| Literature DB >> 27983578 |
Naila Bouayed1, Nicolas Dietrich2, Christine Lafforgue3, Chung-Hak Lee4, Christelle Guigui5.
Abstract
Quorum Quenching (QQ) has been developed over the last few years to overcome practical issues related to membrane biofouling, which is currently the major difficulty thwarting the extensive development of membrane bioreactors (MBRs). QQ is the disruption of Quorum Sensing (QS), cell-to-cell communication enabling the bacteria to harmonize their behavior. The production of biofilm, which is recognized as a major part of the biocake formed on a membrane surface, and which leads to biofouling, has been found to be one of the bacterial behaviors controlled by QS. Since the enzymatic disruption of QS was reported to be efficient as a membrane biofouling mitigation technique in MBRs, the application of QQ to lab-scale MBRs has been the subject of much research using different approaches under different operating conditions. This paper gives an overview of the effectiveness of QQ in mitigating membrane biofouling in MBRs. It is based on the results of previous studies, using two microbial strains, Rhodococcus sp. BH4 and Pseudomonas sp. 1A1. The effect of bacterial QQ on the physical phenomena of the MBR process is analyzed, adopting an original multi-scale approach. Finally, the potential influence of the MBR operating conditions on QQ effectiveness is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Quorum Quenching; Quorum Sensing; acyl-homoserine lactones; acylase; biofilm; biofouling; extracellular polymeric substances (EPS); lactonase; membrane bioreactors
Year: 2016 PMID: 27983578 PMCID: PMC5192408 DOI: 10.3390/membranes6040052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Structure of an N-acyl-l-homoserine lactones (AHL) molecule (R1 can be an oxo or a hydroxyl group; R2 can be a carbon chain from C1 to C15).
Figure 2AHL degradation by lactonase produced by Rhodococcus sp. BH4.
Figure 3AHL degradation by acylase produced by Pseudomonas sp. 1A1.
Figure 4(a) Polyethylene (PE) microbial vessel; (b) sodium alginate beads for Rhodococcus sp. BH4 entrapment and (c) ceramic microbial vessel (CMV) for Pseudomonas sp. 1A1 entrapment.
Figure 5Localization of the Quorum Quenching (QQ) activity of Rhodococcus sp. BH4 entrapped in a microbial vessel or sodium alginate beads in a lab-scale membrane bioreactor (MBR).
Figure 6Localization of the QQ activity of Pseudomonas sp. 1A1 entrapped in a microbial vessel in a lab-scale MBR.
Effect of Rhodococcus sp. BH4-mediated Quorum Quenching on membrane biofouling mitigation in MBRs inoculated with activated sludge (AS), under continuous mode and using hollow fibers (HF) or flat sheet (FS) membrane as the filtration module.
| QQ MBR Design | MBR Operation | Resulting QQ Effect Expressed in% of the Control MBR | Ref. | N° | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reactor | Membrane | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Geometry | Working Volume (L) | Nature | Geometry | Configuration | Area (cm2) | Pore Size (µm) | Entrapping Method | Inserted Quantity of BH4 Cells in the Reactor (mg/L) | F/M Ratio | MLSS (mg/L) | HRT (h) | SRT (d) | Permeate Flux (L/m2 h) | Air Supply (m3/h) | Filtration/Relaxation | Run Time (days) | Number of Cycles | TMP | Time for TMP to Reach | TAB in Biofilm | SMP in Mixed Liquor | EPS in Biofilm | COD removal Efficiency | |||||||||
| For Control MBR | For QQ MBR | After 1 Day of Operation | At the End of the 1st cycle | At the End of Operation | The Breaking Point | 25 kPa | 40 kPa | Proteins | Polysaccharides | Proteins | Polysaccharides | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ○ | 1.2 | PVDF | HF | Submerged | 86 | 0.04 | PE microbial vessels (2/reactor) |
| n.a. | 4500–5000 | 12 | 40 | 18 | n.a. | - | 3.75 | 2 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - | [ | 1 | |
| ○ | 2.8 (2 L bioreactor + 0.8 L membrane tank) | PVDF | HF | Side-stream (external submerged) | 120 | 0.04 | PE microbial vessel (1 in the bioreactor) |
| 0.22 | n.a. | 12 | 50 | 30 | 0.09 in the bioreactor and 0.06 in the membrane tank | 60 min/1 min | 1.4 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | [ | 2 |
| ○ | 2.8 (2 L bioreactor + 0.8 L membrane tank) | PVDF | HF | Side-stream (external submerged) | 120 | 0.04 | PE microbial vessel (1 in the membrane tank) |
| 0.22 | n.a. | 12 | 50 | 30 | 0.09 in the bioreactor and 0.06 in the membrane tank | 60 min/1 min | 1.75 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | [ | 3 |
| n.a. | 1.2 | PVDF | HF | Submerged | 86 | 0.04 | PE microbial vessels (2/reactor) |
| 0.17–0.2 | 7000–7500 | 10 | 40 | 35 | n.a. | - | 5 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | [ | 4 |
| ○ | 1.6 | PVDF | HF | Submerged | 13.4 | 0.04 | CEBs (40/reactor) |
| n.a. | 12,500–13,000 | 5.3 | 25 | 28.7 | n.a. | - | 17 | 4 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - |
| [ | 5 | |||
| □ | 35 | PVDF | HF | Submerged | 7000 | 0.1 | CEBs (1860/reactor) | n.c. | n.a. | 10,000 | 4 | 20 | 15 | 1.08 | 8 min/2 min | 90 | 7 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - |
| [ | 6 | ||
| ○ | 5 | n.a. | HF | Submerged | 100 | n.a. | CEBs | n.c. | n.a. | 12,000–13,000 | 13 | 30 | 20 | n.a. | - | 3.8 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| [ | 7 |
| ○ | 5 | n.a. | HF | Submerged | 100 | n.a. | CEBs | n.c. | n.a. | 12,000–13,000 | 13 | 30 | 20 | n.a. | - | 2.4 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| [ | 8 |
| ○ | 5 | n.a. | HF | Submerged | 100 | n.a. | CEBs | n.c. | n.a. | 12,000–13,000 | 13 | 30 | 30 | n.a. | - | 3.5 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| [ | 9 |
| ○ | 5 | n.a. | HF | Submerged | 100 | n.a. | CEBs | n.c. | n.a. | 12,000–13,000 | 13 | 30 | 50 | n.a. | - | 1.7 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| [ | 10 |
| ○ | 5 | n.a. | HF | Submerged | 100 | n.a. | PVDF microbial vessel (1/reactor) | n.c. | n.a. | 12,000–13,000 | 13 | 30 | 50 | n.a. | - | 1.9 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| [ | 11 |
| ○ | 5 | n.a. | HF | Submerged | 100 | n.a. | RMCF | n.c. | n.a. | 12,000–13,000 | 13 | 30 | 50 | n.a. | - | 1.9 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - | - |
| [ | 12 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| □ | 2.5 | PVDF | HF | Submerged | 155 | 0.04 | Macrocapsules (500/reactor) | n.c. | 0.1–0.2 | 5300–5700 | 8 | 30 | 30 | 0.06 | - | 22 | 3 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| - | - |
| [ | 13 | |||
| n.a. | 80 | C-PVC | FS | Submerged | 9000 | 0.4 | QQ beads (~19000/reactor) | ~4000 | n.a. | 10,000–13,000 | 5.2 | 25 | 20 | 0.27 | 10 min/ 2 min | 14 | 2 | 1 | n.c. |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | [ | 14 | ||||
○: Cylindrical; □: Parallelepiped; Numbers: Taken from the literature; Numbers: Calculated with the data provided in the literature; n.a./-: Not available data; n.c.: Not calculable value with the data provided.
Effect of Pseudomonas sp. 1A1-mediated Quorum Quenching on membrane biofouling mitigation in MBRs inoculated with AS, under continuous mode and using submerged polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) hollow fibers as the filtration module.
| MBR Design | MBR Operation | Resulting QQ Effect Expressed in% of the Control MBR | Ref. | N° | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reactor | Membrane | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Geometry | Working Volume (L) | Configuration | Area (cm2) | Pore Size (µm) | Entrapping Method | Inserted Quantity of 1A1 Cells in the Reactor (mg/L) | F/M Ratio | MLSS (mg/L) | HRT (h) | SRT (d) | Permeate Flux (L/m2 h) | Run Time (days) | Number of Cycles | TMP | Time for TMP to Reach | TAB in Biofilm | SMP in Mixed Liquor | EPS in Biofilm | |||||||||
| For Control MBR | For QQ MBR | After 1 Day of Operation | At the End of the 1st Cycle | At the End of Operation | The Breaking Point | 25 kPa | 40 kPa | Proteins | Polysaccharides | Proteins | Polysaccharides | ||||||||||||||||
| ○ | 2.5 | Submerged | 155.2 | 0.04 | PE vessels (4/reactor) |
| 0.20–0.22 | 7600–8000 | 8 | 30 | 25 | 7.8 | 2 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | 1 | ||
| ○ | 3.0 | Submerged | 210 | 0.04 | CMV under inner flow feeding mode (1/reactor) | 0.12–0.21 | 11,000–13,000 | 6 | 60 | 30 | 2.1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | 2 | |
| ○ | 3.0 | Submerged | 210 | 0.04 | CMV under inner flow feeding mode (1/reactor) | 0.12–0.21 | 11,000–13,000 | 6 | 60 | 25 | 9.4 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | 3 | |
| ○ | 3.0 | Submerged | 210 | 0.04 | CMV under inner flow feeding mode (1/reactor) | 0.12–0.21 | 11,000–13,000 | 6 | 60 | 35 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | 4 | |
| ○ | 3.0 | Submerged | 210 | 0.04 | CMV under normal feeding mode (1/reactor) | 0.12–0.21 | 11,000–13,000 | 6 | 60 | 35 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | 5 | |
○: Cylindrical; Numbers: Taken from the literature; Numbers: Calculated with the data provided in the literature; n.a./-: Not available data; n.c.: Not calculable value with the data provided.
Figure 7Schematic representation of the TMP profiles obtained in control MBR (solid line) and QQ MBR (dotted line).