| Literature DB >> 25877900 |
Danyun Ou1, Bin Chen, Renao Bai, Puqing Song, Heshan Lin.
Abstract
Surface water samples from downstream and estuarine areas of Jiulong River were collected in August 2011 and May 2012 for detecting sulfonamide antibiotic residues and isolating sulfamethazine-resistant bacteria. Sulfamethazine was detected in all samples in May 2012 at an average concentration of 78.3 ng L(-1), which was the highest among the nine sulfonamide antibiotics determined. Sulfamethazine-resistant bacteria (SRB) were screened using antibiotic-containing agar plates. The SRB average abundance in the samples was 3.69 × 10(4) and 2.17 × 10(3) CFUs mL(-1) in August 2011 and May 2012, respectively, and was positively correlated to sulfamethazine concentration in May 2012. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing of all the 121 SRB isolates revealed high diversity. Furthermore, the SRB isolates exhibited multidrug resistance, with 48.7% showing resistance to at least three antibiotics. The abundance and persistence of highly diverse SRB and their multidrug resistance are likely to demonstrate the transferable pressure from coastal environments on public health.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25877900 PMCID: PMC4515247 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4473-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1Sampling sites in the downstream and estuarine areas of Jiulong River
Sulfonamide antibiotics content in the surface water of the studied sites
| Sulfonamide antibiotics | MDL (ng L−1) | Percentage recovery (%) | RSD% | August 2011 | May 2012 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range of detected value (ng L−1) | Average content (ng L−1) | Detection frequency | Range of detected value (ng L−1) | Average content (ng L−1) | Detection frequency | ||||
| Sulfamethoxazole | 0.5 | 113.66 | 5.74 | 2.79–13.02 | 1.15 | 16.70 % | 7.50–38.05 | 22.13 | 100 % |
| Sulfamethizole | 0.1 | 87.63 | 5.16 | ND | 0 | 0 | ND | 0 | 0 |
| Sulfapyridine | 0.5 | 95.36 | 10.07 | ND | 0 | 0 | 0.91–17.99 | 3.43 | 100 % |
| Sulfathiazole | 0.5 | 99.18 | 5.47 | ND | 0 | 0 | ND | 0 | 0 |
| Sulfachloropyridazine | 0.1 | 112.97 | 5.89 | 4.71–17.35 | 1.72 | 16.70 % | 3.02–51.54 | 25.85 | 100 % |
| Sulfadimethoxine | 0.1 | 102.88 | 4.46 | ND | 0 | 0 | ND | 0 | 0 |
| Sulfamonomethoxine | 0.5 | 90.83 | 2.62 | ND | 0 | 0 | 0.31–9.00 | 2.29 | 100 % |
| Sulfamethoxydiazine | 0.1 | 94.91 | 3.19 | ND | 0 | 0 | 0.31–9.07 | 2.29 | 100 % |
| Sulfamethazine | 0.5 | 116.73 | 4.03 | 16.91–53.41 | 5.53 | 16.70 % | 4.84–138.66 | 78.31 | 100 % |
| Sulfadiazine | 1 | 100.21 | 2.63 | 7.59–25.06 | 2.34 | 16.70 % | 1.71–40.78 | 22.06 | 100 % |
| Sulfisomidine | 0.2 | 91.94 | 3.74 | ND | 0 | 0 | ND | 0 | 0 |
| Sulfacetamide | 0.5 | 100.59 | 3.83 | ND | 0 | 0 | 5.35–26.17 | 7.92 | 77.80 % |
| Sulfisoxazole | 0.1 | 100.10 | 3.09 | ND | 0 | 0 | ND | 0 | 0 |
| Sulfadoxin | 0.5 | 122.47 | 7.23 | ND | 0 | 0 | 3.79–63.18 | 38.51 | 100 % |
MDL method detection limit, RSD relative standard deviation, percentage recovery percentage of standard antibiotics concentration detected to the concentration that started with, ND not detected
Fig. 2Concentration of sulfamethazine in the surface water of the studied sites
Fig. 3Distribution of SRB in the surface water of the studied sites in August 2011 (top) and May 2012 (bottom)
Fig. 4Phylogenetic tree of the SRB isolated from Jiulong River based on 16S rDNA sequences using UPGMA method with the Kimura 2-parameter model for nucleotide change. The branch distances represent nucleotide substitution rate and the scale bar represents the expected number of changes per homologous nucleotide position. The first number in the names of the SRB isolates indicates the sampling site
Antimicrobial resistance profile of 39 SRB isolates from the Jiulong River
| SRB isolatesa | Identification | TC | CHL | FFC | NFX | AMP | BSF | ETR | NDA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-S-40 |
| R | S | S | S | R | R | S | R |
| 1-S-31 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 1-S-2 |
| R | I | I | S | R | R | R | S |
| 1-S-8 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 2-S-9 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | S | S |
| 2-S-12 |
| S | S | S | S | R | R | S | S |
| 1-S-34 |
| S | S | S | S | R | R | S | I |
| 2-S-6 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | S | S |
| 1-S-33 |
| S | R | R | S | R | R | R | S |
| 1-S-4 |
| R | R | R | R | R | R | I | R |
| 1-S-10 |
| S | R | R | R | R | R | I | R |
| 1-S-24 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 1-S-26 |
| R | R | R | I | R | R | I | R |
| 1-S-36 |
| R | R | R | R | S | R | I | R |
| 1-S-15 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 1-S-39 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 2-S-22 |
| R | R | R | I | R | R | I | R |
| 2-S-8 |
| R | R | R | I | R | R | R | R |
| 1-S-21 |
| R | R | R | R | R | R | I | R |
| 8-s-23 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 2-S-15 |
| R | R | R | I | R | R | I | R |
| 8-s-3 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | S | S |
| 8-s-30 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 1-S-43 |
| S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| 1-S-28 |
| S | S | S | S | R | R | I | S |
| 1-S-41 |
| R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| 1-S-6 |
| S | S | S | S | S | S | I | S |
| 1-S-7 |
| R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| 1-S-22 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | I |
| 1-S-11 |
| S | R | R | S | R | S | R | R |
| 2-S-14 |
| S | S | S | S | S | R | S | R |
| 2-S-4 |
| S | I | R | S | R | S | R | S |
| 8-s-15 |
| S | I | R | I | R | R | I | R |
| 1-S-13 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | S |
| 1-S-16 |
| S | R | R | I | R | R | R | S |
| 2-S-1 |
| R | R | R | I | R | R | I | R |
| 1-S-1 |
| S | I | S | S | R | S | R | S |
| 1-S-19 |
| R | S | S | I | R | R | R | I |
| 1-S-35 |
| S | S | S | S | R | S | R | S |
R resistance, I intermediate, S susceptible
aFirst number in the name of SRB isolates indicated the sampling sites