AIMS Bioengineering, 2015, 2(4): 387-403. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.4.387 Research article Special Issues

Export file:

Format

RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
BibTex
Text

Content

Citation Only
Citation and Abstract

A novel approach for harnessing biofilm communities in moving bed biofilm reactors for industrial wastewater treatment

Joe A. Lemire, Marc A. Demeter, Iain George, Howard Ceri, Raymond J. Turner

Biofilm Research Group, Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary AB, Canada

Received date: , Accepted date: , Published date:

Special Issues: Biofilm engineering - Harnessing the power of beneficial biofilms

Abstract Full Text(HTML) Figure/Table Supplementary Related pages

Moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs) are an effective biotechnology for treating industrial wastewater. Biomass retention on moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) carriers (biofilm support materials), allows for the ease-of-operation and high treatment capacity of MBBR systems. Optimization of MBBR systems has largely focused on aspects of carrier design, while little attention has been paid to enhancing strategies for harnessing microbial biomass. Previously, our research group demonstrated that mixed-species biofilms can be harvested from an industrial wastewater inoculum [oil sands process water (OSPW)] using the Calgary Biofilm Device (CBD). Moreover, the resultant biofilm communities had the capacity to degrade organic toxins (naphthenic acids—NAs) that are found in OSPW. Therefore, we hypothesized that harnessing microbial communities from industrial wastewater, as biofilms, on MBBR carriers may be an effective method to bioremediate industrial wastewater.
Here, we detail our methodology adapting the workflow employed for using the CBD, to generate inoculant carriers to seed an MBBR.
In this study, OSPW-derived biofilm communities were successfully grown, and their efficacy evaluated, on commercially available MBBR carriers affixed within a modified CBD system. The resultant biofilms demonstrated the capacity to transfer biomass to recipient carriers within a scaled MBBR. Moreover, MBBR systems inoculated in this manner were fully active 2 days post-inoculation, and readily degraded a select population of NAs. Together, these findings suggest that harnessing microbial communities on carriers affixed within a modified CBD system may represent a facile and rapid method for obtaining functional inoculants for use in wastewater MBBR treatment systems.

Figure/Table

Supplementary

Article Metrics

References

1. Allard AS, Neilson AH (1997) Bioremediation of Organic Waste Sites: A Critical Review of Microbiological Aspects. Int Biodeter Biodegr 39: 253-285.

2. Nicolella C, van Loosdrecht MCM, Heijnen JJ (2000) Wastewater treatment with particulate biofilm reactors. J Biotechnol 80: 1-33.

3. Kumar A, Bisht BS, Joshi VD, et al. (2011) Review on Bioremediation of Polluted Environment-A Management Tool. Int J Environ Sci 1: 1079-1093.

4. Azizi S, Valipour A, Sithebe T (2013) Evaluation of Different Wastewater Treatment Processes and Development of a Modified Attached Growth Bioreactor as a Decentralized Approach for Small Communities. Sci World J 2013: 1-8.

5. Borkar RP, Gulhane ML, Kotangale AJ (2013) Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor—A New Perspective in Wastewater Treatment. IOSR-JESTFT 6: 15-21.

6. Levstek M, Plazl I (2009) Influence of carrier type on nitrification in the moving-bed biofilm process. Water Sci Technol 59: 875-882.

7. Rusten B, Eikebrokk B, Ulgenes Y, et al. (2006) Design and operations of the Kaldnes moving bed biofilm reactors. Aquacult Eng 34: 322-31.

8. Ødegaard H, Gisvold B, Strickland J (2000) The influence of carrier size and shape in the moving bed biofilm process. Water Sci Technol 41: 383-391.

9. Nakhli SAA, Ahmadizadeh K, Fereshtehnejad M, et al. (2014) Biological removal of phenol from saline wastewater using a moving bed biofilm reactor containing acclimated mixed consortia. SpringerPlus 3: 1-10.

10. Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick CA, et al. (1999) The Calgary Biofilm Device: New Technology for Rapid Determination of Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Bacterial Biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 37: 1771-1776.

11. Bardouniotis E, Huddleston W, Ceri H, et al. (2001) Characterization of bio¢lm growth and biocide susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium phlei using the MBEC assay system. FEMS Microbiol Lett 203: 263-267.

12. Olson ME, Ceri H, Morck DW, et al. (2002) Biofilm bacteria: formation and comparative susceptibility to antibiotics. Can J Vet Res 66: 86-92.

13. Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Stremick CA, et al. (2004) Biofilm susceptibility to metal toxicity. Environ Microbiol 6: 1220-1227.

14. Harrison JJ, Stremick CA, Turner RJ, et al. (2010) Microtiter susceptibility testing of microbes growing on peg lids: a miniaturized biofilm model for high-throughput screening. Nat Protoc 5: 1236-1254.

15. Golby S, Ceri H, Gieg LM, et al. (2012) Evaluation of microbial biofilm communities from an Alberta oil sands tailings pond. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 79: 240-250.

16. Kannel PR, Gan TY (2012) Naphthenic acids degradation and toxicity mitigation in tailings wastewater systems and aquatic environments: A review. J Env Sc Hlth Part A 47: 1-22.

17. Demeter MA, Lemire J, George I, et al. (2014) Harnessing oil sands microbial communities for use in ex situ naphthenic acid bioremediation. Chemosphere 97: 78-85.

18. Demeter MA, Lemire JA, Yue G, et al. (2015) Culturing oil sands microbes as mixed species communities enhances ex situ model naphthenic acid degradation. Front Microbiol 6: 1-13.

19. Quagraine E, Peterson H, Headley J (2005) In Situ Bioremediation of Naphthenic Acids Contaminated Tailing Pond Waters in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region—Demonstrated Field Studies and Plausible Options: A Review. J of Env Sc Hlth Part A 40: 685-722.

20. Lemire J, Turner RJ (2015) Protocols for Harvesting a Microbial Community Directly as a Biofilm for the Remediation of Oil Sand Process-Affected Water. Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology Protocols. Springer Berlin Heidelberg [In press].

21. Demeter MA, Lemire J, Golby S, et al. (2015) Cultivation of Environmental Bacterial Communities as Multispecies Biofilms. Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology Protocols. Springer Berlin Heidelberg [In press].

22. Wyndham RC, Costerton JW (1981) Heterotrophic Potentials and Hydrocarbon Biodegradation Potentials of Sediment Microorganisms Within the Athabasca Oil Sands Deposit. Appl Environ Microbiol 41: 783-790.

23. Mailloux RJ, Lemire J, Kalyuzhnyi S, et al. (2008) A novel metabolic network leads to enhanced citrate biogenesis in Pseudomonas fluorescens exposed to aluminum toxicity. Extremophiles 12: 451-459.

24. Garcia-Dominguez E, Mumford A, Rhine ED, et al. (2008) Novel autotrophic arsenite-oxidizing bacteria isolated from soil and sediments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 66: 401-410.

25. Muyzer G, Smalla K (1998) Application of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) in microbial ecology. Anton Leeuw 73: 127-141.

26. Flemming H-C, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Micro 8: 623-633.

27. Stewart PS, Franklin MJ (2008) Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat Rev Micro 6: 199-210.

28. Aygun A, Nas B, Berktay A (2008) Influence of High Organic Loading Rates on COD Removal and Sludge Production in Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor. Environ Eng Sci 25: 1311-1316.

Copyright Info: © 2015, Raymond J. Turner, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline