4.7 Article

Treatment performance and microbial response to dibutyl phthalate contaminated wastewater in vertical flow constructed wetland mesocosms

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 246, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125635

关键词

Dibutyl phthalate; Microbial community; Substrate; Wetland plant

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA2304040101]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578538]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phthalic acid esters (PAEs), especially dibutyl phthalate (DBP) pollution in the environment, have attracted worldwide attention. Four Phragmites australis-based, mesocosm-scale vertical flow constructed wetlands (VFCWs) with different hydraulic loading rates (HLRs) were operated for one year to study the removal efficiency and mechanisms of DBP in the reclaimed water. The average removal efficiencies for DBP were 93.77 +/- 3.27%, 94.9 +/- 2.60% and 97.0 +/- 3.00% in the VFCWs under HLRs of 0.33, 0.22 and 0.11 m/d, respectively. DBP can be accumulated and degraded by wetland plants and its concentration in the roots (0.256-8.45 mg/kg) were higher than in the leaves (0.243-0.482 mg/kg). The concentrations of primary and secondary metabolites mono-n-butyl phthalate (MBP) and phthalic acid (PA) were 0.142 -2.35 mg/kg and 0.113-0.545 mg/kg respectively in the plant tissues. The concentrations of DBP were 38.2-271 mu g/kg in the substrates. Mass balance for DBP indicates that the estimated plant uptake and substrate adsorption of total DBP is negligible. This suggests that biodegradation and other process are the primary pathways for DBP removal in VFCWs. The results of 16S rDNA and ITS rDNA high-throughput sequencing indicated that both bacterial and fungal community diversity decreased with the exposure of DBP. Janthinobacterium, Flavobacterium and Curvularia genera may be the main participants in the biodegradation of DBP in the CWs. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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