Advertisement

Effects of graphene oxides on transport and deposition behaviors of bacteria in saturated porous media

  • Zhi Ge
  • Dan Wu
  • Lei He
  • XianWei Liu
  • MeiPing TongEmail author
Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

The effects of graphene oxides on the transport and deposition behaviors of bacteria (Gram-negative Escherichia coli and Grampositive Bacillus subtilis) in quartz sand were investigated in both NaCl and CaCl2 solutions at pH 6.5. Both breakthrough curves and retained profiles of bacteria in the absence and presence of GO under all examined solution conditions were obtained. The results demonstrated that for both types of bacteria, the presence of GO increased the transport and decreased the deposition of bacteria at both low (10 mM) and high ionic strengths (50 mM) in NaCl solutions. However, opposite observations were achieved at different ionic strengths in CaCl2 solutions. Particularly, GO facilitated the transport and inhibited the deposition of bacteria in 1 mM CaCl2 solutions, while they suppressed the transport of bacteria in 2.5 mM CaCl2 solutions. Clearly, the cell transport and deposition behaviors in porous media would be greatly influenced by the GO copresent in suspensions. Furthermore, we found that with GO copresent in suspensions, the transport and deposition behaviors of bacteria were highly associated with those of GO. The heteroaggregation of bacteria and GO also contributed to the decreased cell transport in 2.5 mM CaCl2 solutions. This study showed that GO copresent in suspensions could act as mobile carriers for bacteria transport in porous media, leading to the alteration of cell transport and deposition behaviors.

Keywords

bacteria transport graphene oxide interaction cotransport porous media 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen D, Feng H, Li J. Graphene oxide: Preparation, functionalization, and electrochemical applications. Chem Rev, 2012, 112: 6027–6053Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang Z, Ren J, Zhang Z, et al. Recent advancement of nanostructured carbon for energy applications. Chem Rev, 2015, 115: 5159–5223Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu H, Liang F, Gou J, et al. Synergistic effect of Ag nanoparticledecorated graphene oxide and carbon fiber on electrical actuation of polymeric shape memory nanocomposites. Smart Mater Struct, 2014, 23: 085034Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang Z, Hu G, Liu J, et al. Coordinated assembly of a new 3D mesoporous Fe3O4@Cu2O-graphene oxide framework as a highly efficient and reusable catalyst for the synthesis of quinoxalines. Chem Commun, 2015, 51: 5069–5072Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiwari J N, Vij V, Kemp K C, et al. Engineered carbon-nanomaterialbased electrochemical sensors for biomolecules. ACS Nano, 2016, 10: 46–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Louie S M, Tilton R D, Lowry G V. Critical review: Impacts of macromolecular coatings on critical physicochemical processes controlling environmental fate of nanomaterials. Environ Sci-Nano, 2016, 3: 283–310Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dreyer D R, Park S, Bielawski C W, et al. The chemistry of graphene oxide. Chem Soc Rev, 2010, 39: 228–240Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qi Z, Hou L, Zhu D, et al. Enhanced transport of phenanthrene and 1- naphthol by colloidal graphene oxide nanoparticles in saturated soil. Environ Sci Technol, 2014, 48: 10136–10144Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou D D, Jiang X H, Lu Y, et al. Cotransport of graphene oxide and Cu(II) through saturated porous media. Sci Total Environ, 2016, 550: 717–726Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peng S, Wu D, Ge Z, et al. Influence of graphene oxide on the transport and deposition behaviors of colloids in saturated porous media. Environ Pollut, 2017, 225: 141–149Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tufenkji N, Ryan J N, Elimelech M. Peer reviewed: The promise of bank filtration. Environ Sci Technol, 2002, 36: 422A–428AGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss W J, Bouwer E J, Aboytes R, et al. Riverbank filtration for control of microorganisms: Results from field monitoring. Water Res, 2005, 39: 1990–2001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schets F M, During M, Italiaander R, et al. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in drinking water from private water supplies in the Netherlands. Water Res, 2005, 39: 4485–4493Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilb B, Lange B, Schaule G, et al. Contamination of drinking water by coliforms from biofilms grown on rubber-coated valves. Int J Hygiene Environ Health, 2003, 206: 563–573Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dvořák P, Nikel P I, Damborský J, et al. Bioremediation 3.0: Engineering pollutant-removing bacteria in the times of systemic biology. Biotech Adv, 2017, 35: 845–866Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Islam M S, Dong T, Sheng Z, et al. Microbial community structure and operational performance of a fluidized bed biofilm reactor treating oil sands Process-affected water. Int Biodeterioration Biodegradation, 2014, 91: 111–118Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bai H, Cochet N, Pauss A, et al. Bacteria cell properties and grain size impact on bacteria transport and deposition in porous media. Colloids Surfs B-Biointerfaces, 2016, 139: 148–155Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bradford S A, Torkzaban S, Walker S L. Coupling of physical and chemical mechanisms of colloid straining in saturated porous media. Water Res, 2007, 41: 3012–3024Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Syngouna V I, Chrysikopoulos C V. Transport of biocolloids in water saturated columns packed with sand: Effect of grain size and pore water velocity. J Contam Hydrol, 2011, 126: 301–314Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asadishad B, Ghoshal S, Tufenkji N. Role of cold climate and freezethaw on the survival, transport, and virulence of Yersinia enterocolitica. Environ Sci Technol, 2013, 47: 14169–14177Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hendry M J, Lawrence J R, Maloszewski P. Effects of velocity on the transport of two bacteria through saturated sand. Ground Water, 1999, 37: 103–112Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Redman J A, Walker S L, Elimelech M. Bacterial adhesion and transport in porous media: Role of the secondary energy minimum. Environ Sci Technol, 2004, 38: 1777–1785Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim H N, Bradford S A, Walker S L. Escherichia coli O157:H7 transport in saturated porous media: Role of solution chemistry and surface macromolecules. Environ Sci Technol, 2009, 43: 4340–4347Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao W, Walker S L, Huang Q, et al. Adhesion of bacterial pathogens to soil colloidal particles: Influences of cell type, natural organic matter, and solution chemistry. Water Res, 2014, 53: 35–46Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kerchove A J, Elimelech M. Bacterial swimming motility enhances cell deposition and surface coverage. Environ Sci Technol, 2008, 42: 4371–4377Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haznedaroglu B Z, Zorlu O, Hill J E, et al. Identifying the role of flagella in the transport of motile and nonmotile salmonella enterica Serovars. Environ Sci Technol, 2010, 44: 4184–4190Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker S L, Redman J A, Elimelech M. Influence of growth phase on bacterial deposition: Interaction mechanisms in packed-bed column and radial stagnation point flow systems. Environ Sci Technol, 2005, 39: 6405–6411Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tong M, Long G, Jiang X, et al. Contribution of extracellular polymeric substances on representative gram negative and gram positive bacterial deposition in porous media. Environ Sci Technol, 2010, 44: 2393–2399Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu Y, Yang C H, Li J. Influence of extracellular polymeric substances on pseudomonas aeruginosa transport and deposition profiles in porous media. Environ Sci Technol, 2007, 41: 198–205Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jimenez-Sanchez C, Wick L Y, Cantos M, et al. Impact of dissolved organic matter on bacterial tactic motility, attachment, and transport. Environ Sci Technol, 2015, 49: 4498–4505Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tong M, Zhu P, Jiang X, et al. Influence of natural organic matter on the deposition kinetics of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) on silica. Colloids Surfs B-Biointerfaces, 2011, 87: 151–158Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foppen J W, Liem Y, Schijven J. Effect of humic acid on the attachment of Escherichia coli in columns of goethite-coated sand. Water Res, 2008, 42: 211–219Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vu K, Yang G, Wang B, et al. Bacterial interactions and transport in geological formation of alumino-silica clays. Colloids Surfs BBiointerfaces, 2015, 125: 45–50Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang H, Tong M, Kim H. Influence of bentonite particles on representative gram negative and gram positive bacterial deposition in porous media. Environ Sci Technol, 2012, 46: 11627–11634Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao W, Liu X, Huang Q, et al. Interactions of pathogens Escherichia coli and streptococcus suis with clay minerals. Appl Clay Sci, 2012, 69: 37–42Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vasiliadou I A, Chrysikopoulos C V. Cotransport of Pseudomonas putida and kaolinite particles through water-saturated columns packed with glass beads. Water Resour Res, 2011, 47: W02543Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Papineau I, Tufenkji N, Barbeau B. Impact of kaolinite clay particles on the filtration of Cryptosporidium-sized microspheres. Water Sci Tech-Water Supply, 2013, 13: 1583–1592Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yang H, Ge Z, Wu D, et al. Cotransport of bacteria with hematite in porous media: Effects of ion valence and humic acid. Water Res, 2016, 88: 586–594Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gentile G J, Fidalgo de Cortalezzi M M. Enhanced retention of bacteria by TiO2 nanoparticles in saturated porous media. J Contam Hydrol, 2016, 191: 66–75Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang H, Tong M, Kim H. Effect of carbon nanotubes on the transport and retention of bacteria in saturated porous media. Environ Sci Technol, 2013, 47: 11537–11544Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peng H, Wang X. Transport and retention behaviors of TiO2 nanoparticles in saturated porous media: Effects of ionic strength, iron (hydr) oxide and humic acid. J Basic Sci Eng, 2013, 21: 512–521Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Atekwana E A, Richardson D S. Geochemical and isotopic evidence of a groundwater source in the Corral Canyon meadow complex, central Nevada, USA. Hydrol Process, 2004, 18: 2801–2815Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vengosh A, Kloppmann W, Marei A, et al. Sources of salinity and boron in the Gaza strip: Natural contaminant flow in the southern Mediterranean coastal aquifer. Water Resour Res, 2005, 41: 01013Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim H N, Walker S L, Bradford S A. Coupled factors influencing the transport and retention of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in saturated porous media. Water Res, 2010, 44: 1213–1223Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu D, He L, Sun R, et al. Influence of Bisphenol A on the transport and deposition behaviors of bacteria in quartz sand. Water Res, 2017, 121: 1–10Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu D, Tong M, Kim H. Influence of perfluorooctanoic acid on the transport and deposition behaviors of bacteria in quartz sand. Environ Sci Technol, 2016, 50: 2381–2388Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mitropoulou P N, Syngouna V I, Chrysikopoulos C V. Transport of colloids in unsaturated packed columns: Role of ionic strength and sand grain size. Chem Eng J, 2013, 232: 237–248Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seymour M B, Chen G, Su C, et al. Transport and retention of colloids in porous media: Does shape really matter? Environ Sci Technol, 2013, 47: 8391–8398Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yang H, Kim H, Tong M. Influence of humic acid on the transport behavior of bacteria in quartz sand. Colloids Surfs B-Biointerfaces, 2012, 91: 122–129Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Foppen J W A, Okletey S, Schijven J F. Effect of goethite coating and humic acid on the transport of bacteriophage PRD1 in columns of saturated sand. J Contam Hydrol, 2006, 85: 287–301Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Saiers J E, Ryan J N. Colloid deposition on non-ideal porous media: The influences of collector shape and roughness on the single-collector efficiency. Geophys Res Lett, 2005, 32: L21406Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shellenberger K, Logan B E. Effect of molecular scale roughness of glass beads on colloidal and bacterial deposition. Environ Sci Technol, 2002, 36: 184–189Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Upadhyayula V K K, Deng S, Smith G B, et al. Adsorption of Bacillus subtilis on single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates, activated carbon and NanoCeram™. Water Res, 2009, 43: 148–156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhi Ge
    • 1
  • Dan Wu
    • 1
  • Lei He
    • 1
  • XianWei Liu
    • 1
  • MeiPing Tong
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.The Key Laboratory of Water and Sediment Sciences, Ministry of Education, College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations