4.6 Article

E. coli CB390 as an Indicator of Total Coliphages for Microbiological Assessment of Lime and Drying Bed Treated Sludge

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13131833

关键词

biosolids; domestic wastewater; heavy metals; microbiological indicators; sewage sludge; total coliphages; wastewater treatment plant

资金

  1. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia [20073, 009583]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of CB390 strain allows for evaluation of total coliphages in various environmental samples, with successful recovery in solid and semi-solid samples. Treatment in drying beds can improve microbiological quality but results are influenced by WWTP infrastructure and monitoring.
The use of a single host strain that allows for an evaluation of the levels of total coliphages in any type of environmental sample would facilitate the detection of and reduction in complexity and costs, favoring countries or areas with technical and economic limitations. The CB390 strain is a candidate for this type of simultaneous determinations, mainly in water samples. The objective of the study was to establish the recovery capacity of the CB390 strain in solid and semi-solid samples and to evaluate the microbiological quality of the sludge generated and stabilized by lime and drying beds in two WWTPs in Colombia. The results of both matrices indicated that CB390 recovered similar numbers of total coliphages (p > 0.05) against the two host strains when evaluated separately. Only the drying bed treatment was able to reduce between 2.0 and 2.9 Log(10) units for some microorganisms, while the addition of lime achieved a maximum reduction of 1.3 Log(10) units for E. coli. In conclusion, the CB390 strain can be used in solid and semi-solid samples, and the treatment in a drying bed provided a product of microbiological quality. However, the results are influenced by the infrastructure of the WWTP, the treatment conditions, and the monitoring of the stabilization processes.

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