4.2 Article

Enrichment, isolation and identification of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria from sulfide removing bioreactor

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 1393-1399

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60179-X

关键词

sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (SOB); thiosulfate-oxidizing; microbial community; enrichment; isolation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21076090, 21276099]
  2. Specialized Research Found for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20120172120045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (SOB) are the main microorganisms that participate in the natural sulfur cycle. To obtain SOB with high sulfur-oxidizing ability under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, aerobic and anaerobic enrichments were carried out. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) profiles showed that the microbial community changed according to the thiosulfate utilization during enrichments, and Rhodopseudomonas and Halothiobacillus were the predominant bacteria in anaerobic enrichment and aerobic enrichment, respectively, which mainly contributed to the thiosulfate oxidization in the enrichments. Based on the enriched cultures, six isolates were isolated from the aerobic enrichment and four isolates were obtained from the anaerobic enrichment. Phylogenetic analysis suggested the 16S rRNA gene of isolates belonged to the genus Acinetobacter, Rhodopseudomonas, Pseudomonas, Halothiobacillus, Ochrobactrum, Paracoccus, Thiobacillus, and Alcaligenes, respectively. The tests suggested isolates related to Halothiobacillus and Rhodopseudomonas had the highest thiosulfate oxidizing ability under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, respectively; Paracoccus and Alcaligenes could aerobically and anaerobically oxidize thiosulfate. Based on the DGGE and thiosulfate oxidizing ability analysis, Rhodopseudomonas and Halothiobacillus were found to be the main SOB in the sulfide-removing reactor, and were responsible for the sulfur-oxidizing in the treatment system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据