Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21113643›Full record

ArticleJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2011

Heterotrophic nitrification-aerobic denitrification by novel isolated bacteria.

Qian Chen, Jinren Ni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Novel Regulator Participating in Nitrogen Removal Process ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Nitrogen Removal Characteristics ofBioMed research international · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Qian ChenKey Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Environment and Energy, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, 518055, Shenzhen, China.
Jinren Ni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three novel strains capable of heterotrophic nitrification-aerobic denitrification were isolated from the landfill leachate treatment system. Based on their phenotypic and phylogenetic characteristics, the isolates were identified as Agrobacterium sp. LAD9, Achromobacter sp. GAD3 and Comamonas sp. GAD4, respectively. Batch tests were carried out to evaluate the growth and the ammonia removal patterns. The maximum growth rates as determined from the growth curve were 0.286, 0.228, and 0.433 h(-1) for LAD9, GAD3 and GAD4, respectively. The maximum aerobic nitrification-denitrification rate was achieved by the strain GAD4 of 0.381 mmol/l h, followed by LAD9 of 0.374 mmol/l h and GAD3 of 0.346 mmol/l h. Moreover, hydroxylamine oxidase and periplasmic nitrate reductase were successfully expressed in all the isolates. The relationship between the enzyme activities and the aerobic nitrification-denitrification rates revealed that hydroxylamine oxidation may be the rate-limiting step in the heterotrophic nitrification-aerobic denitrification process. The study results are of great significance to the wastewater treatment systems where simultaneous removal of carbon and nitrogen is desired.

Indexed as

DenitrificationNitrificationAchromobacterAgrobacteriumAmmoniaBacteria, AerobicBioreactorsComamonasHeterotrophic ProcessesHydroxylaminePhylogenyWaste Disposal, FluidAmmoniaHydroxylamine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.