the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Liquid Polymer Enhances Methanogenesis and Restructures Prokaryotic Communities in Freshwater Sediments
Abstract. The widespread use of synthetic hydrophilic polymers, such as polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), has raised concerns about their potential effects on environmental biogeochemical processes, yet their impact on sediment ecosystems remains largely unexplored. We investigated how PVP influences methane (CH4) production and prokaryotic community composition in freshwater sediments over a 56-day anoxic incubation. PVP exposure accelerated the onset of methanogenesis, increased maximum CH4 production rates, and elevated maximum CH4 concentrations. These functional changes were accompanied by shifts in bacterial communities, particularly an enrichment of fermentative Clostridia, which generate key substrates for methanogens (H₂, acetate, and formate). Nonetheless, archaeal communities, including methanogens, exhibited comparatively minor or transient responses. Mechanistically, enhanced CH4 production likely resulted from a combination of increased substrate availability, altered redox microenvironments, and indirect reductions in competing electron acceptors. Our results suggest that PVP modifies sediment carbon cycling through complex microbial, biogeochemical, and physical interactions rather than direct toxicity to methanogens. These findings highlight the need to consider both chemical and physical effects of synthetic hydrophilic polymers on sediment microbial ecosystems and greenhouse gas emissions, and they underscore the importance of targeted studies to quantify these impacts in natural environments.
- Preprint
(1872 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1543 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 May 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1216', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Apr 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 143 | 67 | 15 | 225 | 25 | 10 | 17 |
- HTML: 143
- PDF: 67
- XML: 15
- Total: 225
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I very much appreciate the motivation behind this paper and think that the introduction reads quite nicely. However, the paper only contains 2 main text figures, which I do think is insufficiently short to tell a compelling mechanistic story as the authors are intending to do per the discussion. While I certainly see value in this experiment, I do not think the paper shows enough as written – to me, it reads as an introduction to a list of hypotheses instead of actually a demonstration mechanism, and the discussion/conclusion emphasizes those hypotheses over analysis of the data in hand. I think follow up experimentation/laboratory analyses on these reactors could be extremely beneficial to help support the ideas that are put forth in the discussion, to strengthen the merits of the study on its own accord. The bones of a good experimental paper are here, but as it currently stands, I do not think there is sufficient data or analysis to warrant publication currently.
Specific comments:
Introduction: I think this section reads very well!
Methods:
Results:
Discussion