4.8 Article

Flow cytometry for rapid characterisation of microbial community dynamics in waste stabilisation ponds

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115243

关键词

Waste stabilisation ponds; Flow cytometry; Wastewater; Characterization; Microbial communities

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP130100856, DP170104832]
  2. Water Corporation of Western Australia
  3. Prescott Postgraduate Scholarship from The University of Western Australia
  4. TasWater Wastewater Engineering Scholarship
  5. Australian Research Council [LP130100856] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Algal and bacterial communities play a major role in the treatment performance and efficiency of waste stabilisation ponds (WSPs); however, the study of these WSP microbial communities has been challenging. Flow cytometry (FCM) has been used widely as a rapid, culture-independent method of characterising algae and/or bacteria in a range of freshwater and marine environments, and in conventional wastewater treatment processes, but its application to WSP wastewater has been underexplored. In this study, a method for the characterisation of both algal and bacterial microbial populations in WSP wastewater is presented and standardised, using cultures and field samples. We show that SYTO 16 dye is more effective than SYBR Green I for the concurrent detection of both algae and bacteria in samples. Through gating and phenotypic diversity analysis, the FCM results show both spatial and temporal shifts in pond microbial communities. The ability to rapidly determine the spatiotemporal shifts in pond populations is not only important for the improvement of pond operation and monitoring strategies, but also for the planning and management. Flow cytometry has the potential to become a diagnostic tool for ponds to assess treatment performance and determine the most optimal operating conditions. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据