| Literature DB >> 29707578 |
Shuang Xu1, Junqin Yao1, Meihaguli Ainiwaer1, Ying Hong1, Yanjiang Zhang1.
Abstract
Activated sludge bulking is easily caused in winter, resulting in adverse effects on effluent treatment and management of wastewater treatment plants. In this study, activated sludge samples were collected from different wastewater treatment plants in the northern Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China in winter. The bacterial community compositions and diversities of activated sludge were analyzed to identify the bacteria that cause bulking of activated sludge. The sequencing generated 30087-55170 effective reads representing 36 phyla, 293 families, and 579 genera in all samples. The dominant phyla present in all activated sludge were Proteobacteria (26.7-48.9%), Bacteroidetes (19.3-37.3%), Chloroflexi (2.9-17.1%), and Acidobacteria (1.5-13.8%). Fifty-five genera including unclassified_f_Comamonadaceae, norank_f_Saprospiraceae, Flavobacterium, norank_f_Hydrogenophilaceae, Dokdonella, Terrimonas, norank_f_Anaerolineaceae, Tetrasphaera, Simplicispira, norank_c_Ardenticatenia, and Nitrospira existed in all samples, accounting for 60.6-82.7% of total effective sequences in each sample. The relative abundances of Saprospiraceae, Flavobacterium, and Tetrasphaera with the respective averages of 12.0%, 8.3%, and 5.2% in bulking sludge samples were higher than those in normal samples. Filamentous Saprospiraceae, Flavobacterium, and Tetrasphaera multiplied were the main cause for the sludge bulking. Redundancy analysis (RDA) indicated that influent BOD5, DO, water temperature, and influent ammonia had a distinct effect on bacterial community structures.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29707578 PMCID: PMC5863335 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8278970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Characteristics of samples and wastewater treatment plants.
| Sample | Sampling date | Flow rate | DO | pH | SRT | Tem | SV/% | MLSS | SVI/(mL/g) | BOD5 (mg/L) | NH4+-N (mg/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Influent | Effluent | Influent | Effluent | ||||||||||
| ALT1 | 2016.12.1 | 3 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 27 | 9.8 | 35 | 5980 | 59 | 119 | 8 | 33.1 | 1.6 |
| ALT2 | 2017.1.7 | 3 | 3.9 | 7.1 | 27 | 8.5 | 33 | 4861 | 69 | 97 | 9 | 29.7 | 2.0 |
| SHZ1 | 2016.3.2 | 10 | 4.0 | 7.50 | 23 | 12.8 | 17 | 4186 | 41 | 147 | 39 | 28 | 3.0 |
| SHZ2 | 2017.1.7 | 10 | 3.7 | 7.4 | 23 | 12.9 | 19 | 4297 | 44 | 164 | 30 | 27 | 3.2 |
| CJ1 | 2016.1.25 | 10 | 1.5 | 6.75 | 30 | 13.6 | 88 | 3355 | 262 | 539 | 27 | 58 | 21.9 |
| CJ2 | 2016.3.2 | 10 | 1.4 | 7.01 | 30 | 13.5 | 91 | 4512 | 202 | 533 | 25 | 47 | 20.6 |
| HX1 | 2016.1.25 | 10 | 3.6 | 7.20 | 25 | 10.8 | 88 | 4354 | 199 | 276 | 11 | 50 | 5.8 |
| HX2 | 2016.3.2 | 10 | 3.5 | 7.30 | 25 | 10.9 | 62 | 3543 | 175 | 276 | 26 | 31 | 5.2 |
Richness and diversity indices of microbial communities for sludge samples.
| Sample | Reads | OTUs | Shannon | Ace | Chao | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALT1 | 32390 | 714 | 4.88 | 811 | 802 | 0.992 |
| ALT2 | 38394 | 683 | 4.52 | 863 | 908 | 0.989 |
| SHZ1 | 53363 | 1152 | 5.93 | 1292 | 1281 | 0.988 |
| SHZ2 | 30087 | 1022 | 5.78 | 1200 | 1192 | 0.988 |
| CJ1 | 46680 | 852 | 5.09 | 1054 | 1047 | 0.988 |
| CJ2 | 55170 | 855 | 5.16 | 1031 | 1024 | 0.989 |
| HX1 | 48497 | 829 | 5.13 | 1003 | 994 | 0.989 |
| HX2 | 52873 | 755 | 4.76 | 909 | 905 | 0.990 |
Figure 1Diversity of bacterial communities in activated sludge samples. (a) Rarefaction curves and (b) rank abundance curves.
Figure 2Overlap of the bacterial communities from four WWTPs based on OTU (3% distance).
Figure 3Percentages of the major phyla in all samples (the sequence percentage is above 1% in at least one sample).
Figure 4Percentages of the major families in all samples (the sequence percentage is above 1% in at least one sample).
Figure 5Heatmap of the first ten dominant genera in each sample.
Figure 6RDA analysis to investigate the relationship between microbial communities and environmental variables.