Effect of different carbon sources on performance of an A2N-MBR process and its microbial community structure

  • Dongliang Du
  • Chuanyi Zhang
  • Kuixia Zhao
  • Guangrong Sun
  • Siqi Zou
  • Limei Yuan
  • Shilong He
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Effect of different carbon sources on purification performance and change of microbial community structure in a novel A2N-MBR process were investigated. The results showed that when fed with acetate, propionate or acetate and propionate mixed (1:1) as carbon sources, the effluent COD, NH4 +-N, TN and TP were lower than 30, 5, 15 and 0.5 mg∙L–1, respectively. However, taken glucose as carbon source, the TP concentration of effluent reached 2.6 mg∙L–1. Process analysis found that the amount of anaerobic phosphorus release would be the key factor to determine the above effectiveness. The acetate was beneficial to the growth of Candidatus Accumulibacter associated with biological phosphorus removal, which was the main cause of high efficiency phosphorus removal in this system. In addition, it could eliminate the Candidatus Competibacter associated with glycogen-accumulating organisms and guarantee high efficiency phosphorus uptake of phosphorus accumulating organisms in the system with acetate as carbon source.

Open image in new window

Keywords

Denitrifying phosphorus removal Alternate anaerobic/anoxic-aerobic MBR (A2N-MBR) Carbon source Operation characteristic Community structure 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2015XKMS053).

References

  1. 1.
    Zhu R, Wu M, Yang J. Effect of sludge retention time and phosphorus to carbon ratio on biological phosphorus removal in HSSBR process. Environmental Technology, 2013, 34(1-4): 429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jin L, Zhang G, Tian H. Current state of sewage treatment in China. Water Research, 2014, 66: 85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carvalheira M, Oehmen A, Carvalho G, Reis M A. The effect of substrate competition on the metabolism of polyphosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs). Water Research, 2014, 64: 149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsuneda S, Ohno T, Soejima K, Hirata A. Simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal using denitrifying phosphate-accumulating organisms in a sequencing batch reactor. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 2006, 27(3): 191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bortone G, Libelli S M, Tilche A, Wanner J. Anoxic phosphate uptake in the DEPHANOX process. Water Science and Technology, 1999, 40(4–5): 177–185Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuba T M C M, Van Loosdrecht M C M, Heijnen J J. Phosphorus and nitrogen removal with minimal COD requirement by integration of denitrifying dephosphatation and nitrification in a two-sludge system. Water Research, 1996, 30(7): 1702–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merzouki M, Bernet N, Delgenès J P, Benlemlih M. Effect of prefermentation on denitrifying phosphorus removal in slaughterhouse wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 2005, 96(12): 1317–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Copp J B, Dold P L. Comparing sludge production under aerobic and anoxic conditions. Water Science and Technology, 1998, 38(1): 285–294Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Y Y, Peng Y Z, Peng C Y, Wang S Y, Zeng W. Influence of ORP variation, carbon source and nitrate concentration on denitrifying phosphorus removal by DPB sludge from dephanox process. Water Science and Technology, 2004, 50(10): 153–161Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peng Y Z, Wu C Y, Wang R D, Li X L. Denitrifying phosphorus removal with nitrite by a real-time step feed sequencing batch reactor. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 2011, 86(4): 541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagman M, Nielsen J L, Nielsen P H, Jansen J. Mixed carbon sources for nitrate reduction in activated sludge-identification of bacteria and process activity studies. Water Research, 2008, 42(6-7): 1539–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carvalho G, Lemos P C, Oehmen A, Reis M A. Denitrifying phosphorus removal: linking the process performance with the microbial community structure. Water Research, 2007, 41(19): 4383–4396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kargi F, Uygur A, Baskaya H S. Phosphate uptake and release rates with different carbon sources in biological nutrient removal using a SBR. Journal of Environmental Management, 2005, 76(1): 71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang Y, Jiang F, Zhang Z, Xing M, Lu Z, Wu M, Yang J, Peng Y. The long-term effect of carbon source on the competition between polyphosphorus accumulating organisms and glycogen accumulating organism in a continuous plug-flow anaerobic/aerobic (A/O) process. Bioresource Technology, 2010, 101(1): 98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pijuan M, Casas C, Baeza J A. Polyhydroxyalkanoate synthesis using different carbon sources by two enhanced biological phosphorus removal microbial communities. Process Biochemistry, 2009, 44(1): 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wachtmeister A, Kuba T, Van Loosdrecht M C M, Heijnen J J. A sludge characterization assay for aerobic and denitrifying phosphorus removing sludge. Water Research, 1997, 31(3): 471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oehmen A, Saunders A M, Vives M T, 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): 22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oehmen A, Lemos P C, Carvalho G, Yuan Z, Keller J, Blackall L L, Reis M A. Advances in enhanced biological phosphorus removal: from micro to macro scale. Water Research, 2007, 41(11): 2271–2300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chang K, Li XM, Wang D B, Yang Q, Zeng GM. Effect of different ratios of propionate to acetate on phosphorus removal in sequencing batch reactor with single-stage oxic process. China Environmental Science, 2011, 3: 007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chinese SEPA, Water and Wastewater Monitoring Methods, 4th ed. Beijing: Chinese Environmental Science Publishing House, 2002Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schloss P D, Westcott S L, Ryabin T, Hall J R, Hartmann M, Hollister E B, Lesniewski R A, Oakley B B, Parks D H, Robinson C J, Sahl J W, Stres B, Thallinger G G, Van Horn D J, Weber C F. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community- supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2009, 75 (23): 7537–7541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jeon C O, Park J M. Enhanced biological phosphorus removal in a sequencing batch reactor supplied with glucose as a sole carbon source. Water Research, 2000, 34(7): 2160–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li Y J, Chen X H, Sun L P. Effects of propionic/acetic acid ratios on denitrifying phosphorus removal. China Water and Wastewater, 2011, 27(1): 79–81Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Chen Y G, Zheng H. Effect of different ratios of propionic to acetic acid on phosphorus removal by an enriched culture of phosphorus accumulating organisms. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2006, 26(8): 1278–1283Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saito T, Brdjanovic D, van Loosdrecht M C M. Effect of nitrite on phosphate uptake by phosphate accumulating organisms. Water Research, 2004, 38(17): 3760–3768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lv XM, Shao MF, Li J, Li C L. Metagenomic analysis of the sludge microbial community in a lab-scale denitrifying phosphorus removal reactor. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 2015, 175(7): 3258–3270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tian M, Zhao F, Shen X, Chu K, Wang J, Chen S, Guo Y, Liu H. The first metagenome of activated sludge from full-scale anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O) nitrogen and phosphorus removal reactor using Illumina sequencing. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2015, 35: 181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hill V R, Kahler A M, Jothikumar N, Johnson T B, Hahn D, Cromeans T L. Multistate evaluation of an ultrafiltration-based procedure for simultaneous recovery of enteric microbes in 100-liter tap water samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2007, 73(13): 4218–4225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang W, Hou F, Peng Y, Liu Q, Wang S. Optimizing aeration rate in an external nitrification–denitrifying phosphorus removal (ENDPR) system for domestic wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2014, 245: 342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim JM, Lee H J, Kim S Y, Song J J, Park W, Jeon C O. Analysis of the fine-scale population structure of “Candidatus Accumulibacter phosphatis” in enhanced biological phosphorus removal sludge, using fluorescence in situ hybridization and flow cytometric sorting. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010, 76(12): 3825–3835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim J M, Lee H J, Lee D S, Jeon C O. Characterization of the denitrification-associated phosphorus uptake properties of “Candidatus Accumulibacter phosphatis” clades in sludge subjected to enhanced biological phosphorus removal. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2013, 79(6): 1969–1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whang L M, Filipe C D M, Park J K. Model-based evaluation of competition between polyphosphate- and glycogen-accumulating organisms. Water Research, 2007, 41(6): 1312–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dongliang Du
    • 1
  • Chuanyi Zhang
    • 1
  • Kuixia Zhao
    • 2
  • Guangrong Sun
    • 1
  • Siqi Zou
    • 1
  • Limei Yuan
    • 1
  • Shilong He
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environment and Spatial InformaticsChina University of Mining & TechnologyXuzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong polytechnic of Water Resources and Electric EngineeringGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations