4.4 Article

Microbial community changes during the start-up of an anaerobic/aerobic/anoxic-type sequencing batch reactor

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 1211-1217

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2012.743595

关键词

enhanced biological phosphorus removal; glycogen-accumulating organisms; polyphosphate-accumulating organisms; polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; 16S ribosomal RNA

资金

  1. State Key Lab of Urban Water Resources and Environment (HIT) [QA200810]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51008239]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (CPSF) [2011M501254]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [5082010]
  5. State university students innovative pilot scheme [091048636]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An anaerobic/aerobic/anoxic-type sequencing batch reactor was started up during a summer rainy season to obtain enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR), and its sludge microbial community was also monitored in the hope of observing the microbial community evolution of polyphosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs). During the start-up process, a total of 17 bands of highest species richness were detected in the sludge microbial community, including Alpha-, Beta-, and Gamma- Proteobacteria, as well as Actinobacteria and Planctomycetes. Major microbial community structural change was observed in Rhodocyclus-related and Acinetobacter-related PAOs, glycogen-accumulating organisms (GAOs), and Actinobacteria. In contrast to the current belief that enrichment of PAOs is essential for the establishment of EBPR, PAOs were not favourably enriched in this study. Instead, Actinobacteria and GAOs overwhelmingly flourished. The overall conclusion of this study challenges the conventional view that EBPR cannot live without traditional PAOs. However, it suggests an non-negligible role of denitrifying phosphorus-accumulating bacteria in EBPR systems, as well as other uncultured bacteria.

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

4.4
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