True, but how might this affect the human microbiome? And what about the potential disturbance in sea mammals?

I asked Boran if anammox were escaping reactors.

I guess you mean if anammox bacteria are washed off from the reactor. Indeed like in all wwtp, a certain amount of biomass can get washed out of the system.

Thanks, those are some insightful details.
Please note that he is saying that there is no research whatsoever on the presence of AMMANOX bacteria in wild fish guts, e.g. they could very well be a natural part of the fish-gut biome.

And here is a second email with some clarification. Apparently, although he states hydrazine is not thought to escape treatment reactors, the bacteria do, as anammox have colonized the intestines of farmed fish.

Dear Keith,
You are more than welcome. I should clarify that hydrazine leakage from anammox wastewater treatment plants is practically nil. In almost all of the reactors, anammox bacteria grow in tightly packed granules (here is a piece on it for a general audience www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/702.summary); therefore, hydrazine cannot leak out. Anammox bacteria have more than 8 proteins that can convert hydrazine to N2.
Conventionally, nitrogen is removed by a combination of nitrification and denitrification processes. These processes do leak out NO (ozone depleting) and N2O (greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere. On the other hand, anammox bacteria are applied in the so-called partial nitrification-anammox bioreactors. In these reactors the nitrifiers could produce NO and N2O as by products; however, anammox bacteria are very efficient nitric oxide scavengers and they also do not have N2O as an intermediate or by product, which could minimize NO emissions.
Again, I cannot imagine that hydrazine could leak out in the gut environment, where microorganisms are growing as biofilm. Anammox bacteria are reported in the guts of fish from an aquaculture. These systems have nitrogen removal "reactors" so anammox bacteria could have originated from that as well. We don't have yet any data that they are found on wild fish. There are also reports on the presence of anammox bacteria in termite guts as well.

Cheers,
Boran

I received the following response via email from an expert regarding hydrazine leaking from anammox cells:

Dear Keith,
In general, membranes are permeable to ions. Anammox membranes are
denser than "normal" prokaryotic membranes, but still, they are also
permeable. Thus, the answer to your question is indeed hydrazine could
leak out of the cells. You can see my paper, where I detected hydrazine
turnover (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21964329).
That being said, anammox catabolism runs on the reducing power of
hydrazine; therefore, its leakage is detrimental to the cells. To this
end, there are several enzymes in the anammox bacteria with very high
affinities towards hydrazine that efficiently convert hydrazine to N2.
Furthermore, if the cells are growing in flocs, the hydrazine that could
leak would be consumed by the neighboring cells. I hope this answers
your question.
Cheers,
Boran

JKMakowka wrote: First of all, I am no fish

Case closed.

First of all, I am no fish, and second: difficult to get where I am

I have actually drunk a glass of E.coli enriched water before
Besides, what kind of argument is that?

Drink a few glasses of anammox bacteria-enriched water, JK, and get back to me on this matter . . .

NOTE from Moderator: Please remain civil! Regards Trevor

KeithBell wrote:

JKMakowka wrote: I am not exactly sure why you think AMMANOX bacteria in fish (or human) guts would be bad.

That's the kind of cavalier attitude I find disconcerting, especially from someone who calls himself a microbiologist. Please research nitrogen metabolism in the gut and how the gut affects all systems of the body.

That actually wasn't a rhetorical question. Why do you automatically assume those bacteria are bad in the gut? Especially in fish which lack an active surplus ammonia release mechanism (contrary to mammals which do it via urea, and reptiles/birds that do it with uric-acid), they could play an important symbiotic function. In fact, since they seem to be found in rather large quantities according to the paper you linked it is pretty save to assume so.

JKMakowka wrote: I am not exactly sure why you think AMMANOX bacteria in fish (or human) guts would be bad.

That's the kind of cavalier attitude I find disconcerting, especially from someone who calls himself a microbiologist. Please research nitrogen metabolism in the gut and how the gut affects all systems of the body. It's commonly said "Death begins in the colon," but I'm sure you would argue against this concept, stating death might just as easily begin in the wrist or knee.

Your defense of WWTP is becoming a bit laughable, but I can't blame you for it as the world is only just beginning to acknowledge the crucial importance of flora balance in overall health, internal and environmental. When anammox technology was becoming accepted and developed for wastewater treatment, people had no clue about how microbes regulate health. In general, they still don't, not even health, sanitation professionals or even scientists. This is new territory for everyone.

Moreover, taxonomy changes rapidly over time, i.e., what was once thought to be bacteria may be reclassified protozoan. Inner space is the new outer space and we've barely scratched the surface. In the meantime, we need be more careful and conserve/repair what we have left and, unfortunately, this doesn't include the flush-and-forget mentality so conveniently enjoyed by the oblivious masses.

Obviously care needs to be taken with waste-water even after treatment to prevent the spread of pathogens (note: most WWTPs are not designed to remove pathogens, they will lower their count somewhat, but mostly they remove nutrients to protect ecosystems)

"Care" is not possible in a careless, reckless industry. WTTPs are guided by law regulating only three (3) pathogens. It's an absolute joke given current state of knowledge.

Dear Keith,

...World Bank [and many other organizations] still finances WWTPs without any priority on dry toilets

I regret, unfortunately you a right on this statement.

"Developments" in this sector not driven by local climatic conditions, sustainability and organizations like "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance" and similar one.

Our international sanitation sector is driven by pyromaniac pure profit "grows" of large wwtp's suppliers lobby groups. Even in hot arid areas they support to please lobby groups the desalination of ocean water by fossil energy and construction of fossil energy consuming vacuum collection systems in order to flush toilets and to use fossil energy consuming AS-wwtp's to irrigate finally imported tropic flower garden plants with wwtp effluent. Just to please some tourists.

All in combination with a "green" cover up through eco-social bla-bla to "sustain" income of "LOCALS" (in reality only servants).
I regret, if you scratch on many so called success stories only a bit you will find many examples on this kind of "developments" around the world financed by e.g. EUCOM Aid too and the usual others.

This pyromaniac "style" will end with the "endless" fossil energy sources...

see as well: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/5-clts...ts?limit=12&start=12

Have a nice New Year any way
Detlef

KeithBell wrote: JK, I was referring mainly to ciliate protozoans known to cause severe illness, yet they are puposely multiplied in WWTP to lower bacterial counts, then released unregulated by obsolete law. Also, in recent news we've seen food contamination cyclospora outbreaks where cyclospora are known to be in wastewater, unregulated. I believe the protozoan cyclospora were once classified as cyanobacteria, itself associated with neurodegeneration, i.e., Parkinson's disease.

Even ciliate protozoans are an extremely big group that mostly consist of perfectly harmless organisms with many beneficial surface water ecosystem functions:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciliate

Obviously care needs to be taken with waste-water even after treatment to prevent the spread of pathogens (note: most WWTPs are not designed to remove pathogens, they will lower their count somewhat, but mostly they remove nutrients to protect ecosystems), so unfortunate evens can happen when WWTP effluents get in contact with food, but I don't see how you can blame WWTPs for that.
Besides, cyanobacteria and protozoans are totally different group of species, you must be mixing something up there.

I am not exactly sure why you think AMMANOX bacteria in fish (or human) guts would be bad. I couldn't access the full texts of those articles you linked, but the abstracts don't seem to indicate anything problematic either. If at all they are actually removing problematic substances (NH3+NO2) that occur from urea breakdown other bacteria are causing. You should also note that AMMANOX bacteria grow extremely slow and do not compete with other (likely more beneficial) bacteria in your gut.
The tiny amounts of hydrazine they produce are also not leaving the cells as ammanox bacterial have a special extremely tight cellular compartment that evolved to make sure no hydrazine is lost.

Concerning the above quote... that actually made me chuckle. Let be give you an analogue for humans to show how much fear mongering that is:
"humans are more related to Brugia malayi, a lymphatic parasite that causes elephantiasis, than to bacteria and might have evolved from land living mamals".
Both quotes are true, but equally totally misleading.