| Literature DB >> 32192171 |
Xuanjiang Yang1, Panpan Guo1, Miao Li1, Hualong Li1, Zelin Hu1, Xianwang Liu1, Qiang Zhang2.
Abstract
(1) Objective: The objective of this study was to screen amoxicillin (AMX)-degrading bacterial strains in pig manure and optimize the fermentation conditions for these strains to achieve high fermentation rate, which can provide an effective way for the practical application of bacterial strains as antibiotic-degrading bacterial in treating livestock waste for antibiotic residues. (2)Entities:
Keywords: Box–Behnken design; Plackett–Burman; amoxicillin; biodegradation; culture condition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32192171 PMCID: PMC7142553 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17061973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Factors and levels of Plackett–Burman design (PBD).
| Parameters | Level | |
|---|---|---|
| −1 | 1 | |
| X1 Time (h) | 40 | 50 |
| X2 Temperature (°C) | 30 | 37.5 |
| X3 Inoculum level (%) | 1 | 1.25 |
| X4 Shaker speed (rpm) | 120 | 150 |
| X5 pH | 6 | 7.5 |
Figure 1Results of amoxicillin (AMX) susceptibility test of six bacterial strain isolated from pig manure: (A) AMX-1; (B) AMX-2; (C) AMX-3; (D) AMX-4; (E) AMX-5; (F) AMX-6.
Figure 2Results of HPLC-MS/MS analysis 90 min after inoculation of (A) strain AMX-1, (B) AMX-3, (C) AMX-6, (D) blank samples, (E) standard (non-inoculated) sample of AMX of 100 mg/L.
Figure 3Comparison of AMX degradation by isolated bacterial strains. * indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05, and ** significant difference at p < 0.01.
Regression equation model analysis.
| Compound Name | Linear Range | Regression Equation | R2 | Retention Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMX | 1–1000 ng/mL | Y = 39.31X − 1.71 | 0.9995 | 1.87 |
Figure 4Growth curve of strain AMX-1.
Figure 5Results of the single-factor test. Effect of (a) temperature, (b) inoculum level, (c) rotate speed, (d) time, and (e) pH on the optical density (OD600) value of bacterial.
Design and test results of Plackett–Burman.
| Run Order | X1 Time (h) | X2 Temperature (°C) | X3 Inoculum Level | X4 Rotate Speed (rpm) | X5 pH | Optical Density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50 | 37.5 | 1.25 | 120 | 7.5 | 1.77 |
| 2 | 40 | 30 | 1.25 | 150 | 7.5 | 1.66 |
| 3 | 50 | 37.5 | 1 | 150 | 6 | 1.839 |
| 4 | 50 | 37.5 | 1 | 150 | 7.5 | 1.899 |
| 5 | 50 | 30 | 1.25 | 150 | 6 | 1.609 |
| 6 | 40 | 37.5 | 1.25 | 120 | 7.5 | 1.599 |
| 7 | 40 | 30 | 1 | 120 | 6 | 1.589 |
| 8 | 50 | 30 | 1.25 | 120 | 6 | 1.678 |
| 9 | 50 | 30 | 1 | 120 | 7.5 | 1.899 |
| 10 | 40 | 37.5 | 1 | 120 | 6 | 1.709 |
| 11 | 40 | 37.5 | 1.25 | 150 | 6 | 1.649 |
| 12 | 40 | 30 | 1 | 150 | 7.5 | 1.729 |
Analysis of variance in Plackett–Burman.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Squares | F-Value | Coefficient Estimate | Significance Ranking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.1173 | 5 | 0.0234 | 7.79 | 0.013 | ||
| X1 | 0.048 | 1 | 0.048 | 15.92 | 0.007 | 0.0633 | 1 |
| X2 | 0.0076 | 1 | 0.0076 | 2.5 | 0.165 | 0.0251 | 4 |
| X3 | 0.0407 | 1 | 0.0407 | 13.5 | 0.01 | -0.0583 | 2 |
| X4 | 0.0016 | 1 | 0.0017 | 0.55 | 0.487 | 0.0118 | 5 |
| X5 | 0.0194 | 1 | 0.0194 | 6.45 | 0.044 | 0.0403 | 3 |
| Residual | 0.0181 | 6 | 0.003 | ||||
| Cor total | 0.1354 | 11 |
The design and results of steepest ascent test.
| Test | Step Size | X1 | X3 | X5 | OD600 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | X | 30 h | 2.5% (v/v) | 5.5 | 1.48 |
| 2 | X+ ΔXi | 40 h | 2.0% (v/v) | 6.0 | 1.63 |
| 3 | X+ Δ2Xi | 50 h | 1.5% (v/v) | 6.5 | 1.89 |
| 4 | X+ Δ3Xi | 60 h | 1.0% (v/v) | 7.0 | 1.74 |
| 5 | X+ Δ4Xi | 70 h | 0.5% (v/v) | 7.5 | 1.65 |
Note: ΔX1 = + 10 h, ΔX3 = −0.5% (v/v), ΔX5 = + 0.5.
The factors levels in BBD.
| Level. | X1 (Time) (h) | X3 (Inoculum Level) (%) | X5 (pH) |
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 40 | 1.00 | 6.00 |
| 0 | 50 | 1.5 | 6.5 |
| 1 | 60 | 2.0 | 7.0 |
Experimental results of Box–Behnken Design.
| Test | X1 Time (h) | X3 Inoculum Level (%) | X5 pH | Response Value (OD600) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2.54 |
| 2 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 2.94 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.27 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2.73 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 2.4 |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 1.96 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.57 |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2.51 |
| 9 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 1.8 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2.80 |
| 11 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 1.36 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.82 |
| 13 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 1.30 |
| 14 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 2.27 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.82 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 1.97 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.60 |
Analysis of variance of regression.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 0.0003125 | 1 | 0.0003125 | 0.006794 | 0.9366 |
| X3 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 2.35 | 0.1691 |
| X5 | 2.38 | 1 | 2.38 | 51.66 | 0.0002 |
| X1X3 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 | 2.23 | 0.1793 |
| X1X5 | 0.002025 | 1 | 0.002525 | 0.044 | 0.8398 |
| X3X5 | 0.024 | 1 | 0.024 | 0.52 | 0.4933 |
| X12 | 0.55 | 1 | 0.55 | 12.06 | 0.0104 |
| X32 | 0.032 | 1 | 0.032 | 0.69 | 0.4327 |
| X52 | 0.45 | 1 | 0.45 | 9.7 | 0.017 |
| Model | 3.68 | 9 | 0.41 | 8.89 | 0.0044 |
| Lack of Fit | 0.12 | 3 | 0.039 | 0.76 | 0.5733 |
| Pure Error | 0.21 | 4 | 0.051 | ||
| Cor Total | 4 | 16 |
Note: The P-value less than 0.001 for the difference is extremely significant; the P-value less than 0.01 is highly significant; the P-value less than 0.05 is significant.
Statistical significance.
| Model Terms | Results |
|---|---|
| Std. dev. | 0.21 |
| Mean | 2.33 |
| %CV | 9.19 |
| PRESS | 2.19 |
| R-squared | 0.9195 |
| Adj R-squared | 0.8161 |
| Adeq precision | 9.772 |
Figure 6Internally studentized residuals.
Figure 7Response surface plots (3D) and contour plots (2D) for the effect of fermentation condition on OD600. (a,b) Effects of fermentation time and inoculum level; (c,d) effects of fermentation time and pH; and (e,f) effects of inoculum level and pH.