ArticleMicrobial ecology2016
Seasonal Changes in Bacterial Communities Cause Foaming in a Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial community structure and functional characteristics in a membrane bioreactor used for real rural wastewater treatment.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2025Article
- Seasonal dynamics of bacterial composition and functions in biological treatment of coking wastewater.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Bacteriophage ecology in biological wastewater treatment systems.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Activated sludge bacterial communities of typical wastewater treatment plants: distinct genera identification and metabolic potential differential analysis.AMB Express · 2018Article
- Unraveling the environmental and anthropogenic drivers of bacterial community changes in the Estuary of Bilbao and its tributaries.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bio-foaming is a major problem in solid separation in activated sludge (AS) wastewater treatment systems. Understanding the changes in bacterial communities during sludge foaming is vital for explaining foam formation. Changes in bacterial communities in the foam, corresponding foaming AS, and non-foaming AS in a seasonal foaming wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Northern China were investigated by high-throughput pyrosequencing and molecular quantification-based approaches. We found that bacterial communities of the foam and the corresponding foaming AS were similar but markedly different from those of the non-foaming AS. Actinobacteria was the predominant phylum in the foam and the corresponding foaming AS, whereas Proteobacteria was predominant in the non-foaming AS. Similar to the results of most previous studies, our results showed that Candidatus "Microthrix parvicella" was the predominant filamentous bacteria in the foam and the corresponding foaming AS and was significantly enriched in the foam compared to the corresponding foaming AS. Its abundance decreased gradually with a slow disappearance of sludge foaming, indicating that its overgrowth had a direct relationship with sludge foaming. In addition to Candidatus M. parvicella, Tetrasphaera and Trichococcus might play a role in sludge foaming, because they supported the changes in AS microbial ecology for foam formation. The effluent water quality of the surveyed plant remained stable during the period of sludge foaming, but the microbial consortia responsible for nitrogen and phosphorus transformation and removal markedly changed compared to that in the non-foaming AS. This study adds to the previous understanding of bacterial communities causing foaming in WWTPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26577577What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.