4.7 Article

Revealing the role of algae in algae enhanced bacteria consortia for municipal wastewater treatment: Performance, characteristics, and microbial pathways

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.103640

关键词

Algae enhanced bacteria consortia; Municipal wastewater treatment; Microbial populations; Metabolism pathway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study comprehensively explored the characteristics, treatment performance, and microbial pathways of algae enhanced bacteria consortia (AEBC) process for municipal wastewater treatment. The results showed that AEBC had better settling performance, more extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), and excellent pollutant removal rates. However, the synergistic effect between algae and bacteria dramatically altered the abundance of denitrifying bacteria. Trebouxiophyceae were the dominant eukaryotic algae and Amt, NirBD, and 6.3.1.2 enzymes were involved in nitrogen metabolism.
Algae enhanced bacteria consortia (AEBC) process was configured for municipal wastewater treatment. However, the effect of how algae on the AEBC and its interaction is still unclear. In this study, characteristics, treatment performance, and the corresponding microbial pathways were comprehensively explored with different algae addition. Results showed that AEBC had better settling performance, more extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), and excellent pollutant removal rates, while the synergistic effect between algae and bacteria dramatically altered the abundance of denitrifying bacteria. It was found that 77.15 % of C, 63.22 % of N, and 82.54 % of P were removed by AEBC. Trebouxiophyceae were the dominant eukaryotic algae, as well as Saccharimonadales, Propionibacteriaceae, Propioniciclava, and Micropruina being the major organisms in AEBC. The enzymes Amt, NirBD, and 6.3.1.2 involved in nitrogen metabolism indicated that biomass uptake was responsible for nitrogen removal. In general, the AEBC process is a promising method for wastewater treatment.

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