The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nitrate removal, communities of denitrifiers and adverse effects in different carbon substrates for use in denitrification beds
Open accessAbstract
Denitrification beds are containers filled with wood by-products that serve as a carbon and energy source to denitrifiers, which reduce nitrate ( NO3−) from point source discharges into non-reactive dinitrogen (N2) gas. This study investigates a range of alternative carbon sources and determines rates, mechanisms and factors controlling NO3− removal, denitrifying bacterial community, and the adverse effects of these substrates. Experimental barrels (0.2 m3) filled with either maize cobs, wheat straw, green waste, sawdust, pine woodchips or eucalyptus woodchips were incubated at 16.8 °C or 27.1 °C (outlet temperature), and received NO3− enriched water (14.38 mg N L−1 and 17.15 mg N L−1). After 2.5 years of incubation measurements were made of NO3−−N removal rates, in vitro denitrification rates (DR), factors limiting denitrification (carbon and nitrate availability, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and concentrations of NO3−, nitrite and ammonia), copy number of nitrite reductase (nirS and nirK ) and nitrous oxide reductase (nosZ ) genes, and greenhouse gas production (dissolved nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane), and carbon (TOC) loss. Microbial denitrification was the main mechanism for NO3−−N removal. Nitrate–N removal rates ranged from 1.3 (pine woodchips) to 6.2 g N m−3 d−1 (maize cobs), and were predominantly limited by C availability and temperature (Q10 = 1.2) when NO3−−N outlet concentrations remained above 1 mg L−1. The NO3−−N removal rate did not depend directly on substrate type, but on the quantity of microbially available carbon, which differed between carbon sources. The abundance of denitrifying genes (nirS, nirK and nosZ ) was similar in replicate barrels under cold incubation, but varied substantially under warm incubation, and between substrates. Warm incubation enhanced growth of nirS containing bacteria and bacteria that lacked the nosZ gene, potentially explaining the greater N2O emission in warmer environments. Maize cob substrate had the highest NO3−−N removal rate, but adverse effects include TOC release, dissolved N2O release and substantial carbon consumption by non-denitrifiers. Wood-chips removed less than half of NO3− removed by maize cobs, but provided ideal conditions for denitrifying bacteria, and adverse effects were not observed. Therefore we recommend the combination of maize cobs and woodchips to enhance NO3− removal while minimizing adverse effects in denitrification beds.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Standard methods: For the examination of water and waste water
(1990) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0003-2697(90)90598-4 · Cited by 72,091
Cell biology and molecular basis of denitrification.
Zumft, W. G. (1997) · Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · doi:10.1128/.61.4.533-616.1997 · Cited by 3,471
The Evolution and Future of Earth’s Nitrogen Cycle
Canfield, D. E., Glazer, A. N., & Falkowski, P. G. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1186120 · Cited by 2,697
Nitrous oxide solubility in water and seawater
Weiss, R. F., & Price, B. A. (1980) · Marine Chemistry · doi:10.1016/0304-4203(80)90024-9 · Cited by 1,721
Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis
Seitzinger, S., Harrison, J. A., Böhlke, J. K., Bouwman, A. F., Lowrance, R., Peterson, B., Tobias, C., & Drecht, G. V. (2006) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2064:dalawa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,679
Knowles, R. (1982) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.46.1.43-70.1982 · Cited by 1,585
Microbiological basis of NO and N2O production and consumption in soil.
Firestone, M. K., & Davidson, E. A. (1989) · Cited by 1,065
Henry, S., Bru, D., Stres, B., Hallet, S., & Philippot, L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00231-06 · Cited by 984
Nitrogen in Aquatic Ecosystems
Rabalais, N. N. (2002) · AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment · doi:10.1579/0044-7447-31.2.102 · Cited by 863
Braker, G., Fesefeldt, A., & Witzel, K.-P. (1998) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.64.10.3769-3775.1998 · Cited by 859
Cited by
Ashoori, N., Teixido, M., Spahr, S., LeFevre, G. H., Sedlak, D. L., & Luthy, R. G. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.040 · Cited by 197
Gill, A. S., Lee, A., & McGuire, K. L. (2017) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00287-17 · Cited by 62
Aqueous contaminant removal and stormwater treatment using biochar
Miles, T. R., Rasmussen, E. M., & Gray, M. (2016) · SSSA Special Publications · doi:10.2136/sssaspecpub63.2014.0048.5 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Warneke, S., Schipper, L. A., Matiasek, M. G., Scow, K. M., Cameron, S., Bruesewitz, D. A., & McDonald, I. R.
- Venue
- Water Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 5463-5475
- ISSN
- 0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163060733
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 12.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nitrate removal, communities of denitrifiers and adverse effects in different carbon substrates for use in denitrification beds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.007
- The paper
- Warneke, S., Schipper, L. A., Matiasek, M. G., Scow, K. M., Cameron, S., Bruesewitz, D. A., & McDonald, I. R. (2011). Nitrate removal, communities of denitrifiers and adverse effects in different carbon substrates for use in denitrification beds. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.