4.8 Article

Low Acetate Concentrations Favor Polyphosphate-Accumulating Organisms over Glycogen-Accumulating Organisms in Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 8, 页码 3816-3824

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es304846s

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0852469]
  2. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  3. Directorate For Engineering [0852469] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycogen-accumulating organisms (GAOs) are thought to compete with polyphosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs) in enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) wastewater treatment systems. A laboratory sequencing batch reactor (SBR) was operated for one year to test the hypothesis that PAOs have a competitive advantage at low acetate concentrations, with a focus on low pH conditions previously shown to favor GAOs. PAOs dominated the system under conventional SBR operation with rapid acetate addition (producing high in-reactor concentrations) and pH values of 7.4-8.4. GAOs dominated when the pH was decreased (6.4-7.0). Decreasing the acetate addition rate led to very low reactor acetate concentrations, and PAOs recovered, supporting the study hypothesis. When the acetate feed rate was increased, EBPR failed again. Dominant PAOs and GAOs were Candidatus Accumulibacter phosphatis and Defluviicoccus Cluster 2, respectively, according to fluorescent in situ hybridization and 454 pyrosequencing. Surprisingly, GAOs were not the immediate causes of PAO failures, based on functional and population measurements. Pyrosequencing results suggested Dechloromonas and Tetrasphaera spp. may have also been PAOs, and additional potential GAOs were also identified. Full-scale systems typically have lower in-reactor acetate concentrations than laboratory SBRs, and so, previous laboratory studies may have overestimated the practical importance of GAOs as causes of EBPR failure.

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