Original Article

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY AND VIROLOGY. 10 August 2026. 127-150
https://doi.org/10.4167/jbv.2026.56.2.127

ABSTRACT


MAIN

INTRODUCTION

Proper handling of solid and medical waste is important for the protection of public health and ecological systems. For this reason, sanitary landfills and waste treatment facilities are built to contain refuse which may contain pathogenic organisms and mitigate environmental contamination. However, even with these engineered controls in place, the spread and persistence of pathogenic bacteria within landfills remains a concern. This is especially apparent in underdeveloped nations where policy execution and capacity to monitor is inconsistent.

The Calajunan Sanitary Landfill in Iloilo city, Philippines exemplifies this issue. Since 1986, it has served as Iloilo city’s disposal site for nearly three decades. During this time, it was considered as an open dumpsite taking in all kinds of waste types ranging from domestic refuse, industrial by-products, and untreated medical waste, although in 2015 it has transitioned to a sanitary landfill. Because of its long history as a disposal site, the prolonged deposition of heterogeneous waste creates ideal conditions that may facilitate the persistence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and resistance genes (ARGs) (1). Despite these, studies that look into landfill sediments as sources of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and resistance genes (ARGs) are still limited, especially in the Philippine context.

Moreover, infrastructure deficiencies and poor waste segregation strategies can also promote the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In these conditions, bacteria are exposed to more selective pressures, their survivability is enhanced and horizontal gene transfer is fostered (2). National laws such as Republic Act 9003 has mandated the closure of open dumpsites and promoted their rehabilitation to sanitary landfills and even then, its implementation has faced logistical and infrastructural challenges. As a result, there are still concerns about the long-term ecological impact of past waste disposal practices.

Unlike landfill leachates which have been more studied, landfill sediments are often overlooked. They are ecologically rich habitats for microbes because of its capability to trap moisture, nutrients, and organic substrates, a favorable environment for microbes to thrive. Furthermore, resistant bacterial populations within these conditions are enabled to persist and interact, potentially enhancing gene exchange. With the scarcity of baseline local data, the contribution of landfill sediments to the persistence and spread resistance remains insufficiently defined.

Considering the transition of the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill from a former open dumpsite to its current controlled system, this study critically evaluated whether pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant bacteria persist within its sediments. It specifically investigated the occurrence, diversity, resistance profiles, and virulence-associated traits of recovered bacterial isolates, without addressing infrastructural compliance. The detection of clinically relevant and multidrug-resistant bacteria indicates sustained ecological impacts, possible operational constraints, and environmental conditions that favor microbial persistence. To our knowledge, this study represents the first comprehensive microbiological assessment of landfill sediments at Calajunan, and among the few in the Philippine context, providing essential baseline data on environmental antimicrobial resistance. By generating site-specific evidence, this work reinforces the role of landfill ecosystems as reservoirs of resistance in tropical developing regions and underscores their inclusion in surveillance strategies. Current findings are pivotal to global health priorities and support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Site and Sample Collection

Sediment sampling was conducted at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill located in Barangay Calajunan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, Philippines. The 24-hectare facility, situated approximately 7 km from the city center, functioned as a disposal and treatment site for domestic, industrial, and medical wastes. Five distinct sampling stations were established to represent heterogeneous operational zones within the landfill (Fig. 1). Two replicate sediment samples were collected from each station during each sampling period to ensure adequate representation of site variability.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2026-056-02/N0290560204/images/JBV_2026_v56n2_127_f001.jpg
Fig. 1

Geographic location of the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines, and spatial distribution of the five designated sediment sampling stations (Stn. 1–Stn. 5) within the study area. The inset map shows the regional location of the landfill, while the enlarged panel illustrates the relative positions of the sampling stations.

Sampling Station 1 represented the organic waste composting area, Station 2 the medical waste disposal zone, Stations 3 and 4 the active landfill cells receiving mixed and unsorted waste, and Station 5 the leachate settling pond adjacent to the leachate treatment facility. The geographic coordinates, station descriptions, and corresponding waste categories for each sampling station are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of sampling stations, geographic coordinates, and waste categories at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines

Sampling 
Station
Station Description Geographic Coordinates Waste Category
Station 1 Area designated for organic waste disposal and composting N 10°42′41.7456″; E 122°31′27.1668″ Organic waste
Station 2 Area designated for medical waste disposal N 10°42′38.3796″; E 122°31′27.6132″ Medical waste
Station 3 Active landfill zone receiving mixed and unsorted waste N 10°42′33.6996″; E 122°31′26.4864″ Inorganic and mixed waste
Station 4 Active landfill zone receiving mixed and unsorted waste N 10°42′33.4656″; E 122°31′29.5968″ Inorganic and mixed waste
Station 5 Leachate settling pond adjacent to the leachate treatment facility N 10°42′31.1616″; E 122°31′14.9052″ Leachate-impacted area

Sediment samples were collected between 08:00 and 10:00 A.M., with ambient air temperatures ranging from approximately 27–28 °C. Approximately 50 g of sediment were collected from each site at a depth of 5–6 cm using a sterile 50-mm sediment corer. Samples were transferred aseptically into labeled sterile polyethylene bags. Collections were conducted during two separate sampling periods (June and July 2025) to improve representativeness of site conditions while ensuring sampling consistency within the wet season. All samples were immediately placed in insulated containers with ice packs and transported to the Microbiology Laboratory of the College of Medical Laboratory Science, Central Philippine University for subsequent analyses.

Sediment Physicochemical Analyses

Before the composite sediment samples (n=2) were analyzed, they were first air-dried at room temperature, gently crushed using a wooden roller and sieved through a 2-mm mesh to remove unwanted materials such as stone, and plant matter. After homogenization, the samples were then thoroughly mixed and placed inside appropriately labelled plastic bags. A separate subsample for moisture determination was prepared and was placed inside an airtight container to prevent water loss before analysis.

Sediment physicochemical properties were analyzed at the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) Regional Soil Laboratory, Department of Agriculture–Regional Field Office VI (Western Visayas), Fort San Pedro Drive, Iloilo City, Philippines. All analyses were performed under standardized laboratory conditions in accordance with the laboratory’s internal quality assurance procedures and the official analytical protocols of the BSWM, Department of Agriculture (3). The parameters determined included pH (potentiometric method) (4), organic carbon (%C; Walkley–Black dichromate oxidation) (5), total nitrogen (%N; Kjeldahl digestion and distillation) (6), potassium (%K2O; flame atomic emission spectroscopy) (7), phosphorus (%P2O5; vanadomolybdate colorimetry) (8), calcium (%CaO; titrimetric extraction) (9), and moisture content (gravimetric oven-drying) (10).

Bacteriological Analyses

Total Heterotrophic Plate Count (THPC)

The total heterotrophic plate count (THPC) was quantified by adding 1g of thoroughly homogenized sediment sample to 9 ml of 0.85% saline solution to achieve an initial 10⁻¹ dilution. Subsequent serial tenfold dilutions were prepared up to 10⁻⁵. After which, 0.1 mL aliquots from each dilution were spread plated onto Trypticase Soy Agar (TSA; Merck, Germany) and the plates were then incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. After incubation, the number of visible colonies was noted, and the bacterial load was expressed as colony-forming units per gram (CFU/g) of sediment.

Isolation, Characterization, and Identification of Cultivable Bacteria

Cultivable bacteria recovered from sediment samples were identified during each sampling period. To determine the dominant colonial morphotypes, colonies that had grown for 24 hours on TSA plates, originally prepared for THPC analysis, were described according to morphology, including shape, size, elevation, margin, pigmentation, and transparency. The relative frequency of each colony type was recorded to estimate the proportional composition of dominant bacteria in the samples.

Representative colonies, around five to ten per dominant type, were inoculated onto TSA plates and subjected to several rounds of purification. The purified isolates were then inoculated in Trypticase Soy Broth (TSB; Merck, Germany) supplemented with 15% glycerol and stored at –80°C for preservation and further analyses. Preliminary identification was carried out through Gram staining and motility assessment, followed by biochemical characterization, including tests for lactose, glucose, and sucrose fermentation, sulfide production, lysine decarboxylation and deamination, citrate utilization, and indole production (Supplementary Table 1), in accordance with the procedures outlined in Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology (11).

Representative isolates from the predominant colony morphotypes were selected for species-level identification by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Genomic DNA was extracted using the Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, overnight bacterial cultures were centrifuged at 13,000–16,000 × g for 2 min to obtain cell pellets. Gram-positive isolates were pretreated with lysozyme (10 mg mL⁻¹), whereas Bacillus isolates were additionally treated with lysostaphin (10 mg mL⁻¹) prepared in 50 mM EDTA (pH 8.0) and incubated at 37°C for 30–60 min to facilitate cell wall digestion. Following cell lysis, RNase treatment, protein precipitation, isopropanol-mediated DNA precipitation, ethanol washing, and DNA rehydration were performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Purified genomic DNA was stored at 2–8°C until PCR amplification.

The nearly full-length 16S rRNA gene was amplified using the universal bacterial primers 27F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and 1492R (5′-TACGGYTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3′). PCR amplification was carried out in a 25-µL reaction mixture containing 5× Flexi Buffer, MgCl2, dNTPs, Taq DNA polymerase, forward and reverse primers, template DNA, and nuclease-free water. The amplification protocol consisted of an initial denaturation at 94°C, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation, primer annealing, and extension, with a final extension at 72°C. Amplified products were verified by agarose gel electrophoresis using a 1-kb DNA ladder.

Purified PCR amplicons were submitted to Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) for bidirectional Sanger sequencing. The resulting sequences were quality-trimmed and compared against the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank nucleotide database using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST). Species-level identification was assigned based on sequence similarity and query coverage consistent with established 16S rRNA gene taxonomic criteria.

Virulence-Associated Enzymatic and Hemolytic Activities

Virulence-associated phenotypic characteristics, including DNase, gelatinase, and hemolytic activities, were assessed using standard microbiological methods (11). Hemolytic activity was determined on blood agar, DNase production on DNase agar following the addition of 1 M hydrochloric acid, and gelatinase activity by assessing gelatin liquefaction after refrigeration. Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 were included as reference strains for quality control.

Antimicrobial Resistance Profiling

Antimicrobial susceptibility was assessed using the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion technique. Bacterial suspensions were prepared in sterile saline solution. The turbidity of the bacterial suspension was subsequently adjusted to correspond to the 0.5 McFarland standard. The standardized inocula were then uniformly spread onto Mueller–Hinton agar (MHA; Merck, Germany) plates using procedures adapted from the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (12).

The antibiotic panel included amoxicillin (25 µg), chloramphenicol (30 µg), doxycycline (30 µg), erythromycin (15 µg), enrofloxacin (5 µg), neomycin (30 µg), nitrofurantoin (300 µg), norfloxacin (10 µg), oxytetracycline (30 µg), and trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (25 µg). These antibiotics represent multiple antimicrobial classes that are widely used in human medicine, veterinary practice, and food-animal and aquaculture production, thereby providing a broad assessment of antimicrobial resistance among environmental bacterial isolates (13, 14). Plates were incubated at 37°C for 18–24 hours. Zones of inhibition were measured in millimeters using a caliper and interpreted according CLSI criteria (12). E. coli ATCC 25922 and S. aureus ATCC 25923 served as quality control reference strains.

The Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) index was calculated using the formula: MAR = a / b , where a represented the number of antibiotics to which the isolate exhibited resistance and b corresponded to the total number of antibiotics tested (15). It should be noted that antimicrobial agents for which bacterial species possess intrinsic resistance, as defined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) expected resistant phenotypes (16), were excluded from the calculation of multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) indices.

Statistical Analysis

All experiments were conducted in triplicate to ensure reproducibility. Bacterial counts (CFU/g) were log10-transformed prior to analysis and presented as mean ± standard deviation. Differences in heterotrophic plate counts among sampling stations were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Additionally, Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationships between sediment physicochemical parameters and bacterial community composition across the sampling stations. This was performed using the Hmisc package (v5.1) in the R statistical software environment (version 4.5.3; 2026-03-11).

RESULTS

Physicochemical Properties of Sediment Samples Across Sampling Stations

The physicochemical characteristics of sediment samples collected from the five sampling stations are presented in Table 2. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among stations for all measured parameters. Sediment pH ranged from moderately to strongly alkaline (7.92 ± 0.02 – 8.45 ± 0.05), with Stations 3, 4, and 5 (8.35 ± 0.05 – 8.45 ± 0.05) exhibiting significantly higher pH values than Stations 1 and 2 (7.92 ± 0.02 – 7.93 ± 0.05). The highest mean pH values were recorded in Stations 4 and 5.

Table 2.

Physicochemical characteristics of sediment samples collected from five sampling stations at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines. Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) based on two independent sampling events. Within each parameter, means sharing the same superscript letter are not significantly different among sampling stations (p < 0.05)

Sampling Station pH Total Organic Carbon (%OC) Total Nitrogen (%N) Total Potassium (%K2O) Total Phosphorus (%P2O5) Calcium (%CaO) Moisture Content (%)
Station 1 7.92 ± 0.02b 13.48 ± 0.07a 2.06 ± 0.04a 0.95 ± 0.05a 1.66 ± 0.05a 4.72 ± 0.03a 41.58 ± 0.07a
Station 2 7.93 ± 0.05b 3.52 ± 0.03b 0.24 ± 0.03b 0.19 ± 0.01cd 0.15 ± 0.01b 2.59 ± 0.28c 38.14 ± 0.25b
Station 3 8.35 ± 0.05a 2.46 ± 0.06c 0.16 ± 0.01c 0.24 ± 0.01c 0.29 ± 0.01c 2.83 ± 0.06bc 33.40 ± 0.35c
Station 4 8.45 ± 0.05a 1.29 ± 0.01d 0.16 ± 0.01c 0.16 ± 0.01d 0.46 ± 0.01b 3.08 ± 0.02b 27.36 ± 0.06d
Station 5 8.45 ± 0.05a 1.40 ± 0.01d 0.16 ± 0.01c 0.51 ± 0.02b 0.17 ± 0.01d 1.36 ± 0.05d 41.92 ± 0.11a

Total organic carbon (TOC) varied markedly across stations, with Station 1 (13.48 ± 0.07%) exhibiting significantly higher TOC levels than all other stations, whereas Stations 4 (1.29 ± 0.01%) and 5 (1.40 ± 0.01%) showed the lowest values. A similar trend was observed for total nitrogen, where Station 1 (2.06 ± 0.04%) recorded the highest concentrations while Stations 3, 4, and 5 (0.16 ± 0.01%) had significantly lower levels. Total potassium content also differed significantly among stations, with Station 1 (0.95 ± 0.05%) showing the highest concentration, followed by Station 5 (0.51 ± 0.02%), whereas Stations 2, 3, and 4 exhibited comparatively lower values (0.16 ± 0.01 - 0.24 ± 0.01%).

Phosphorus and calcium concentrations followed similar spatial patterns, with Station 1 (1.66 ± 0.05%) consistently recording the highest phosphorous level, while Station 5 (1.36 ± 0.05%) exhibited the lowest calcium concentration. Moisture content also varied significantly, with Stations 1 (41.58 ± 0.07%) and 5 (41.92 ± 0.11%) showing higher values compared with Stations 2 (38.14 ± 0.25%), 3 (33.40 ± 0.35%), and 4 (27.36 ± 0.06%); the lowest moisture content was observed in Station 4. By and large, sediments from Station 1 were characterized by elevated nutrient and organic matter content, whereas Stations 3 and 4, representing active landfill zones, exhibited lower nutrient levels but higher alkalinity.

Total Heterotrophic Plate Counts (THPC) in Landfill Sediments

Fig. 2 presents the THPC of sediment samples collected from the five sampling stations during June and July. Results are expressed as mean ± SD in log10 CFU/g based on duplicate sub-stations (n = 2). In June, THPC values ranged from 7.05 ± 0.01 to 7.81 ± 0.20 log10 CFU/g. Station 1 exhibited the highest bacterial load and differed significantly from most stations (p < 0.05). Stations 4 and 5 recorded the lowest counts and were not significantly different from each other, whereas Station 3 showed intermediate values comparable to Stations 2 and 4. In July, THPC values ranged from 7.10 ± 0.03 to 7.89 ± 0.04 log10 CFU/g. Station 1 again recorded the highest bacterial count and remained significantly different from all other stations (p < 0.05). Greater spatial differentiation among stations was observed during July, with significant differences detected across most sampling areas.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2026-056-02/N0290560204/images/JBV_2026_v56n2_127_f002.jpg
Fig. 2

Total heterotrophic plate counts (THPC) in sediment samples from five sampling stations at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill during June (A) and July (B). Data are presented as mean ± SD (log10 CFU/g; n = 2), based on duplicate sub-stations per sampling station. Different superscript letters indicate significant differences among stations within each sampling period (p < 0.05).

Taxonomic Identification and Relative Abundance of Cultivable Bacterial Isolates

The taxonomic composition and relative abundance of bacterial isolates recovered from the five sampling stations are illustrated in Table 3, whereas their colonial morphology, Gram reaction, and biochemical characteristics are presented in Supplementary Table 1.

Table 3.

Taxonomic distribution and relative abundance of bacterial isolates recovered from sediment samples collected at five sampling stations within the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines. Data are presented as number (No.) and percentage (%) of isolates per station and overall. Station 1 represents the organic waste disposal area; Station 2 the medical waste disposal area; Stations 3 and 4 the inorganic and mixed waste areas; and Station 5 the leachate-impacted area. Gram reaction is indicated as positive (+) or negative (−)

Bacteria Gram Reaction Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Bacillus cereus + 6 5.9 2 2.2 3 3.4 10 10.9 2 1.8 23 5
Bacillus mycoides + 1 1.0 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 1.1 0 0.0 3 1
Bacillus paramycoides + 9 8.9 9 9.7 8 9.0 4 4.3 4 3.5 34 7
Bacillus proteolyticus + 12 11.9 13 14.0 13 14.6 4 4.3 20 17.5 62 13
Bacillus stercoris + 2 2.0 1 1.1 1 1.1 4 4.3 0 0.0 8 2
Bacillus subtilis + 14 13.9 10 10.8 22 24.7 8 8.7 14 12.3 68 14
Bacillus thuringiensis + 5 5.0 1 1.1 1 1.1 4 4.3 7 6.1 18 4
Bacillus velezensis + 5 5.0 5 5.4 5 5.6 10 10.9 10 8.8 35 7
Aeromonas caviae 1 1.0 5 5.4 2 2.2 1 1.1 1 0.9 10 2
Aeromonas hydrophila 1 1.0 4 4.3 4 4.5 2 2.2 2 1.8 13 3
Aeromonas hydrophila subsp. ranae 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 0.9 3 1
Aeromonas sanarellii 1 1.0 3 3.2 6 6.7 1 1.1 2 1.8 13 3
Aeromonas taiwanensis 1 1.0 2 2.2 5 5.6 1 1.1 1 0.9 10 2
Citrobacter amalonaticus 2 2.0 2 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 5 1
Citrobacter braakii 6 5.9 5 5.4 1 1.1 4 4.3 1 0.9 17 3
Citrobacter europaeus 1 1.0 2 2.2 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.9 5 1
Citrobacter freundii 2 2.0 4 4.3 4 4.5 2 2.2 4 3.5 16 3
Citrobacter koseri 4 4.0 2 2.2 2 2.2 1 1.1 1 0.9 10 2
Citrobacter sedlakii 7 6.9 2 2.2 0 0.0 10 10.9 1 0.9 20 4
Enterobacter hormaechei 7 6.9 1 1.1 4 4.5 2 2.2 1 0.9 15 3
Enterobacter tabaci 2 2.0 1 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1
Klebsiella pneumoniae 0 0.0 2 2.2 0 0.0 2 2.2 1 0.9 5 1
Kosakonia cowanii 6 5.9 6 6.5 2 2.2 7 7.6 2 1.8 23 5
Morganella morganii 0 0.0 3 3.2 1 1.1 1 1.1 23 20.2 28 6
Proteus mirabilis 0 0.0 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 1.1 6 5.3 8 2
Providencia vermicola 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 4.4 5 1
Pseudomonas guariconensis 3 3.0 2 2.2 1 1.1 8 8.7 1 0.9 15 3
Pseudomonas putida 1 1.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 0.9 3 1
Pseudomonas taiwanensis 2 2.0 4 4.3 1 1.1 1 1.1 0 0.0 8 2
Pseudomonas tohonis 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 0.9 3 1
Total10120.79319.08918.29218.811423.3489100

A total of 489 bacterial isolates were recovered from the five sampling stations, with Station 5 yielding the highest number of isolates, followed by Stations 1, 2, 4, and 3. Gram-positive Bacillus spp. (51.3%) predominated across all stations, particularly Bacillus subtilis (14%) and B. proteolyticus (13%), which were most abundant in Stations 3 and 5, respectively. Other Bacillus taxa, including B. paramycoides (7%), B. velezensis (7%), and B. cereus (5%), occurred at lower frequencies across multiple stations.

Gram-negative isolates exhibited greater taxonomic diversity and comprised members of the genera Aeromonas, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Kosakonia, Morganella, Proteus, Providencia, and Pseudomonas. Morganella morganii (6%) was predominantly associated with the leachate-impacted area (Station 5), whereas K. cowanii (5%) and Citrobacter spp. were more evenly distributed among sampling stations. Aeromonas spp. were recovered from all sites but were comparatively more abundant in Stations 2 and 3.

Phenotypic characterization revealed distinct differences between Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates. Gram-negative bacteria generally produced smooth, circular, convex, moist, and non-pigmented colonies, whereas Gram-positive Bacillus spp. formed larger colonies with dry to wrinkled surfaces and irregular or filamentous margins. Biochemical reactions were consistent with the observed taxonomic groupings. Most Enterobacteriaceae fermented glucose but differed in sucrose fermentation and hydrogen sulfide production. P. mirabilis exhibited characteristic swarming motility and hydrogen sulfide production, whereas K. pneumoniae produced large mucoid colonies and fermented all sugars in triple sugar iron medium. In contrast, Pseudomonas spp. were non-fermentative and tested positive for citrate utilization and motility. Additional reactions in lysine iron agar and sulfide-indole-motility media further differentiated isolates based on lysine decarboxylation, lysine deamination, indole production, hydrogen sulfide production, and motility.

Representative isolates corresponding to the dominant phenotypic groups were selected for 16S rRNA gene sequencing to confirm species identity (Supplementary Table 2). Amplified gene fragments ranged from 754 to 1,425 bp and yielded high-quality sequences with BLAST similarities ranging from 99.63% to 100% against reference sequences in the NCBI GenBank database. Most isolates exhibited ≥99% sequence identity, supporting reliable species-level identification.

Among Gram-negative isolates, sequencing confirmed the presence of several Aeromonas spp., including A. caviae (2%), A. hydrophila (3%), A. hydrophila subsp. ranae (1%), A. sanarellii (3%), and A. taiwanensis (2%). These taxa were predominantly recovered from medical waste- and leachate-impacted stations. Sequencing also confirmed Gram-positive isolates as members of the genus Bacillus, including B. cereus (5%), B. mycoides (1%), B. paramycoides (7%), B. proteolyticus (13%), B. stercoris (2%), and B. subtilis (14%). Notably, B. subtilis and B. proteolyticus were consistently recovered from multiple sampling stations and represented the dominant Gram-positive taxa.

Relationships between sediment physicochemical properties and dominant bacterial taxa

Fig. 3 presents the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) between sediment physicochemical characteristics and the dominant bacterial taxa. Generally, species-specific relationships were observed, with both positive and negative associations across the measured environmental variables. Most correlations were weak to moderate in magnitude, and only a limited number reached statistical significance (p < 0.05). Among the measured physicochemical parameters, organic carbon (%OC) and total nitrogen (%N) exhibited the greatest number of significant associations with bacterial taxa. B. velezensis showed significant positive correlations with both %OC and %N, whereas E. hormaechei was significantly negatively correlated with these parameters. A. hydrophila subsp. ranae also exhibited a significant negative association with %N. Significant correlations were likewise observed between C. europaeus and pH, B. cereus and %CaO, C. sedlakii and %CaO, M. morganii and %CaO, and P. tohonis and %N. In contrast, no statistically significant correlations were detected between bacterial taxa and potassium (%K2O), phosphorus (%P2O5), or moisture content.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2026-056-02/N0290560204/images/JBV_2026_v56n2_127_f003.jpg
Fig. 3

Heatmap of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) illustrating the relationships between sediment physicochemical parameters and dominant bacterial taxa based in sediment samples collected from the five sampling stations at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill. The color gradient ranges from deep blue (strong positive correlation) to deep red (strong negative correlation), with white representing weak or no correlation. Asterisks (*) indicate statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05).

Virulence-Associated Enzymatic and Hemolytic Activities

The virulence-associated enzymatic and hemolytic activities of the recovered bacterial isolates are summarized in Supplementary Table 3. Aeromonas spp. consistently exhibited DNase and gelatinase production, with most isolates also demonstrating hemolytic activity, indicating a broad repertoire of virulence-associated phenotypes. In contrast, Bacillus spp. displayed variable enzymatic profiles, although hemolytic and gelatinase activities were frequently observed, particularly among B. cereus, B. mycoides, B. paramycoides, B. subtilis, and B. proteolyticus. Members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp. were generally negative for DNase, gelatinase, and hemolytic activities. Overall, Aeromonas spp. exhibited the greatest diversity of virulence-associated phenotypic traits among the bacterial groups examined.

Prevalence and Distribution of Antimicrobial Resistance Among Recovered Isolates

Table 4 summarizes the antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of the 489 bacterial isolates recovered from Calajunan Sanitary Landfill sediments. Overall, resistance was most frequently observed against amoxicillin, erythromycin, and neomycin, with numerous bacterial taxa exhibiting complete or near-complete resistance to these antimicrobial agents. Among Gram-positive isolates, Bacillus spp. consistently demonstrated high resistance to neomycin (99–100%) and amoxicillin (44–100%), while resistance to trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole was also common in several species, including B. cereus (91%), B. mycoides (100%), B. paramycoides (100%), B. proteolyticus (100%), and B. thuringiensis (100%). Variable resistance to oxytetracycline was likewise observed among Bacillus species (11–100%), whereas resistance to chloramphenicol, norfloxacin, enrofloxacin, and doxycycline was generally low or absent.

Table 4.

Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacterial isolates recovered from sediment samples at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines, expressed as percentage (%) of isolates resistant to each antimicrobial agent

Bacteria No of 
isolates examined
Gram Reaction Percentage (%) of resistant isolates
B-lactam Phenicol Macrolide Aminoglycoside Nitrofurans Fluoroquinolones Tetracyclines Sulfonamide
AMX C E NE NIT NOR ENR OT DO SXT
Bacillus cereus 23 + 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 52 0 91
Bacillus mycoides 3 + 100 0 0 100 100 0 0 100 100 100
Bacillus paramycoides 34 + 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
Bacillus proteolyticus 62 + 100 11 60 100 73 0 37 60 32 100
Bacillus stercoris 8 + 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0
Bacillus subtilis 68 + 44 0 12 99 13 0 0 100 0 44
Bacillus thuringiensis 18 + 100 0 39 100 61 0 0 11 0 100
Bacillus velezensis 35 + 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0
Aeromonas caviae 10 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 20 0 80
Aeromonas hydrophila 13 54 0 85 85 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aeromonas hydrophila subsp. ranae 3 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 0 100
Aeromonas sanarellii 13 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 15 0 15
Aeromonas taiwanensis 10 100 0 100 100 40 0 60 60 40 80
Citrobacter amalonaticus 5 60 0 100 100 100 0 0 60 0 0
Citrobacter braakii 17 88 6 100 100 18 0 24 88 0 0
Citrobacter europaeus 5 100 60 100 100 100 0 100 100 60 0
Citrobacter freundii 16 75 25 100 100 0 0 6 75 0 0
Citrobacter koseri 10 100 30 100 100 100 0 0 60 0 0
Citrobacter sedlakii 20 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
Enterobacter hormaechei 15 80 20 100 100 100 0 20 80 20 0
Enterobacter tabaci 3 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
Klebsiella pneumoniae 5 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 100 0 0
Kosakonia cowanii 23 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0
Morganella morganii 28 96 89 100 100 100 0 0 82 0 0
Proteus mirabilis 8 0 38 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 38
Providencia vermicola 5 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 0
Pseudomonas guariconensis 15 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 87 100
Pseudomonas putida 3 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 0 100
Pseudomonas taiwanensis 8 63 63 100 100 100 0 38 63 0 63
Pseudomonas tohonis 3 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100

†Values with the dagger symbol denote intrinsic resistance and were excluded from the computation of the MAR index.

Among Gram-negative isolates, resistance to amoxicillin (54–100%), erythromycin (85–100%), and neomycin (85–100%) was widespread. Elevated resistance to nitrofurantoin (100%) and oxytetracycline (63–100%) was likewise observed in several members of the genera Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Morganella, Proteus, Providencia, and Pseudomonas. In contrast, resistance to norfloxacin was absent in all bacterial taxa examined (0%), whereas resistance to enrofloxacin and doxycycline remained relatively infrequent and was confined to selected species.

Taken together, the highest frequencies of resistance among the bacterial taxa were observed for neomycin (100% of taxa), amoxicillin (90.0% of taxa), erythromycin (86.7% of taxa), and oxytetracycline (86.7% of taxa), followed by nitrofurantoin (70.0% of taxa) and trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (50.0% of taxa). Resistance values marked with a dagger (†) denote intrinsic resistance according to the EUCAST expected resistant phenotypes and were excluded from the computation of multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) indices.

Distribution of Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) Index Values Among Bacterial Isolates

The distribution of multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index values among the bacterial isolates is presented in Table 5. MAR indices were calculated using only acquired resistance phenotypes, with antimicrobial agents to which bacterial species exhibit intrinsic resistance excluded from the analysis according to EUCAST expected phenotypes (16). Overall, Gram-positive Bacillus spp. predominantly exhibited MAR indices of 0.4, including Bacillus cereus (52.2%), B. paramycoides (100%), B. subtilis (51.5%), and B. thuringiensis (94.4%), whereas B. mycoides showed a MAR index of 0.6 (100%). Among Gram-negative isolates, MAR index values were more variable across species. High MAR index values were observed in P. guariconensis (0.7; 100%), P. putida (0.7; 100%), P. vermicola (0.6; 100%), M. morganii (0.4; 71.4%), C. europaeus (0.8; 60.0%), and A. taiwanensis (0.8; 40.0%). Conversely, all isolates of K. cowanii and P. tohonis exhibited a MAR index of 0.3, while 84.6% of Aeromonas hydrophila and Aeromonas sanarellii isolates exhibited a MAR index of 0.1. Notably, isolates with MAR indices ≥0.2 predominated in most bacterial species, indicating widespread occurrence of bacteria originating from environments subjected to substantial antimicrobial selective pressure.

Table 5.

Distribution of multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index values among bacterial isolates recovered from sediment samples collected at five sampling stations of the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines. MAR indices were calculated after excluding antimicrobial agents to which bacterial species exhibit intrinsic resistance according to EUCAST expected phenotypes

Bacteria No of Isolates
Examined
Gram Reaction % of Isolates per MAR Index1
MAR Index
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bacillus cereus 23 + 0 0 8.7 39.1 52.2 0 0 0 0
Bacillus mycoides 3 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
Bacillus paramycoides 34 + 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Bacillus proteolyticus 62 + 0 0 0 0 33.9 21.0 6.5 16.1 22.6
Bacillus stercoris 8 + 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bacillus subtilis 68 + 0 1.5 36.8 10.3 51.5 0 0 0 0
Bacillus thuringiensis 18 + 0 0 0 0 94.4 5.6 0 0 0
Bacillus velezensis 35 + 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aeromonas caviae 10 0 20 0 60 20 0 0 0 0
Aeromonas hydrophila 13 15.4 84.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aeromonas hydrophila subsp. ranae 3 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Aeromonas sanarellii 13 0 84.6 0 0 15.4 0 0 0 0
Aeromonas taiwanensis 10 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 40
Citrobacter amalonaticus 5 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 0 0
Citrobacter braakii 17 0 0 11.8 58.8 11.8 17.6 0 0 0
Citrobacter europaeus 5 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 60
Citrobacter freundii 16 0 25.0 0 43.8 31.2 0 0 0 0
Citrobacter koseri 10 0 0 0 40.0 30 30 0 0 0
Citrobacter sedlakii 20 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Enterobacter hormaechei 15 0 0 0 20 40 20 20 0 0
Enterobacter tabaci 3 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Klebsiella pneumoniae 5 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Kosakonia cowanii 23 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
Morganella morganii 28 0 0 0 28.6 71.4 0 0 0 0
Proteus mirabilis 8 0 0 62.5 0 0 37.5 0 0 0
Providencia vermicola 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
Pseudomonas guariconensis 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
Pseudomonas putida 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
Pseudomonas taiwanensis 8 37.5 0 0 25 0 0 0 37.5 0
Pseudomonas tohonis 3 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0

1Percentages were calculated based on the total number of isolates examined per bacterial species. MAR indices exclude antibiotics for which bacterial species are intrinsically resistant according to EUCAST expected phenotypes. A MAR index of zero indicates susceptibility to all antibiotics included in the MAR calculation.

DISCUSSION

This study provides a baseline characterization of the cultivable bacterial community inhabiting sediments from the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, together with their virulence-associated phenotypes, antimicrobial resistance profiles, and relationships with sediment physicochemical characteristics. To our knowledge, this is the first report from Western Visayas and among the few studies in the Philippines integrating sediment physicochemical characterization with culture-based bacterial identification, virulence-associated phenotypic assessment, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index analysis, and correlation analysis. Although the present investigation was not designed to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying bacterial persistence or antimicrobial resistance, it establishes a valuable reference dataset for future ecological monitoring and environmental antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance in Philippine landfill ecosystems.

The marked spatial variation in sediment physicochemical properties among the sampling stations was accompanied by corresponding differences in bacterial abundance and community composition, indicating that local environmental conditions influence the distribution of cultivable bacteria. Stations enriched in organic carbon and total nitrogen supported higher heterotrophic bacterial counts and yielded a greater diversity of cultivable isolates than stations with lower nutrient availability. These observations are consistent with previous studies identifying organic matter as a major determinant of bacterial growth because it provides carbon and energy sources that sustain microbial metabolism (17, 18, 19). Organic carbon and nitrogen are particularly important in landfill environments (20), where continuous decomposition of organic waste generates heterogeneous nutrient-rich microhabitats that selectively favor bacteria capable of efficiently utilizing available substrates (21). The observed association between elevated nutrient content and increased cultivable bacterial abundance further emphasizes the importance of organic matter availability in structuring landfill microbial communities, although additional environmental factors undoubtedly contribute to community composition.

Correlation analysis further demonstrated that the influence of sediment chemistry was species-specific rather than uniform across the bacterial community. Organic carbon and total nitrogen exhibited the greatest number of significant associations with the recovered taxa, whereas pH and calcium also influenced the occurrence of selected bacterial species. In contrast, potassium, phosphorus, and moisture content showed comparatively weaker relationships with bacterial distribution under the conditions examined. Because most correlations were weak to moderate, these findings should be interpreted as ecological associations rather than evidence of direct causal relationships. The distribution of bacteria within landfill sediments is likely governed by multiple interacting factors, including nutrient availability, waste composition, physicochemical heterogeneity, microbial competition, and other environmental variables (21, 22, 23) that were beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, the observed associations suggest that sediment chemistry contributes to shaping the cultivable bacterial community and provides a useful framework for future hypothesis-driven investigations. The absence of strong universal correlations further supports the concept that bacterial community assembly in landfill sediments is governed by multiple interacting environmental and biological processes rather than by any single physicochemical factor (24).

The predominance of Bacillus spp. across the sampling stations agrees with their well-recognized ecological versatility and capacity to survive fluctuating environmental conditions through endospore formation (25). This adaptive strategy enables members of the genus to persist under changing nutrient availability, moisture, and pH conditions that characterize landfill environments. Similar predominance of Bacillus species has been reported in landfill soils and other waste-impacted terrestrial environments (26, 27), suggesting that these organisms represent an important component of cultivable bacterial communities associated with organic-rich ecosystems. Beyond their ability to form endospores, Bacillus species contribute to organic matter decomposition and nutrient recycling, thereby playing important ecological roles in waste-associated environments (28, 29). Alongside Bacillus spp., the recovery of opportunistic Gram-negative genera including Aeromonas, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Morganella, Proteus, Providencia, and Pseudomonas reflects the ecological heterogeneity of landfill sediments, where municipal, domestic, agricultural, and healthcare wastes create diverse physicochemical niches capable of supporting bacteria with different ecological strategies (23, 30). Many members of the family Enterobacteriaceae are commonly associated with the gastrointestinal microbiota of humans and animals (31), suggesting that mixed municipal wastes likely contribute to the bacterial assemblages recovered from the landfill sediments. Although the presence of these organisms does not demonstrate environmental transmission or pathogenicity, it indicates that landfill sediments can function as environmental reservoirs of cultivable opportunistic bacteria originating from mixed waste streams (32). Likewise, the recovery of Aeromonas spp. from multiple sampling stations reflects their ecological versatility and capacity to persist in moist, organic-rich waste environments (14, 33, 34, 35, 36).

Among the recovered bacteria, Aeromonas spp. consistently expressed DNase and gelatinase activities, with most isolates also demonstrating hemolytic activity, whereas these phenotypes were less frequently observed in the remaining bacterial groups. These extracellular activities have been associated with nutrient acquisition, environmental persistence, and host colonization in opportunistic bacteria (37, 38, 39). However, the presence of virulence-associated phenotypes alone does not establish pathogenicity because bacterial virulence depends on the coordinated expression of numerous genetic and environmental factors that were not investigated in the present study. Instead, these observations indicate that some landfill-associated bacteria possess phenotypic characteristics commonly associated with opportunistic microorganisms and therefore warrant further investigation using molecular approaches capable of identifying virulence-associated genes and their regulation.

The present investigation employed culture-dependent methods and therefore characterized only the cultivable fraction of the landfill bacterial community. Although culture-independent approaches provide a broader assessment of microbial diversity, culture-based studies remain important because they permit direct phenotypic characterization of individual bacterial isolates, including antimicrobial susceptibility testing and evaluation of virulence-associated traits that cannot be inferred solely from community sequencing data. The combined use of conventional biochemical characterization and 16S rRNA gene sequencing of representative isolates therefore provided reliable taxonomic identification while enabling subsequent phenotypic analyses relevant to environmental surveillance.

Following exclusion of antimicrobial agents for which resistance is considered intrinsic according to current EUCAST recommendations (16), acquired or potentially acquired resistance remained widespread among the recovered bacterial isolates. Resistance to multiple antimicrobial classes and the occurrence of elevated MAR indices among numerous isolates support previous observations that landfill environments represent reservoirs of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. The continuous deposition of municipal, agricultural, industrial, and healthcare wastes likely exposes resident bacterial communities to diverse anthropogenic selective pressures, including antibiotic residues, disinfectants, and other contaminants that favor the persistence of resistant bacterial populations. In addition to direct antibiotic exposure, landfill environments may promote the co-selection of antimicrobial resistance through the presence of heavy metals and other environmental contaminants that exert shared selective pressures on microbial communities, although these factors were not evaluated in the present study. Although the present study did not determine the genetic basis of resistance, the observed phenotypic patterns demonstrate that acquired antimicrobial resistance is well established among cultivable bacteria inhabiting this landfill ecosystem.

Several bacterial taxa, particularly Aeromonas spp. and selected Bacillus spp., exhibited both multidrug resistance and virulence-associated phenotypes. While the present study did not investigate the genetic relationship between these characteristics, their coexistence is environmentally relevant because bacteria possessing multiple adaptive traits may be better equipped to survive under stressful environmental conditions (40). These observations should not be interpreted as evidence of increased pathogenic potential but rather as an indication that landfill sediments harbor bacterial populations with characteristics that justify continued environmental surveillance and more detailed molecular investigation.

From a One Health perspective, landfill ecosystems represent environmental interfaces where microorganisms originating from human, animal, agricultural, and industrial sources coexist under diverse selective pressures. Such environments may facilitate the long-term persistence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and provide opportunities for their dissemination through landfill leachate, surface runoff, wildlife, domestic animals, or occupational exposure among waste workers (41, 42). In tropical regions such as the Philippines, heavy rainfall and seasonal flooding may further increase hydrological connectivity between landfill systems and adjacent aquatic environments. Although these potential dissemination pathways were not investigated in the present study, the findings reinforce the importance of including landfill ecosystems within broader environmental AMR surveillance programs alongside clinical and agricultural monitoring initiatives. Accordingly, landfill ecosystems should be recognized as important environmental compartments within national One Health surveillance strategies aimed at monitoring the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the present findings. First, the investigation was restricted to cultivable bacteria and therefore does not represent the entire landfill microbiome. Second, antimicrobial resistance was assessed phenotypically, and the underlying resistance genes or molecular mechanisms were not characterized. Third, environmental factors that may contribute to antimicrobial co-selection, including heavy metals and antibiotic residues, were not determined. Consequently, the observed resistance profiles should be interpreted as evidence of phenotypic antimicrobial resistance rather than confirmation of specific genetic determinants. Furthermore, only representative isolates were subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing; therefore, less abundant bacterial taxa may have remained undetected. Future studies integrating metagenomics, whole-genome sequencing, resistome analyses, characterization of mobile genetic elements, and measurements of environmental contaminants would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the ecological processes governing bacterial persistence and antimicrobial resistance dissemination in Philippine landfill ecosystems.

In conclusion, this study provides the first baseline characterization of the cultivable bacterial community inhabiting sediments of the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, and represents one of the few integrated investigations of landfill-associated bacteria conducted in the Philippines. The predominance of Bacillus spp., together with the recovery of diverse opportunistic Gram-negative bacteria exhibiting virulence-associated phenotypes and acquired antimicrobial resistance, demonstrates that landfill sediments constitute important environmental reservoirs of cultivable bacteria with ecological and public health relevance. Organic carbon, total nitrogen, pH, and calcium were the physicochemical variables most closely associated with bacterial distribution, highlighting the contribution of sediment characteristics to shaping the cultivable bacterial community.

Although limited to culture-dependent analyses, this study establishes an important baseline for future environmental monitoring and One Health-based antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Philippine landfill ecosystems. Future studies integrating culture-independent approaches, whole-genome sequencing, resistome analyses, and environmental contaminant measurements will further clarify the ecological processes and genetic mechanisms underlying bacterial persistence and antimicrobial resistance dissemination in landfill environments.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Rolando Pakingking Jr. and Ted Rudi Aurelio conceptualized the study and developed the experimental design. Rolando Pakingking Jr., Ted Rudi Aurelio, John Kelly Padernilla, Stephen Sabinay, Peter Palma, and Angel Joy Falco contributed to data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. Rolando Pakingking Jr. and Ted Rudi Aurelio prepared the figures and tables and drafted the manuscript with input from all authors. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study did not involve live animals; therefore, ethical approval was not required.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to the staff of the Biotechnology and Biomedical Research Laboratory, West Visayas State University, for their invaluable assistance in the molecular analysis of our samples. We also extend our heartfelt appreciation to Marvin Guzman, whose support and encouragement, greatly contributed to the successful completion of this study. Our sincere appreciation is likewise extended to Dr. Evelyn Grace Ayson, Dr. Nicolas Guanzon Jr., and Dr. Stella Fernandez for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. This study was made possible through funding provided by the University Research Center of Central Philippine University (CPU-URC-PRO 363).

References

1

Blumfelde M, Gudrā D, Začs D, Vonda K, Žorža L, Selga T, et al. Risks of antibiotic resistance dissemination by leachates from municipal landfills of different ages. Water. 2023;15(19):3349.

10.3390/w15193349
2

Lee JH, Park KS, Jeon JH, Lee SH. Antibiotic resistance in soil. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(12):1306-1307.

10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30675-3
3

Bureau of Soils and Water Management, Department of Agriculture. Test Methods Manual. Laboratory Services Division ed. 2024.

4

Thomas GW. Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks DL, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Madison (WI): Soil Science Society of America; 1996. p. 475-490.

10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c16
5

Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37(1):29-38.

10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
6

Bremner JM. Nitrogen-Total. In: Sparks DL, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Madison (WI): Soil Science Society of America; 1996. p. 1085-1122.

10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c37
7

Knudsen D, Peterson GA, Pratt PF. Lithium, sodium, and potassium. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America; 1982. p. 225-246.

10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c13
8

Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India; 1973.

9

Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America; 1982. p. 167-179.

10

Gardner WH. Water content. In: Klute A, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America; 1986. p. 493-544.

11

Holt JG, Krieg NR, Sneath PHA, Staley JT, Williams ST. Bergey’s manual of determinative bacteriology. 9th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1994.

12

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 32nd ed. Wayne (PA): Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2022.

13

Ibrahim M, Ahmad F, Yaqub B, Ramzan A, Imran A, Afzaal M, et al. Chapter 4 - Current trends of antimicrobials used in food animals and aquaculture. In: Hashmi MZ, ed. Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in the Environment. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020. p.39-69.

10.1016/B978-0-12-818882-8.00004-8
14

Pakingking R Jr, Española JG, Palma P, Usero R. Motile aeromonads recovered from tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cultured in earthen ponds in the Philippines: assessment of antibiotic susceptibility and multidrug resistance to selected antibiotics. Isr J Aquac Bamidgeh. 2022;74:1-11.

10.46989/001c.37010
15

Krumperman PH. Multiple antibiotic resistance indexing of Escherichia coli to identify high-risk sources of fecal contamination of foods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1983;46(1):165-170.

10.1128/aem.46.1.165-170.1983
16

European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Expected resistant phenotypes. Version 1.2. Växjö (Sweden): European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 2023.

17

Chen Y, Zheng M, Qiu Y, Wang H, Zhang H, Tao Q, et al. Organic matter and total nitrogen lead to different microbial community structure in sediments between lagoon and surrounding areas by regulating Xenococcus abundance. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:859921.

10.3389/fmicb.2022.859921
18

Insam H, Bertoldi M. Chapter 3 Microbiology of the composting process. In: Waste Management Series. Elsevier; 2007. p.25-48.

10.1016/S1478-7482(07)80006-6
19

Liang Q, Chen H, Gong Y, Fan M, Yang H, Lal R, et al. Effects of 15 years of manure and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic carbon fractions in a wheat-maize system in the North China Plain. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2012;92(1):21-33.

10.1007/s10705-011-9469-6
20

Song L, Wang Y, Zhang R, Yang S. Microbial mediation of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles during solid waste decomposition. Microb Ecol. 2023;86(1):311-324.

10.1007/s00248-022-02056-y
21

Wang YX, Liu QY, Du JY, Sha HQ, Su J, Sun Y, et al. Landfill depths alter microbial community structure and ecological assembly by affecting δ13C and organic matter. J Waste Manag. 2025;203:114881.

10.1016/j.wasman.2025.114881
22

Xu S, Lu W, Liu Y, Ming Z, Liu Y, Meng R, et al. Structure and diversity of bacterial communities in two large sanitary landfills in China as revealed by high-throughput sequencing (MiSeq). J Waste Manag. 2017;63:41-48.

10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.047
23

Zabihollahi S, Rahmani A, Safari Sinegani AA, Samadi MT, Aghadadashi V, Khazaei M, et al. Assessing microbial soil community dynamics in a municipal solid waste landfill: impacts of waste type and disposal timing. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. 2024;10:100918.

10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100918
24

Sekhohola-Dlamini L, Tekere M. Microbiology of municipal solid waste landfills: a review of microbial dynamics and ecological influences in waste bioprocessing. Biodegradation. 2020;31(1):1-21.

10.1007/s10532-019-09890-x
25

Losick RM. Bacillus subtilis: a bacterium for all seasons. Curr Biol. 2020;30(19):R1146-R1150.

10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.083
26

Saibu S, Adebusoye SA, Oyetibo GO, Rodrigues DF. Geochemistry and metagenomics analyses of bacterial community structure in selected waste dumpsites in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11:1304033.

10.3389/fenvs.2023.1304033
27

Zakaria Z, Fadzil FNM, Mohamad MAN, Hamid AAA, Chowdhury AJK, Harumain ZAS. Metagenomic analysis of bacterial communities in heavy metal leachate-contaminated soils at Jalan Lipis Sanitary Landfill, Pahang, Malaysia. Desalin Water Treat. 2024;319:100512.

10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100512
28

Chukwuma OB, Rafatullah M, Kapoor RT, Tajarudin HA, Ismail N, Siddiqui MR, et al. Isolation and characterization of lignocellulolytic bacteria from municipal solid waste landfill for identification of potential hydrolytic enzyme. Fermentation. 2023;9(3):298.

10.3390/fermentation9030298
29

Liu B, Chen W, Wang Z, Guo Z, Li Y, Xu L, et al. The Impact of Bacillus coagulans X3 on available nitrogen content, bacterial community composition, and nitrogen functional gene levels when composting cattle manure. Agronomy. 2024;14(3):587.

10.3390/agronomy14030587
30

Anand U, Reddy B, Singh VK, Singh AK, Kesari KK, Tripathi P, et al. Potential environmental and human health risks caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB), antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and emerging contaminants (ECs) from municipal solid waste (MSW) Landfill. Antibiotics. 2021;10(4):374.

10.3390/antibiotics10040374
31

Janda JM, Abbott SL. The changing face of the family Enterobacteriaceae (Order: “Enterobacterales”): new members, taxonomic issues, geographic expansion, and new diseases and disease syndromes. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2021;34(2):e00174-20.

10.1128/CMR.00174-20
32

Shen D, Wu X, Hui C, Zhang Y, Long Y. Characterization of pathogen distribution and pathogenicity from landfill site. J Hazard Mater. 2025;484:136736.

10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136736
33

Fernández-Bravo A, Figueras MJ. An Update on the genus Aeromonas: taxonomy, epidemiology, and pathogenicity. Microorganisms. 2020;8(1):129.

10.3390/microorganisms8010129
34

Pakingking R Jr, Solis FD, Palma PA, dela Peña L. Bacterial microbiota of African catfish Clarias gariepinus during the hatchery and nursery phases of culture in the Philippines. Int Aquat Res. 2025;17(2):149-164.

35

Pakingking R Jr, Palma P, Usero R. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the bacterial microbiota of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cultured in earthen ponds in the Philippines. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;31(2):265-275.

10.1007/s11274-014-1758-1
36

Pakingking R Jr, Palma P, Usero R. Aeromonas load and species composition in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cultured in earthen ponds in the Philippines. Aquac Res. 2020;51(11):4736-4747.

10.1111/are.14820
37

Șchiopu P, Toc DA, Colosi IA, Costache C, Ruospo G, Berar G, et al. An overview of the factors involved in biofilm production by the Enterococcus genus. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(14):11577.

10.3390/ijms241411577
38

Sharma P, Garg N, Sharma A, Capalash N, Singh R. Nucleases of bacterial pathogens as virulence factors, therapeutic targets and diagnostic markers. Int J Med Microbiol. 2019;309(8):151354.

10.1016/j.ijmm.2019.151354
39

Zhang D, Feng J, Wang Y, Shoemaker CA, Wise AA, Beck BH. Contributions of hemolytic proteins in virulent Aeromonas hydrophila to motile Aeromonas septicemia disease of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2025;372: fnae108.

10.1093/femsle/fnaf086
40

Saravanakumar C, Neethu CS, Purvaja R, Sunantha G, Robin RS, Ramesh R. Networking and co-occurrence of virulent and multidrug resistant environmental bacteria in different aquatic systems: A gap in MDR-virulence transfer? Sci Total Environ. 2023;857:159221.

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159221
41

Ahlstrom CA, van Toor ML, Woksepp H, Chandler JC, Reed JA, Reeves AB, et al. Evidence for continental-scale dispersal of antimicrobial resistant bacteria by landfill-foraging gulls. Sci Total Environ. 2021;764:144551.

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144551
42

Morgado-Gamero WB, Parody A, Medina J, Rodriguez-Villamizar LA, Agudelo-Castañeda D. Multi-antibiotic resistant bacteria in landfill bioaerosols: environmental conditions and biological risk assessment. Environ Pollut. 2021;290:118037.

10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118037

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary Table 1.

Colonial morphology on tryptic soy agar (TSA), Gram reaction, and biochemical test profiles of bacterial isolates. Values indicate the percentage (%) of isolates positive for each reaction

Bacteria Number of 
Isolates Tested
Gram 
Reaction
Colonial Characteristics 
on Tryptic Soy Agar plate
MAC1 TSI2 LIA3 SC4 SIM5 Catalase6 Oxidase7
Lactose fermentation Glucose 
fermentation
Sucrose Fermentation Sulfide 
Production
Lysine Decarboxylation Lysine Deamination Sulfide Production Citrate utilization Sulfide Production Indole Production Motility
Bacillus cereus 23 + Large, flat to slightly raised, irregular colonies; rough, dull surface; lobate to undulate margins; opaque, creamy to gray-white; dry to slightly moist. ND* 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Bacillus mycoides 3 + Large, spreading colonies with characteristic rhizoid (root-like) growth; flat; filamentous margins; dull, opaque; dry appearance. ND 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
Bacillus paramycoides 34 + Large, irregular, flat colonies; rough surface; lobate margins; opaque, creamy-gray; dry texture similar to B. cereus group. ND 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
Bacillus proteolyticus 62 + Medium to large, irregular, flat colonies; rough to slightly wrinkled surface; opaque; cream to off-white; dry. ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 100
Bacillus stercoris 8 + Large, irregular colonies; flat to slightly raised; rough surface; lobate margins; opaque, gray-white; dry. ND 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0
Bacillus subtilis 68 + Large, irregular, flat colonies; dry, rough, wrinkled surface; dull appearance; lobate margins; cream to light beige. ND 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Bacillus thuringiensis 18 + Large, flat, irregular colonies; rough surface; lobate margins; opaque; creamy white; dry to slightly granular. ND 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Bacillus velezensis 35 + Medium to large, irregular colonies; flat to slightly raised; dry, rough to mildly wrinkled surface; cream-colored; opaque. ND 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Aeromonas caviae 10 - Medium-sized, circular, smooth, convex, moist; entire margins; opaque; grayish to creamy; non-pigmented. 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 100
Aeromonas hydrophila 13 - Medium to large, circular, smooth, convex, moist; entire margins; opaque; gray-white; non-pigmented. 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 100
Aeromonas hydrophila 
subsp. ranae
3 - Medium-sized, circular, smooth, convex, moist; entire margins; opaque; grayish-white; non-pigmented. 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 100
Aeromonas sanarellii 13 - Small to medium, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; translucent to slightly opaque; gray-white; non-pigmented. 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 100
Aeromonas taiwanensis 10 - Small to medium, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; opaque; creamy to gray-white; non-pigmented. 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100
Citrobacter amalonaticus 5 - Medium-sized, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white to cream; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 0
Citrobacter braakii 17 - Medium, circular, smooth, convex colonies; entire margins; moist; opaque; grayish-white; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 100 0 100 100 0
Citrobacter europaeus 5 - Medium, round, smooth, convex; entire margins; moist; opaque; creamy to gray-white; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 100 0 100 100 0
Citrobacter freundii 16 - Medium-sized, circular, smooth, low convex colonies; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 100 0 100 100 0
Citrobacter koseri 10 - Medium, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white to cream; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 0
Citrobacter sedlakii 20 - Medium, round, smooth, convex colonies; entire margins; moist; opaque; grayish-white; non-pigmented. 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 100 100 0
Enterobacter hormaechei 15 - Medium to large, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Enterobacter tabaci 3 - Medium, circular, smooth, convex colonies; entire margins; moist; opaque; creamy-white; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Klebsiella pneumoniae 5 - Large, circular, smooth, highly convex; entire margins; very mucoid, glistening; opaque; grayish-white to cream. 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Kosakonia cowanii 23 - Medium-sized, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white to cream; non-pigmented. 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
Morganella morganii 28 - Medium, circular, smooth, low convex colonies; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white; non-pigmented. 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 0
Proteus mirabilis 8 - Large, spreading colonies; characteristic swarming growth producing concentric rings; thin, translucent to grayish film over agar surface. 0 100 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 0
Providencia vermicola 5 - Medium, circular, smooth, convex; entire margins; moist; opaque; gray-white; non-pigmented. 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0
Pseudomonas guariconensis 15 - Medium, circular, smooth, flat to slightly convex; entire margins; moist; translucent to opaque; pale gray; non-pigmented on TSA. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 100
Pseudomonas putida 3 - Medium-sized, circular, smooth, flat to slightly convex; entire margins; moist; translucent to opaque; grayish-white; non-pigmented on TSA. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 100
Pseudomonas taiwanensis 8 - Medium, circular, smooth, flat; entire margins; moist; translucent; pale gray; non-pigmented on TSA. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 100
Pseudomonas tohonis 3 - Medium, circular, smooth, flat to slightly convex; entire margins; moist; translucent to opaque; grayish-white; non-pigmented on TSA. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 100

1MAC (MacConkey Agar): Lactose fermentation indicated by red/pink colonies. ND = Not done; 2TSI (Triple Sugar Iron Agar): Glucose fermentation indicated by yellow butt; sucrose fermentation by yellow slant and butt; H2S production by black precipitate; 3LIA (Lysine Iron Agar): Lysine decarboxylation indicated by purple butt; lysine deamination by burgundy/red-brown slant; H2S production by black precipitate; 4SC (Simmons Citrate Agar): Citrate utilization indicated by color change from green to blue with growth on the slant; 5SIM (Sulfide–Indole–Motility): H2S production indicated by black precipitate; indole production by red ring after addition of Kovac’s reagent; motility indicated by diffuse growth radiating from the stab line; 6Catalase: Positive reaction indicated by immediate bubble (O2 gas) formation upon addition of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2); 7Oxidase: Positive reaction indicated by development of a dark purple/blue color within 10–30 seconds after application of oxidase reagent ; *ND: not done

Supplementary Table 2.

Molecular identification of representative bacterial isolates recovered from sediment samples collected at five sampling stations of the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines, based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing following preliminary biochemical characterization

Taxonomic identification Isolate Code Source of bacterial Isolate1 Number of 
nucleotides of 
16S rRNA gene
Closely Related 
Taxa
Reference Accession Number Sequence similarity 
(%) with closely 
related taxa
Bacillus cereus S40603B S4 1291 Bacillus cereus strain GUCC 1011 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
OM319531.1 100
Bacillus cereus S40604B S4 1290 Bacillus cereus strain V5143 16S ribosomal
RNA gene, partial sequence
PP256716.1 100
Bacillus mycoides S20736B S2 891 Bacillus mycoides strain IRHB1-81 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
OP364559.1 100
Bacillus paramycoides S20738B S2 1407 Bacillus paramycoides strain V6710 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
PP257918.1 100
Bacillus proteolyticus S30752B S3 1255 Bacillus proteolyticus strain TA-203 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MN209912.1 100
Bacillus proteolyticus S30754B S3 1258 Bacillus proteolyticus strain TA-203 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MN209912.1 100
Bacillus proteolyticus S30755B S3 1413 Bacillus proteolyticus strain TA-203 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MN209912.1 100
Bacillus proteolyticus S50776D S5 1255 Bacillus proteolyticus strain TA-203 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MN209912.1 100
Bacillus proteolyticus S50777D S5 1259 Bacillus proteolyticus strain TA-203 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MN209912.1 100
Bacillus stercoris S10731F S1 754 Bacillus stercoris strain V7959 16S ribosomal
RNA gene, partial sequence
PQ395730.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S10730F S1 1258 Bacillus subtilis strain MK736113.1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT111082.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S20742D S2 1393 Bacillus subtilis strain MK736113.1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT111082.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S20744D S2 1303 Bacillus subtilis strain MK736113.1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT111082.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S30761D S3 1394 Bacillus subtilis strain MK736113.1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT111082.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S30762D S3 1423 Bacillus subtilis strain MK736113.1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT111082.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S50765A S5 1261 Bacillus subtilis strain MK736113.1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT111082.1 100
Bacillus subtilis S50766A S5 1447 Bacillus subtilis strain DYJ24 chromosome,
complete genome
CP161903.1 100
Bacillus thuringiensis S40601B S4 1298 Bacillus thuringiensis strain NBAIR_Bt218 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence OQ955481.1 100
Bacillus thuringiensis S40602B S4 1301 Bacillus thuringiensis strain NBAIR_Bt218 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence OQ955481.1 100
Bacillus velezensis S40612D S4 1324 Bacillus velezensis strain VTX20 chromosome,
complete genome
CP075054.1 100
Bacillus velezensis S40613D S4 1310 Bacillus velezensis strain FABSb7 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MW412697.1 100
Aeromonas caviae S209140C S2 1425 Aeromonas caviae DNA, complete genome,
strain: WP5-W18-ESBL-02
AP022110.1 99.81
Aeromonas caviae S209142D S2 1413 Aeromonas caviae DNA, complete genome,
strain: WP8-S18-ESBL-04
AP022254.1 99.69
Aeromonas hydrophila S20994A S2 1016 Aeromonas hydrophila strain I-T-2-1 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
KU570321.1 99.85
Aeromonas hydrophila S509120A S5 1386 Aeromonas hydrophila strain AW 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
PX496882.1 99.9
Aeromonas hydrophila subsp. ranae S309105B S3 1419 Aeromonas hydrophila subsp. ranae strain HR_314
16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MZ604659.1 99.63
Aeromonas sanarellii S309109D S3 1418 Aeromonas sanarellii strain HAE1 16S ribosomal
RNA gene, partial sequence
PQ432917.1 100
Aeromonas sanarellii S309151D S3 1412 Aeromonas sanarellii strain A2-67 16S ribosomal RNA, partial sequence NR_116584.1 100
Aeromonas taiwanensis S309101A S3 1275 Aeromonas taiwanensis strain GS3 16S ribosomal
RNA gene, partial sequence
OL851763.1 100
Aeromonas taiwanensis S309146B S3 1291 Aeromonas taiwanensis strain BAB-6510 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MF351793.1 100
Citrobacter amalonaticus S10992C S1 1298 Citrobacter amalonaticus strain CA71
chromosome, complete genome
CP064180.1 100
Citrobacter braakii S409154A S4 1302 Citrobacter braakii strain Colony228 chromosome CP069772.1 100
Citrobacter braakii S209136A S2 1482 Citrobacter braakii strain RHB02-E4-C01
chromosome, complete genome
CP099389.1 100
Citrobacter europaeus S20999C S2 1248 Citrobacter europaeus strain WF0003
chromosome, complete genome
CP149131.1 99.91
Citrobacter freundii S309145A S3 1023 Citrobacter freundii strain RHBSTW-00965
chromosome, complete genome
CP056232.1 99.86
Citrobacter koseri S10991C S1 676 Citrobacter koseri strain UTI-24-29
chromosome, complete genome
CP196452.1 100
Citrobacter sedlakii S10986A S1 1269 Citrobacter sedlakii strain TSASi9 16S ribosomal
RNA gene, partial sequence
KY886232.1 100
Enterobacter hormaechei S10988B S1 1302 Enterobacter hormaechei strain MP1mc 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MW947089.1 100
Enterobacter hormaechei S10989B S1 1305 Enterobacter hormaechei strain PG20180049
chromosome, complete genome
CP043226.1 100
Enterobacter tabaci S209138B S2 1397 Enterobacter tabaci strain YIM Hb-3 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MN453607.1 100
Klebsiella pneumoniae S409113B S4 1401 Klebsiella pneumoniae strain
KP_NORM_BLD_116585 chromosome
CP152494.1 99.69
Kosakonia cowanii S40609A S4 1322 Kosakonia cowanii strain HBUAS64190 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
OP358143.1 100
Morganella morganii S509118A S5 1204 Morganella morganii strain M0676 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT808876.1 99.68
Morganella morganii S509167C S5 1211 Morganella morganii strain M0676 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT808876.1 99.8
Morganella morganii S509121B S5 1308 Morganella morganii strain M0676 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
MT808876.1 99.9
Proteus mirabilis S509162A S5 1365 Proteus mirabilis strain T2CR 16S ribosomal
RNA gene, partial sequence
KF471510.1 100
Providencia vermicola S509164B S5 1444 Providencia vermicola strain P13 chromosome,
complete genome
CP097327.1 99.91
Pseudomonas guariconensis S409110A S4 1334 Pseudomonas guariconensis strain M5265 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
PV596562.1 97.64
Pseudomonas guariconensis S409116C S4 1307 Pseudomonas guariconensis strain M5265 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
PV596562.1 99.18
Pseudomonas putida S309108D S3 1255 Pseudomonas putida strain RW10S2 16S ribosomal
RNA gene and 16S-23S ribosomal RNA intergenic spacer, partial sequence
JN982334.1 96.63
Pseudomonas taiwanensis S20997B S2 1453 Pseudomonas taiwanensis strain C1RP55 16S
ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence
ON369180.1 100
Pseudomonas tohonis S50773C S5 899 Pseudomonas tohonis strain Q4-3 chromosome,
complete genome
CP115820.1 99.84

1S1: Station1; S2: Station 2; S3: Station 3; S4: Station 4; S5: Station 5

Supplementary Table 3.

Virulence-associated enzymatic and hemolytic activities of bacterial isolates obtained from sediment samples across five sampling stations at the Calajunan Sanitary Landfill, Iloilo City, Philippines, showing the percentage (%) of isolates exhibiting positive reactions for each assay

Bacteria No. of isolates examined Gram Reaction Percentage (%) of Isolates with Positive Reaction
Hemolysin 
Production
DNAse Gelatinase
Bacillus cereus 23 + 100* 0 100
Bacillus mycoides 3 + 100* 0 100
Bacillus paramycoides 34 + 100* 100 100
Bacillus proteolyticus 62 + 95* 0 100
Bacillus stercoris 8 + 100* 0 100
Bacillus subtilis 68 + 100* 0 100
Bacillus thuringiensis 18 + 100* 0 100
Bacillus velezensis 35 + 29** 0 100
Aeromonas caviae 10 70* 100 100
Aeromonas hydrophila 13 100* 100 100
Aeromonas hydrophila subsp. ranae 3 100* 100 100
Aeromonas sanarellii 13 100* 100 100
Aeromonas taiwanensis 10 100* 100 100
Citrobacter amalonaticus 5 0 0 0
Citrobacter braakii 17 0 0 0
Citrobacter europaeus 5 0 0 0
Citrobacter freundii 16 0 0 0
Citrobacter koseri 10 0 0 0
Citrobacter sedlakii 20 0 0 0
Enterobacter hormaechei 15 0 0 0
Enterobacter tabaci 3 0 0 0
Klebsiella pneumoniae 5 0 0 0
Kosakonia cowanii 23 0 0 0
Morganella morganii 28 0 0 0
Proteus mirabilis 8 100* 100 100
Providencia vermicola 5 0 0 0
Pseudomonas guariconensis 15 0 0 0
Pseudomonas putida 3 0 0 0
Pseudomonas taiwanensis 8 0 0 0
Pseudomonas tohonis 3 0 0 0

*Beta hemolysis, **Alpha hemolysis. Hemolytic activity was determined using 5% defibrinated sheep blood agar.

페이지 상단으로 이동하기