Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Variation of biomass and kinetic parameters for nitrifying species in the TNCU3 process at different aerobic hydraulic retention times

Abstract

In this study, the variation of biomass, kinetic parameters, and stoichiometric parameters for ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) in TNCU3 process were explored at different aerobic hydraulic retention time (AHRT). The results indicated that the growth rate constants of AOB were 0.92, 0.88, and 0.95 days−1, respectively, meanwhile, those of NOB were 2.58 1.41, and 1.40 days−1, respectively, when AHRT was 5, 6, and 7 h. The lysis rate constants for AOB and NOB were 0.13 and 0.17 days−1, respectively. When AHRT was 5, 6, and 7 h, the yield coefficients of AOB were 0.20, 0.23, and 0.28 g COD g−1 N, respectively, meanwhile those of NOB were 0.23, 0.19, and 0.22 g COD g−1 N, respectively. The average percentage of AOB was 0.44, 0.61, and 0.64%, respectively, while that of NOB was 0.46, 0.61, and 0.74%, respectively. The relation between the biomass percentage of AOB and AHRT was in a good agreement with first type hyperbolic curve. The relation between the biomass percentage of NOB and AHRT was in a good agreement with seven types of curve including simple exponential curve, power exponential curve, and first type hyperbolic curve etc. When the AHRT increased from 5 to 7 h, the removal efficiency of NH4 +–N increased from 80.2 to 94.8%, or by 14.6%. Meanwhile, the removal efficiency of total nitrogen increased from 63.6 to 70.9%, or by 7.3%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

bAOB :

Lysis rate constant of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (1/T)

bNOB :

Lysis rate constant of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (1/T)

OURAOB :

Oxygen uptake rate of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (M/T L3)

OURH :

Oxygen uptake rate of heterotrophic bacteria (M/T L3)

OURNOB :

Oxygen uptake rate of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (M/T L3)

\( {\text{S}}_{{{\text{NH}}_{ 4} }} \) :

Concentration of ammonia (M/L3)

\( {\text{S}}_{{{\text{NO}}_{ 2} }} \) :

Concentration of nitrite (M/L3)

\( {\text{S}}_{{{\text{O}}_{ 2} }} \) :

Concentration of oxygen (M/L3)

XAOB :

Concentration of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (M/L3)

XNOB :

Concentration of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (M/L3)

YAOB :

Yield coefficient of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria

YNOB :

Yield coefficient of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria

μAOB :

Growth rate constant of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (1/T)

μNOB :

Growth rate constant of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (1/T)

References

  1. Alkan U, Eleren SÇ, Nalbur BE, Odabaş E (2008) Influence of the activated sludge system configuration on heavy metal toxicity reduction. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:1435–1443

  2. APHA, AWWA, WEF (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington DC

  3. Daigger GT, Parker DS (2000) Enhancing nitrification in North American activated sludge plants. Water Sci Technol 41:97–105

  4. Dogruel S, Genceli EA, Babuna FG, Orhon D (2006) An investigation on the optimal location of ozonation within biological treatment for a tannery wastewater. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 81:1877–1885

  5. Fernández B, Vilar A, Ben M, Kennes C, Veiga MC (2005) Partial nitrification of wastewater from an aminoplastic resin producing factory. Water Sci Technol 52:517–524

  6. Güven D, Kutlu Ö, İnsel G, Sözen S (2009) Model-based process analysis of partial nitrification efficiency under dynamic nitrogen loading. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 32:655–661

  7. Inoue D, Wada K, Sei K, Ike M, Fujita M (2005) Comparative evaluation of quantitative polymerase chain reaction methods for routine enumeration of specific bacterial DNA in aquatic samples. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:1029–1035

  8. Kappeler J, Brodmann R (1995) Low F/M bulking and scumming: towards a better understanding by modeling. Water Sci Technol 31:225–324

  9. Kappeler J, Gujer W (1992) Estimation of kinetic parameters of heterotrophic biomass under aerobic conditions and characterization of wastewater for activated sludge modelling. Water Sci Technol 25:125–139

  10. Leta S, Assefa F, Dalhammar G (2005) Enhancing biological nitrogen removal from tannery effluent by using the efficient Brachymonas denitrificans in pilot plant operations. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:545–552

  11. Li X, Zhang R (2002) Aerobic treatment of dairy wastewater with sequencing batch reactor systems. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 25:103–109

  12. Nowak O, Svardal K, Schweighofer P (1995) The dynamic behaviour of nitrifying activated sludge systems8 influenced by inhibiting wastewater compounds. Water Sci Technol 31:115–124

  13. Pai TY (2007) Modeling nitrite and nitrate variations in A2O process under different return oxic mixed liquid using an extended model. Process Biochem 42:978–987

  14. Pai TY, Ouyang CF, Su JL, Leu HG (2001) Modelling the steady-state effluent characteristics of the TNCU process under different return mixed liquid. Appl Math Model 25:1025–1038

  15. Pai TY, Tsai YP, Chou YJ, Chang HY, Leu HG, Ouyang CF (2004a) Microbial kinetic analysis of three different types of EBNR process. Chemosphere 55:109–118

  16. Pai TY, Chuang SH, Tsai YP, Ouyang CF (2004b) Modelling a combined anaerobic/anoxic oxide and rotating biological contactors process under dissolved oxygen variation by using an activated sludge—biofilm hybrid model. J Environ Eng-ASCE 130:1433–1441

  17. Pai TY, Wang SC, Lo HM, Chiang CF, Liu MH, Chiou RJ, Chen WY, Hung PS, Liao WC, Leu HG (2009a) Novel modeling concept for evaluating the effects of cadmium and copper on heterotrophic growth and lysis rates in activated sludge process. J Hazard Mater 166:200–206

  18. Pai TY, Chang HY, Wan TJ, Chuang SH, Tsai YP (2009b) Using an extended activated sludge model to simulate nitrite and nitrate variations in TNCU2 process. Appl Math Model 33:4259–4268

  19. Pai TY, Wang SC, Lin CY, Liao WC, Chu HH, Lin TS, Liu CC, Lin SW (2009c) Two types of organophosphate pesticides and their combined effects on heterotrophic growth rates in activated sludge process. J Chem Technol Biotechnol (In press)

  20. Pérez J, Poughon L, Dussap C, Montesinos JL (2005) Dynamics and steady state operation of a nitrifying fixed bed biofilm reactor: mathematical model based description. Process Biochem 40:2359–2369

  21. Ramothokang TR, Naidoo D, Bux F (2006) Morphological shifts in filamentous bacteria isolated from activated sludge processes. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22:845–850

  22. Siripong S, Rittmann BE (2007) Diversity study of nitrifying bacteria in full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 41:1110–1120

  23. Tartakovsky B, Kotlar E, Sheintuch M (1996) Coupled nitrification–denitrification processes in a mixed culture of coimmobilized cells: analysis and experiment. Chem Eng Sci 51:2327–2336

  24. Tsai YP, You SJ, Pai TY, Chen KW (2006) Effect of Cd (II) on different bacterial species present in a single sludge activated sludge process for carbon and nutrient removal. J Environ Eng-ASCE 132:173–180

  25. Vaiopoulou E, Aivasidis A (2008) A modified UCT method for biological nutrient removal: configuration and performance. Chemosphere 72:1062–1068

  26. Van Hulle SWH, Vanrolleghem PA (2004) Modelling and optimisation of a chemical industry wastewater treatment plant subjected to varying production schedules. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 79:1084–1091

  27. Wang X, Ma Y, Peng Y, Wang S (2007) Short-cut nitrification of domestic wastewater in a pilot-scale A/O nitrogen removal plant. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 30:91–97

  28. Wijffels RH, de Gooijer CD, Schepers AW, Beuling EE, Mallee LF, Tramper J (1995) Dynamic modeling of immobilized Nitrosomonas europaea: implementation of diffusion limitation over expanding microcolonies. Enzyme Microb Technol 17:462–471

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the National Science Council of R.O.C. for financial support under the grant number NSC 95-2221-E-324-018.

Author information

Correspondence to Tzu-Yi Pai.

Appendix

Appendix

Calculation of growth rate constant, lysis rate constant, yield, and biomass

The process kinetic and stoichiometry shown in Tables 3 and 4 represent the activated sludge behavior which was adopted from Taiwan Extension Activated Sludge model (TWEA; Pai et al. 2009a, b; Pai 2007).According to Tables 3 and 4, oxygen consumed by XAOB with neither substrate nor oxygen limitation is:

$$ {\frac{{{\text{dS}}_{{\text{O}}_{2}} }}{\text{dt}}} = {\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}) = \left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot \mu_{\text{AOB}} \cdot {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}_{0} )} \right] - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} \cdot {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}_{0} ). $$
(1)

The growth for XAOB with neither substrate nor oxygen limitation can be written as follow:

$$ {\frac{{{\text{dX}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{\text{dt}}} = ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}). $$
(2)

Integration of Eq. 2 leads to:

$$ {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )= {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )\cdot {\text{e}}^{{ ( {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} )\cdot {\text{t}}}} $$
(3)

Equation 3 can be introduced into Eq. 1. Then the oxygen respiration is known at any time without limitations:

$$ {\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}) = \left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} } \right] \cdot {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}_{0} ) \cdot {\text{e}}^{{ ( {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{t}}}} $$
(4)

The logarithmic configuration of Eq. 4 is:

$$ \ln \left[ {{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}})} \right] = \ln \left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} } \right] + \ln {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}_{0} ) + ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{t}} $$
(5)

When time is equal to 0, Eq. 5 becomes:

$$ \ln \left[ {{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )} \right] = \ln \left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} } \right] + \ln {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} ) $$
(6)

The term \( \ln \left[ {{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )} \right] \) in Eq. 6 represents the y-axis intercept of \( \ln \left[ {\text{OUR}} \right]_{\text{AOB}} \) vs. time curve. Then XAOB biomass at initial time in a closed batch chamber can be calculated as follows:

$$ {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )= {\frac{{{\text{e}}^{\text{y - intercept}} \times 24}}{{\left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} } \right]}}} $$
(7)

Since the units of y-axis and x-axis are mg O2 l−1 h−1 and day in the graph of \( \ln \left[ {\text{OUR}} \right]_{\text{AOB}} \) vs. time, a converter of 24 is adopted in Eq. 7. When Eq. 4 is differentiated with respect to time t, the resulting equation is:

$$ {\frac{{{\text{dOUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)}}}}{\text{dt}}} = ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} )\left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} } \right] \cdot {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ({\text{t}}_{ 0} ) \cdot {\text{e}}^{{ ( {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} )\cdot {\text{t}}}} $$
(8)

The term of \( \left[ {\left( {{\frac{{3.43 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} } \right] \cdot {\text{X}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} ) \cdot {\text{e}}^{{ ( {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{t}}}} \) equals \( {\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)}} \) again, so Eq. 8 can be rearranged as:

$$ {\frac{{{\text{dOUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)}}}}{\text{dt}}} = ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)}} $$
(9)

Rearranging Eq. 9, the following expression can be obtained:

$$ {\frac{ 1}{{{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)}}}}}{\frac{{{\text{dOUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)}}}}{\text{dt}}} = ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) $$
(10)

Integrating Eq. 10, the resulting equation is:

$$ \ln [{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t)]}} = ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{t}} + {\text{C}} $$
(11)

When time equals 0, Eq. 11 becomes:

$$ \ln [{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )] = {\text{C}} $$
(12)

Substituting Eq. 12 into Eq. 11, the resulting equation is:

$$ \ln [{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}})] = ({{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} ) \cdot {\text{t}} + \ln [{\text{OUR}}_{\text{AOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )] $$
(13)

This equation represents a straight line with (μAOB − bAOB) as slope in a diagram of natural logarithm of OUR vs. time. If bAOB value can be determined, μAOB can be approximately calculated:

$$ {{\upmu}}_{\text{AOB}} = {\text{slope}} + {\text{b}}_{\text{AOB}} $$
(14)

The bAOB value was determined by the following steps. First, a fixed amount of sludge was placed into a non-fed aerated batch reactor for 10 days. Second, a certain amount of sludge was taken from the above batch reactor each time and transferred into the OUR chamber to measure the OURAOB. By plotting the OURAOB vs. time, the lysis rate constant, bAOB could be estimated by exponential curve fitting. The XNOB biomass can be calculated according to analogous derivation and expressed as:

$$ {\text{X}}_{\text{NOB}} ( {\text{t}}_{ 0} )= {\frac{{{\text{e}}^{\text{y - intercept}} \times 2 4}}{{\left[ {\left( {{\frac{{1.14 - {\text{Y}}_{\text{NOB}} }}{{{\text{Y}}_{\text{NOB}} }}}} \right) \cdot {{\upmu}}_{\text{NOB}} - {\text{b}}_{\text{NOB}} } \right]}}} $$
(15)

According to our previous work (Tsai et al. 2006), the yield coefficient for XAOB can be determined using respirometer and calculated by the following equation:

$$ {\text{Y}}_{\text{AOB}} = 3.43 - {\frac{{\int {\text{OUR(t)dt}} }}{{\left( {{\text{S}}_{{{\text{NH}}_{{4,{\text{i}}}} }} - {\text{S}}_{{{\text{NH}}_{{4,{\text{f}}}} }} } \right)}}} $$
(16)

The yield coefficients for XNOB are calculated according to

$$ {\text{Y}}_{\text{NOB}} = 1.14 - {\frac{{\int {\text{OUR(t)dt}} }}{{\left( {{\text{S}}_{{{\text{NO}}_{{ 2 , {\text{i}}}} }} - {\text{S}}_{{{\text{NO}}_{{ 2 , {\text{f}}}} }} } \right)}}} $$
(17)
Table 3 Stoichiometric matrix (Pai 2007; Pai et al. 2009b)
Table 4 Process rate equations (Pai 2007; Pai et al. 2009b)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pai, T., Chiou, R., Tzeng, C. et al. Variation of biomass and kinetic parameters for nitrifying species in the TNCU3 process at different aerobic hydraulic retention times. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 26, 589–597 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0208-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB)
  • Growth rate constant
  • Hydraulic retention time (HRT)
  • Lysis rate constant
  • Nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB)
  • Yield coefficient