Microbes growing in fuel – that is a new
Opinion paper
Microbial growth in
aviation fuel
Ted Hill
The author
Ted Hill is based at ECHA Microbiology Ltd, Cardiff, UK
Keywords
Petroleum products, Microbiology, Aircraft industry,
Corrosion
Abstract
Growth of microorganisms in petroleum products has been
recorded since 1895, causing fouling, malfunction and
corrosion in storage tanks, airfield equipment, pipelines,
airframes and engines. This paper considers the problems
that fuel microbes pose to the aviation industry and
discusses the International Air Transport Association
Aviation Working Group’s “Guidance Material on
Microbiological Contamination in Aircraft Fuel Tanks”.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0002-2667.htm
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 75 · Number 5 · 2003 · pp. 497–502
q MCB UP Limited · ISSN 0002-2667
DOI 10.1108/00022660310492582
497
one – or is it?
Many different microbes can feed on the
hydrocarbons in fuels and lubricants – not
surprising as there is more energy available in
a kilo of fuel than a kilo of sugar. You only
have to know how to get at it. Microbes do –
humans do not. Growth of microorganisms in
petroleum products has been recorded since
1895. Their slimy growth causes fouling and
corrosion. Microbial problems in aviation
gasoline were reported in the early 1950s and
in aviation kerosene in the late 1950s
(Figure 1). Microbial attack was noted as the
cause of wing tank corrosion in Lockheed
Electra aircraft in Australasia in 1961. Since
then there have been about 200 technical
papers published on this topic describing tank
and pipe fouling, corrosion, fuel probe
malfunction and engine failure (filter and
injector fouling, erratic and unbalanced fuel
flow, impairment of heat transfer and heat
distortion).
Some of these jet-setting microbes have
upmarket tastes. Concorde fuel tanks are
uncomfortably hot or cosily warm; a mould
called Aspergillus soon found this out and
contaminated the fuel tanks of pre-production
aircraft in the early 1970s. Fuel is not the only
microbial diet on aircraft. There have been
occasional problems in other aviation fluids
such as Skydrol. In the 1960s, nutritive dirty
water in the “bilges” of Herald aircraft in
Canada was sufficiently attractive to
encourage the growth of microbes which
attacked the airframe welds, resulting in
fatal crashes of two aircraft.
Now be a technical expert on fuel
microbes – and demand more pay
A range of microbes (microorganisms), in the
classes of bacteria, yeasts and moulds, can all
flourish in wet aviation fuel at all stages of
distribution and use. The mould Hormoconis
(Cladosporium) resinae, and to some extent the
moulds Penicillium spp. and Aspergillus spp.,
have been particularly prevalent in aircraft
fuel tanks; however, in some incidents these
moulds are not present, but bacteria and
yeasts are present. Microbes require water for
growth and they grow and reproduce in this
water, feeding on nutrients in the fuel.
Although many of them can feed directly on
 Microbial growth in aviation fuel Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Ted Hill Volume 75 · Number 5 · 2003 · 497–502

Figure 1 Heavily contaminated aviation kerosene
the formation of characteristic pits and
perforations (Figure 2). Sulphide also
dissolves in the fuel, and this fuel becomes
aggressive to steel, silver and yellow metals.
Typical symptoms of microbial
proliferation are therefore fouling,
malfunction and corrosion in storage tanks,
airfield equipment, pipelines, airframes and
engines.
Microbes in large numbers can be a threat
to human health but this hazard could only
arise during tank cleaning.

Have other industries also suffered?

Enjoy a little Schadenfreude. The Ocean

Cruising microbes are even worse than the
Jet-setters. A new 2003 book on shipboard
hydrocarbons, others feed on partly degraded
microbial growth describes operational
fuel and on fuel additives. Additives to
problems in marine diesel fuel, in crankcase,
microbes are the icing on the hydrocarbon
hydraulic and stern-tube oils, and corrosion
cake.
pits and perforations in ballast tanks, oil cargo
A few invisible but actively growing
tanks and bilge compartments. In the last few
microbes soon aggregate and become visible
years, the Ocean Cruising microbes have
in fuel and water as turbid and soft particles.
become the Trip-Around-the-Bay microbes;
They are adept at attaching to surfaces to
“diesel-bug” is causing minor epidemics of
form wet slimes. In time they spread from the
fuel system fouling in yachts and motor craft.
free water, the slimes and fuel/water interfaces
“Diesel-bug” affects trucks (including airfield
into the fuel. They particularly like living
service vehicles), cars, buses and trains, power
around fuel volume indicating probes – more
generators and even heating oil tanks. You
than a slight embarrassment as the gauges
may be unlucky enough to join the new club –
then overestimate fuel volume.
of car owners who have discovered that some
They cause direct metal corrosion (after
destroying surface coatings) by producing
Figure 2 Positive and negative Sig Sulphide tests for SRB
aggressive organic acids. Like us, they use up
oxygen and create local oxygen deficiencies
and hence create oxygen gradients; these make
electrons flow and this creates corrosion pits.
Microbes have another unwelcome trick –
they are surface active. Great reason for using
them in household detergents but bad news
for airfield filter/water separators. Not only do
these malfunction but the “bugs” can flourish
in them and can contaminate the clean fuel
passing through.
When conditions are quiescent or stagnant,
all readily available oxygen is used up and
anaerobic (oxygen hating) sulphate reducing
bacteria (SRB) can flourish. SRB do not
normally flourish in aircraft tanks in service,
as the kerosene uplifted is well oxygenated and
is replaced frequently. Anaerobic conditions
can and do occur in terminal fuel storage
tank bottom water. SRB generate the toxic,
bad-egg smelling hydrogen sulphide gas,
which attacks steel bottom plate with
498
 Microbial growth in aviation fuel
Ted Hill
clever bacteria have found out how to grow
in unleaded gasoline.
What happened next in aircraft – the
last 25 years
In the 1980s and early 1990s, microbial
problems with aviation fuel became
uncommon, partly due to the efforts of
the professional microbiologists directly
employed by all major oil companies. They
controlled quality from the refinery to the
end user and could trouble shoot as a service
for fuel users. Potential problems were
suppressed by rigorous water removal, good
housekeeping and the deployment of
anti-microbial chemicals (biocides). In recent
years, these experts have disappeared from
the major oil companies. Fuel composition
has become more variable (influencing its
susceptibility to microbial attack) and more
fuel is traded and co-mingled, making
traceability and accountability more difficult.
At the same time there have been changes in
the way fuel is distributed, dispensed and used
and housekeeping standards have possibly
slipped, particularly on airfields supporting
new routes. Significant microbial
contamination can be found spasmodically
in refineries, fuel cargoes, tank farms and
airfields. Many more incidents are occurring
on aircraft; a few microbes present in the
uplifted fuel can flourish when conditions are
favourable in the aircraft tanks. When an
operational problem occurs it is usually an
unexpected event. Early on-site
microbiological tests have been
non-quantitative, sometimes difficult to
interpret and not widely used. The alternative,
sending samples to the few competent
microbiological laboratories which exist, has
not always been practical and there is an
unavoidable time lag between sampling and
testing, during which time some microbes in
the sample could flourish and others might
die. Fortunately, microbes can now be
detected quantitatively on site and an early
warning obtained of an impending microbial
problem. Thus the opportunity now exists to
develop a new preventive strategy, based on
regular monitoring of fuel in aircraft tanks and
also during distribution. Even a few “bugs”
can be detected and these are easy to kill –
established slimy growth is difficult to kill
and necessitates tank cleaning.
499
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 75 · Number 5 · 2003 · 497–502
Now for the good news – the IATA
initiative
In the 1990s, airlines were facing an increased
number of operational incidents but were
relying on maintenance manuals which were
different for different aircraft and which
frequently advocated (or mandated) different
precautionary or corrective strategies of
differing efficacy. Confusion reigned. So in
September 2000, the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) Aviation
Fuel Working Group put together a
“Microbiological Contamination in Fuel
Tanks” Task Force to review these problems
and harmonise sampling, testing and remedial
strategies. Microbiological monitoring on site
was the key to successful anti-microbial
procedures. However, IATA recognised that
whatever the test method selected the result
would only be as good as the quality of the
sample. Sampling locations and sampling
procedures would have considerable bearing
on the results of testing and on the
interpretation of results. Given valid sampling
and good monitoring tests, preventive and
remedial measures had an excellent chance
of succeeding.
The Task Force operated as several
cooperating groups which contained
representatives from airlines, OEMs, fuel
suppliers and independent petroleum
microbiologists. Rapid progress was made
and on 1 November 2002, IATA published
“Guidance Material on Microbiological
Contamination in Aircraft Fuel Tanks”.
Some of the topics addressed in this are as
follows.
Risk factors
Relevant aircraft factors are the type of flight
operations – low altitude short haul flights
in warm, humid climates are more conducive
to microbial growth. A world high risk map
is given by IATA. Low risk aircraft are those
in high utilisation operations in which the
altitude and flight time is sufficient to cool
the fuel to deep freeze temperatures – as
unpopular with fuel microbes as to potential
food poisoning microbes in your chicken pie.
Helicopters and low utilisation aircraft are a
high risk category. Other factors are the
presence of undrainable tank space and the
quality of the fuel uplifted. Military aircraft
keep the “bugs” under control by always
using fuel containing anti-icing additives;
 Microbial growth in aviation fuel Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Ted Hill Volume 75 · Number 5 · 2003 · 497–502

in sufficiently high concentration, these are first indications of growth occurring on the
anti-microbial. aircraft. The frequency suggested is annually
for all aircraft, and much more frequently (e.g.
Housekeeping monthly) for aircraft at high risk. Limit values
It is well recognised that good housekeeping are proposed to differentiate between slight
by frequent abstraction of free water is an “background” contamination and a first
essential procedure for suppressing microbial action level which indicates the onset of actual
growth. Microbes are slightly denser than tank growth. At this stage, the simple
water and effective tank de-watering also application of a biocide should resolve
removes settled microbial aggregates. the problem. At a higher action level, tank
A procedure for draining water from aircraft cleaning will be necessary. In both cases a
tanks is laid down. confirmatory retest is recommended if an
action level has been indicated and also after
Sampling biocide use.
A testing programme and the interpretation
IATA endorses two tests for fuel phase
of test results is complicated by the way
MicrobMonitor 2 test (Air BP). This detects all
microorganisms are distributed in fuel tanks
the living microbes quantitatively (not dead
and systems. The majority of microbial
ones) in any sort of petroleum product.
growth occurs in water associated with fuel
Running time is at least 1 day (Figure 3).
and in microbial slimes (biofilms) at the
FUELSTAT resinae (Conidia Bioscience, M).
interface and on internal surfaces. Microbes
This detects the activity in aviation kerosene
are substantially present in the fuel phase as
of the mould Hormoconis resinae only, at two
a consequence of agitation, for example in
levels of contamination and within a few
aircraft tanks agitated in flight or by
minutes.
turbulence when filling aircraft tanks. Their
For testing water phase, the above two
presence in the fuel phase has direct
tests are also recommended plus the Easicult
consequences for the fuel’s fitness for
Combi Dipslide (Orion Diagnostica, Espoo,
purpose. With time, suspended microbes
Finland). Running time of this is at least 1 day.
usually settle slowly towards the tank bottom
The laboratory reference method
or the water phase. A drain sample will
recommended for fuel testing is IP 385/99.
normally be the only sample available for
testing, and this may contain both fuel and
Biocides for aircraft fuel tank
water. From this sample we have to deduce
applications
the extent, if any, of growth in the tanks.
Few fuel soluble biocides are available to the
IATA recommends drawing the sample after
aviation industry for aircraft fuel applications
settling. For an early warning indication
because of the necessity for costly airframe
and to determine the extent of microbial
proliferation in a tank, IATA recommends
Figure 3 Counting “colonies” of microbes in fuel that have grown in a
testing both fuel and water phases. A sample
MicrobMonitor 2 test
volume of at least 1 l is proposed.

Testing
Microbiological tests may be conducted to
fulfil one or more of the following objectives.
Are microbes present and if so are they
already sufficiently numerous to be causing
an observed problem?
Are anti-microbial measures required,
which measures and what is their urgency?
Is there a potential for the progressive
increase of a slight contamination until it
becomes an operational problem?
Have anti-microbial measures which have
been used been successful?
To fulfil these objectives IATA
recommends regular testing to pick up the
500
 Microbial growth in aviation fuel
Ted Hill
and engine approvals, logistics of supply,
commercial profitability and regulatory
restrictions. ASTM D 1655 (Jet A) permits
biocides as acceptable fuel additives subject
to the agreement of the fuel purchaser, who
will be concerned with airframe and engine
approvals and will consult his aircraft
maintenance manual.
IATA approves the use of two biocides,
Kathon FP 1.5 and Biobor JF. Use
concentrations, soak times and methods
of application are given. Remedial biocide
treatments are endorsed, and these are as a
response to an on-site test result on a tank
drain sample, visual appearances or
malfunction. Using preventive biocide doses
continuously (to keep clean fuel clean) is only
recommended under prescribed conditions.
Biocides cannot penetrate thick microbial
slimes and tank cleaning is necessary to
facilitate their action in heavily fouled
systems; such systems are identified by a high
test result on a tank drain sample. There is
no magic biocide concentration that always
works and IATA therefore proposes a retest
of the tanks after biocide treatment has been
completed.
Several application procedures are
described:
.
premix biocide in the refueller to the
required concentration;
.
premix biocide into small volumes of
fuel and add to the aircraft tanks during
refuelling;
.
add measured aliquots of biocide into
aircraft tanks at intervals during
refuelling;
.
blend biocide into the fuel stream with
proportion-to-flow additive injection
equipment (preferred method).
Biocides are toxic chemicals and must be used
in the appropriate national, European or
international regulatory framework. This
includes the European Biocidal Products
Directive.
Who is to blame for current problems?
First, the author, and other petroleum
microbiologists, as they have failed to get a
clear message on microbiological recognition
and control to the aviation industry. Aircraft
builders are not blameless as they have
sometimes advocated anti-microbial
procedures that are not practical or cost
effective for the airlines. Have there been any
501
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 75 · Number 5 · 2003 · 497–502
good reasons why different engine and
airframe manufacturers have different in-use
concentrations for the same biocide and
different methods of application? One reason
has been the changing technical data and
treatment recommendations which have been
published by the biocide suppliers. All of
this confusion should be resolved by the
harmonisation proposed by the new IATA
publication.
Can we also blame “super bugs” for current
problems? Microbes have only one ambition –
to produce a family as large as possible. If the
parent microbes are not keen on the
temperature, the humidity, the diet or on any
nasty chemicals which somebody showers
onto them, they will try to produce sons,
daughters and friends who are more tolerant
to these adverse conditions – unless these
parent microbes are killed – stone dead.
We must expect that any survivors growing
after any partially successful biocide
procedure will be harder to kill than their
ancestors. The industry doctrine should be no
survivors. Can this be implemented? The new
recommendations to retest after biocide
treatment and if necessary repeat the biocide
treatment should prevent the evolution of
“super bugs”.
Is that it – no more problems?
Not quite! The IATA document is based
on the best information available to it,
particularly where action limit values should
be set (based on-site test results) and on the
efficacy of the biocide treatments proposed.
Because of the lack of a substantial previous
history of on-site test results, IATA will review
their publication at appropriate intervals
with the benefit of a much bigger test result
database. It is also the intention to produce
a training CD.
But what a great step forward in such a
short time! An indirect effect may well be that
fuel suppliers will be pressed to prove that
they are supplying clean fuel, as the more
“bugs” entering the aircraft tanks means the
greater the chance of growth becoming
established there.
Further reading
Hill, E.C. (2000), “Detection and remediation of
microbial spoilage and corrosion in aviation
kerosene – from refinery to wing”, Proc.
 Microbial growth in aviation fuel
Ted Hill
7th International Conference on Stability and
Handling of Liquid Fuels, 24-29 September 2000,
(downloadable from www.echamicrobiology.co.uk),
Graz, Austria.
Hill, E.C. (Ed.) (2003), Microbes in the Marine Industry,
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and
Technology, London.
Hill, G.C. and Hill, E.C. (1994), “Harmonisation of
microbial sampling and testing methods for distillate
fuels”, Proc. 5th International Conference on
502
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 75 · Number 5 · 2003 · 497–502
Stability and Handling of Liquid Fuels, 4-7 October
1994, Rotterdam.
Institute of Petroleum (1999), Determination of the Viable
Microbial Content of Fuels and Fuel Components
Boiling Below 3908C – Filtration and Culture
Method, IP385/99, Institute of Petroleum, London.
International Air Transport Association (2002), Guidance
Material on Microbiological Contamination in
Aircraft Fuel Tanks, 1 November 2002, Montreal and
Geneva.