Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 9797–9805 | Cite as

Estimation of oxygen effective diffusion coefficient in a non-steady-state biofilm based on response time

  • Jian-Hui Wang
  • Hai-Yan Li
  • You-Peng Chen
  • Shao-Yang Liu
  • Peng Yan
  • Yu Shen
  • Jin-Song Guo
  • Fang Fang
Research Article
  • 164 Downloads

Abstract

In wastewater treatment, oxygen effective diffusion coefficient (D eff ) is a key parameter in the study of oxygen diffusion-reaction process and mechanism in biofilms. Almost all the reported methods for estimating the D eff rely on other biokinetic parameters, such as substrate consumption rate and reaction rate constant. Then, the estimation was complex. In this study, a method independent of other biokinetic parameters was proposed for estimating the dissolved oxygen (DO) D eff in biofilms. It was based on the dynamic DO microdistribution in a non-steady-state inactive biofilm, which was measured by the oxygen transfer modeling device (OTMD) combining with an oxygen microelectrode system. A pure DO diffusion model was employed, and the expression of the DO D eff was obtained by applying the analytical solution of the model to a selected critical DO concentration. DO D eff in the biofilm from the bioreactor was calculated as (1.054 ± 0.041) × 10−9 m2/s, and it was in the same order of magnitude with the reported results. Therefore, the method proposed in this study was effective and feasible. Without measurement of any other biokinetic parameters, this method was convenient and will benefit the study of oxygen transport-reaction process in biofilms and other biofouling deposits.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Oxygen microelectrode Wastewater treatment Dynamic oxygen profiles Diffusion distance Response time Dynamic oxygen microdistribution 

Nomenclature

C

The oxygen concentration in biofilms

CA

The saturated oxygen concentration in the experimental solution

C(t, z)

The DO concentration at position z and time t (ML–3)

DO

Dissolved oxygen

Deff

The effective diffusion coefficient (L2T–1)

erfc

The error-function complement

Jx, Jy, and Jz

The components of the mass flux J (ML–2T–1) along the coordinates

OUR

The oxygen uptake rate (ML3T–1)

r(t, z)

The oxygen uptake rate at z site and t time (ML–3)

t

Time (T)

RBC

Rotating biological contactor

z

The distance from the surface of biofilms (L)

Notes

Funding information

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Chongqing Science and Technology Commission (cstc2014yykfC20001, cstc2015shms-ztzx20001) and the National Key Project of China (2015ZX07103-007).

References

  1. Beyenal H, Tanyolac A (1996) Simultaneous evaluation of effective diffusion coefficients of the substrates in a biofilm with a novel experimental method. Can J Chem Eng 74(4):526–533.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450740413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyenal H, Seker S, Tanyolac A, Salih B (1997) Diffusion coefficients of phenol and oxygen in a biofilm of Pseudomonas putida. AICHE J 43(1):243–250.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690430126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyenal H, Lewandowski Z (2002) Internal and external mass transfer in biofilms grown at various flow velocities. Biotechnol Prog 18(1):55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bp010129s CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bungay HR, Whalen WJ, Sanders WM (1969) Microprobe techniques for determining diffusivities and respiration rates in microbial slime systems. Biotechnol Bioeng 11(5):765–772.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260110505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen KC, Wu JY, Yang WB, Hwang SCJ (2003) Evaluation of effective diffusion coefficient and intrinsic kinetic parameters on azo dye biodegradation using PVA-immobilized cell beads. Biotechnol Bioeng 83(7):821–832.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.10730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen YM, Hou DY, Lu CH, Spain JC, Luo J (2016) Effects of rate-limited mass transfer on modeling vapor intrusion with aerobic biodegradation. Environ Sci Technol 50(17):9400–9406.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crank J (1975) The mathematics of diffusion, 2nd edn. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Daims H, Lebedeva EV, Pjevac P, Han P, Herbold C, Albertsen M, Jehmlich N, Palatinszky M, Vierheilig J, Bulaev A, Kirkegaard RH, von Bergen M, Rattei T, Bendinger B, Nielsen PH, Wagner M (2015) Complete nitrification by Nitrospira bacteria. Nature 528(7583):504–509.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Debeer D, Stoodley P, Lewandowski Z (1994) Liquid flow in heterogeneous biofilms. Biotechnol Bioeng 44(5):636–641.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260440510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eberl HJ, Picioreanu C, Heijnen JJ, van Loosdrecht MCM (2000) A three-dimensional numerical study on the correlation of spatial structure, hydrodynamic conditions, and mass transfer and conversion in biofilms. Chem Eng Sci 55(24):6209–6222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00169-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flavigny RMG, Cord-Ruwisch R (2015) Organic carbon removal from wastewater by a PHA storing biofilm using direct atmospheric air contact as oxygen supply. Bioresour Technol 187:182–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fu YC, Zhang TC, Bishop PL (1994) Determination of effective oxygen diffusivity in biofilms grown in a completely mixed biodrum reactor. Water Sci Technol 29:455–462Google Scholar
  13. Guimerà X, Moya A, Dorado AD, Villa R, Gabriel D, Gabriel G, Gamisans X (2015) Biofilm dynamics characterization using a novel DO-MEA sensor: mass transport and biokinetics. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99(1):55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5821-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guimerà X, Dorado AD, Bonsfills A, Gabriel G, Gabriel D, Gamisans X (2016) Dynamic characterization of external and internal mass transport in heterotrophic biofilms from microsensors measurements. Water Res 102:551–560.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hille A, Neu TR, Hempel DC, Horn H (2009) Effective diffusivities and mass fluxes in fungal biopellets. Biotechnol Bioeng 103(6):1202–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horn H, Morgenroth E (2006) Transport of oxygen, sodium chloride, and sodium nitrate in biofilms. Chem Eng Sci 61(5):1347–1356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.08.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khlebnikov A, Samb F, Peringer P (1998a) A transient mathematical model for maximum respiration activity and oxygen diffusion coefficient estimation in non-steady-state biofilms. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 73(3):274–280.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4660(1998110)73:3<274::aid-jctb945>3.0.co;2-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khlebnikov A, Samb F, Peringer P (1998b) Use of a dynamic gassing-out method for activity and oxygen diffusion coefficient estimation ln biofilms. Water Sci Technol 37(4-5):171–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0273-1223(98)00100-0 Google Scholar
  19. Kumar A, Hille-Reichel A, Horn H, Dewulf J, Lens P, Van Langenhove H (2012) Oxygen transport within the biofilm matrix of a membrane biofilm reactor treating gaseous toluene. J Chem Technol Biot 87:751–757.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.3800
  20. Lewandowski Z, Beyenal H (2013) Fundamentals of biofilm research. CRC press.  https://doi.org/10.1201/b16291
  21. Moya A, Guimerà X, del Campo FJ, Prats-Alfonso E, Dorado A, Baeza M, Villa R, Gabriel D, Gamisans X, Gabriel G (2015) Profiling of oxygen in biofilms using individually addressable disk microelectrodes on a microfabricated needle. Microchim Acta 182(5-6):985–993.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00604-014-1405-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ning YF, Chen YP, Li S, Guo JS, Gao X, Fang F, Shen Y, Zhang K (2012) Development of an in situ dissolved oxygen measurement system and calculation of its effective diffusion coefficient in a biofilm. Anal Methods-UK 4(8):2242–2246.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ay25132a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ning YF, Chen YP, Shen Y, Zeng N, Liu SY, Guo JS, Fang F (2014) A new approach for estimating aerobic-anaerobic biofilm structure in wastewater treatment via dissolved oxygen microdistribution. Chem Eng J 255:171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.06.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phoenix VR, Holmes WM, Ramanan B (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of heavy-metal transport and fate in an artificial biofilm. Mineral Mag 72(1):483–486.  https://doi.org/10.1180/minmag.2008.072.1.483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qi L, Li MD, Fan HT, Wang HC (2015) Prediction of oxygen mass transfer in the presence of plastic carriers. Environ Eng Sci 32(5):407–415.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2014.0166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taherzadeh D, Picioreanu C, Horn H (2012) Mass transfer enhancement in moving biofilm structures. Biophys J 102(7):1483–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2012.02.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang JH, Li HY, Guo JS, Yan P, Shen Y, Chen YP (2017a) Estimation of relative oxygen metabolic activity microdistribution in biofilms based on the catastrophe point phenomenon during oxygen-infuse processes. Anal Methods 9(36):5293–5300.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ay01773a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang JH, Chen YP, Dong Y, Wang XX, Guo JS, Shen Y, Yan P, Ma TF, Sun XQ, Fang F, Wang J (2017b) A new method to measure and model dynamic oxygen microdistributions in moving biofilms. Environ Pollut 229:199–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wanner O, Gujer W (1986) A multispecies biofilm model. Biotechnol Bioeng 28(3):314–328.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260280304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wanner O, Eberl HJ, Morgenroth E, Noguera D, Picioreanu C, Rittmann BE, Loosdrecht MCMV (2006) Mathematical modeling of biofilms. IWA Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu KD, Stewart PS, Xia F, Huang CT, McFeters GA (1998) Spatial physiological heterogeneity in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm is determined by oxygen availability. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:4035–4039Google Scholar
  32. Zhang C, Zhou M, Ren G, Yu X, Ma L, Yang J, Yu F (2015) Heterogeneous electro-Fenton using modified iron-carbon as catalyst for 2,4-dichlorophenol degradation: influence factors, mechanism and degradation pathway. Water Res 70:414–424.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang Q, Teng J, Zou G, Peng Q, Du Q, Jiao T, Xiang J (2016) Efficient phosphate sequestration for water purification by unique sandwich-like MXene/magnetic iron oxide nanocomposites. Nano 8(13):7085–7093.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5NR09303A Google Scholar
  34. Zhang Q, Li Y, Phanlavong P, Wang Z, Jiao T, Qiu H, Peng Q (2017) Highly efficient and rapid fluoride scavenger using an acid/base tolerant zirconium phosphate nanoflake: behavior and mechanism. J Clean Prod 161:317–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang SF, Splendiani A, dos Santos LMF, Livingston AG (1998) Determination of pollutant diffusion coefficients in naturally formed biofilms using a single tube extractive membrane bioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 59(1):80–89.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0290(19980705)59:1<80::aid-bit11>3.0.co;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao JT, Huang J, Guan ML, Zhao YG, Chen GK, Tian XP (2016) Mathematical simulating the process of aerobic granular sludge treating high carbon and nitrogen concentration wastewater. Chem Eng J 306:676–684.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou XH, Zhang MK, Yu T, Liu YC, Shi HC (2013) Oxygen profiles in biofilms undergoing endogenous respiration. Chem Eng J 220:452–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian-Hui Wang
    • 1
  • Hai-Yan Li
    • 1
  • You-Peng Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shao-Yang Liu
    • 3
  • Peng Yan
    • 1
  • Yu Shen
    • 4
  • Jin-Song Guo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fang Fang
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-Environments of MOEChongqing UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Reservoir Aquatic Environment of CAS, Chongqing Institute of Green and Intelligent TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesChongqingChina
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry and PhysicsTroy UniversityTroyUSA
  4. 4.National Base of International Science and Technology Cooperation for Intelligent Manufacturing ServiceChongqing Technology and Business UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations