Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2015, Vol. 9 Issue (1) : 39-49    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0699-0
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Assessment of oxidative and UV-C treatments for inactivating bacterial biofilms from groundwater wells
Kyle E. MURRAY1,*(),Erin I. Manitou-ALVAREZ2,Enos C. INNISS3,Frank G. HEALY4,Adria A. BODOUR5
1. Oklahoma Geological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0628, USA
2. ERA Environmental Consulting, Dollard des Ormeaux, Montreal, Quebec H9B 2C8, Canada
3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO 65211-2200, USA
4. Department of Biology, Trinity University, One Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA
5. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE), San Antonio, TX 78236, USA
 Download: PDF(502 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Microorganisms are ubiquitous in natural environments and in water supply infrastructure including groundwater wells. Sessile-state microorganisms may build up on well surfaces as biofilms and, if excessive, cause biofouling that reduces well productivity and water quality. Conditions can be improved using biocides and other traditional well rehabilitation measures; however, biofilm regrowth is inevitable given the continuous introduction of microorganisms from the surrounding environment. Alternative and less invasive well maintenance approaches are desirable for reducing biofilm densities while also minimizing harmful disinfection-by-products. The primary objective of this research was to evaluate effectiveness of alternative treatments for inactivating microorganisms comprising biofilms. A novel approach was designed for in situ growth of biofilms on steel coupons suspended from ‘chandeliers’. After more than 100 days of in situ growth, biofilms were harvested, sampled, and baseline biofilm densities quantified through cultivation. Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) and oxidative treatments including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), ozone (O3) and mixed oxidants were then applied to the biofilms in laboratory-scale treatments. Microbial inactivation was assessed by comparing treated versus baseline biofilm densities. H2O2 was the most effective treatment, and decreased density below baseline by as much as 3.1 orders of magnitude. Mixed oxidants were effective for the well having a lower density biofilm, decreasing density below baseline by as much as 1.4 orders of magnitude. Disparity in the response to treatment was apparent in the wells despite their spatial proximity and common aquifer source, which suggests that microbiological communities are more heterogeneous than the natural media from which they originate.

Keywords well rehabilitation      aquifer      biofouling      hydrogen peroxide      sustainability     
Corresponding Authors: Kyle E. MURRAY   
Online First Date: 23 April 2014    Issue Date: 31 December 2014
 Cite this article:   
Enos C. INNISS,Frank G. HEALY,Adria A. BODOUR, et al. Assessment of oxidative and UV-C treatments for inactivating bacterial biofilms from groundwater wells[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(1): 39-49.
 URL:  
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-014-0699-0
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2015/V9/I1/39
Fig.1  Diagram showing design of two-tiered “chandelier” for growth of biofilms in groundwater wells.
parameter or element Well 1 Well 3 method
pHa 7.2±0.07 6.6±0.07 Troll 9000
conductivity /(umhos·cm-1)a 320±2.7 304±3.5 Troll 9000
temperature /°Ca 24.8±0.05 24.9±0.05 Troll 9000
ORP /mVa -373±62.9 -416±96.3 Troll 9000
DO/(mg·L-1)a <0.01±0.009 <0.01±0.008 Troll 9000
total hardness as CaCO3 /(mg·L-1)b 60 52 EPA 130.2
total dissolved solids/ (mg·L-1)b 176 181 EPA 160.1
sulfate/(mg·L-1)b 6 9 SM 4500-SO4 E
chloride/(mg·L-1)b 53 43 SM 4500-Cl B
nitrate/(mg·L-1)b <0.01 <0.01 EPA 352.1
flouride/(mg·L-1)b 0.04 0.04 SM 4500-F-D
alkalinity, total/(mg·L-1)b 56 68 SM 2320 B
iron/ICP (dissolved)/(mg·L-1)b 3.78 4.12 EPA 200.7
manganese/ICP (dissolved) /(mg·L-1)b 0.316 0.334 EPA 200.7
arsenic/ICP (total)/(mg·L-1)b <0.002 <0.002 EPA 200.7
calcium/(mg·L-1)b 16.8 14.8 EPA 200.7
magnesium/(mg·L-1)b 2.75 3.12 EPA 200.7
sodium/(mg·L-1)b 23.3 21.8 EPA 200.7
TOC/(mg·L-1)b 2.13 1.29 SM 5310 C
turbidity/(NTU)c 81 194 Hach DR890
planktonic/(CFU·mL-1) 1.7E+05±1.2E+04 7.2E+04±1.7E+03 Plate Count
baseline biofilm/(CFU·cm-2)d 1.2E+04±1.4E+03 7.1E+02±8.0E+01 Plate Count
Tab.1  Physical, chemical, and biologic characteristics of groundwater wells
Fig.2  Comparison of Well 1 baseline biofilm, control biofilm, and treated biofilm densities. HP 1 is 1% H2O2, HP 6 is 6% H2O2, UV 30 is 30 min, UV 60 is 60 min, Oz 50 is 50% O3, Oz 100 is 100% O3. Error bars represent standard error of mean.
Fig.3  Comparison of Well 3 baseline biofilm, control biofilm, and treated biofilm densities.
treat N0 N0n N0 Std. err. NT NT n NTStd. err. BIF
(CFU·cm-2) # (CFU·cm-2) (CFU·cm-2) # (CFU·cm-2) log(N0/NT)
control 1 2.4E+ 04 6 ±7.1E+ 03 1.5E+ 03 9 ±1.8E+ 02 1.0-1.4
HP 1 1.5E+ 04 8 ±6.9E+ 03 7.9E-01 4 ±3.6E-01 3.8-4.7
HP 6 6.5E+ 03 6 ±8.5E+ 02 6.9E-01 5 ±2.1E-01 3.8-4.2
control 2 7.0E+ 03 5 ±1.1E+ 02 3.4E+ 03 8 ±3.1E+ 02 0.2-0.4
UV 30 8.5E+ 03 7 ±1.4E+ 03 2.4E+ 01 5 ±5.6E+ 00 2.4-2.7
UV 60 1.4E+ 03 5 ±9.4E+ 03 4.6E+ 01 7 ±9.4E+ 00 1.9-2.8
control 3 8.2E+ 03 9 ±2.2E+ 03 8.7E+ 02 7 ±1.3E+ 02 0.8-1.1
MIOX 6.5E+ 03 9 ±1.1E+ 03 1.7E+ 02 7 ±6.9E+ 01 1.4-1.9
Oz 50 1.6E+ 04 9 ±5.5E+ 03 2.0E+ 03 5 ±6.2E+ 02 0.6-1.2
Oz 100 1.2E+ 04 9 ±2.3E+ 03 1.3E+ 03 5 ±7.0E+ 01 0.8-1.1
Tab.2  Well 1 biofilm densities and biofilm inactivation factors (BIF)
treat N0 N0n N0 Std. err. NT NT n NTStd. err. BIF
(CFU·cm-2) # (CFU·cm-2) (CFU·cm-2) # (CFU·cm-2) log(N0/NT)
control 1 7.6E+ 02 4 ±1.9E+ 02 4.4E+ 01 9 ±1.5E+ 01 1.0-1.5
HP 1 6.4E+ 02 5 ±1.9E+ 02 6.7E+ 00 7 ±0.0E+ 00 1.8-2.1
HP 6 1.9E+ 03 7 ±3.5E+ 02 6.7E+ 00 9 ±0.0E+ 00 2.4-2.5
control 2 2.3E+ 02 7 ±3.7E+ 02 2.7E+ 01 9 ±8.3E+ 00 0.7-1.2
UV 30 4.4E+ 02 7 ±1.8E+ 02 8.3E+ 00 8 ±1.7E+ 00 1.4-2.8
UV 60 1.9E+ 02 6 ±7.3E+ 01 6.7E+ 00 8 ±0.0E+ 00 1.2-1.6
MIOX 1.6E+ 03 3 ±6.2E+ 02 8.3E+ 00 4 ±1.7E+ 00 2.0-2.5
control 3 3.8E+ 02 7 ±1.2E+ 02 1.7E+ 01 8 ±3.4E+ 00 1.1-1.6
Oz 50 3.1E+ 02 5 ±1.4E+ 02 1.3E+ 00 3 ±3.8E-01 2.0-2.7
Oz 100 6.9E+ 02 8 ±2.0E+ 02 7.1E+ 01 5 ±3.0E+ 01 0.7-1.3
Tab.3  Well 3 biofilm densities and treatment effects and biofilm inactivation factors (BIF)
1 Robertson J B, Edberg S C. Natural protection of spring and well drinking water against surface microbial contamination. I. Hydrogeological parameters. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 1997, 23(2): 143–178
https://doi.org/10.3109/10408419709115134 pmid: 9226112
2 Craun M F, Craun G F, Calderon R L, Beach M J. Waterborne outbreaks reported in the United States. Journal of Water and Health, 2006, 4(Suppl 2): 19–30
https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2006.016 pmid: 16895084
3 LeChevallier M W, Cawthon C D, Lee R G. Inactivation of biofilm bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1988, 54(10): 2492–2499
pmid: 2849380
4 Batterman S, Zhang L, Wang S. Quenching of chlorination disinfection by-product formation in drinking water by hydrogen peroxide. Water Research, 2000, 34(5): 1652–1658
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00294-8
5 Toor R, Mohseni M. UV-H2O2 based AOP and its integration with biological activated carbon treatment for DBP reduction in drinking water. Chemosphere, 2007, 66(11): 2087–2095
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.043 pmid: 17095044
6 Lakretz A, Ron E Z, Mamane H. Biofilm control in water by a UV-based advanced oxidation process. Biofouling, 2011, 27(3): 295–307
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2011.561923 pmid: 21390914
7 Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton J W, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nature Reviews. Microbiology, 2004, 2(2): 95–108
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro821 pmid: 15040259
8 Allison D G, Ruiz B, SanJose C, Jaspe A, Gilbert P. Extracellular products as mediators of the formation and detachment of Pseudomonas fluorescens biofilms. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 1998, 167(2): 179–184
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.1998.tb13225.x pmid: 9867469
9 Wimpenny J, Manz W, Szewzyk U. Heterogeneity in biofilms. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 2000, 24(5): 661–671
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2000.tb00565.x pmid: 11077157
10 Allison D G. Exopolysaccharide production in bacterial biofilms. Biofilm Journal, 1998, 3, paper 2
11 Costerton J W, Cheng K J, Geesey G G, Ladd T I, Nickel J C, Dasgupta M, Marrie T J. Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Annual Review of Microbiology, 1987, 41(1): 435–464
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.41.100187.002251 pmid: 3318676
12 Watnick P, Kolter R. Biofilm, city of microbes. Journal of Bacteriology, 2000, 182(10): 2675–2679
https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.182.10.2675-2679.2000 pmid: 10781532
13 Craun G F, Brunkard J M, Yoder J S, Roberts V A, Carpenter J, Wade T, Calderon R L, Roberts J M, Beach M J, Roy S L. Causes of outbreaks associated with drinking water in the United States from 1971 to 2006. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 2010, 23(3): 507–528
https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00077-09 pmid: 20610821
14 Kenny J F, Barber N L, Hutson S S, Linsey K S, Lovelace J K, Maupin M A. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, Denver, CO, 2009, 52
15 Flemming H C. Biofouling in water systems—cases, causes and countermeasures. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2002, 59(6): 629–640
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-1066-9 pmid: 12226718
16 Page D, Miotliński K, Dillon P, Taylor R, Wakelin S, Levett K, Barry K, Pavelic P. Water quality requirements for sustaining aquifer storage and recovery operations in a low permeability fractured rock aquifer. Journal of Environmental Management, 2011, 92(10): 2410–2418
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.04.005 pmid: 21652142
17 Pavelic P, Dillon P J, Barry K E, Vanderzalm J L, Correll R L, Rinck-Pfeiffer S M. Water quality effects on clogging rates during reclaimed water ASR in a carbonate aquifer. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 2007, 334(1–2): 1–16
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.009
18 Momba M N B, Makala N. Comparing the effect of various pipe materials on biofilm formation in chlorinated and combined chlorine-chloraminated water systems. Water S.A., 2004, 30(2): 175–182
https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v30i2.5061
19 Yu J, Kim D, Lee T. Microbial diversity in biofilms on water distribution pipes of different materials. Water Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 163–171
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.813 pmid: 20057102
20 Murray K E, Yosko L S. Multi-observation well aquifer test case study: is recovery coincident with the cessation of pumping? Environmental Earth Sciences, 2013, 68(7): 1955–1965
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1883-9
21 Brockman F J, Murray C J. Subsurface microbiological heterogeneity: current knowledge, descriptive approaches and applications. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 1997, 20(3–4): 231–247
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.1997.tb00311.x
22 Tang J, Johannesson K H. Controls on the geochemistry of rare earth elements along a groundwater flow path in the Carrizo Sand aquifer, Texas, USA. Chemical Geology, 2006, 225(1–2): 156–171
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.09.007
23 Eaton A D, Clesceri L S, Rice E W, Greenberg A E, Franson M A H. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater(Centennial Edition), American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Washington, D C: Water Environment Federation (WEF), 2005
24 Hawkins N J. Culturing and characterization of microorganisms in groundwater well biofilms using water chemistry and 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing. Dissertation for the Master Degree. San Antonio: University of Texas at San Antonio, 2007
25 Manitou-Alvarez E I. Laboratory-scale treatment and microbial profiling of biofilms grown in water supply wells. Dissertation for the Master Degree. San Antonio: University of Texas at San Antonio, 2008
26 DeQueiroz G A, Day D F. Antimicrobial activity and effectiveness of a combination of sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide in killing and removing Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms from surfaces. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2007, 103(4): 794–802
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03299.x pmid: 17897181
27 Ishizaki K, Sawadaishi K, Miura K, Shinriki N. Effect of ozone on plasmid DNA of Escherichia coli in situ. Water Research, 1987, 21(7): 823–827
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(87)90158-8
28 Wolfe R L. Ultraviolet disinfection of potable water. Environmental Science & Technology, 1990, 24(6): 768–773
https://doi.org/10.1021/es00076a001
29 Gonzalez C. On site mixed oxidants demonstrate benefits in Puerto Rico. Water Conditioning & Purification, 2002, 44(9): 62–65
30 Hijnen W A M, Beerendonk E F, Medema G J. Inactivation credit of UV radiation for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: a review. Water Research, 2006, 40(1): 3–22
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.10.030 pmid: 16386286
31 Xu P, Janex M L, Savoye P, Cockx A, Lazarova V. Wastewater disinfection by ozone: main parameters for process design. Water Research, 2002, 36(4): 1043–1055
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00298-6 pmid: 11848343
32 Bodour A A, Wang J M, Brusseau M L, Maier R M. Temporal change in culturable phenanthrene degraders in response to long-term exposure to phenanthrene in a soil column system. Environmental Microbiology, 2003, 5(10): 888–895
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00481.x pmid: 14510842
33 Weisburg W G, Barns S M, Pelletier D A, Lane D J. 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. Journal of Bacteriology, 1991, 173(2): 697–703
pmid: 1987160
34 Gino E, Starosvetsky J, Kurzbaum E, Armon R. Combined chemical-biological treatment for prevention/rehabilitation of clogged wells by an iron-oxidizing bacterium. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(8): 3123–3129
https://doi.org/10.1021/es903703v pmid: 20297817
35 EPA. Drinking Water Guidance on Disinfection By-Products, Advice Note No. 4, version 2, Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water, Office of Environmental Enforcement: 2012, http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/drinkingwater/DrinkingWaterGuide4_v8.pdf
36 EPA. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Date Accessed: Jan 15, 2014, http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm
37 Schmeisser C, St?ckigt C, Raasch C, Wingender J, Timmis K N, Wenderoth D F, Flemming H C, Liesegang H, Schmitz R A, Jaeger K E, Streit W R. Metagenome survey of biofilms in drinking-water networks. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2003, 69(12): 7298–7309
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.12.7298-7309.2003 pmid: 14660379
38 Vílchez R, Pozo C, Gómez M A, Rodelas B, González-López J. Dominance of sphingomonads in a copper-exposed biofilm community for groundwater treatment. Microbiology-SGM, 2007, 153(Pt 2): 325–337
https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.2006/002139-0 pmid: 17259604
39 Norton C D, LeChevallier M W. A pilot study of bacteriological population changes through potable water treatment and distribution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2000, 66(1): 268–276
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.1.268-276.2000 pmid: 10618235
40 Viera M R, Guiamet P S, de Mele M F L, Videla H A. Use of dissolved ozone for controlling planktonic and sessile bacteria in industrial cooling systems. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 1999, 44(4): 201–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(99)00078-5
41 Neyens E, Baeyens J, Dewil R, De heyder B. Advanced sludge treatment affects extracellular polymeric substances to improve activated sludge dewatering. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2004, 106(2-3): 83–92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.11.014 pmid: 15177096
42 Pignatello J J, Oliveros E, MacKay A. Advanced oxidation processes for organic contaminant destruction based on the Fenton reaction and related chemistry. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2006, 36(1): 1–84
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380500326564
43 Wang J L, Xu L J. Advanced oxidation processes for wastewater treatment: Formation of hydroxyl radical and application. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2011, 42(3): 251–325
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2010.507698
44 Mead J F. Free radical mechanisms of lipid damage and consequences for cellular membranes. In: Pryor WA, eds. Free Radicals in Biology. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1976, 51–68
45 Storz G, Christman M F, Sies H, Ames B N. Spontaneous mutagenesis and oxidative damage to DNA in Salmonella typhimurium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1987, 84(24): 8917–8921
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.84.24.8917 pmid: 3321061
46 Wolff S P, Garner A, Dean R T. Free radicals, lipids and protein degradation. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 1986, 11(1): 27–31
https://doi.org/10.1016/0968-0004(86)90228-8
47 Prince E L, Muir A V G, Thomas W M, Stollard R J, Sampson M, Lewis J A. An evaluation of the efficacy of Aqualox for microbiological control of industrial cooling tower systems. Journal of Hospital Infection, 2002, 52(4): 243–249
https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2002.1293 pmid: 12473467
48 Zhou H D, Smith D W. Ozone mass transfer in water and wastewater treatment: experimental observations using a 2D laser particle dynamics analyzer. Water Research, 2000, 34(3): 909–921
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00196-7
49 Elasri M O, Miller R V. Study of the response of a biofilm bacterial community to UV radiation. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1999, 65(5): 2025–2031
pmid: 10223995
[1] Biswajit Debnath, Ranjana Chowdhury, Sadhan Kumar Ghosh. Sustainability of metal recovery from E-waste[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(6): 2-.
[2] Yuqin Lu, Xiao Bian, Hailong Wang, Xinhua Wang, Yueping Ren, Xiufen Li. Simultaneously recovering electricity and water from wastewater by osmotic microbial fuel cells: Performance and membrane fouling[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 5-.
[3] John C. Radcliffe, Declan Page, Bruce Naumann, Peter Dillon. Fifty Years of Water Sensitive Urban Design, Salisbury, South Australia[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 7-.
[4] Wenyan Wang, Wei Ouyang, Fanghua Hao, Yun Luan, Bo Hu. Spatial impacts of climate factors on regional agricultural and forestry biomass resources in north-eastern province of China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 17-.
[5] Honghu ZENG, Lanjing LU, Meina LIANG, Jie LIU, Yanghong LI. Degradation of trace nitrobenzene in water by microwave-enhanced H2O2-based process[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(4): 477-483.
[6] Deming ZHAO, Jie CHENG, Michael R. HOFFMANN. Kinetics of microwave-enhanced oxidation of phenol by hydrogen peroxide[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 2011, 5(1): 57-64.
[7] Weiqing MENG, Cui HAO, Hongyuan LI, Meiting JU, . EMERGY analysis for sustainability evaluation of the Baiyangdian wetland ecosystem in China[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2010, 4(2): 203-212.
[8] G. LETTINGA. Challenges of a feasible route towards sustainability in environmental protection[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2010, 4(2): 123-134.
[9] Wei MENG, . System engineering for water pollution control at the watershed level in China[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2009, 3(4): 443-452.
[10] PI Yunzheng, WANG Jianlong. Pathway of the ozonation of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol in aqueous solution[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2007, 1(2): 179-183.
[11] SUN Min, YOU Yahua, DENG Shengsong, GAO Wenxia, YAO Risheng. Degradation of 4-aminophenol by hydrogen peroxide oxidation using enzyme from Serratia marcescens as catalyst[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2007, 1(1): 95-98.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed