2016
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0001031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Zinc Orthophosphate on Simulated Drinking Water Biofilms Influenced by Lead and Copper

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
10
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the increase in phosphate tended to reduce bacterial richness, whilst promoted bacterial dominance, thus fewer OTUs were predominant in the community. This finding contradicts those of Payne et al (2016), who observed an increase in size and diversity of biofilm communities as a result of phosphate treatment in galvanic macrocells with lead and copper components fed with drinking water. Similarly, Jang et al (2012), reported an increase of species diversity in biofilm when phosphate was added under low residual chlorine conditions in an annular reactor also fed with drinking water.…”
Section: Effect Of Phosphate On the Biofilm Taxonomic Analysiscontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the increase in phosphate tended to reduce bacterial richness, whilst promoted bacterial dominance, thus fewer OTUs were predominant in the community. This finding contradicts those of Payne et al (2016), who observed an increase in size and diversity of biofilm communities as a result of phosphate treatment in galvanic macrocells with lead and copper components fed with drinking water. Similarly, Jang et al (2012), reported an increase of species diversity in biofilm when phosphate was added under low residual chlorine conditions in an annular reactor also fed with drinking water.…”
Section: Effect Of Phosphate On the Biofilm Taxonomic Analysiscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, those studies focused on investigating bacterial communities, yielded contradictory results about the effect of phosphate on these microorganisms. On the one hand, several researchers found that phosphate favoured bacterial growth (Miettinen et al, 1997;Sathasivan et al, 1997), increased bacterial cell numbers (Kasahara et al, 2004;Fang et al, 2010), promoted biofilm viability (Rubulis and Juhna, 2007) and increased Gram-negative bacterial content (Kasahara et al, 2004) and diversity (Jang et al, 2012;Payne et al, 2016). On the other hand, other researchers indicated that phosphate did not affect bacterial density (Berger et al, 1992;Gouider et al, 2009) and a decrease of bacteria was observed when this chemical was added (Appenzeller et al, 2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The increase in biomass concentrations in the orthophosphate-treated system is consistent with previous drinking water studies reporting an increase in microbial growth due to orthophosphate. [6][7][8]10,46,47 Lehtola et al 7 reported an increase in biomass concentrations after adding orthophosphate as little as 1 µg P-PO4 3-L -1 to treated drinking water with no disinfectant residual and a background of 0.19 µg L -1 of available phosphorus. While Rompré et al 2 and Kogo et al 19 indicated that biofilm accumulation was not influenced by corrosion inhibitor type (sodium silicate or orthophosphate), the results from this study suggest the opposite: tATP concentrations were significantly lower in the silicate-treated AR compared to the orthophosphate-treated AR.…”
Section: Cellular Atp (Catp) and Biofilm Atp (Tatp)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In relation to lead, there are only few studies focusing on the study of microbial communities growing on this type of metal [15][16][17]20,25 and results from these suggested that lead did not affect biofilm biomass 20 , richness 20 and bacterial numbers 17 , yet exerted a selective pressure on biofilm communities by favouring bacteria able to accumulate and resist heavy metals 15,17,20 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies conclude that PO 4 3− promoted the development of planktonic microorganisms in drinking water, and changed the bacterial community structure increasing Gram-negative bacterial content 18 . In relation to biofilm development on a range of substrates, it has been reported that PO 4 3− increased the number of bacterial cells, promoted biofilm viability 19 and diversity 20 , 21 , but reduced the production of exopolysaccharides 22 . In contrast, other studies indicated that the bacterial density was not affected by PO 4 3− 23 and even a decrease of heterotrophic bacteria was observed 24 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%