4.8 Article

Incorporating microbial ecology into the metabolic modelling of polyphosphate accumulating organisms and glycogen accumulating organisms

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 17, 页码 4992-5004

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.071

关键词

Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR); Metabolic model; Polyphosphate accumulating organism (PAO); Glycogen accumulating organism (GAO); Activated sludge model (ASM); Ecophysiology

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/30800/2006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) process, the competition between polyphosphate accumulating organisms (PAO) and glycogen accumulating organisms (GAO) has been studied intensively in recent years by both microbiologists and engineers, due to its important effects on phosphorus removal performance and efficiency. This study addresses the impact of microbial ecology on assessing the PAO GAO competition through metabolic modelling, focussing on reviewing recent developments, discussion of how the results from molecular studies can impact the way we model the process, and offering perspectives for future research opportunities based on unanswered questions concerning PAO and GAO metabolism. Indeed, numerous findings that are seemingly contradictory could in fact be explained by the metabolic behaviour of different sub-groups of PAOs and/or GAOs exposed to different environmental and operational conditions. Some examples include the glycolysis pathway (i.e. Embden-Meyerhof-Pamas (EMP) vs. Entner-Doudoroff (ED)), denitrification capacity, anaerobic tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle activity and PAOs' ability to adjust their metabolism to e.g. a GAO-like metabolism. Metabolic modelling may further yield far-reaching influences on practical applications as well, and serves as a bridge between molecular/biochemical research studies and the optimisation of waste-water treatment plant operation. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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