Advertisement

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

  • Yonglei WangEmail author
  • Baozhen Liu
  • Kefeng Zhang
  • Yongjian Liu
  • Xuexin Xu
  • Junqi Jia
Research Article

Abstract

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 SCSBBR, 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 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2016EEM32),the Doctoral Fund of Shandong Jianzhu University in 2015 (XNBS1511),and Scientific and technological Innovation Project of Planning and Design Institute of Huaihe River Basin Water Conservancy Administration Bureau of Shandong Province in 2018 (SFSJKY2018-01).

Supplementary material

11783_2018_1077_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (554 kb)
Supplementary Material

References

  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): 954–961Google Scholar
  2. Bollag D M, Rozycki M D, Edelstein S J 1996Protein Methods, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-LissGoogle Scholar
  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, 671–696Google Scholar
  4. China Water Supply and Drainage 2017 (2017). China Advanced Symposium on Sludge Disposal Technology and Application in Cities and Towns (CASSDTA, 8th). Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  5. Cieślik B M, Namieśnik J, Konieczka P (2015). Review of sewage sludge management: Standards, regulations and analytical methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90: 1–15Google Scholar
  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: 311–316Google Scholar
  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): 1825–1832Google Scholar
  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: 21–28Google Scholar
  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): 344–352Google Scholar
  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: 96–103Google Scholar
  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): 660–673Google Scholar
  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/www.mohurd.gov.cn/zcfg/jsbwj_0/jsbwjjskj/201103/P020110518575321092122.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. 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: 217–226Google Scholar
  14. 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): 1376–1382Google Scholar
  15. 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): 859–870Google Scholar
  16. Johnsen A R, Karlson U (2004). Evaluation of bacterial strategies to promote the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 63(4): 452–459Google Scholar
  17. Kämpfer P (1995). Physiological and chemotaxonomic characterization of filamentous bacteria belonging to the genus Haliscomenobacter. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 18(3): 363–367Google Scholar
  18. Khursheed A, Kazmi A A (2011). Retrospective of ecological approaches to excess sludge reduction. ChemInform, 45(15): 4287–4310Google Scholar
  19. 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): 3983–3987Google Scholar
  20. 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): 692–702Google Scholar
  21. 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): 74–81Google Scholar
  22. Metcalfeddy I, Tchobanoglous G, Stensel H D (2003). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 73(1): 50–51Google Scholar
  23. 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)Google Scholar
  24. 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): 2706–2713Google Scholar
  25. 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): 369–377Google Scholar
  26. 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): 2486Google Scholar
  27. 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): 2077–2089Google Scholar
  28. Rittmann B E (2018). Biofilms, active substrata, and me. Water Research, 132: 135–145Google Scholar
  29. Schügerl K (1997). Three-phase-biofluidization—Application of threephase fluidization in the biotechnology: A review. Chemical Engineering Science, 52(21): 3661–3668Google Scholar
  30. 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: 38–47Google Scholar
  31. 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): 131–134Google Scholar
  32. 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): 461–470Google Scholar
  33. 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): 2015–2024Google Scholar
  34. US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2007). IRIS Chemical Tracking System. Available from: https://doi.org/cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm
  35. Walter W G (2005). APHA standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Health Laboratory Science, 4(3): 137Google Scholar
  36. 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): 142–147Google Scholar
  37. 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): 11908–11909Google Scholar
  38. 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): 136–143Google Scholar
  39. 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, 02Google Scholar
  40. 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): 123–136Google Scholar
  41. 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): 524–537Google Scholar
  42. 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: 96–107Google Scholar
  43. 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): 274–280Google Scholar
  44. 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): 249–257Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yonglei Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Baozhen Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kefeng Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yongjian Liu
    • 4
  • Xuexin Xu
    • 1
  • Junqi Jia
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Municipal and Environmental EngineeringShandong Jianzhu UniversityJinanChina
  2. 2.Co-Innovation Center of Green BuildingJinanChina
  3. 3.Shandong Province City Water Supply and Drainage Water Quality Monitoring CenterJinanChina
  4. 4.Shandong Huaihe River Basin Water Conservancy Administration Planning and Design InstituteJinanChina

Personalised recommendations