4.6 Article

Adsorption and removal of bisphenol A in two types of sediments and its relationships with bacterial community

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2020.105021

关键词

Bisphenol A; Sediment; Bacterial community; Adsorption; Removal

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018B43614]
  2. Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province
  3. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse Foundation [PCRRF17028]
  4. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bisphenol A (BPA) as an endocrine-disrupting chemical has been widely detected in the aquatic environment, including Taihu Lake, China. Adsorption and bacterial removal in sediments play important roles in the fate of BPA in the aquatic environment, which might be influenced by the properties of the sediment. In this study, two types of sediments from Gonghu Bay and Meiliang Bay in the northern Taihu Lake were collected to investigate the fate of BPA in the sediments. Both sediments showed different adsorption properties to BPA. Due to the higher proportion of sand and total organic carbon (TOC) content in the Meiliang Bay sediment, its adsorption capacity was stronger than that in the Gonghu Bay sediment. Bacteria in both sediments could completely degrade BPA within 3-5 days. Based on the correlation analysis, Firmicutes and Cyanobacteria might be involved in BPA removal at the phyla level. At the genus level, Novosphingobium, Massilia, and Methylophilus were found to be related to the BPA removal in the Gonghu Bay sediment, and Acinetobacter, Bacillus and Pseudomonas were found in the Meiliang Bay sediment. The different bacterial communities might be important reasons for the different removal capacity of BPA in both sediments. The above results provide basic information for the assessment and management of BPA in the Taihu Lake, and improve the understanding of BPA removal in sediments.

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

4.6
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