Data_Sheet_3_Certain Environmental Conditions Maximize Ammonium Accumulation and Minimize Nitrogen Loss During Nitrate Reduction Process by Pseudomonas putida Y-9.PDF
Realizing the smallest nitrogen loss is a challenge in the nitrate reduction process. Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) and nitrate assimilation play crucial roles in nitrogen retention. In this study, the effects of the carbon source, C/N ratio, pH, and dissolved oxygen on the multiple nitrate reduction pathways conducted by Pseudomonas putida Y-9 are explored. Strain Y-9 efficiently removed nitrate (up to 89.79%) with glucose as the sole carbon source, and the nitrogen loss in this system was 15.43%. The total nitrogen decrease and ammonium accumulation at a C/N ratio of 9 were lower than that at 12 and higher than that at 15, respectively (P < 0.05). Besides, neutral and alkaline conditions (pH 7–9) favored nitrate reduction. Largest nitrate removal (81.78%) and minimum nitrogen loss (10.63%) were observed at pH 7. The nitrate removal and ammonium production efficiencies of strain Y-9 increased due to an increased shaking speed. The expression patterns of nirBD (the gene that controls nitrate assimilation and DNRA) in strain Y-9 were similar to ammonium patterns of the tested incubation conditions. In summary, the following conditions facilitated nitrate assimilation and DNRA by strain Y-9, while reducing the denitrification: glucose as the carbon source, a C/N ratio of 9, a pH of 7, and a shaking speed of 150 rpm. Under these conditions, nitrate removal was substantial, and nitrogen loss from the system was minimal.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.copbio.2018.01.014
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.1704504114
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00449-016-1541-9
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111961
- https://doi.org//10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01339.x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.07.024
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s12010-015-1920-8
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s002530000363
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123597
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.040
- https://doi.org//10.1111/1462-2920.12098
- https://doi.org//10.1263/jbb.106.498
- https://doi.org//10.1126/science.1254070
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrmicro.2018.9
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.060
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2019.02580
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.10.023
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.049
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12870-020-02453-w
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.066
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0378-1097(90)90515-R
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.01.007
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.05.006
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0038-0717(90)90129-N
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.058
- https://doi.org//10.2136/sssaj2014.08.0332
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.186
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2019.01943
- https://doi.org//10.1021/acs.est.6b01765
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00203-011-0690-0
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2014.00460
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.06.018
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.021
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00227-7
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.110
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00853.x
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2016.01842
- https://doi.org//10.1105/tpc.19.00748
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107687
- https://doi.org//10.1111/gcb.14958
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ibiod.2021.105234
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2011.10.026
- https://doi.org//10.1038/ismej.2014.201
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.372
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11368-014-1037-7
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.038
CC BY 4.0