4.7 Article

The nutrient removal and tolerance mechanism of a heterotrophic nitrifying bacterium Pseudomonas putida strain NP5 under metal oxide nanoparticles stress

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 28227-28237

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-24055-9

关键词

Heterotrophic nitrification; Nanoparticles; Cytotoxicity; Extracellular polymeric substances; Resistance mechanism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The occurrence of metal oxide nanoparticles in wastewater treatment plants raises concerns about their impact on nitrification performance. However, a heterotrophic nitrifying bacterium Pseudomonas putida strain NP5 shows strong resistance against TiO2 and NiO NPs, which helps overcome the vulnerability of the nitrification process.
The occurrence of metal oxide nanoparticles (NPs) in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) has raised great concerns about their adverse impacts on nitrification performance. In this study, a heterotrophic nitrifying bacterium Pseudomonas putida strain NP5 showed strong resistance against TiO2 and NiO NPs. Under 5-50 mg/L NP stress, cell viability was still normal, and the final nutrient removal rates, always higher than 80%, were slightly inhibited. Correspondingly, the PO43--P removal rates were almost the same as those observed in the control test. Although the enzyme assay demonstrated ammonia monooxygenase and hydroxylamine oxidoreductase activities markedly decreased caused by increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) level under 50 mg/L NPs stress. The total antioxidant capability of NP5 could eliminate excess ROS to maintain a balance between oxidants and antioxidants. Besides, in response to the escalating burden of NPs, strain NP5 tended to secrete more extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), which could protect cell from being damaged by binding to ions and coating. Thus, the strong NP resistance of NP5 would help to overcome the vulnerability of the nitrification process in WWTPs.

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