Evaluation of Different Biomedia Performance for River Purification: Preliminary Stage

Hayder, Gasim; Sidek, Lariyah Mohd; Mohiyaden, Hairun Aishah; Basri, Hidayah; Sabri, Ahmad Fauzan Mohd; Noh, Md. Nasir Md.

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.773-774.1365

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gasim et al (2015,2016) [41,42] evaluate the efficiency of plastic materials for water treatment. The similar method was also applied to explore the differences of microbial communities of biofilms on plastic substrates and natural substrates [28][29][30].…”

Section: Biofilm Community Diversity On Microplasticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results indicated that PMMA and PET can act as new habitats for biofilm colonization, which may further disturb biofilm communities and change biogeochemical processes in aquatic ecosystems, for example, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles [41,42]. Therefore, the massive plastic waste produced in the city should be managed efficiently and treated in a proper way to minimize the impact.…”

Section: Practical Implications Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Plastic Debris on the Biofilm Bacterial Communities in Lake Water

Shen

Huang

Xie

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing discharge of plastic debris into aquatic ecosystems and the worsening ecological risks have received growing attention. Once released, plastic debris could serve as a new substrate for microbes in waters. The complex relationship between plastics and biofilms has aroused great interest. To confirm the hypothesis that the presence of plastic in water affects the composition of biofilm in natural state, in situ biofilm culture experiments were conducted in a lake for 40 days. The diversity of biofilm attached on natural (cobble stones (CS) and wood) and plastic substrates (Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)) were compared, and the community structure and composition were also analyzed. Results from high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA showed that the diversity and species richness of biofilm bacterial communities on natural substrate (observed species of 1353~1945, Simpson index of 0.977~0.989 and Shannon–Wiener diversity index of 7.42~8.60) were much higher than those on plastic substrates (observed species of 900~1146, Simpson index of 0.914~0.975 and Shannon–Wiener diversity index of 5.47~6.99). The NMDS analyses were used to confirm the taxonomic significance between different samples, and Anosim (p = 0.001, R = 0.892) and Adonis (p = 0.001, R = 808, F = 11.19) demonstrated that this classification was statistically rigorous. Different dominant bacterial communities were found on plastic and natural substrates. Alphaproteobacterial, Betaproteobacteria and Synechococcophycideae dominated on the plastic substrate, while Gammaproteobacteria, Phycisphaerae and Planctomycetia played the main role on the natural substrates. The bacterial community structure of the two substrates also showed significant difference which is consistent with previous studies using other polymer types. Our results shed light on the fact that plastic debris can serve as a new habitat for biofilm colonization, unlike natural substrates, pathogens and plastic-degrading microorganisms selectively attached to plastic substrates, which affected the bacterial community structure and composition in aquatic environment. This study provided a new insight into understanding the potential impacts of plastics serving as a new habitat for microbial communities in freshwater environments. Future research should focus on the potential impacts of plastic-attached biofilms in various aquatic environments and the whole life cycle of plastics (i.e., from plastic fragments to microplastics) and also microbial flock characteristics using microbial plastics in the natural environment should also be addressed.

show abstract