Investigate of in situ sludge reduction in sequencing batch biofilm reactor: Performances, mechanisms and comparison of different carriers

doi:10.1007/s11783-018-1077-0

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2018, Vol. 12

Issue (5) : 5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-018-1077-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Investigate of in situ sludge reduction in sequencing batch biofilm reactor: Performances, mechanisms and comparison of different carriers

Yonglei Wang^1,^2,³(

), Baozhen Liu^1,², Kefeng Zhang^1,², Yongjian Liu⁴, Xuexin Xu¹, Junqi Jia¹

¹. School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
². Co-Innovation Center of Green Building, Jinan 250101, China
³. Shandong Province City Water Supply and Drainage Water Quality Monitoring Center, Jinan 250101, China
⁴. Shandong Huaihe River Basin Water Conservancy Administration Planning and Design Institute, Jinan 250101, China

Download: PDF(914 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Microbial metabolism uncoupling, sludge decay is the main mechanism to promote in situ sludge reduction on this biofilm system.

The main reduction mechanism inside the biofilm is sludge decay in the longitudinal distribution of biofilm.

Mizugakiibacter and Azospira anaerobic fermentation bacterium dominate the FSC organisms indicating the dominant mechanism on the biofilm is sludge decay.

The floating spherical carriers with compound of the polyurethane and two fiber balls can effectively blocking suspended sludge, improving Biofilm formation efficiency significantly.

Biofilm is an effective simultaneous denitrification and in situ sludge reduction system, and the characteristics of different biofilm carrier have important implications for biofilm growth and in situ sludge reduction. In this study, the performance and mechanism of in situ sludge reduction were compared between FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR with constructed by composite floating spherical carriers (FSC) and multi-faceted polyethylene suspension carriers (SC), respectively. The variation of EPS concentration indicated that the biofilm formation of FSC was faster than SC. Compared with SC-SBBR, the FSC-SBBR yielded 0.16 g MLSS/g COD, almost 27.27% less sludge. The average removal rates of COD and NH₄⁺-N were 93.39% and 96.66%, respectively, which were 5.21% and 1.43% higher than the average removal rate of SC-SBBR. Investigation of the mechanisms of sludge reduction revealed that, energy uncoupling metabolism and sludge decay were the main factors for sludge reduction inducing 43.13% and 49.65% less sludge, respectively, in FSC-SBBR. EEM fluorescence spectroscopy and SUVA analysis showed that the hydrolytic capacity of biofilm attached in FSC was stronger than those of SC, and the hydrolysis of EPS released more DOM contributed to lysis-cryptic growth metabolism. In additional, Bacteroidetes and Mizugakiibacter associated with sludge reduction were the dominant phylum and genus in FCS-SBBR. Thus, the effect of simultaneous in situ sludge reduction and pollutant removal in FSC-SBBR was better.

Keywords In situ sludge reduction Biofilm Composite floating spherical carriers Microbial community SBBR

Corresponding Author(s): Yonglei Wang

Issue Date: 25 September 2018

Cite this article:

Yonglei Wang,Baozhen Liu,Kefeng Zhang, et al. Investigate of in situ sludge reduction in sequencing batch biofilm reactor: Performances, mechanisms and comparison of different carriers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 5.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-018-1077-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2018/V12/I5/5

Tab.1 Abbreviated list

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of experimental FSC-SBR, SC-SBBR, FSC and SC.

Tab.2 Technical parameters of floating spherical and suspended carriers

Tab.3 Operating conditions in different stages

Fig.2 Variation of MLSS (a), the cumulative sludge production (b) and daily Y_obs (c) in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR (the numbers 1–8 represent the different operating conditions listed in Table 2).

Fig.3 The variations in biofilm (a) FSC, (b) SC.

Tab.4 Values of Y_obs in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR under different operating conditions

Fig.4 The variation of EPS (a), concentration of DOM in the supernatant at the end of the sludge decay trial experiment (b), the variation of ATP contents contained in sludge and MLSS from different stages (c), ATP contents contained at different distances of FSC and SC from the surface to the bottom (d), and the variation of SOUR under different HRT (e) and in the different distance from the surface to the inside of the biofilm (f).

Tab.5 The values of MLSS variation and sludge-reduction ratio (SRR) of energy-uncoupling metabolism in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR

Fig.5 The EEM-DOM fluorescence spectra of FSC-SBBR (a-influent, c-anaerobic phase and e-effluent), and SC-SBBR (b-influent, d-anaerobic phase, f-effluent).

Tab.6 SUVA (L/mb-Cm) of effluent in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR under different operating conditions

Tab.7 Variation of DOM in the supernatant during an operating cycle period in FSC-SBBR (HRT=12 h)

Fig.6 SEM photographs of the biofilm sampled from FSC-SBBR (a) SC-SBBR (b) at different distances from the surface to the bottom of the carriers.

Fig.7 Microbial community structures of FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR based on 454 pyrosequencing at the phylum level (a) and the genus level (b).

1	An Y, Zhou Z, Yao J, Niu T, Qiu Z, Ruan D, Wei H (2017). Sludge reduction and microbial community structure in an anaerobic/anoxic/oxic process coupled with potassium ferrate disintegration. Bioresource Technology, 245(Pt A): 954–961
2	Bollag D M, Rozycki M D, Edelstein S J 1996Protein Methods, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Liss
3	Bryers J D, Characklis W G, Bryers J D, Characklis W G, Bryers J D, Characklis W G (1990). Biofilms in water and wastewater treatment. Biofilms, 671–696
4	China Water Supply and Drainage 2017 (2017). China Advanced Symposium on Sludge Disposal Technology and Application in Cities and Towns (CASSDTA, 8th). Beijing, China
5	Cieślik B M, Namieśnik J, Konieczka P (2015). Review of sewage sludge management: Standards, regulations and analytical methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90: 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.031
6	Deng Xm W, Jian-Li M A, Peng-Fei J I (2011). Comparative lab scale study on bio-contact oxidation in treatment of domestic sewage with two new built-in suspension spherical packing. China Environmental Protection Industry, 87: 311–316
7	Di Iaconi C, De Sanctis M, Rossetti S, Ramadori R (2010). SBBGR technology for minimising excess sludge production in biological processes. Water Research, 44(6): 1825–1832 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.12.007 pmid: 20137803
8	Ding A, Wang J, Lin D, Tang X, Cheng X, Wang H, Bai L, Li G, Liang H (2017). A low pressure gravity-driven membrane filtration (GDM) system for rainwater recycling: Flux stabilization and removal performance. Chemosphere, 172: 21–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.111 pmid: 28061342
9	Feng Q, Yu A, Chu L, Xing X H (2008). Performance study of the reduction of excess sludge and simultaneous removal of organic carbon and nitrogen by a combination of fluidized- and fixed-bed bioreactors with different structured macroporous carriers. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 39(2): 344–352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2007.10.006
10	Feng X C, Guo W Q, Yang S S, Zheng H S, Du J S, Wu Q L, Ren N Q (2014). Possible causes of excess sludge reduction adding metabolic uncoupler, 3,3′,4′,5-tetrachlorosalicylanilide (TCS), in sequence batch reactors. Bioresource Technology, 173: 96–103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.085 pmid: 25285765
11	Gikas P, Livingston A G (1997). Specific ATP and specific oxygen uptake rate in immobilized cell aggregates: Experimental results and theoretical analysis using a structured model of immobilized cell growth. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 55(4): 660–673 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19970820)55:4<660::AID-BIT8>3.0.CO;2-F pmid: 18636576
12	Gong B, Wang Y, Wang J, Dou Y, Zhou J (2017). In situ excess sludge reduction in SBBR through uncoupling of metabolism induced by novel aeration modes. RSC Advances, 7(46): 29058–29064 https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA04452F
13	.
14	Hu D, Zhou Z, Shen X, Wei H, Jiang L M, Lv Y (2015). Effects of alkalinity on membrane bioreactors for reject water treatment: Performance improvement, fouling mitigation and microbial structures. Bioresource Technology, 197: 217–226 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.082 pmid: 26340030
15	Iino T, Mori K, Uchino Y, Nakagawa T, Harayama S, Suzuki K (2010). Ignavibacterium album gen. nov., sp. nov., a moderately thermophilic anaerobic bacterium isolated from microbial mats at a terrestrial hot spring and proposal of Ignavibacteria classis nov., for a novel lineage at the periphery of green sulfur bacteria. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 60(Pt 6): 1376–1382 https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.012484-0 pmid: 19671715
16	Imai A, Fukushima T, Matsushige K, Kim Y H, Choi K (2002). Characterization of dissolved organic matter in effluents from wastewater treatment plants. Water Research, 36(4): 859–870 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00283-4 pmid: 11848356
17	Johnsen A R, Karlson U (2004). Evaluation of bacterial strategies to promote the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 63(4): 452–459 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-003-1265-z pmid: 14716468
18	Kämpfer P (1995). Physiological and chemotaxonomic characterization of filamentous bacteria belonging to the genus Haliscomenobacter. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 18(3): 363–367 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0723-2020(11)80429-7
19	Khursheed A, Kazmi A A (2011). Retrospective of ecological approaches to excess sludge reduction. ChemInform, 45(15): 4287–4310 pmid: 21722936
20	Kojima H, Tokizawa R, Fukui M (2014). Mizugakiibacter sediminis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a freshwater lake. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 64(Pt 12): 3983–3987 https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.064659-0 pmid: 25212223
21	Leyva-Díaz J C, González-Martínez A, González-López J, Muñío M M, Poyatos J M (2015). Kinetic modeling and microbiological study of two-step nitrification in a membrane bioreactor and hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 259(23): 692–702 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.136
22	Li X, Liu X, Wu S, Rasool A, Zuo J, Li C, Liu G (2014). Microbial diversity and community distribution in different functional zones of continuous aerobic-anaerobic coupled process for sludge in situ reduction. Chemical Engineering Journal, 257(8): 74–81 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.028
23	Metcalfeddy I, Tchobanoglous G, Stensel H D (2003). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 73(1): 50–51
24	Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of PRC (MOHURD) and National Development and Reform Commission (NDARC), (2011). Urban Sludge Treatment Technology Guide, Beijing, China (in Chinese)
25	Ng H Y, Tan T W, Ong S L (2006). Membrane fouling of submerged membrane bioreactors: Impact of mean cell residence time and the contributing factors. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(8): 2706–2713 https://doi.org/10.1021/es0516155 pmid: 16683612
26	Niu T, Zhou Z, Shen X, Qiao W, Jiang L M, Pan W, Zhou J (2016). Effects of dissolved oxygen on performance and microbial community structure in a micro-aerobic hydrolysis sludge reduction process. Water Research, 90(3): 369–377 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.050 pmid: 26766160
27	Pan L T, Han Y (2016). A novel anoxic-aerobic biofilter process using new composite packing material for the treatment of rural domestic wastewater. Water Science & Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 73(10): 2486
28	Rigano L A, Payette C, Brouillard G, Marano M R, Abramowicz L, Torres P S, Yun M, Castagnaro A P, Oirdi M E, Dufour V, Malamud F, Dow J M, Bouarab K, Vojnov A A (2007). Bacterial cyclic beta-(1,2)-glucan acts in systemic suppression of plant immune responses. Plant Cell, 19(6): 2077–2089 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.106.047944 pmid: 17601826
29	Rittmann B E (2018). Biofilms, active substrata, and me. Water Research, 132: 135–145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.043 pmid: 29324293
30	Schügerl K (1997). Three-phase-biofluidization—Application of three-phase fluidization in the biotechnology: A review. Chemical Engineering Science, 52(21): 3661–3668 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)88926-9
31	Shao Y, Shi Y, Mohammed A, Liu Y (2017). Wastewater ammonia removal using an integrated fixed-film activated sludge-sequencing batch biofilm reactor (IFAS-SBR): Comparison of suspended flocs and attached biofilm. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 116: 38–47 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.09.026
32	Shi Y L, Wang S F, Chen X (2012). Biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal in low C/N ratio domestic sewage treatment by velocity discrete biofilter. Environmental Science & Technology, 35(11): 131–134
33	Smolders G J, van der Meij J, van Loosdrecht M C, Heijnen J J (1994). Model of the anaerobic metabolism of the biological phosphorus removal process: Stoichiometry and pH influence. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 43(6): 461–470 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260430605 pmid: 18615742
34	Tian Y, Li Z, Ding Y, Lu Y (2013). Identification of the change in fouling potential of soluble microbial products (SMP) in membrane bioreactor coupled with worm reactor. Water Research, 47(6): 2015–2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.01.026 pmid: 23399079
35	US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2007). IRIS Chemical Tracking System. Available from:
36	Walter W G (2005). APHA standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Health Laboratory Science, 4(3): 137
37	Wang J, Li X, Fu W, Wu S, Li C (2012). Treatment of artificial soybean wastewater anaerobic effluent in a continuous aerobic-anaerobic coupled (CAAC) process with excess sludge reduction. Bioresource Technology, 126(126C): 142–147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.127 pmid: 23073101
38	Wu J (2013). Comment on “Modeling nitrous oxide production during biological nitrogen removal via nitrification and denitrification: Extensions to the general asm models”. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(20): 11908–11909 https://doi.org/10.1021/es403417a pmid: 24044616
39	Wu M, Zhu R, Zhu H, Dai X, Yang J (2013). Phosphorus removal and simultaneous sludge reduction in humus soil sequencing batch reactor treating domestic wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215–216(3): 136–143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.066
40	Xiao-Su W U, Liao R H, Gang H E (2014). Integration of rapid separation biochemistry process and NAR exchange for treatment of rural sewage in suburbs of Beijing. China Water & Wastewater, 02
41	Yamamura H, Okimoto K, Kimura K, Watanabe Y (2014). Hydrophilic fraction of natural organic matter causing irreversible fouling of microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes. Water Research, 54(5): 123–136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.024 pmid: 24565803
42	Yang S, Guo W, Chen Y, Peng S, Du J, Zheng H, Feng X, Ren N (2016). Simultaneous in-situ sludge reduction and nutrient removal in an A2MO-M system: Performances, mechanisms, and modeling with an extended ASM2d model. Water Research, 88(4): 524–537 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.046 pmid: 26524657
43	Yue X, Koh Y K, Ng H Y (2015). Effects of dissolved organic matters (DOMs) on membrane fouling in anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactors (AnCMBRs) treating domestic wastewater. Water Research, 86: 96–107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.038 pmid: 26255104
44	Zhang Y, Wang F, Zhu X, Zeng J, Zhao Q, Jiang X (2015). Extracellular polymeric substances govern the development of biofilm and mass transfer of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for improved biodegradation. Bioresource Technology, 193(1): 274–280 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.110 pmid: 26141288
45	Zhou Z, Qiao W, Xing C, An Y, Shen X, Ren W, Jiang L M, Wang L (2015). Microbial community structure of anoxic—oxic-settling-anaerobic sludge reduction process revealed by 454-pyrosequencing. Chemical Engineering Journal, 266(12): 249–257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.12.095

[1]

FSE-18046-OF-WYL_suppl_1

Download

[1]	Qinxue Wen, Shuo Yang, Zhiqiang Chen. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure with sulfamethoxazole and norfloxacin: Dynamics of microbial communities and evolution of resistance genes[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 94-.
[2]	Ruijie Li, Mengmeng Zhou, Shilong He, Tingting Pan, Jing Liu, Jiabao Zhu. Deciphering the effect of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate on up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket treatment of synthetic sulfate-containing wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 91-.
[3]	Shujuan Meng, Rui Wang, Kaijing Zhang, Xianghao Meng, Wenchao Xue, Hongju Liu, Dawei Liang, Qian Zhao, Yu Liu. Transparent exopolymer particles (TEPs)-associated protobiofilm: A neglected contributor to biofouling during membrane filtration[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 64-.
[4]	Weichuan Qiao, Rong Li, Tianhao Tang, Achuo Anitta Zuh. Removal, distribution and plant uptake of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in a simulated constructed wetland system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 20-.
[5]	Yanqing Duan, Aijuan Zhou, Xiuping Yue, Zhichun Zhang, Yanjuan Gao, Yanhong Luo, Xiao Zhang. Acceleration of the particulate organic matter hydrolysis by start-up stage recovery and its original microbial mechanism[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 12-.
[6]	Yuhan Zheng, Zhiguo Su, Tianjiao Dai, Feifei Li, Bei Huang, Qinglin Mu, Chuanping Feng, Donghui Wen. Identifying human-induced influence on microbial community: A comparative study in the effluent-receiving areas in Hangzhou Bay[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 90-.
[7]	Aoshuang Jing, Tao Liu, Xie Quan, Shuo Chen, Yaobin Zhang. Enhanced nitrification in integrated floating fixed-film activated sludge (IFFAS) system using novel clinoptilolite composite carrier[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 69-.
[8]	Qinqin Liu, Miao Li, Rui Liu, Quan Zhang, Di Wu, Danni Zhu, Xuhui Shen, Chuanping Feng, Fawang Zhang, Xiang Liu. Removal of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole in artificial composite soil treatment systems and diversity of microbial communities[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 28-.
[9]	Wanqi Qi, Weiying Li, Junpeng Zhang, Xuan Wu, Jie Zhang, Wei Zhang. Effect of biological activated carbon filter depth and backwashing process on transformation of biofilm community[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 15-.
[10]	Xiaohui Wang, Shuai Du, Tao Ya, Zhiqiang Shen, Jing Dong, Xiaobiao Zhu. Removal of tetrachlorobisphenol A and the effects on bacterial communities in a hybrid sequencing biofilm batch reactor-constructed wetland system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 14-.
[11]	Xiao Quan, Kai Huang, Mei Li, Meichao Lan, Baoan Li. Nitrogen removal performance of municipal reverse osmosis concentrate with low C/N ratio by membrane-aerated biofilm reactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(6): 5-.
[12]	Guangqing Song, Hongbo Xi, Xiumei Sun, Yudong Song, Yuexi Zhou. Effect of 2-butenal manufacture wastewater to methanogenic activity and microbial community[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 10-.
[13]	Zechong Guo, Lei Gao, Ling Wang, Wenzong Liu, Aijie Wang. Enhanced methane recovery and exoelectrogen-methanogen evolution from low-strength wastewater in an up-flow biofilm reactor with conductive granular graphite fillers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 13-.
[14]	Liguo Zhang, Qiaoying Ban, Jianzheng Li. Microbial community dynamics at high organic loading rates revealed by pyrosequencing during sugar refinery wastewater treatment in a UASB reactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 4-.
[15]	Qiang He, Yinying Zhu, Guo Li, Leilei Fan, Hainan Ai, Xiaoliu Huangfu, Hong Li. Impact of dissolved oxygen on the production of nitrous oxide in biological aerated filters[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 16-.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed