4.7 Article

Diversity of Dominant Bacterial Taxa in Activated Sludge Promotes Functional Resistance following Toxic Shock Loading

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 557-567

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-010-9783-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BES 0238858]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Examining the relationship between biodiversity and functional stability (resistance and resilience) of activated sludge bacterial communities following disturbance is an important first step towards developing strategies for the design of robust biological wastewater treatment systems. This study investigates the relationship between functional resistance and biodiversity of dominant bacterial taxa by subjecting activated sludge samples, with different levels of biodiversity, to toxic shock loading with cupric sulfate (Cu[II]), 3,5-dichlorophenol (3,5-DCP), or 4-nitrophenol (4-NP). Respirometric batch experiments were performed to determine the functional resistance of activated sludge bacterial community to the three toxicants. Functional resistance was estimated as the 30 min IC50 or the concentration of toxicant that results in a 50% reduction in oxygen utilization rate compared to a referential state represented by a control receiving no toxicant. Biodiversity of dominant bacterial taxa was assessed using polymerase chain reaction-terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-T-RFLP) targeting the 16S ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) gene. Statistical analysis of 30 min IC50 values and PCR-T-RFLP data showed a significant positive correlation (P < 0.05) between functional resistance and microbial diversity for each of the three toxicants tested. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a positive correlation between biodiversity of dominant bacterial taxa in activated sludge and functional resistance. In this system, activated sludge bacterial communities with higher biodiversity are functionally more resistant to disturbance caused by toxic shock loading.

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

4.7
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