| Literature DB >> 31628372 |
Gargi Goswami1, Bidhu Bhusan Makut2, Debasish Das3,4.
Abstract
The study demonstrates a sustainable process for production of bio-crude oil via hydrothermal liquefaction of microbial biomass generated through co-cultivation of microalgae and bacteria coupled with wastewater remediation. Biomass concentration and wastewater treatment efficiency of a tertiary consortium (two microalgae and two bacteria) was evaluated on four different wastewater samples. Total biomass concentration, total nitrogen and COD removal efficiency was found to be 3.17 g L-1, 99.95% and 95.16% respectively when consortium was grown using paper industry wastewater in a photobioreactor under batch mode. Biomass concentration was enhanced to 4.1 g L-1 through intermittent feeding of nitrogen source and phosphate. GC-MS and FTIR analysis of bio-crude oil indicates abundance of the hydrocarbon fraction and in turn, better oil quality. Maximum distillate fraction of 30.62% lies within the boiling point range of 200-300 °C depicting suitability of the bio-crude oil for conversion into diesel oil, jet fuel and fuel for stoves.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31628372 PMCID: PMC6802377 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51315-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Analysis of wastewater samples.
| Wastewater | Parameters | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Total Nitrogen | NO3−-N | NO2−-N | NH4+-N | Phosphate | COD | Chromium | Nickel | |
| Paper Industry | 6.29 ± 0.09 | 490 ± 0.02 | 187 ± 0.02 | 0 | 303 ± 0.02 | 77.70 ± 0.073 | 5250.0 ± 0.27 | 0.98 ± 0.02 | 0.53 ± 0.04 |
| Textile Industry | 7.74 ± 0.01 | 230 ± 0.07 | 110 ± 0.04 | 0.29 ± 0.14 | 118.71 ± 0.03 | 53.16 ± 0.012 | 735.00 ± 0.31 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.43 ± 0.07 |
| Leather Industry | 7.53 ± 0.04 | 250 ± 0.04 | 162 ± 0.03 | 0.1 ± 0.03 | 89.9 ± 0.06 | 48.30 ± 0.061 | 400.50 ± 0.14 | 0.69 ± 0.06 | 1.01 ± 0.03 |
Municipal Wastewater | 7.42 ± 0.04 | 540 ± 0.02 | 112 ± 0.01 | 0 | 428 ± 0.03 | 69.20 ± 0.049 | 1650.00 ± 0.25 | *ND | *ND |
*ND: Not Detected.
Figure 1(A) Total biomass concentration (DCW, g L−1), (B) total nitrogen removal efficiency (%), (C) phosphate removal efficiency (%) and (D) COD removal efficiency (%) of the tertiary consortium grown on paper industry wastewater (PWW), textile industry wastewater (TWW), leather industry wastewater (LWW) and municipal wastewater (MWW). The asterisk sign represents the significant difference between the biomass concentration or nitrate removal efficiency or phosphate removal efficiency or COD removal efficiency obtained for different wastewater samples analyzed using one-way analysis of variance based on Tukey’s method. Biomass concentration or nitrate removal efficiency or phosphate removal efficiency or COD removal efficiency that do not share a common symbol are significantly different.
Heavy metal removal efficiency (%) of tertiary consortium grown in different types of wastewater.
| Wastewater Type | Nickel (Ni) | Chromium (Cr) |
|---|---|---|
| Shake flask experiments | ||
| Paper Industry | 61.95 ± 0.07 | 45.71 ± 0.09 |
| Textile Industry | 30.00 ± 0.04 | 56.38 ± 0.02 |
| Leather Industry | 35.50 ± 0.05 | 22.07 ± 0.04 |
| Municipal Wastewater | *ND | *ND |
| Bioreactor | ||
| Paper Industry | 74.54 ± 0.04 | 80.00 ± 0.07 |
*ND: Not Detected.
All the experiments were performed in duplicate and the data were expressed as mean ± standard error.
Figure 2(A) Total biomass concentration (DCW, g L−1), (B) total nitrogen removal efficiency (%), (C) phosphate removal efficiency (%) and (D) COD removal efficiency (%) of the tertiary consortium grown on paper industry wastewater in photobioreactor under batch mode of cultivation. BB represents bacterial batch involving two bacteria; MB represents microalgal batch involving two microalgae and TCB represents tertiary consortium batch involving two microalgae and two bacteria. The asterisk sign represents the significant difference between the biomass concentration or nitrate removal efficiency or phosphate removal efficiency or COD removal efficiency obtained for BB, MB and TCB analyzed using one-way analysis of variance based on Tukey’s method. Biomass concentration or nitrate removal efficiency or phosphate removal efficiency or COD removal efficiency that do not share a common symbol are significantly different.
Figure 3Dynamic profiles for (A) growth of microalgae (Chlorophyll-a, µg mL−1); (B) total nitrogen (g L−1) and (C) phosphate (mg L−1). The tertiary consortium was grown on paper industry wastewater in a photobioreactor under fed-batch mode with intermittent feeding of nitrogen source and phosphate. The graph in the inset of panel A compares total biomass concentration obtained in batch and fed-batch cultivation.
Figure 4Dynamic profiles for: (A) dO2 (%), dCO2 (%) & growth of bacteria (DCW, g L−1) in case of bacterial batch (BB); (B) dO2 (%), dCO2 (%) & growth of microalgae (Chlorophyll-a, µg mL−1) in case of microalgal batch (MB); and (C) dO2 (%), dCO2 (%) & growth of microalgae (Chlorophyll-a, µg mL−1) in case of tertiary consortium batch (TCB). The experiment was carried out in a photobioreactor under batch mode of cultivation.
Figure 5(A) FTIR spectra and (B) TGA curve of bio-crude oil obtained via hydrothermal liquefaction of microbial biomass.
Major chemical compounds present in the bio-crude oil obtained from hydrothermal liquefaction of tertiary consortium biomass grown in paper industry wastewater.
| Sl. No. | Retention time (min) | Name of the compound | Area (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.11 | Undecane | 1.16 |
| 2 | 3.21 | Benzene, 1-ethyl-3-(1-methylethyl) - | 1.20 |
| 3 | 3.25 | Bicyclo [2.2.1] heptan-2-ol, 4-chloro-1, 7, 7-trimethyl-, exo- | 1.48 |
| 4 | 7.51 | Pyrene, 1, 3-dimethyl- | 1.95 |
| 5 | 8.01 | benzene acetonitrile, 4, 4′-[1, 2-ethenediyl] bis- | 1.51 |
| 6 | 8.73 | Tetracosane | 1.44 |
| 7 | 9.49 | 1, 4-Dimethyl-6-phenyl-naphthalene | 1.90 |
| 8 | 9.80 | Phenanthrene, 2, 3, 5-trimethyl- | 3.78 |
| 9 | 10.73 | 2-Phenazinecarbonitrile, 7-amino- | 5.37 |
| 10 | 27.00 | Dibenzepin | 0.50 |
| 11 | 27.10 | Fluoranthene | 1.39 |
| 12 | 27.39 | n-Heptadecene | 0.99 |
| 13 | 27.59 | Octadecane, 2, 6, 10, 14-tetramethyl- | 0.49 |
| 14 | 27.70 | Phenanthrene, 4, 5-dimethyl- | 0.61 |
| 15 | 27.84 | 10-Hydroxynortriptyline | 10.72 |
| 16 | 28.18 | 3, 7-Dimethyldibenzothiophene | 1.92 |
| 17 | 28.44 | 5-Methoxy (5 H) dibenzo [a, d] cycloheptene | 0.57 |
| 18 | 28.65 | Bicyclo [2.2.1] heptane, 3-methylene-2-(3-phenylprop-1-en2yl)- | 10.55 |
| 19 | 28.69 | Naphthalene, 1-(phenylmethyl) - | 2.60 |
| 20 | 28.76 | Phenanthrene, 3, 6-dimethyl- | 5.80 |
| 21 | 29.18 | 3-(3-Indolyl)−5-oxo-3-pyrazoline-4-carbonitrile | 0.56 |
| 22 | 29.26 | Normethadone | 3.05 |
| 23 | 29.37 | Benzo[b]naphtha [2, 3-d] thiophene, 7, 8, 9, 10-tetrahydro- | 2.16 |
| 24 | 30.03 | 3-Naphthalen-2-yl-3-piperidin-1-yl-propan-1-ol | 2.09 |
| 25 | 30.18 | Phenanthrene, 3, 6-dimethyl | 0.61 |
| 26 | 30.45 | Phenanthrene, 2, 5-dimethyl- | 3.82 |
| 27 | 30.67 | Isobenzofuran, 1, 3-dihydro-1, 1-dimethyl-3-phenyl- | 0.83 |
| 28 | 30.92 | Pyrene, 4, 5, 9, 10-tetrahydro | 3.20 |
| 29 | 31.08 | 4-(1-Methyl-1-siletanyl) phenol | 9.90 |
| 30 | 31.61 | Benzo[b]selenophene-3-carboxaldehyde, 2-methyl- | 0.50 |
| Total area (%) | 82.65 | ||
Distillate range of different fractions of bio-crude oil obtained via thermogravimetric analysis.
| Distillate Range (°C) | Typical Applications | Fraction of bio-crude oil (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 25–100 | Bottle gas and chemicals | 2.33 |
| 100–200 | Gasoline | 23.20 |
| 200–300 | Jet fuel, fuel for stoves and diesel oil | 30.62 |
| 300–400 | Lubricating oil for engines, fuel for ships and machines | 12.51 |
| 400–550 | Lubricants and candles | 14.11 |
| 550–700 | Fuel for ships and factories | 2.60 |