A simple way to improve a conventional A/O-MBR for high simultaneous carbon and nutrient removal from synthetic municipal wastewater

English version

Autoři: Dome Adoonsook ^aff001; Chang Chia-Yuan ^aff003; Aunnop Wongrueng ^aff001; Chayakorn Pumas ^aff005
Působiště autorů: Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai Thailand ^aff001; Research Program in Control of Hazardous Contaminants in Raw Water Resources for Water Scarcity Resilience, Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Bangkok, Thailand ^aff002; Department of Environmental Engineering and Science, Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science, Tainan, Taiwan ^aff003; College of Resource and Environmental Engineering, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China ^aff004; Center of Excellence in Bioresources for Agriculture, Industry and Medicine, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand ^aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214976

Souhrn

In this study, two anoxic-oxic membrane bioreactor (A/O-MBR) systems, i.e. conventional and biofilm anoxic-oxic-membrane bioreactors (C-A/O-MBR and BF-A/O-MBR, respectively), were operated in parallel under conditions of complete sludge retention for the purposes of comparing system performance and microbial community composition. Moreover, with the microbial communities, comparisons were made between the adhesive stage and the suspended stage. High average removal of COD, NH₄⁺-N and TN was achieved in both systems. However, TP removal efficiency was remarkably higher in BF-A/O-MBR when compared with C-A/O-MBR. TP mass balance analysis suggested that under complete sludge retention, polyurethane sponges that were added into the anoxic tank played a key role in both phosphorus release and accumulation. The qPCR analysis showed that sponge biomass could maintain a higher level of abundance of total bacteria than the suspended sludge. Meanwhile, AOB and denitrifiers were enriched in the suspended sludge but not in the sponge biomass. Results of illumina sequencing reveal that the compacted sponge in BF-A/O-MBR could promote the growth of bacteria involved in nutrient removal and reduce the amount of filamentous and bacterial growth that is related to membrane fouling in the suspended sludge.

Klíčová slova:

Bacteria – Biofilms – Effluent – Nitrification – Phosphates – Shannon index – Species diversity – Sludge

Zdroje

1. Vaiopoulou E, Aivasidis A. A Modified UCT Method for Biological Nutrients Removal: Configuration and Performance. Chemosphere. 2008; 72: 1062–1068. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.044 18519149

2. Subtil EL, Mierzwa JC, Hespanhol I. Comparison between a conventional membrane bioreactor (C-MBR) and a biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) for domestic wastewater treatment. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2014; 31(3): 0104–6632.

3. Khan SJ, Ilyas S, Javid S, Visvanathan C, Jegatheesan V. Performance of suspended and attached growth MBR systems in treating high strength synthetic wastewater. Bioresource Technology. 2011; 102: 5331–5336. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.100 20974529

4. Ngo HH, Nguyen MC, Sangvikar NG, Hoang TTL, Guo WS. Simple approaches towards a design of an attached-growth sponge bioreactor (AGSB) for wastewater treatment and reuse. Water Science Technology. 2006; 54, 191–197.

5. Yang Q, Chen J, Zhang F. Membrane fouling control in a submerged membrane bioreactor with porous, flexible suspended carriers. Desalination. 2006; 189, 292–302.

6. Lee WN, Kang IJ, Lee CH, Factors affecting filtration characteristics in membrane-coupled moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Research. 2006; 40, 1827–1835. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.03.007 16631228

7. Yoon SH, Collins JH. A novel flux enhancing method for membrane bioreactor (MBR) process using polymer. Desalination. 2006; 191, 52–61.

8. Guo W, Ngo HH, Dharmawan F, Palmer CG. Roles of Polyurethane Foam in Aerobic Moving and Fixed Bed Bioreactors. Bioresource Technology. 2010; 101, 1435–1439. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.05.062 19560346

9. Chae KJ, Kim SM, Park HD, Yim SH, Kim IS. Development of pseudoamphoteric sponge media using polyalkylene oxide-modified polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) for rapid start-up of wastewater treatment plant. Chemosphere. 2008; 71, 961–968. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.11.058 18191985

10. Guo W, Ngo HH, Palmer CG, Xing W, Hu AYJ, Listowski A. Roles of sponge sizes and membrane types in a single stage sponge-submerged membrane bioreactor for improving nutrient removal from wastewater for reuse. Desalination. 2009; 249, 672–676.

11. Deguchi H, Kashiwaya M. Study on nitrified liquor recycling process operations using polyurethane foam sponge cubes as a biomass support medium. Water Science and Technology. 1994; 30(6), 143–149.

12. Wagner J, Rosenwinkel KH. Sludge production in membrane bioreactors under different conditions. Water Science and Technology. 2000; 41(10–11): 251–258.

13. Rosenberger S, Krüger U, Witzig R, Manz W, Szewzyk U, Kraume M. Performance of a bioreactor with submerged membranes for aerobic treatment of municipal waste water. Water Research. 2002; 36(2): 413–420. doi: 10.1016/s0043-1354(01)00223-8 11827347

14. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed., Washington DC, USA; 1998.

15. Frølund B, Palmgren R, Keiding K, Nielsen PH. Extraction of extracellular polymers from activated sludge using a cation exchange resin. Water Research. 1996; 30: 1749–1758.

16. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry. 1956; 28: 350–356.

17. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1951; 193: 265–275. 14907713

18. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal. 1948; 27: 623–656.

19. Mao Y, Zhang X, Yan X, Liu B, Zhao L. Development of group-specific PCR-DGGE fingerprinting for monitoring structural changes of Thauera spp. in an industrial wastewater treatment plant responding to operational perturbations. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 2008; 75: 231–236. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2008.06.005 18601961

20. Li B, Wu G. Effects of Sludge Retention Times on Nutrient Removal and Nitrous Oxide Emission in Biological Nutrient Removal Processes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11: 3553–3569. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110403553 24681555

21. Zhang Z, Huang X. Study on enhanced biological phosphorus removal using membrane bioreactor at different sludge retention times. International Journal of Environment and Pollution. 2011; 45, 1/2/3.

22. Loaëc M, Olier R, Guezennec J. Uptake of lead cadmium and zinc by a novel bacterial exopolysaccharide. Water Research. 1997; 31: 1171–1179.

23. Beech IB, Cheung CWS. Interactions of exopolymers produced by sulphate-reducing bacteria with metal ions. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 1995; 35: 59.

24. Cloete TE, Oosthuizen DJ. The role of extracellular exopolymers in the removal of phosphorus from activated sludge. Water Research. 2001; 35: 3595–3598. doi: 10.1016/s0043-1354(01)00093-8 11561619

25. Zhang HL, Fang W, Wan YP, Sheng GP, Zeng RJ, Li WW, Yu HQ. Phosphorus removal in an enhanced biological phosphorus removal process: roles of extracellular polymeric substances. Environment Science Technology. 2013; 47 (20), 11482–11489.

26. Yigit NO, Harman I, Civelekoglu G, Koseoglu H, Cicek N, Kitis M. Membrane fouling in a pilot-scale submerged membrane bioreactor operated under various conditions. Desalination. 2008; 231: 124–132.

27. Zhang T, Shao MF, Ye L. 454 pyrosequencing reveals bacterial diversity of activated sludge from 14 sewage treatment plants. The ISME Journal. 2012; 6(6): 1137–1147. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.188 22170428

28. Luo W, Phan HV, Hai FI, Price WE, Guo W, et al. Effects of salinity build-up on the performance and bacterial community structure of a membrane bioreactor. Bioresource Technology. 2016; 200: 305–310. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.043 26512852

29. Gonzalez-Martinez A, Leyva-Diaz JC, Rodriguez-Sanchez A, Munoz-Palazon B, Rivadeneyra A, Poyatos JM, et al. Isolation and metagenomic characterization of bacteria associated with calcium carbonate and struvite precipitation in a pure moving bed biofilm reactormembrane bioreactor. Biofouling. 2015; 31(4): 333–348. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2015.1040006 26000766

30. Duan L, Tian Y, Liu X, Song Y, Yang L, Zhang J. Comparison between moving bed-membrane bioreactor and conventional membrane bioreactor systems. Part II: bacterial community. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2015; 73(9): 4891–4902.

31. Atabek A, Camesano TA. Atomic force microscopy study of the effect of lipopolysaccharides and extracellular polymers on adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Bacteriology. 2007; 189(23): 8503–8509. doi: 10.1128/JB.00769-07 17905997

32. Tang B, Yu C, Bin L, Zhao Y, Feng X, Huang S, et al. Essential factors of an integrated moving bed biofilm reactor–membrane bioreactor: Adhesion characteristics and microbial community of the biofilm. Bioresource Technology. 2016; 211: 574–583. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.136 27038266

33. Gao DW, Zhang T, Tang CYY, Wu WM, Wong CY, Lee YH, et al. Membrane fouling in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor: differences in relative abundance of bacterial species in the membrane foulant layer and in suspension. Journal of Membrane Science. 2010; 364: 331–338.

34. Gao DW, Wang XL, Xing, M. Dynamic variation of microbial metabolites and community involved in membrane fouling in A/O-MBR. Journal of Membrane Science. 2014; 458: 157–163.

35. Pan JR, Su Y, Huang C. Characteristics of soluble microbial products in membrane bioreactor and its effect on membrane fouling. Desalination. 2010; 250: 778–780.

36. Beer M, Stratton HM, Griffiths PC, Seviour RJ. Which are the polyphosphate accumulating organisms in full‐scale activated sludge enhanced biological phosphate removal systems in Australia? Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2006; 100(2):233–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02784.x 16430499

37. Lee H, Lee S., Lee J. Molecular characterization of microbial community in nitrate-removing activated sludge. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2002; 41: 85–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00969.x 19709242

38. Agnieszka CK, Magdalena Z. Bacterial communities in full-scale wastewater treatment systems. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2016; 32: 66. doi: 10.1007/s11274-016-2012-9 26931606

39. Guo JH, Peng YZ, Ni BJ, Han XY, Fan L, Yuan ZG. Dissecting microbial community structure and methane-producing pathways of a full-scale anaerobic reactor digesting activated sludge from wastewater treatment by metagenomic sequencing. Microbial Cell Factories. 2015; 14: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12934-014-0183-3 25567661

40. Gao XY, Xu Y, Liu Y, Liu Y, Liu ZP. Bacterial diversity, community structure and function associated with biofilm development in a biological aerated filter in a recirculating marine aquaculture system. Marine Biodiversity. 2011; 42(1): 1–11.

41. Hu D, Zhou Z, Shen X, Wei H, Jiang L, Lv Y. Effects of alkalinity on membrane bioreactors for reject water treatment: performance improvement, fouling mitigation and microbial structures. Bioresource Technology. 2015; 197: 217–226. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.082 26340030

42. Daims H, Nielsen PH, Nielsen JL, Juretschko S, Wagner M. Novel Nitrospira-like bacteria as dominant nitrite-oxidizers in biofilms from wastewater treatment plants: diversity and in situ physiology. Water Science and Technology. 2000; 41: 85–90.

43. Wong PY, Cheng KY, Kakronen AH, Sutton DC, Ginige MP. Enrichment of anodophilic nitrogen fixing bacteria in a bioelectrochemical system. Water Research. 2014; 64: 73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.06.046 25043795

44. Lu H, Chandran K, Stensel D. Microbial ecology of denitrification in biological wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2014; 64: 237–254. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.06.042 25078442

45. Rossi F, Motta O, Matrella S, Proto A, Vigliotta G. Nitrate removal from wastewater through biological denitrification with OGA 24 in a batch reactor. Water. 2015; 7: 51–62.

46. Pavlostathis SG, Marchant R, Banat IM, Ternan NG, McMullan G. High growth rate and substrate exhaustion results in rapid cell death and lysis in the thermophilic bacterium Geobacillus thermoleovorans. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 2006; 95(1): 84–95. 16683266

47. Baytshtok V, Lu H, Park H, Kim S, Yu R, Chandran K. Impact of varying electron donors on the molecular microbial ecology and biokinetics of methylotrophic denitrifying bacteria. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 2009; 102: 1527–1536. doi: 10.1002/bit.22213 19097144

48. Wang R, Willibald G, Feng Q, Zheng X, Liao T, Brüggemann N, Butterbach-Bahl K. Measurement of N2, N2O, NO, and CO2 emissions from soil with the gas-flow-soil-core technique. Environmental Science and Technology. 2011; 45: 6066–6072. doi: 10.1021/es1036578 21678900

49. Xin J, Mingchao M, Jun L, Anhuai L, Zuoshen Z. Bacterial Diversity of Active Sludge in Wastewater Treatment Plant. Earth Science Frontiers. 2008; 15(6): 163–168.

50. Kong Y, Xia Y, Nielsen JL, Nielsen PH. Structure and function of the microbial community in a full-scale enhanced biological phosphorus removal plant. Microbiology. 2007; 153: 4061–4073. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2007/007245-0 18048920

51. Meyer RL, Saunders AM, Blackall LL. Putative glycogen-accumulating organisms belonging to the Alphaproteobacteria identified through rRNA-based stable isotope probing. Microbiology. 2006; 152: 419–429. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.28445-0 16436430

52. Falvo A, Levantesi C, Rossetti S, Seviour RJ, Tandoi V. Synthesis of intracellular storage polymers by Amaricoccus kaplicensis, a tetrad forming bacterium present in activated sludge. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2001; 91: 299–305. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01384.x 11473594

53. Oehmen A, Saunders AM, Vives MT, Yuan Z, Keller J. Competition between polyphosphate and glycogen accumulating organisms in enhanced biological phosphorus removal systems with acetate and propionate as carbon sources. Journal of Biotechnology. 2006; 123(1): 22–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2005.10.009 16293332

54. Han XM, Wang ZW, Ma JX, Zhu CW, Li YX, Wu ZC. Membrane bioreactors fed with different COD/N ratio wastewater: impacts on microbial community, microbial products, and membrane fouling. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2015; 22: 11436–11445. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4376-z 25813643

55. Kamika I., Coetzee M., Mamba BB, Msagati T, Momba MNB. The Impact of Microbial Ecology and Chemical Profile on the Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal (EBPR) Process: A Case Study of Northern Wastewater Treatment Works, Johannesburg. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11: 2876–2898. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110302876 24619121

A simple way to improve a conventional A/O-MBR for high simultaneous carbon and nutrient removal from synthetic municipal wastewater

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Současné pohledy na riziko v parodontologii

Svět praktické medicíny 3/2024 (znalostní test z časopisu)

Kardiologické projevy hypereozinofilií

Střevní příprava před kolonoskopií

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz