| Literature DB >> 35564521 |
Junzhi Zhang1, Xiao He1, Huixin Zhang1, Yu Liao1, Qi Wang2,3, Luwei Li1, Jianwei Yu2,3.
Abstract
Assessing the bacteria pathogens in the lakes with reclaimed water as major influents are important for public health. This study investigated microbial communities of five landscape lakes replenished by reclaimed water, then analyzed driven factors and identified health effects of bacterial pathogens. 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis demonstrated that Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Cyanobacteria, Firmicutes, and Verrucomicrobia were the most dominant phyla in five landscape lakes. The microbial community diversities were higher in June and July than that in other months. Temperature, total nitrogen and phosphorus were the main drivers of the dominant microbial from the Redundancy analysis (RDA) results. Various potential bacterial pathogens were identified, including Pseudomonas, GKS98_freshwater_group, Sporosarcina, Pseudochrobactrum, Streptomyces and Bacillus, etc, some of which are easily infectious to human. The microbial network analysis showed that some potential pathogens were nodes that had significant health effects. The work provides a basis for understanding the microbial community dynamics and safety issues for health effects in landscape lakes replenished by reclaimed water.Entities:
Keywords: diversity and richness; driven factors; health effects; microbial community dynamics; networks; pathogens; reclaimed water
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564521 PMCID: PMC9106022 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Five sampled landscape lakes in Beijing.
Water quality characteristics.
| Parameters | Value | Parameters | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| T (°C) | 23.0~30.0 | TN (mg/L) | 3.70 ± 0.87 |
| pH | 7.21~8.85 | TP (mg/L) | 0.024 ± 0.009 |
| NH4+-N (mg/L) | 0.0851 ± 0.0012 | PO43−-P (mg/L) | 0.0177 ± 0.0003 |
| NO3− (mg/L) | 5.31 ± 0.55 | OD680 (cm−1) | 0.457 ± 0.00 |
Figure 2OTU richness (Sobs) and diversity (Shannon) of all samples in different locations (a,b) and different months (c,d).
Figure 3Taxonomic of microbial community in different months.
Figure 4RDA analysis of environmental factors and the microbial community (a); Heatmap analysis of key environmental factors and microbial community with top 20 genera (b), * 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05, ** 0.001 < p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 5Abundance proportion of potential pathogens on genus level.
Figure 6Co-occurrence networks for microbial communities in May June and July (a); in August and September (b).