Advertisement

Biodegradation

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 549–567 | Cite as

Influence of pH shocks on trace metal dynamics and performance of methanol fed granular sludge bioreactors

  • Marcel H. Zandvoort
  • Eric D. van Hullebusch
  • Annemarie Peerbolte
  • Svetlana Golubnic
  • Gatze Lettinga
  • Piet N. L. Lens
Article

Abstract

The influence of pH shocks on the trace metal dynamics and performance of methanol fed upflow anaerobic granular sludge bed (UASB) reactors was investigated. For this purpose, two UASB reactors were operated with metal pre-loaded granular sludge (1mM Co, Ni and Fe; 30°C; 96h) at an organic loading rate (OLR) of 5gCOD l reactor−1d−1. One UASB reactor (R1) was inoculated with sludge that originated from a full scale reactor treating alcohol distillery wastewater, while the other reactor (R2) was inoculated with sludge from a full scale reactor treating paper mill wastewater. A 30h pH shock (pH 5) strongly affected the metal retention dynamics within the granular sludge bed in both reactors. Iron losses in soluble form with the effluent were considerable: 2.3 and 2.9% for R1 and R2, respectively, based on initial iron content in the reactors, while losses of cobalt and nickel in soluble form were limited. Sequential extraction of the metals from the sludge showed that cobalt, nickel, iron and sulfur were translocated from the residual to the organic/sulfide fraction during the pH shock in R2, increasing 34, 47, 109 and 41% in the organic/sulfide fraction, respectively. This is likely due to the modification of the iron sulfide precipitate stability, which influences the extractability of iron and trace metals. Such a translocation was not observed for the R1 sludge during the first 30h pH shock, but a second 4day pH shock induced significant losses of cobalt (18%), iron (29%) and sulfur (29%) from the organic/sulfide fraction, likely due to iron sulfide dissolution and concomitant release of cobalt. After the 30h pH shock, VFA accumulated in the R2 effluent, whereas both VFA and methanol accumulated in R1 after the 4day pH shock. The formed VFA, mainly acetate, were not converted to methane due to the loss of methanogenic activity of the sludge on acetate. The VFA accumulation gradually disappeared, which is likely to be related to out-competition of acetogens by methanogens. Zinc, copper and manganese supply did not have a clear effect on the acetate removal and methanol conversion, but zinc may have induced the onset of methanol degradation after day 152 in R1.

Keywords

anaerobic granular sludge metal retention methanol pH 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alloway BJ (1990) Heavy Metals in Soils, 1st edn. (pp 7–27). Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association1985Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater16American Public Health AssociationWashington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderko, A, Shuler, PJ 1997A computational approach to predicting the formation of iron sulfide species using stability diagramsComp. Geosci.23647658Google Scholar
  4. Billon, G, Oudane, B, Laureyns, J, Boughriet, A 2001Chemistry of metal sulfides in anoxic sedimentsPhys. Chem.335863592Google Scholar
  5. Boone, DR, Menaia, JAGF, Boone, JE, Mah, RA 1987Effects of hydrogen pressure during growth and effects of pregrowth with hydrogen on acetate degradation by Methanosarcina speciesApl. Env. Microbiol.538387Google Scholar
  6. Florencio, L, Field, JA, Lettinga, G 1994The importance of Cobalt for the individual trophic groups in an anaerobic methanol degrading consortiumAppl. Environ. Microbiol.60227234Google Scholar
  7. Gonzalez-Gil, G, Kleerebezem, R, van Aelst, A, Zoutberg, , Versprille, AI, Lettinga, G. 1999Toxicity effects from formaldehyde on methanol degrading on methanol degrading sludge and its anaerobic conversion in biobed expanded granular sludge (EGSB) reactorsWat. Sci. Technol.40195202Google Scholar
  8. Hullebusch, ED, Zandvoort, MH, Lens, PNL 2003Metal immobilisation by biofilms: mechanisms and analytical toolsRe/Views in Environ. Sci. Bio/tech.2933Google Scholar
  9. Jong, T, Parry, DL 2004Heavy metal speciation in solid-phase materials from a bacterial sulfate reducing bioreactor using sequential extraction procedure combined with acid volatile sulfide analysesJ. Environ. Monit.6278285Google Scholar
  10. Lee van der J. CHESS (2000) updated for version 2.5, Technical report, LHM/RD/13, école des Mines de Paris, Fontainbleau, FranceGoogle Scholar
  11. Lens, PNL, Beer, de D, Cronenberg, CCH, Houwen, FP, Ottengraf, SPP, Verstraee, WH 1993Heterogeneous distribution of microbial activity in methanogenic aggregates: pH and Glucose microprophilesAppl.Environ. Microbiol.5938033815Google Scholar
  12. Lettinga, G, Geest, AT, Hobma, S, Laan, J 1979Anaerobic treatment of methanolic wastesWater Res.13725737Google Scholar
  13. Maes, A, Vanthuyne, M, Cauwenberg, P, Engels, B 2003Metal partitioning in a sulfidic canal sediment: metal solubility as a function of pH combined with EDTA extraction in anoxic conditionsSci. Total Env.312181193Google Scholar
  14. Mazumder, TK, Nishio, N, Fukazaki, S, Nagai, S 1987Production of extracellular vitamin B12 compounds from methanol by Methanosarcina barkeriAppl. Microbiol. Biotech.26511516Google Scholar
  15. Modak, DP, Singh, KP, Chandra, H, Ray, PK 1992Mobile and bound forms of trace metals in sediments of the lower GangesWater Res.2615411548Google Scholar
  16. Morse, JW, Luther, GW 1999Chemical influences on trace element sulfide interactions in anoxic sedimentsGeochim. Cosmochim. Acta.6333733378Google Scholar
  17. Sauer, K, Thauer, R 2000Methyl-coenzyme M formation in methanogenic archaea; involvement of zinc in coenzyme M activationEur. J. Biochem.26724982504Google Scholar
  18. Smith, MR, Mah, RA 1978Growth and methanogenesis by Methanosarcina strain 227 on acetate and methanol.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.36870879Google Scholar
  19. Tessier, A, Campbell, PGC, Bisson, M 1979Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metalsAnal. Chem.51844851Google Scholar
  20. Veeken, A 1998Removal of heavy metals from biowaste.Department of Environmental TechnologyWageningen University, The Netherlands PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  21. Watson, JHP, Ellwood, DC, Deng, Q, Mikhalovsky, S, Hayter, CE, Evans, J 1995Heavy metal adsorption on bacterially produced FeSMiner. Eng.810971108Google Scholar
  22. Weijma, J, Stams, AJM, Hulshoff, Pol LW, Lettinga, G 2000Thermophilic sulfate reduction and methanogenesis with methanol in a high-rate anaerobic reactorBiotechnol. Bioeng.67354363Google Scholar
  23. Zandvoort, MH, Osuna, MB, Geerts, R, Lettinga, G, Lens, P 2002Effect of nickel deprivation on methanol degradation in a methanogenic granular sludge reactorJ. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol.29268274Google Scholar
  24. Zandvoort, MH, Geerts, R, Lettinga, G, Lens, PNL 2003Methanol degradation in granular sludge reactors at sub-optimal metal concentrations: role of iron, nickel and cobaltEnzyme Microb. Technol.33190198Google Scholar
  25. Zandvoort, MH, Gieteling, J, Lettinga, G, Lens, PNL 2004Stimulation of methanol degradation in UASB reactors: in situ versus pre-loading cobalt on anaerobic granular sludgeBiotechnol. Bioeng.87897904Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel H. Zandvoort
    • 1
  • Eric D. van Hullebusch
    • 1
  • Annemarie Peerbolte
    • 1
  • Svetlana Golubnic
    • 1
  • Gatze Lettinga
    • 1
  • Piet N. L. Lens
    • 1
  1. 1.Sub-department of Environmental Technology, “Biotechnion” – Bomenweg, 2Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations