4.6 Article

Biofilm formation potential and chlorine resistance of typical bacteria isolated from drinking water distribution systems

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 10, 期 52, 页码 31295-31304

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0ra04985a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51608198, 61872141]
  2. Science and Technology Research Project of Education Department of Jiangxi Province [GJJ180342]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province [20161BAB216138]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biofilms are the main carrier of microbial communities throughout drinking water distribution systems (DWDSs), and strongly affect the safety of drinking water. Understanding biofilm formation potential and chlorine resistance is necessary for exploring future disinfection strategies and preventing water-borne diseases. This study investigated biofilm formation of five bacterial strains isolated from a simulated DWDS at different incubation times (24 h, 48 h, and 72 h), then evaluated chlorine resistance of 72 h incubated biofilms under chlorine concentrations of 0.3, 0.6, 1, 2, 4, and 10 mg L-1. All five bacterial strains had biofilm formation potential when incubated for 72 h. The biofilm formation potential ofAcinetobactersp. was stronger than that ofBacillus cereus,Microbacteriumsp. andSphingomonassp. were moderate, and that ofAcidovoraxsp. was weak. In contrast, the order of chlorine resistance wasBacillussp. >Sphingomonassp. >Microbacteriumsp. >Acidovoraxsp. >Acinetobactersp. Thus, the chlorine resistance of a single-species biofilm has little relation with the biofilm formation potential. The biofilm biomass is not a major factor affecting chlorine resistance. Moreover, the chlorine resistance of a single-species biofilm is highly related to the physiological state of bacterial cells, such as their ability to form spores or secrete extracellular polymeric substances, which could reduce the sensitivity of the single-species biofilm to a disinfectant or otherwise protect the biofilm.

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