ArticleWater research2017
Characterizing and contrasting the microbial ecology of laboratory and full-scale EBPR systems cultured on synthetic and real wastewaters.
Article in Water research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-cell Raman insights into microbial strategies for sustainable phosphorus mining and recycling.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Unlocking the potential of sidestream EBPR: exploring the coexistence of PAO, GAO and DGAO for effective phosphorus and nitrogen removal.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2025Article
- Investigation of the polyphosphate-accumulating organism population in the full-scale simultaneous chemical phosphorus removal system.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- The PolS-PolR Two-Component System Regulates Genes Involved in Poly-P Metabolism and Phosphate Transport inFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The anthropogenic discharge of phosphorus (P) into surface waters can induce the proliferation of cyanobacteria and algae, which can negatively impact water quality. Enhanced biological P removal (EBPR) is an engineered process that can be employed to efficiently remove significant quantities of P from wastewater. Within this engineered system, the mixed microbial consortium (MMC) becomes enriched with polyphosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs). To date much knowledge has been developed on PAOs, and the EBPR process is generally well understood; nonetheless, the engineered process remains underutilized. In this study, investigations were conducted using qPCR and Illumina MiSeq to assess the impacts of wastewater (synthetic vs. real) on EBPR microbial ecology. While a strong relationship was demonstrated between EBPR metrics (P:C; influent VFA:P) and excellent P removal across diverse EBPR systems and MMCs, no such correlations existed with the specific MMCs. Moreover, MMCs exhibited distinct clusters based on substrate, and qPCR results based on the putative PAO Accumulibacter did not correlate with BLASTN eubacterial results for either Accumulibacter or Rhodocyclaceae. More critically, PAO-based sequences aligned poorly with Accumulibacter for both eubacterial and PAO primer sets, which strongly suggests that the conventional PAO primers applied in FISH and qPCR analysis do not sufficiently target the putative PAO Accumulibacter. In particular, negligible alignment was observed for PAO amplicons obtained from a MMC performing excellent EBPR on crude glycerol (an atypical substrate). A synthetic wastewater-based MMC exhibited the best observed BLASTN match of the PAO amplicons, raising concerns about the potential relevance in using synthetic substrates in the study of EBPR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.