4.5 Article

Isolation, screening, and crude oil degradation characteristics of hydrocarbons-degrading bacteria for treatment of oily wastewater

期刊

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 78, 期 12, 页码 2626-2638

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2019.025

关键词

hydrocarbons-degrading bacteria; isolation; oily wastewater; treatment

资金

  1. Training Program for Innovative Research Team in Tianjin Institutions of Higher Education [TD13-5021]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21677065]
  3. Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Public Research Institutes [TKS160113]
  4. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2015DFA90250]
  5. Science and Technology Development Foundation of Universities of Tianjin [20110904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to isolate hydrocarbons-degrading bacteria for treatment of oily wastewater from long-standing petroleum-polluted sediments in Bohai Bay, China. Six hydrocarbons-degrading bacteria were screened and identified as Pseudomonas sp. and Bacillus sp. A new approach using a combination of various bacterial species in petroleum biodegradation was proposed and evaluated for its degradation characteristics. Gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) analysis showed that mixed bacterial agents (YJ01) degraded 80.64% of crude oil and 76.30% of crude oil alkanes, exhibiting good biodegradation effect. Besides, after 14 days of culture, the biodegradation assessment markers, pristane and phytane, showed significant degradation rates of 46.75% and 78.23%, respectively. Kinetic analysis indicated that the degradation trends followed a single first-order kinetics model and the degradation half-life (t(1/2)) of 15 g/L crude oil was significantly shorter (5.48 days). These results indicated that YJ01 could degrade a wider range of hydrocarbons as well as some recalcitrant hydrocarbon components, and can be applied for bioremediation and treatment of oil-contaminated environment.

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

4.5
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