| Literature DB >> 33565903 |
Xingcheng Yuan1, Guangchao Li1, Weihua Yang1, Dan Li1.
Abstract
In this study, Xuzhou, a typical industrial city in the north of Jiangsu Province, was chosen to investigate the pollution level of atmospheric particulates. The proportion of fine particles (PM2.5) in PM10 is larger than that of coarse particles (about 58%). The physicochemical properties of PM2.5 were analyzed by SEM and EDS. DGGE was used to study the distribution characteristics of bacterial community structure on atmospheric particulates (TSP, PM2.5 and PM10) in different functional areas of Xuzhou city during the winter haze. It was found that the microbial populations of atmospheric particles were mainly divided into three groups: Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Pachytenella. The community structure of bacteria in fine particle size was more abundant than that in coarse particle size. When haze occurs, the concentration of all kinds of pathogens in fine particle size will increase. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the monitoring and management of fine particles.Entities:
Keywords: Atmospheric particulates; PM10 ; PM2.5 ; Xuzhou; haze; industrial city; microbial community
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33565903 PMCID: PMC8806265 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.1885223
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Figure 1.PCR amplification results
Figure 2.Pollution level in different functional areas
Figure 3.Pollution level in different months
Figure 4.The correlation analysis of PM2.5 and PM10.
Figure 5.SEM and EDS of PM2.5.
Figure 6.DGGE of 16S rDNA of atmospheric bacterial community
The diversity index of different samples
| Sampling points | Particle size | Lane number | Band number | Shannon index | Simpson index | Evenness index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HHNV | TSP | 1#-1 | 7 | 1.74 | 0.18 | 0.97 |
| PM10 | 1#-2 | 11 | 2.36 | 0.10 | 0.99 | |
| PM2.5 | 1#-3 | 13 | 2.42 | 0.094 | 0.98 | |
| HT | TSP | 2#-1 | 9 | 1.93 | 0.11 | 0.97 |
| PM10 | 2#-2 | 9 | 1.95 | 0.11 | 0.97 | |
| PM2.5 | 2#-3 | 9 | 1.95 | 0.11 | 0.97 | |
| TSAH | TSP | 3#-1 | 11 | 2.36 | 0.097 | 0.99 |
| PM10 | 3#-2 | 10 | 2.04 | 0.133 | 0.98 | |
| PM2.5 | 3#-3 | 10 | 2.04 | 0.133 | 0.98 |
Figure 7.UPGMA cluster analysis chart
BLAST comparison of DGGE sequencing bands
| Phylum | Band | Closest strain | Serial number | Similarity (%) | Sequence length(bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Band2 | AF508147 | 87 | 171 | ||
| Band10 | AY513506 | 100 | 169 | ||
| Band11 | AJ278347 | 100 | 169 | ||
| Band4 | KF064961 | 97 | 194 | ||
| Band6 | AB272379 | 84 | 188 | ||
| Band7 | AM697309 | 100 | 189 | ||
| Band14 | GQ477860 | 96 | 189 | ||
| Band1 | Y18654 | 100 | 194 | ||
| Band13 | JQ805621 | 96 | 193 | ||
| Band12 | GQ019259 | 90 | 194 | ||
| Band3 | X61142 | 100 | 193 | ||
| Band5 | AF243174 | 95 | 194 | ||
| Band9 | DQ177485 | 97 | 174 | ||
| Band8 | GQ047882 | 68 | 169 |
Figure 8.DGGE 16S rDNA phylogenetic tree