Physicochemical Parameters and Bacterial Diversity of Soil Samples Collected in South of Brazzaville (Republic of Congo)
Le résumé fourni par la source
The aim of this study was to analyze the physicochemical parameters and diversity of bacteria isolated from soil samples in the south of Brazzaville (Republic of Congo). Two zones were targeted, Diata and Bacongo, and two composites were produced for the two zones. Measurements of physicochemical parameters gave the following values: temperature (t?C) from 25.7 to 25.9, hydrogen potential (pH) from 7, 44 to 7.47, electrical conductivity EC from 106 to 154 and dissolved oxygen (O2) is 2.60 to 2.71. Enumeration and isolation were carried out by composite on different media and the results showed the following variations: composite1 (C1) on PCA 12.7±7.8(102CFU/g), on EMB 13.9±7.4(102CFU/g), on Cetrimide 1.9±0.04(102CFU/g); on Mossel 9.8±0.07(102CFU/g) and on Chapman 8.4±0.5(102CFU/g); composite 2(C2) on PCA 17.9±0.75(102CFU/g), on EMB 8.1±2.6(103CFU/g), on Cetrimide 12.5±5(102CFU/g), on Mossel 14.5±0.4(102CFU/g), and on Chapman 8.6±7.4.103CFU/g. Phenotypic identification of the isolates revealed four genera, namely : Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus. Bacteria from the Total Aerobic Mesophilic Flora (TAMF) group were also identified. Various shapes, colours and aspects of the different cells were also observed. The isolates obtained were either catalase positive or catalase negative. The isolates obtained showed their capacity to degrade cellulose with values ranging from 58.06% to 66%.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Physicochemical Parameters and Bacterial Diversity of Soil Samples Collected in South of Brazzaville (Republic of Congo)
- Date Crossref
- 10/07/2025
- Éditeur
- Excellent Publishers
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.