...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Science & Technology >Free Chlorine and Monochloramine Application to Nitrifying Biofilm:Comparison of Biofilm Penetration, Activity, and Viability
【24h】

Free Chlorine and Monochloramine Application to Nitrifying Biofilm:Comparison of Biofilm Penetration, Activity, and Viability

机译：游离氯和一氯胺在硝化生物膜中的应用：生物膜渗透性，活性和生存能力的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Biofilm in drinking water systems is undesirable. Free chlorine and monochloramine are commonly used as secondary drinking water disinfectants, but monochloramine is perceived to penetrate biofilm better than free chlorine. However, this hypothesis remains unconfirmed by direct biofilm monochloramine measurement This study compared free chlorine and monochloramine biofilm penetration into an undefined mixed-culture nitrifying biofilm by use of microelectrodes and assessed the subsequent effect on biofilm activity and viability by use of dissolved oxygen (DO) microelectrodes and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) with LIVE/DEAD BacLight. For equivalent chlorine concentrations, monochloramine initially penetrated biofilm 170 times faster than free chlorine, and even after subsequent application to a monochloramine penetrated biofilm, free chlorine penetration was limited. DO profiles paralleled monochloramine profiles, providing evidence that either the biofilm was inactivated with monochloramine's penetration or its persistence reduced available substrate (free ammonia). While this research clearly demonstrated monochloramine's greater penetration, this penetration did not necessarily translate to immediate viability loss. Even though free chlorine's penetration was limited compared to that of monochloramine, it more effectively (on a cell membrane integrity basis) inactivated microorganisms near the biofilm surface. Limited free chlorine penetration has implications when converting to free chlorine in full-scale chloraminated systems in response to nitrification episodes.
机译：饮用水系统中的生物膜是不可取的。游离氯和一氯胺通常被用作二次饮用水消毒剂，但是一氯胺被认为比游离氯更好地渗透生物膜。然而，通过直接测量生物膜一氯胺仍无法证实这一假设。该研究通过使用微电极比较了游离氯和一氯胺生物膜渗透到不确定的混合培养硝化生物膜中的能力，并通过使用溶解氧（DO）评估了其对生物膜活性和活力的后续影响。 LIVE / DEAD BacLight微电极和共聚焦激光扫描显微镜（CLSM）。对于同等的氯浓度，一氯胺最初穿透生物膜的速度是游离氯的170倍，即使随后施用于一氯胺穿透的生物膜，游离氯的穿透也受到限制。 DO轮廓与一氯胺轮廓平行，提供了证据证明生物膜被一氯胺的渗透作用灭活或其持久性降低了可用底物（游离氨）。虽然这项研究清楚地表明一氯胺的渗透性更高，但这种渗透并不一定会立即导致生存力丧失。尽管与单氯胺相比，游离氯的渗透受到限制，但它可以更有效地（基于细胞膜完整性）灭活生物膜表面附近的微生物。当响应硝化事件而在全尺寸氯化系统中转化为游离氯时，有限的游离氯渗透会产生影响。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental Science & Technology》 |2011年第4期|p.1412-1419|共8页
  • 作者

    Woo Hyoung Lee; David G. Wahman; Paul L. Bishop; Jonathan G. Pressman;

  • 作者单位

    School of Energy, Environmental, Biological and Medical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, United States,Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Post-Doctoral Fellow at U.S EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268;

    National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States;

    School of Energy, Environmental, Biological and Medical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, United States;

    National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号