4.7 Article

Variable effects of oxytetracycline on antibiotic resistance gene abundance and the bacterial community during aerobic composting of cow manure

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 315, 期 -, 页码 61-69

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.05.002

关键词

Aerobic composting; Antibiotic resistance gene; Livestock manure; Oxytetracycline

资金

  1. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201303094]
  2. Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (863 program) [2013AA102802]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41171203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Livestock manure is often subjected to aerobic composting but little is known about the variation in antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) during the composting process under different concentrations of antibiotics. This study compared the effects of three concentrations of oxytetracycline (OTC; 10, 60, and 200 mg/kg) on ARGs and the succession of the bacterial community during composting. Very similar trends were observed in the relative abundances (RAs) of each ARG among the OTC treatments and the control during composting. After composting, the RAs of tetC, tetX, sull, sul2, and intI1 increased 2-43 times, whereas those of tetQ, tetM, and tetW declined by 44-99%. OTC addition significantly increased the absolute abundances and RAs of tetC and intI1, while 200 mg/kg OTC also enhanced those of tetM, tetQ, and drfA7. The bacterial community could be grouped according to the composting time under different treatments. The highest concentration of OTC had a more persistent effect on the bacterial community. In the present study, the succession of the bacterial community appeared to have a greater influence on the variation of ARGs during composting than the presence of antibiotics. Aerobic composting was not effective in reducing most of the ARGs, and thus the compost product should be considered as an important reservoir for ARGs. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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