Advertisement

Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 17–27 | Cite as

Simulation and experimental validation of a gradient feeding system for fast assessment of the kinetic behavior of a microbial consortium in a tubular biofilm reactor

  • Merlyn Alejandra Salazar-Huerta
  • Nora Ruiz-OrdazEmail author
  • Juvencio Galíndez-MayerEmail author
  • Jaime García-Mena
  • Cleotilde Juárez-Ramírez
Research Paper
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

This study deals with the mathematical simulation and experimental validation of a gradient system for the gradual change of the imidacloprid loading rate to a tubular biofilm reactor (TBR). The strategy was used for fast studies of the kinetic and stoichiometric impact caused by the increase in the pesticide loading rate in a TBR, running in plug flow regime. Seemingly, this strategy has never been used for biokinetic and stoichiometric studies in biofilm reactors. For this purpose, a mathematical model describing the substrate transient behavior Sg(t) in a concentration gradient generator system using variable volume tanks is proposed. A second model, representing the temporary variation in the loading rate of imidacloprid to an aerated equalizer tank preceding the packed zone of the TBR, is also presented. Both models were experimentally confirmed. After the treatment of the experimental data, the kinetic and stoichiometric changes occurring in the TBR, caused by the gradual increase in the imidacloprid loading rate, were readily evaluated. Although the structure of the microbial community, at the phylum level, showed similar behavior along the tubular reactor, the stress produced by the gradual increase in imidacloprid concentration had functional consequences on the mixed microbial populations which were reflected on the stoichiometric and kinetic parameters. After increasing more than five times the imidacloprid loading rate to the TBR, the imidacloprid removal efficiency decayed about 40%, and the microbial-specific removal rate of the insecticide showed a decrease of about 30%.

Keywords

Tubular reactor Biofilm Microbial consortium Gradient feeding Simulation 

Abbreviations

Ag

Sectional area of gradient tank G (cm2)

Ar

Sectional area of tank R (cm2)

BV = FSeq/VL

Volumetric loading rate of imidacloprid (mg L−1 h−1)

COD

Chemical oxygen demand (mg L−1)

conv

Convective

Dg

Diameter of gradient tank G (cm)

DR

Diameter of reservoir tank R (cm)

Eq

Aerated compartment operating as equalizer

ExpIntegralE[n,m]

Exponential integral \(\int_{1}^{\infty } {\frac{{e^{ - mt} }}{{t^{n} }}}\) in Eq. (9)

F

Liquid flow rate (L h−1)

MS medium

Mineral salts medium

qs

Specific degradation rate of imidacloprid (mg CFU−1 h−1)

\(q_{{{\text{s}}_{\text{i}} }}\)

Overall initial specific removal rate of imidacloprid (mg CFU−1 h−1)

\(q_{{{\text{s}}_{\text{f}} }}\)

Overall final specific removal rate of imidacloprid (mg CFU−1 h−1)

RV= F(Seq − s)/VL

Volumetric loading rate of imidacloprid (mg L−1 h−1)

Seq

Imidacloprid concentration in equalizer (mg L−1)

Sg

Imidacloprid concentration in G tank (mg L−1)

Sr

Imidacloprid concentration in reservoir tank (mg L−1)

s

Imidacloprid concentration in the TBR packed zone (mg L−1)

t

Time (h)

TBR

Tubular biofilm reactor

Veq

Liquid volume of equalizer (L)

Vg

Liquid volume of gradient tank G (L)

VL

Interstitial liquid volume in the TBR packed zone (L)

Vr

Liquid volume of reservoir tank (L)

Vp

Volume of the support material in the TBR packed zone (L)

Wp

Weight of porous fragments in TBR

xeq

Suspended cells in equalizer (CFU L−1)

Xi

Initial total viable cells in the reactor (CFU/reactor)

Xf

Final total viable cells in the reactor (CFU/reactor)

z

Length of the packed zone of the tubular biofilm reactor (cm)

Subscripts

ac

Accumulation

cons

Consumption

eq

Equalizer

f

Final condition

g

Gradient

L

Liquid

o

Initial condition

p

Porous support

r

Reservoir

Greeks

εE

Intraparticle porosity (non-dimensional)

εP

Interparticle porosity (non-dimensional)

\(\varepsilon_{\text{T}} \, = \,\varepsilon_{\text{P}} \, + \,\varepsilon_{\text{E}}\)

Total bed porosity (non-dimensional)

η

Imidacloprid removal efficiency (%)

\(\varphi_{\text{g}} \, = \, 1\, - \,\varphi_{\text{r}}\)

Relative area of gradient tank (non-dimensional)

φr

Relative area of reservoir tank (non-dimensional)

ρs

Density of porous rock (g cm−3)

Notes

Acknowledgements

This investigation was supported by a Grant obtained from SIP, Instituto Politécnico Nacional (SIP-IPN 20170884). The authors wish to thanks to COFAA-IPN and SNI-Conacyt for the fellowships to N. Ruiz-Ordaz, and J. Galindez-Mayer; SNI-Conacyt for fellowships to J. García-Mena; and Conacyt for the financial support of MA Salazar-Huerta.

References

  1. 1.
    Cerejeira MJ, Viana P, Batista F, Pereira T, Silva E, Valério MJ, Silva A, Ferreira M, Silva-Fernandes AM (2003) Pesticides in Portuguese surface and ground waters. Water Res 37:1055–1063.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00462-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    La N, Lamers M, Barmwarth M, Nguyen VV, Streck T (2015) Imidacloprid concentrations in paddy rice fields in northern Vietnam: measurement and probabilistic modeling. Paddy Water Environ 13:191–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-014-0420-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Santek B, Ivancic M, Horva P, Novak S, Maric V (2006) Horizontal tubular bioreactors in biotechnology. Chem Biochem Eng Q 20:389–399Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moser A (1991) Tubular bioreactors: case study of bioreactor performance for industrial production and scientific research. Biotechnol Bioeng 37:1054–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skoneczny S, Tabiś B (2015) The method for steady states determination in tubular biofilm reactors. Chem Eng Sci 137:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang G, Tang W, Xia J, Chu J, Noorman H, van Gulik WM (2015) Integration of microbial kinetics and fluid dynamics toward model-driven scale-up of industrial bioprocesses. Eng Life Sci 15:20–29.  https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201400172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Visser D, van Zuylen GA, van Dam JC, Eman MR, Pröll A, Ras C, Wu L, van Gulik WM, Joseph J. Heijnen JJ (2004) Analysis of in vivo kinetics of glycolysis in aerobic Saccharomyces cerevisiae by application of glucose and ethanol pulses. Biotechnol Bioeng 88:157–167.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang RD, Humphrey AE (1975) Dynamic and steady state studies of phenol biodegradation in pure and mixed cultures. Biotechnol Bioeng 17(8):1211–1235.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260170809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nava-Arenas I, Ruiz-Ordaz N, Galindez-Mayer J, Ramos-Monroy O, Juárez-Ramírez C, Curiel-Quesada E, Poggi-Varaldo H (2012) Acclimation of a microbial community to degrade a combination of organochlorine herbicides in a biofilm reactor. Environ Eng Manag J 11:1753–1761. http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/. Accessed 5 May 2018
  10. 10.
    Ding C-Q, Li K-R, Duan Y-X, Jia S-R, Lv H-X, Bai H, Zhong C (2017) Study on community structure of microbial consortium for the degradation of viscose fiber wastewater. Bioresour Bioprocess 4(1):31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0159-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang J, Li L, Liu J, Han Y (2016) Temporal variation of microbial population in acclimation and startup period of a thermophilic desulfurization biofilter. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 109:157–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brandt KK, Patel BKC, Ingvorsen K (1999) Desulfocella halophila gen. nov., sp. nov., a halophilic, fatty-acid-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterium isolated from sediments of the Great Salt Lake. Int J Syst Bacteriol 49:193–200.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-49-1-193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    González-Cuna S, Galíndez-Mayer J, Ruiz-Ordaz N, Murugesan S, Piña-Escobedo A, García-Mena J, Lima-Martínez E, Santoyo-Tepole F (2016) Aerobic biofilm reactor for treating a commercial formulation of the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba: biodegradation kinetics and biofilm bacterial diversity. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 107:123–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    García-Mena J, Murugesan S, Pérez-Muñoz AA, García-Espitia M, Maya O, Jacinto-Montiel M, Monsalvo-Ponce G, Piña-Escobedo A, Domínguez-Malfavón L, Gómez-Ramírez M, Cervantes-González E, Núñez-Cardona MT (2016) Airborne bacterial diversity from the low atmosphere of Greater Mexico City. Microb Ecol 72(1):70–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-016-0747-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodge DS, Devinny JS (1995) Modeling removal of air contaminants by biofiltration. J Environ Eng 121:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lund MM, Seagrave RC (1971) Optimal operation of a variable-volume stirred tank reactor. AIChE J 17(1):30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690170110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michov BM (1978) A concentration gradient system. Anal Biochem 86:432–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(78)90766-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jungo C, Marison I, Von Stockar U (2007) Mixed feeds of glycerol and methanol can improve the performance of Pichia pastoris cultures: a quantitative study based on concentration gradients in transient continuous cultures. J Biotechnol 128:824–837.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2006.12.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galíndez-Mayer J, Juárez-Ramírez C, López-Alcántara R, Cristiani-Urbina E, Ruiz-Ordaz N (1994) Theoretical analysis and experimental behavior of a fed-batch fermentative system with gradient feeding. Rev Lat-Am Microbiol 36:21–26Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bellavia D, Cellura D, Sisino G, Barbieri R (2008) A homemade device for linear sucrose gradients. Anal Biochem 379:211–212.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260190112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reichenbach H (2006) The order Cytophagales. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E (eds) The Prokaryotes, vol 7. Springer, New York, pp 549–590.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30747-8_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kersters K, De Vos P, Gillis M, Swings J, Vandamme P, Stackebrandt E (2006) Introduction to the Proteobacteria. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E (eds) The Prokaryotes, vol 5. Springer, New York, pp 3–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30745-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park S, Stephanopoulos G (1993) Packed bed bioreactor with porous ceramic beads for animal cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 41(1):25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260410105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harrison DEF, Pirt SJ (1967) The influence of dissolved oxygen concentration on the respiration and glucose metabolism of Klebsiella aerogenes during growth. J Gen Microbiol 46:193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-46-2-193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leahy JG, Olsen RH (1997) Kinetics of toluene degradation by toluene-oxidizing bacteria as a function of oxygen concentration, and the effect of nitrate. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 23(1):23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.1997.tb00387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gao DW, Fu Y, Tao Y, Li XX, Xing M, Gao XH, Ren NQ (2011) Linking microbial community structure to membrane biofouling associated with varying dissolved oxygen concentrations. Bioresour Technol 102:5626–5633.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería Bioquímica ENCB-ZacatencoInstituto Politécnico NacionalMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Departamento de Genética y Biología Molecular, CinvestavInstituto Politécnico NacionalMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations