4.8 Article

Stable-Isotope Probing Reveals the Activity and Function of Autotrophic and Heterotrophic Denitrifiers in Nitrate Removal from Organic-Limited Wastewater

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 14, 页码 7867-7875

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01993

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51408028, 51278034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Combined heterotrophic and autotrophic denitrification (HAD) is a sustainable and practical method for removing nitrate from organic-limited wastewater. However, the active microorganisms responsible for denitrification in wastewater treatment have not been clearly identified. In this study, a combined microelectrolysis, heterotrophic, and autotrophic denitrification (CEHAD) process was established. DNA-based stable isotope probing was employed to identify the active denitrifiers in reactors fed with either C-13-labeled inorganic or organic carbon sources. The total nitrogen removal efficiencies reached 87.2-92.8% at a low organic carbon concentration (20 mg/L COD). Real-time polymerase chain reaction of the nirS gene as a function of the DNA buoyant density following the ultracentrifugation of the total DNA indicated marked B C-labeling of active denitrifiers. High-throughput sequencing of the fractionated DNA in H(13)CO3(-)/(CH3COO-)-C-12-C-12-fed and (HCO3-)-C-12/(CH3COO-)-C-13-C-13-fed reactors revealed that Thermomonas-like phylotypes were labeled by C-13-bicarbonate, while Thauera-like and Comamonas-like phylotypes were labeled by C-13-acetate. Meanwhile, Arenimonas-like and Rubellimicrobium-like phylotypes were recovered in the heavy DNA fractions from both reactors. These results suggest that nitrate removal in CEHAD is catalyzed by various active microorganisms, including autotrophs, heterotrophs, and mixotrophs. Our findings provide a better understanding of the mechanism of nitrogen removal from organiclimited water and wastewater and can be applied to further optimize such 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

4.8
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