4.7 Article

Pyrosequencing reveals the effect of mobilizing agents and lignocellulosic substrate amendment on microbial community composition in a real industrial PAH-polluted soil

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 283, 期 -, 页码 35-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.08.065

关键词

Soil bioremediation; White rot fungi (WRF); Creosote; HMW-PAH; Non-ionic surfactant; Next generation sequencing (NGS)

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [CTM2007-61097/TECNO]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Environment [094/PC08/3-01.1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial and fungal biodiversity throughout different biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatments applied to an industrial creosote-polluted soil were analyzed by means of polyphasic approach in order to gain insight into the microbial community structure and dynamics. Pyrosequencing data obtained from initial creosote polluted soil (after a biopiling step) revealed that Alpha and Gammaproteobacteria were the most abundant bacterial groups, whereas Fusarium and Scedosporium were the main fungal genera in the contaminated soil. At the end of 60-days laboratory scale bioremediation assays, pyrosequencing and DGGE data showed that (i) major bacterial community shifts were caused by the type of mobilizing agent added to the soil and, to a lesser extent, by the addition of lignocellulosic substrate; and (ii) the presence of the non-ionic surfactant (Brij 30) hampered the proliferation of Actinobacteria (Mycobacteriaceae) and Bacteroidetes (Chitinophagaceae) and, in the absence of lignocellulosic substrate, also impeded polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) degradation. The results show the importance of implementing bioremediation experiments combined with microbiome assessment to gain insight on the effect of crucial parameters (e.g. use of additives) over the potential functions of complex microbial communities harbored in polluted soils, essential for bioremediation success. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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