Demirci Mehmet, Çubuk Cankut, Dasdemir Ferhat, Saribas Abdulkerim Suat, Balcıoglu Esra Billur, Ozbey Dogukan, Yorulmaz Dogu, Olmez Hanci Tugba, Basa Safak, Kocazeybek Bekir Sami
Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kirklareli University, Kırklareli, Türkiye.
Centre for Experimental Medicine and Rheumatology, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London and Barts NIHR BRC & NHS Trust, Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom.
Front Microbiol. 2025 Jan 20;16:1488268. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1488268. eCollection 2025.
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and drinking-water treatment plants (DWTPs) are critical for public health due to the potential risks posed by microorganisms that may persist after treatment. The aim of this study was to detect the microbiome profiles of waters from both DWTPs and WWTPs under the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI), identify the antimicrobial resistance profiles in all these facilities, and observe the differences in the microbiome between the inlet and outlet of different WWTPs.
A total of 52 samples were examined, comprising 18 samples from DWTPs and 34 samples from WWTPs. All water samples underwent pre-isolation filtration. DNA isolation was conducted using filter material, followed by sequencing on a NovaSeq 6000 instrument. Kraken2 tools and R scripts were used for statistical analysis and data visualization.
The microbial metagenomic analysis identified 71 phyla, 113 classes, 217 orders, 480 families, and 1,282 genera across all samples. There were unclassified microbes (53.14% vs. 58.75%), Eukaryota (3.64% vs. 3.5%), Archaea (0.08% vs. 0.03%), bacteria (42% vs. 36.25%), and viruses (0.02% vs. 0.04%) in the raw water and ozonation unit outlet of DWTPs. The inlet and outlet of WWTPs showed unclassified microbes (52.68% vs. 59.62%), Eukaryota (0.6% vs. 1.72%), Archaea (0.26% vs. 0.15%), bacteria (46.43% vs. 38.43%), and viruses (0.05% vs. 0.04%). No statistically significant results were found in the analysis of raw waters collected from DWTPs and samples taken from the ozonation unit outlet-from the phylum level to the genus level ( > 0.05). The inlet and outlet points of WWTPs showed no statistically significant results from the phylum to species levels ( > 0.05). The most detected genera were (4.82%) in preliminary WWTPs, (1.93%) in biological WWTPs, (1.44%) in advanced biological WWTPs, (1.85%) in biological package WWTPs, and (11.55%) in plant-based WWTPs. No antimicrobial resistance gene markers were detected in water samples from raw water inlets and ozonation unit outlets from DWTPs, membrane wastewater recovery plants, or ultraviolet (UV) recycling facilities. The (3″), , and resistance gene markers were detected in all raw WWTPs samples.
There were no significant microbial risk differentiation between biological WWTPs and advanced biological WWTPs. The data could serve as preliminary information for future research. More extensive studies are needed, with multiple sample tracking in these facilities and their feeding basins.
污水处理厂(WWTPs)和饮用水处理厂(DWTPs)对公众健康至关重要,因为处理后仍可能存在的微生物会带来潜在风险。本研究的目的是检测伊斯坦布尔水和污水处理管理局(ISKI)下属的DWTPs和WWTPs的水体微生物群落概况,确定所有这些设施中的抗菌药物耐药性概况,并观察不同WWTPs进水口和出水口之间微生物群落的差异。
共检测了52个样本,其中包括18个来自DWTPs的样本和34个来自WWTPs的样本。所有水样都进行了预分离过滤。使用过滤材料进行DNA分离,随后在NovaSeq 6000仪器上进行测序。使用Kraken2工具和R脚本进行统计分析和数据可视化。
微生物宏基因组分析在所有样本中鉴定出71个门、113个纲、217个目、480个科和1282个属。DWTPs的原水和臭氧化单元出水口存在未分类微生物(53.14%对58.75%)、真核生物(3.64%对3.5%)、古菌(0.08%对0.03%)、细菌(42%对36.25%)和病毒(0.02%对0.04%)。WWTPs的进水口和出水口显示存在未分类微生物(52.68%对59.62%)、真核生物(0.6%对1.72%)、古菌(0.26%对0.15%)、细菌(46.43%对38.43%)和病毒(0.05%对0.04%)。从门水平到属水平,对DWTPs采集的原水和臭氧化单元出水口采集的样本进行分析,未发现统计学上的显著结果(>0.05)。WWTPs的进水口和出水口从门到物种水平均未显示出统计学上的显著结果(>0.05)。在初级WWTPs中检测到最多的属是(4.82%),在生物WWTPs中是(1.93%),在高级生物WWTPs中是(1.44%),在生物集成式WWTPs中是(1.85%),在植物性WWTPs中是(11.55%)。在DWTPs的原水进水口、膜式废水回收厂或紫外线(UV)回收设施的臭氧化单元出水口的水样中未检测到抗菌药物耐药基因标记。在所有原WWTPs样本中检测到了(3″)、和耐药基因标记。
生物WWTPs和高级生物WWTPs之间没有显著的微生物风险差异。这些数据可为未来研究提供初步信息。需要进行更广泛的研究,对这些设施及其进水流域进行多个样本跟踪。