Hydrodynamic Conditions Influence Bacterial Growth and Phenol Biodegradation of Strains with Different Morphology and Motility

  • Nan Yang
  • Yi Li
  • Linqiong Wang
  • Longfei Wang
  • Lihua Niu


Microorganisms are frequently exposed to flowing fluid, thus to investigate bacterial characteristics under different hydrodynamic conditions is of great importance in microbial ecology. This study characterized bacterial growth and phenol biodegradation of three strains, i.e., Microbacterium oxydans (rod-shaped, non-motile), Alcaligenes faecalis (rod-shaped, motile), and Staphylococcus haemolyticus (spherical, non-motile) in shake-flask cultures at various rotating speeds. For all the strains, a higher rotating speed always resulted in a shorter lag phase, indicating that the strains showed a superior adaptability under higher hydrodynamic conditions. The maximum specific growth rate of M. oxydans, A. faecalis, and S. haemolyticus increased rapidly with the increase of energy dissipation rate till the highest value of 0.386, 0.240, and 0.323 1/h and then decreased as the rotating speed further increased. The phenol biodegradation rate was also dependent on rotating speed, and the trends were consistent with the growth rate variations. A predictive model similar to Haldane model was proposed and was fitted well (R2 > 0.913) with bacterial growth under different hydrodynamic conditions. According to the predictive model, the optimum hydrodynamic conditions for the growth of M. oxydans, A. faecalis, and S. haemolyticus were 3.099, 2.197, and 2.289 m2/s3, respectively. The results suggested that non-motile and rod-shaped bacteria were more dependent on hydrodynamic conditions than motile and spherical ones, which could be attributed to the discrepancies in bacterial morphology and motility. The results provide a better understanding on bacterial responses to various hydrodynamic conditions and could be further applied in the bioremediation of contaminated water.


Hydrodynamic conditions Bacterial growth Model Morphology Motility 


Funding Information

This study was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51779076 and 91547105), Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51421006), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2016B10614), PAPD and TAPP (PPZY2015A051), National Undergraduate Training Program for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (201510294029).


  1. Al-Homoud, A., Hondzo, M., & LaPara, T. (2007). Fluid dynamics impact on bacterial physiology: biochemical oxygen demand. Journal Of Environmental Engineering-Asce, 133(2), 226–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berdalet, E., Peters, F., Koumandou, V. L., Roldan, C., Guadayol, O., & Estrada, M. (2007). Species-specific physiological response of dinoflagellates to quantified small-scale turbulence. Journal of Phycology, 43(5), 965–977. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, P. J. B., Kysela, D. T., & Brun, Y. V. (2011). Polarity and the diversity of growth mechanisms in bacteria. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 22(8), 790–798. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaban, B., Hughes, H. V., & Beeby, M. (2015). The flagellum in bacterial pathogens: for motility and a whole lot more. Semin Cell Dev Biol, 46, 91–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chengala, A. A., Hondzo, M., Troolin, D., & Lefebvre, P. A. (2010). Kinetic responses of Dunaliella in moving fluids. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 107(1), 65–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Djokic, L., Narancic, T., Nikodinovic-Runic, J., Savic, M., & Vasiljevic, B. (2011). Isolation and characterization of four novel gram-positive bacteria associated with the rhizosphere of two endemorelict plants capable of degrading a broad range of aromatic substrates. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 91(4), 1227–1238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garcia-Ochoa, F., Gomez, E., Alcon, A., & Santos, V. E. (2013). The effect of hydrodynamic stress on the growth of Xanthomonas campestris cultures in a stirred and sparged tank bioreactor. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 36(7), 911–925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guasto, J. S., Rusconi, R., & Stocker, R. (2012). Fluid mechanics of planktonic microorganisms. In S. H. Davis & P. Moin (Eds.), Annual Review Of Fluid Mechanics (Vol. 44, pp. 373–400).Google Scholar
  9. Hondzo, M., & Wüest, A. (2009). Do microscopic organisms feel turbulent flows? Environmental Science & Technology, 43(3), 764–768. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiang, L. C., Ruan, Q. P., Li, R. L., & Li, T. D. (2013). Biodegradation of phenol by using free and immobilized cells of Acinetobacter sp BS8Y. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 53(3), 224–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaya, T., & Koser, H. (2012). Direct upstream motility in Escherichia Coli. Biophysical Journal, 102(7), 1514–1523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiørboe, T. (1993). Turbulence, phytoplankton cell size, and the structure of pelagic food webs. Advances in Marine Biology, 29, 1–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Linek, V. (1981). Chemical engineering use of catalyzed sulphite oxidation kinetics for the determination of mass transfer characteristics of gas liquid contractors. Chemical Engineering Science, 36(11), 1747–1768. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, Y.-S., Wu, J.-Y., & Ho, K.-p. (2006). Characterization of oxygen transfer conditions and their effects on Phaffia rhodozyma growth and carotenoid production in shake-flask cultures. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 27(3), 331–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malits, A., Peters, F., Bayer-Giraldi, M., Marrase, C., Zoppini, A., Guadayol, O., & Alcaraz, M. (2004). Effects of small-scale turbulence on bacteria: a matter of size. Microbial Ecology, 48, 287–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitrovic, S. M., Hardwick, L., & Dorani, F. (2011). Use of flow management to mitigate cyanobacterial blooms in the Lower Darling River, Australia. Journal of Plankton Research, 33(2), 229–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paisio, C. E., Talano, M. A., González, P. S., Busto, V. D., Talou, J. R., & Agostini, E. (2012). Isolation and characterization of a Rhodococcus strain with phenol-degrading ability and its potential use for tannery effluent biotreatment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 19(8), 3430–3439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pankratov, T. A., Ivanova, A. O., Dedysh, S. N., & Liesack, W. (2011). Bacterial populations and environmental factors controlling cellulose degradation in an acidic sphagnum peat. Environmental Microbiology, 13(7), 1800–1814. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peter, C. P., Suzuki, Y., & Buchs, J. (2006). Hydromechanical stress in shake flasks: correlation for the maximum local energy dissipation rate. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 93(6), 1164–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peters, F., Arin, L., Marrasé, C., Berdalet, E., & Sala, M. M. (2006). Effects of small-scale turbulence on the growth of two diatoms of different size in a phosphorus-limited medium. Journal of Marine Systems, 61(3–4), 134–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters, F., Marrase, C., Gasol, J. M., Sala, M. M., & Arin, L. (1998). Effects of turbulence on bacterial growth mediated through food web interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 172, 293–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polymenakou, P. N., & Stephanou, E. G. (2005). Effect of temperature and additional carbon sources on phenol degradation by an indigenous soil pseudomonad. Biodegradation, 16(5), 403–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Randich, A. M., & Brun, Y. V. (2015). Molecular mechanisms for the evolution of bacterial morphologies and growth modes. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6.
  24. Rusconi, R., & Stocker, R. (2015). Microbes in flow. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 25, 1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharma, B. M., Bharat, G. K., Tayal, S., Nizzetto, L., Čupr, P., & Larssen, T. (2014). Environment and human exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in India: a systematic review of recent and historical data. Environment International, 66, 48–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Dillewijn, P., Caballero, A., Paz, J. A., González-Pérez, M. M., Oliva, J. M., & Ramos, J. L. (2007). Bioremediation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene under field conditions. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(4), 1378–1383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang, L., Li, Y., Zhang, W., Niu, L., Du, J., Cai, W., & Wang, J. (2016a). Isolation and characterization of two novel psychrotrophic decabromodiphenyl ether-degrading bacteria from river sediments. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(11), 10371–10381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang, L. Q., Li, Y., Niu, L. H., Dai, Y., Wu, Y., & Wang, Q. (2016b). Isolation and growth kinetics of a novel phenol-degrading bacterium microbacterium oxydans from the sediment of Taihu Lake (China). Water Science and Technology, 73(8), 1882–1890. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang, R. D., & Humphrey, A. E. (1975). Dynamic and steady state studies of phenol biodegradation in pure and mixed cultures. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 17(8), 1211–1235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Young, K. D. (2007). Bacterial morphology: why have different shapes? Current Opinion in Microbiology, 10, 596–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Integrated Regulation and Resource Development of Shallow Lakes, Ministry of Education, College of EnvironmentHohai UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations