| Literature DB >> 29757264 |
Esmeralda G Blanco-Enríquez1, Francisco Javier Zavala-Díaz de la Serna2, María Del Rosario Peralta-Pérez3, Lourdes Ballinas-Casarrubias4, Iván Salmerón5, Héctor Rubio-Arias6, Beatriz A Rocha-Gutiérrez7.
Abstract
Pollution of freshwater ecosystems from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is a global concern. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has included the PAHs pyrene, phenanthrene, and naphthalene among the 16 priority compounds of special concern for their toxicological effects. The aim of this study was to adapt and characterize a microbial consortium from ore waste with the potential to remove these three PAHs from water. This microbial consortium was exposed to the target PAHs at levels of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 mg L−1 for 14 days. PAH bioremoval was measured using the analytical technique of solid phase microextraction, followed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (SPME-GC/MS). The results revealed that up to 90% of the target PAHs can be removed from water after 14 days at a concentration level of 100 mg L−1. The predominant group of microorganisms identified at the phylum taxonomic level were the Proteobacteria, while the Actinobacteria were the predominant subgroup. The removal of phenanthrene, naphthalene, and pyrene predominantly occurred in specimens of genera Stenotrophomonas, Williamsia, and Chitinophagaceae, respectively. This study demonstrates that the use of specific microorganisms is an alternative method of reducing PAH levels in water.Entities:
Keywords: PAHs removal; SPME-GC/MS; consortium; water pollution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29757264 PMCID: PMC5982014 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15050975
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Bioremoval of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by microbial consortium. (a) 5 mg L−1; (b) 10 mg L−1; (c) 20 mg L−1; (d) 50 mg L−1; (e) 100 mg L−1. The relative standard deviation (RSD) was less than 20% in all samples. Samples were analyzed in triplicate.
Figure 2Rarefaction curves showing observed species richness of the four samples: ore waste (OW), phenanthrene (PHE), naphthalene (NAP), and pyrene (PYR).
MiSeq sequencing results and diversity estimates for each sample: ore waste (OW), phenanthrene (PHE), naphthalene (NAP), and pyrene (PYR).
| Sample | Diversity Indexes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reads | Chao | Shannon | Simpson | |
| OW | 390,118 | 37,123 | 7.37 | 0.9576 |
| PHE | 365,294 | 39,895 | 7.71 | 0.9508 |
| NAP | 390,788 | 32,348 | 6.55 | 0.9426 |
| PYR | 376,710 | 36,657 | 6.83 | 0.9249 |
Chao: Chao’s species richness estimator, Shannon: Shannon–Weiner Index.
Figure 3Beta diversity analysis of unweighted UniFrac distance scores. (A) PCoA plot and (B) UPGMA tree: ore waste (OW), phenanthrene (PHE), naphthalene (NAP), and pyrene (PYR).3.3. Taxonomic Category of the Identification of the Microbial Consortium Exposed to the Different PAHs through the QIIME Analysis
Microbial characteristics of ore waste.
| Microorganisms | Phylum |
|---|---|
| Archaea | Crenarchaeota |
| Bacteria | Thermi |
| Acidobacteria | |
| Actinobacteria | |
| Armatimonadetes | |
| Bacteroidetes | |
| Chloroflexi | |
| Cyanobacteria | |
| Fibrobacteres | |
| Firmicutes | |
| Fusobacteria | |
| Gemmatimonadetes | |
| Planctomycetes | |
| Proteobacteria | |
| Synergistetes | |
| Tenericutes | |
| Verrucomicrobia |
Percentage of the dominant phyla in the different samples.
| Phylum/Sample | Ore Waste | Phenanthrene | Naphthalene | Pyrene |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proteobacteria | 92.6 | 72.7 | 4.3 | 53.5 |
| Actinobacteria | 5.5 | 25.8 | 95 | 0.4 |
| Bacteroidetes | 0.5 | 0.01 | 0.2 | 44.6 |
| Unidentified | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 |
Figure 4Taxonomic category at the genera level through the bioinformatics QIIME analysis of the sequences obtained by Macrogen.
Percentage of the genera dominant in the samples.
| Genus/Sample | Ore Waste | Phenantrene | Naphthalene | Pyrene |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25.3 * | 4.7 | 0.2 | 0.01 | |
| 18.1 * | 0.5 | 0.01 | 1.1 | |
| 9.8 * | 0.4 | 0.01 | 2.7 | |
| 7.4 * | 3.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 5.5 * | 23.0 * | 0.1 | 4.6 * | |
| 0.1 | 9.0 * | 0.4 * | 0.0 | |
| 0.01 | 8.1 * | 51.2 * | 0.1 | |
| 0.2 | 5.9 * | 18.9 * | 0.01 | |
| 0.1 | 5.7 * | 11.8 * | 0.01 | |
| 0.2 | 1.0 | 2.6 * | 0.01 | |
| Chitinophagaceae | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 40.9 * |
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 9.8 * | |
| 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.01 | 8.2 * | |
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 3.1 * |
* The main five genera in every sample.