4.8 Article

Differential effects of sulfamethoxazole concentrations on the enzymatic dynamics of aerobic composting

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 336, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125330

Keywords

Aerobic composting; Sulfamethoxazole; Enzyme activities; Microbial communities

Funding

  1. Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program of BAST (Beijing Association for Science and Technology) [20192021]
  2. Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation [6192029]
  3. Basic Research Funds for Central Research Institutes of China [BSRF201903]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that sulfamethoxazole had a significant negative impact on enzymatic activities during the composting process, but there was a substantial improvement in enzymatic activity by the end of the treatment. This improvement was likely due to the degradation of sulfamethoxazole and a reduction in stress.
Enzymatic activities play an important role in the biological composting processing of agricultural wastes. This paper explores the effect of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) (Control, 25 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, and 100 mg/kg) on the enzymatic activities of cellulase, protease, urease, and arylsulfatase. Compost samples were taken at three different intervals for analysis (day 0, day 25, and day 45). The findings revealed that at the start of the composting process, a strongly negative effect on enzymatic behavior was observed, and this response was significantly dependent on SMX concentrations (p < 0.05). The inhibition was consistent across all treatments. According to the results, the negative impact of SMX on community structure can result in selection pressure. Furthermore, all of the treatments had drastically improved enzymatic activity by the end of the composting process (day 45). This effect was presumably caused by the deterioration of SMX and a substantial stress reduction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available