As水质毒性发光细菌及微生物燃料电池在线监测技术的比选研究  

Comparison Research on Two On-line Bio-monitoring Technologies Based on Luminescent Bacteria and Microbial Fuel Cells for the Water Quality Toxicity of As

作　　者：易雯[1] 严惠华[1] 林秀榕[1] 张琳[1] 韩士松 王仕琦[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省环境监测中心

出　　处：《中国环境监测》2017年第3期133-138,共6页Environmental Monitoring in China

基　　金：中央重金属污染防治资金项目“北江流域饮用水源水质安全监控预警关键技术研究与系统平台建设”

摘　　要：针对实际应用需要,对比研究了发光细菌和微生物燃料电池两种不同毒性预警技术对典型类金属砷离子的响应差异,并考察了丰水期、枯水期河水水质背景干扰对响应信号的影响。结果表明,发光细菌法对砷离子响应较为灵敏,微生物燃料电池法对砷离子的响应非常灵敏。发光细菌法受水体水质背景干扰大,且不同生产厂家的仪器差异显著,推测可能是由于菌株来源不同、仪器响应灵敏度差异所造成。微生物燃料电池法对背景干扰的抗性较强,稳定性较高,河水加标与纯水加标样本的剂量-效应曲线差别不大。基于上述研究结果,分析了两种技术监测类金属砷的优缺点并提出实际在线运行的相关建议。Research of the two biomonitoring technologies were conducted for the needs of their practical applications. The comparison between their response differences to arsenic ions as well as the effects of matrix interferences of the river water in the wet and dry seasons on the responses were presented. The study found that the luminescent bacteria toxicity test is sensitive to the arsenic ions; however,still being inferior to the microbial fuel cells toxicity methods. The toxicity test based on the luminescent bacteria is easy to be interfered by water background. The online instruments from the different manufacturers showed different response signals to the toxicant at the same concentration. We speculated that the difference in the sources of bacterial strain and the sensitivities of instruments led to the different response signals. In practical,the microbial fuel cells toxicity method was found with advantages such as good anti-interference ability and high stability. Based on the abovementioned results,the advantages and disadvantages of the two technologies have been concluded and some recommendations were given for their practical on-line operation.

关 键 词：砷 发光细菌 微生物燃料电池 生物监测 

分 类 号：X830.2[环境科学与工程—环境工程]