4.6 Article

Assessment of anaerobic wastewater treatment failure using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 99, 期 6, 页码 1463-1471

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02743.x

关键词

anaerobic digestion; Crenarchaeota; microbial community dynamics; terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The suitability of genetic fingerprinting to study the microbiological basis of anaerobic bioreactor failure is investigated. Methods and Results: Two laboratory-scale anaerobic expanded granular sludge bed bioreactors, R1 and R2, were used for the mesophilic (37 degrees C) treatment of high-strength [10 g chemical oxygen demand (COD) 1(-1)] synthetic industrial-like wastewater over a 100-day trial period. A successful start up was achieved by both bioreactors with COD removal over 90%. Both reactors were operated under identical parameters; however, increased organic loading during the trial induced a reduction in the COD removal of R1, while R2 maintained satisfactory performance (COD removal > 90%) throughout the experiment. Specific methanogenic activity measurements of biomass from both reactors indicated that the main route of methane production was hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) analysis was applied to the characterization of microbial community dynamics within the system during the trial. The principal differences between the two consortia analysed included an increased abundance of Thiovulum- and Methanococcus-like organisms and uncultured Crenarchaeota in R1. Conclusions: The results indicated that there was a microbiological basis for the deviation, in terms of operational performance, of R1 and R2. Significance and Impact of the Study: High-throughput fingerprinting techniques, such as TRFLP, have been demonstrated as practically relevant for biomonitoring of anaerobic reactor communities.

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