7

Group B8 (Laura Lucena Del Amo and Noelia Moares Fernández) 
Group B7(Pablo Lucas Ezequiel Garín Ortega and Alba Mejías Gallardo)

One week after the preparation of the Winogradsky column, both groups have observed significant changes in our columns.

The changes of the group B7 (column in darkness) are described with details below:

• We observed a huge amount of black sediments spread all over tube. This is caused by the reaction of H2S with Fe²⁺ resulting in HFe that presents a black color. This reaction is produced by anaerobic microorganisms. The Fe²⁺ comes from the sediment of San Pedro river, and the H2S is caused by the fermentation of present sugar in the column.
• Many small bubbles appear, but there is a big bubble of gas that has separated in two the column. We think that these bubbles are formed by CO2 and CH4 probably due to the fermentation of the chemo-heterotrophs microorganisms.
• we think that in the zones with lighter colors, the microorganisms chemo-heterotrophs haven't proliferated.

After the observation of the tube, we have provoked the exit of the gas bubble to prevent the spillage.

Now, we will explain closely the changes observed in the tube exposed to sunlight of group B8:

• In the bottom of the column, we can observe an accumulation of black sediments. This indicates the proliferation of microorganisms able to breathe SO4^- and make the reactions commented previously in this zone.
• Also, we see bubbles in the middle of the colums. This gas may be N2 or H2S. We think that a part from these bubbles are formed by the sugar fermentation of micoorganisms chemoheterotrophs.
• In the top of the column, we see a fine laver of lighter color. It can be provoked by photoautrophic microorganisms (anaerobic). They provide oxygen to the rest of the tube, creating a gradient of oxygen. Due to this fact, we will find aerobic organisms close to the top and anaerobic microoorganisms in the bottom.

Finally, we return the columns to their previous places and we'll wait for new changes in next week.

Winogadsky column. Day 7. UCA B1 B2

Hello everyone, we´re back a week later to check the progress of  our columns.

As we can see in the image, there are significant differences between both columns:
    - The column that had the teaspoon of salt didsfavoured the growth of microorganisms, maybe because of the osmosis.
    - In the column that hadn´t the salt we could appreciate a larger dark area at the bottom which is caused by microorganisms so we could say that they grew better in this column.


As we mentioned in the last blog  entry, both of our columns were exposed to sunlight so that it wasn´t a variable. It was done in this way so we could see how the salt affects the growth of microorganisms. 

Winogradsky column. Day 0. UCA B1 B2

Hello, we are groups B1 and B2 and we are going to explain how we made a Winogradsky column experiment.

       First of all, we added 20g of mud in our test tube. Later we mixed the mud with a little bit of San Pedro´s river water trying to get a viscous texture. The next step was adding 0,3g of paper and 0,1g of CaCO3. We prepared a 100g of sand and 20g of mud mix and we cleaned the test tube edges. In this moment wee got a 2 cm layer of water.

Hypothesis: The aim of this experiment is checking how the concentration of salt affects to microorganisms. For this, one group prepared a Wingardsky column without salt and the other group added a teaspoon of salt. Both columns were exposed to the sunlight.

Winogradsky column. Day 0. UCA C2 C1

Helo! We are Rafael Pardo Velasco, Jaime Pérez Leiva, Blanca Ruiz Alonso, María Oliva Pareja González, Covadonga Muñoz Raya and Lorena Rodríguez Rivero! We will explain how we have made our Winogradsky column!

We have made our Winogradsky colum with:

Rio San Pedro sediment, 0,5g of CaCO₃ and filter paper.

That colum has been made for this way:

- We put 20g of sediment and much water in a plastic container. When all the compounds became viscous, we put it in a test tube, covering ⅓ of it.

- We put slowly 0,5g of CaCO₃ and much filter paper inside the tube. Before we had mixed them without introducing air bubbles.

- We carefuly hit the tube to send the sediment to the botton of the tube and to catch all the air bubbles.

-We washed the plastic container.

- We mixed 100g of sand and 20g of sediment without enriching.

- We repeated the third step and cleaned the tube borders.

- We waited for until all the compounds proned.

- A water layer was formed on the top of the tube.

Observations:

Because of the addition of the filter paper and the CaCO3, we have created an environment that is enriched in CO2, furthermore, mixing all the compounds of our column, have ensured a fast diffusion of nutrients and gases inside the tube, so gradients are more widespread.

We made two Winogradsky columns for the same way to study the influence of light on them, putting one of our columns in light and the other in darkness. We supose that, in the column that we have put in darkness, it will inhibit the growth of photoautotrophic microorganisms. So, that column will only depend on quimioautotrophic microoorganisms, that pick up its energy of carbonated and sulfurated compounds. The other column will depend on light too.