2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122574
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of biogenic and chemical sulfur as electron donors for autotrophic denitrification in sulfur-fed membrane bioreactor (SMBR)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Biogenic S 0 , with a structure made of orthorhombic S 0 crystals, is known to be hydrophilic, stabilized in water by long-chain polymers (mainly proteins), making it more bioavailable for SOB . In comparison, chemically synthesized S 0 is hydrophobic, with very low solubility, resulting in lower denitrification rates . SOB growth on biogenic S 0 was found to be 1.7-fold faster than on chemically synthesized S 0 , but it was still much lower than that on thiosulfate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Biogenic S 0 , with a structure made of orthorhombic S 0 crystals, is known to be hydrophilic, stabilized in water by long-chain polymers (mainly proteins), making it more bioavailable for SOB . In comparison, chemically synthesized S 0 is hydrophobic, with very low solubility, resulting in lower denitrification rates . SOB growth on biogenic S 0 was found to be 1.7-fold faster than on chemically synthesized S 0 , but it was still much lower than that on thiosulfate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…NGS analysis further confirmed that the granules community was dominated by heterotrophic, nitrifying and denitrifying genera suggesting that shortcut nitrification-denitrification instead of PN/A process was established since the first weeks of operation. Chryseobacterium (genera containing species both capable of heterotrophic nitrification and aerobic denitrification [ 54 , 55 ]) was the most common genera (7.7–27.2%), while other dominant genera were Hylemonella (7.3–13.9%, denitrifiers [ 56 ]), followed by Nitrosomonas (9.9–14.0%, mainly nitrifiers [ 57 ]), Parvibaculum (7.0–11.7%, aerobic hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria and denitrifiers [ 58 , 59 ]), Rubrivivax (3.3–15.7%, involved in multiple biogeochemical and aromatic transformations, also denitrification, due to a wide metabolic capacity [ 58 , 60 ]) and other Comamonadaceae (4.3–8.9%, aromatic degraders and denitrifiers [ 61 ]), Chitinophagaceae (3.6–10.9%), other Saphrospirales (0.1–9.4%), Sphingopyxis (2.2–4.7%), other Burkholderiales (2.1–4.3%), Bdellovibrio (0.7–2.9%), Diaphorobacter (1.2–2.2%, both heterotrophic nitrifiers and denitrifiers [ 62 ]), Rhodanobacter (1.0–1.6%), the families of Alcaliganaceae (0.7–1.7%) and Xanthomonadaceae (0.8–1.1%), Clostridium (0.3–1.3%, biopolymers degraders able of N fixation [ 63 , 64 ]), Thermomonas (0.6–1.0%, denitrifiers [ 65 , 66 ]), Pseudomonas (0.0–1.4%, capable of both heterotrophic nitrification and/or aerobic denitrification [ 67 ]), and the family of Bradyrhizobiaceae (0.2–1.0%, N fixation [ 68 ]), other bacteria that singularly accounted for less than 1% of the total abundance were 7.6–14.3%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SOB is a group of microorganisms which oxidize the sulfide, elemental sulfur, thiosulfite and sulfite to sulfate or intermediates. In Y2 sediments, SOB of Gallionella, Sulfuriferula and Thermomonas was observed, and the abundance of Gallionella and Sulfuriferula was very low; Thermomonas is a strict anaerobic bacteria that could drives denitrification coupling with the oxidation of reduced inorganic sulfur compounds (He et al 2017;Yavuz et al 2007;Ucar et al 2020). Gallionella, Sulfuriferula and Ferruginibacter were observed in YO sediments.…”
Section: Vertical Distribution Of Microbial Diversitymentioning
confidence: 99%