4.3 Article

Effects of antibiotics on characteristics and microbial resistance of aerobic granules in sequencing batch reactors

期刊

DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT
卷 57, 期 18, 页码 8252-8261

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2015.1024746

关键词

Antibiotics; Antibiotic resistance genes; Swine wastewater; Aerobic granules

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program [2011AA060902]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51308523]
  3. Science and Technology Program of Ningbo [2013A610178, 2014A610099]
  4. Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Fujian [2014J01214]
  5. State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Microorganism Application and Risk Control [SMARC2013D010]
  6. Major Technology Project of Fujian [2013YZ0001-1-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The response of characteristics and microbial resistance of aerobic granules to sulfamethazine, oxytetracycline, and ciprofloxacin at ppb level in swine wastewater was investigated in this study. Results showed that no significant changes in physical strength, average granules size, and settling property of aerobic granules were observed with target antibiotics exposure (p>0.05). However, compared to the control group, the protein/polysaccharide ratio and zeta potential of aerobic granules in treatment groups showed a higher level (p<0.05). Meanwhile, the specific removal rates of organics and ammonia nitrogen in reactors with antibiotics addition all decreased greatly, and the inhibition rates of those were 21-29% and 35-42%, respectively. In terms of microbial resistance, the presence of target antibiotics would obviously increase the relative abundances of antibiotics resistance bacteria and antibiotics resistance genes in aerobic granules, ranging from 0.5 to 5 orders of magnitude; thereby, it concluded that antibiotics at ppb level without effect of other induction factors can actually reach an effective content capable of spreading antibiotic resistance in aerobic granular reactor.

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

4.3
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