| Literature DB >> 27571089 |
Alexis Nzila1, Shaikh Abdur Razzak2, Jesse Zhu3.
Abstract
A promising long-term and sustainable solution to the growing scarcity of water worldwide is to recycle and reuse wastewater. In wastewater treatment plants, the biodegradation of contaminants or pollutants by harnessing microorganisms present in activated sludge is one of the most important strategies to remove organic contaminants from wastewater. However, this approach has limitations because many pollutants are not efficiently eliminated. To counterbalance the limitations, bioaugmentation has been developed and consists of adding specific and efficient pollutant-biodegrading microorganisms into a microbial community in an effort to enhance the ability of this microbial community to biodegrade contaminants. This approach has been tested for wastewater cleaning with encouraging results, but failure has also been reported, especially during scale-up. In this review, work on the bioaugmentation in the context of removal of important pollutants from industrial wastewater is summarized, with an emphasis on recalcitrant compounds, and strategies that can be used to improve the efficiency of bioaugmentation are also discussed. This review also initiates a discussion regarding new research areas, such as nanotechnology and quorum sensing, that should be investigated to improve the efficiency of wastewater bioaugmentation.Entities:
Keywords: bacteria; bacteriophage; bioaugmentation; biodegradation; bioremediation; cell-immobilization; industrial wastewater; nanotechnology; pollution; protozoan grazing; quorum sensing; transfection and plasmid transfer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27571089 PMCID: PMC5036679 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13090846
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Generic flow of industrial wastewater treatment plan (adapted and modified from [4]).
Examples of bioaugmentation of industrial wastewaters for the remediation of important organic compounds.
| Pollutant | Set Up | Medium for Bioaugmentation | Bioaugmented Bacteria | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Chloroaniline | Semi-continuous activated sludge (SCAS) (1 L) | Synthetic influent consisting of skim milk powder |
| [ | |
| 4-Fluoroaniline | Batch reactor (BR) (250 mL) | Inorganic salt medium | [ | ||
| 2,4-Dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP) | Laboratory-scale continuous flow complete-mixed reactors (CFSTRs) (16 L) | Synthetic wastewater (SW) | Consortium of bacteria | [ | |
| 2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol | fluidized bed biofilm reactor (FBBR) and expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) | Industrial wastewater (IW) | [ | ||
| Quinoline | Sequential Batch reactor (SBR) (250 mL) | Petroleum refinery wastewater | [ | ||
| Quinoline | SBR (2–7 L) | Coke plant wastewater |
| [ | |
| Pyridine and quinoline | BR (100 mL) | Inorganic medium and wastewater | [ | ||
| Quinoline and Pyridine | BR (250 mL) with modified zeolite | Coke wastewater | [ | ||
| Quinoline and Pyridine | SBR | Coke wastewater | Consortium of | [ | |
| Pyridine | SBR | Industrial wastewater | [ | ||
| Pyridine | 2 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR, 25 L each) | Pharmaceutical Wastewater | |||
| Acid Orange 7 dye | Membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) (2 L) | SW | [ | ||
| Bromoamine | MBR 10 L | SW | [ | ||
| Bromoamine | Combined process of microelectrolysis and biological aerated filter 1–3 L | Wastewater | [ | ||
| Bromoamine | BR (250 mL) | Inorganic medium |
| [ | |
| Cyanide | Full scale Cokes wastewater treatment facility (fluidized bed type process) > 3 × 105 L | Cokes wastewater | [ | ||
| Nicotine | 3 reactors of cylindrical shape Height: Bore size of 10:1 (2 L) | Synthetic tobacco wastewater | [ | ||
| Nicotine | SBR (2 L) | Tobacco wastewater diluted in tap water (7%) (g/mL) | [ | ||
| Diethylene glycol butyl ether | SBR (2 L) Full scale Plug flow aerated tank (60,000 L) | Wastewater from silicon plate manufacture plant | [ | ||
| Lignin (highly complex polymer of phenol) | 2 L BR | Industrial wastewater | [ | ||
| Phenol (PH) and naphthalene (NAP) along with carbazole (CA), dibenzofuran (DBF), and dibenzothiophene | BR (column of 10 × 50 cm) | Coking wastewater from a treatment plant | [ | ||
| Naphthalene | MBR (8 L) | Coal gasification wastewater. | [ | ||
| Mixture of phenol, pyridine, quinoline, naphthalene and carbazole | A sequential system of anaerobic reactor(4.9 L), anoxic reactor, A2 (4.5 L), and an oxic MBR (9 L). MBR (9.0 L) | Coking wastewater | Consortium of 6 bacteria containing | [ | |
| Phenol | Biological contact oxidation reactor (BCOR) | Coal gasification wastewater | Mixture of phenol-degrading bacteria | [ | |
Limitations of bioaugmentation and potential solutions to overcome these limitations for industrial wastewater treatment.
| Main Objectives | Limitations | Potential Solutions | Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overcoming low growth or washout of bioaugmented bacteria | Low inocula can lead to limited survival of bioaugmented bacteria | Use of high inocula, at least 106–107 cells per mL. Monitoring of growth of bioaugmented bacteria (followed by the addition of new bacteria) | Has been tested with encouraging results in groundwater | [ |
| Lysis of bacteria by viral (bacteriophage) infections | Monitoring of growth of bioaugmented bacteria (followed by the addition of new bacteria) | Several approaches exist to monitor bacterial levels in wastewater | [ | |
| Limited bacterial growth as the result of low quorum sensing (QS) | Use of QS inducers to increase bacterial growth. Monitoring of growth of bioaugmented bacteria | Has been evaluated in laboratory scale, but cost may be a limitation in full scale treatment | [ | |
| Increase of efficiency of bioaugmentation | Low biochemical ability of bioaugmented bacteria to biodegrade pollutants | Use of genetically modified organisms encoding catabolic efficient enzymes | Has been tested with encouraging results | [ |
| Use of plasmids encoding catabolic efficient enzymes | Potentially attractive, but so far, not clear evidence of success due to the uncertainty of incorporation of plasmids into receiving organisms | [ | ||
| Low ability of bioaugmented bacteria to biodegrade pollutants | Use of immobilized bioaugmented bacteria | Has been evaluated with encouraging results, but cost may be a limitation in full scale treatment | [ | |
| Exploitation of nanotechnology with the use of nanomaterial (NM) along with bioaugmented bacteria to increase biodegradation | NM (at low concentration) increases bacterial growth and the rates of biochemical reactions. Approach is promising but more studies are still needed to ascertain this evidence. | [ | ||
| Use of functionalized bioaugmented bacteria by fixing NM on their surface to increase bio-availability of pollutants | Promising approach, based one study, thus more studies are needed to support this technology | [ |