Phosphorus mobility in lake sediments

Este resumo faz parte de: Book of abstracts of the Meeting of the Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2, Braga, Portugal, 2010. A versão completa do livro de atas está disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/1096

Análise de alimentos para bovinos.

Aspectos importantes relacionados a coleta de amostras; Objetivo da preparação das amostras; Preparação das amostras; Análise de alimentos para bovinos

Rendimento de grãos de milho safrinha em diferentes populações de espécies forrageiras.

bitstream/item/65390/1/29899.pdfOrganizado por Gessi Ceccon e Luiz Alberto Staut

Ensaio em vasos com leguminosas num delineamento em 'spli-plot', onde ocorreu perda de parcela.

Verificar os efeitos de adubação em 11 tipos de solos da Rod. BR-319 e um de Matão-SP, utilizando-se Galactia striata IRI-2961 e Centrosema pubescens IRI1282, como plantas indicadoras

Comparison of biocenoses from sequencing batch and sequencing biofilm batch reactors

Since the extensive research during the 70s, sequencing batch reactors (SBR) have become a quite common modification of activated sludge process. Additionally, the SBR can be combined with biofilm growth on the surface of a support material originating the Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactors (SBBR). While several comparative studies between the two systems were done in terms of organic carbon and nutrients removal efficiency, a detailed comparison of their biocenoses is not documented in the literature. The present work aims to compare the biocenoses from SBR and SBBR. In order to reach this objective four reactors were operated in parallel. One reactor was operated just with suspended biomass (SBR1) while the others combined suspended biomass with biofilm cultivation. The biofilm was formed on a new type of polyethylene support developed by University of Minho, called DupUM. The bed formed by these supports occupied 5 % (SBBR2), 10 % (SBBR3) and 20 % (SBBR4) of the reactor volume. Microscopic inspection revealed that the quality of biocenoses from reactors started to differ very soon after the inoculation. The biocenose of SBR1 and SBBR2 was dominated by filamentous microorganisms, while in SBBR3 and SBBR4 the communities were clearly more complex. The incorporation of an optimized amount of support for biofilm growth apparently suppressed the overgrowth of filamentous microorganisms. The differences between the biocenoses of the reactors are documented in figure 1