ArticleScientific reports2022
Development of microbial communities in biofilm and activated sludge in a hybrid reactor.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Nutrient removal performance and microbial composition analysis in hybrid membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2025Article
- Article
- Food wastewater treatment using a hybrid biofilm reactor: nutrient removal performance and functional microorganisms on filler biofilm and suspended sludge.RSC advances · 2024Article
- Nitrification kinetics, NInternational journal of environmental science and technology : IJEST · 2022Article
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
Microorganisms play a key role in biological wastewater treatment. The form in which biomass develops determines the efficiency and mechanisms of organic compound conversion, due to different conditions in various microbial structures. However, the results of studies comparing the microbial communities in biofilm and activated sludge have often conflicted. Therefore, this study compared the composition and development of the bacterial communities in biofilm and activated sludge in a hybrid reactor, employing 16S rRNA sequencing. Statistical analysis of the sequencing data included the identification of taxa characteristic to the biofilm and activated sludge, alpha and beta diversity analysis, and network analysis. These analyses indicated that the biofilm bacterial community was richer and more diverse than the activated sludge community. The mean numbers of OTU were 1614 in the biofilm and 993 in the activated sludge, and the mean values of the Chao1 (1735 vs. 1105) and Shannon (5.3 vs. 4.3) biodiversity indices were significantly higher for the biofilm. The biofilm was a better environment for development of nitrifiers (e.g., Nitrosomonas, Nitrospira) and phosphorus accumulating organisms (Candidatus Accumulibacter). Bacteria in the biofilm co-occurrence network had more connections (based on Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) with each other, indicating that they interact more than those in the activated sludge.
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.