3.9 Article

Inhibitory Effect of Veterinary Antibiotics on Denitrification in Groundwater: A Microcosm Approach

Journal

SCIENTIFIC WORLD JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2014/879831

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Environment in Korea [172-112-011]
  2. Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) [ARQ20111700211002] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A2A4A01008205, 22A20130011002] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Veterinary antibiotics in groundwater may affect natural microbial denitrification process. A microcosm study was conducted to evaluate the influence of sulfamethazine and chlortetracycline at different concentrations (0, 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 mg/L) on nitrate reduction in groundwater under denitrifying condition. Decrease in nitrate removal and nitrite production was observed with the antibiotics. Maximum inhibition of nitrate removal was observed after seven days of incubation with 0.01 mg/L sulfamethazine (17.0%) and 1.0 mg/L chlortetracycline (15.4%). The nitrite production was inhibited with 1.0 mg/L sulfamethazine to 82.0% and chlortetracycline to 31.1%. The initial/final nitrate concentrations indicated that 0.01 mg/L sulfamethazine and 1.0 mg/L chlortetracycline were most effective in inhibiting activity of denitrifying bacteria in groundwater. After 12 days of incubation, the sulfamethazine biodegradation was observed whereas chlortetracycline was persistent. Sulfamethazine and chlortetracycline in groundwater could inhibit the growth and capability of naturally occurring denitrifying bacteria, thereby threatening nitrate pollution in groundwater.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available