| Literature DB >> 33928348 |
Thomas Mainka1,2, David Weirathmüller1, Christoph Herwig1,2, Stefan Pflügl1.
Abstract
Saline wastewater contaminated with aromatic compounds can be frequently found in various industrial sectors. Those compounds need to be degraded before reuse of wastewater in other process steps or release to the environment. Halophiles have been reported to efficiently degrade aromatics, but their application to treat industrial wastewater is rare. Halophilic processes for industrial wastewater treatment need to satisfy certain requirements: a continuous process mode, low operational expenditures, suitable reactor systems and a monitoring and control strategy. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of halophilic microorganisms, principles of aromatic biodegradation, and sources of saline wastewater containing aromatics and other contaminants. Finally, process examples for halophilic wastewater treatment and potential process monitoring strategies are discussed. To further illustrate the significant potential of halophiles for saline wastewater treatment and to facilitate development of ready-to-implement processes, future research should focus on scale-up and innovative process monitoring and control strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Bioremediation processes; Industrial process brines; Saline wastewater treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33928348 PMCID: PMC9113102 DOI: 10.1093/jimb/kuab015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol ISSN: 1367-5435 Impact factor: 4.258
Fig. 1.Aerobic pathway of phenolic degradation (meta- and ortho-cleavage) (Li et al., 2019).
Overview of Halophilic or Halotolerant Microorganisms, Able to Degrade Aromatic Compounds and Their Place of Origin
| Strain(s)/culture | Origin | Type of halophile | Salinity (%) | Aromatic compounds | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soils/bottom sediments with waste from chemical and salt mining industry (Verkhnekamskoe potash deposit, Permkrai, Russia) | Halotolerant bacteria | 6% | Naphthalene, salicylate, gentisate, diesel fuel, tetradecane, octane, phenanthrene | Plotnikova et al. ( | |
| Halophilic bacterial population (mostly related to
| Water and sediment of salterns and hypersaline soils in South Spain close to oil refineries and food-processing industries | Moderately halophilic bacteria | 10% | Benzoate, | Garcia et al. ( |
|
| Saline soils from Isla Cristina (Spain) | Moderately halophilic bacterium | 10% | Benzoate, | García et al. ( |
| Production water (oil/water mixture) of the oil field TPS in Tunisia | Halotolerant (and thermophilic) bacterium | 3% | Benzoate, | Chamkha et al. ( | |
| Table-olive fermentation | Moderately halophilic bacterium | 8% | Abdelkafi et al. ( | ||
| Halophilic archaeal strain (family of Halobacteriaceae) | Brine and sediment from Dead Sea (Jordan, December 2002) | Extremely halophilic archaea | 34% (dead sea) | Cuadros-Orellana et al. ( | |
| Halophilic consortium ( | Saline soil sample contaminate with oil from industrial activity or accidents (Iran) | Moderately halophilic bacteria | 1–17% | Phenanthrene | Dastgheib et al. ( |
| Production water from saline oilfield (Tunisia) | Moderately halophilic bacterium | 5–8% | Crude oil [aliphatic hydrocarbons (C11–C22)], carbazole (degradation activity was weak) | Mnif et al. ( | |
| Soil and water samples from hypersaline coastal areas (supertidal “sabkha” from Kuwait and Abu Dhabi) | Extremely halophilic archaea | 6–24% | Al-Mailem et al. ( | ||
| Activated sludge from a pharmaceutical plant (Wuhan, China) | Moderately halophilic fungus | 5% | Phenol | Jiang et al. ( | |
| Top 5 cm of coarse, sandy soil surrounding an oil well (Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA) | Extremely halophilic archaeon | 10–15% | Benzoate, cinnamate, phenylpropanoate | Emerson et al. ( | |
| Brines samples from Çalmatı salterns (Turkey, 2007) | Extremely halophilic archaea | 20% | Erdoğmuş et al. ( | ||
| Brine, salt, and saline soil samples from different (salt) lakes
in Turkey in September 2000 and 2001 (see Ozcan et al.,
| Extremely halophilic archaeon | 20% | Phenol | Acikgoz and Ozcan ( | |
|
| Isolated near Soap Lake (WA, USA) | Moderately halophilic bacteria | 0–15% | Phenol, catechol | Alva and Peyton ( |
| Interface water sediment in a salt-marsh (Aigues-Mortes, France) | Extremely halophilic archaeon | 15–30% | Acenaphthene, phenanthrene, anthracene, 9-methyl anthracene | Bertrand et al. ( | |
| Uyuni Salt Marsh, Bolivia, Cabo Rojo marine salterns, Puerto Rico, sabkhas (salt flats), Saudi Arabia, Dead Sea, Jordan, and Cahuil marine salterns, Chile | Extremely halophilic archaea | 20% | Benzoate, | Bonfa et al. ( | |
| Mud samples (1 m depth) in water close to the shore at the northern end of the Dead Sea | Extremely halophilic archaeon | 20% | Anthracene, only with yeast extract: naphthalene, phenantrene,
pyrene, benzo[ | Bonfa et al. ( | |
| Industrial wastewater from Zhejiang Dragon Chemical Group Company (Hangzhou, China) | Moderately halophilic bacterium | 0–6% | Aniline | Jin et al. ( | |
| Unknown halophilc mixed culture | Soil samples from salterns at the Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation (Utah, USA) | Moderately halophilic microorganisms | 14% | Phenol | Woolard and Irvine ( |
| Halophilic enrichment culture | Two soil samples from the Great Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, OK, USA | Halophilic microorganisms | 14.6% | Benzene and toluene | Nicholson and Fathepure ( |
| Samples from National Park of Lagao do Peixe (sediment, sediment with seawater, seawater sample), Brazil | Halotolerant bacteria | 3.5% | Aliphatic hydrocarbons (C8 to C33) and PAHs (anthracene, phenanthrene and pyrene) | Pereira et al. ( | |
| Marine microorganisms from seawater samples | Seawater from Trondheimsfjord, Norway (depth: 80 m) | Halotolerant and/or halophilic microorganisms | 3.4% | Produced water from Ula platform (North Sea): napthalenes, PAHs (2–3 rings and 4–6 rings), phenols | Lofthus et al. |
| Crude oil-contaminated seawater near the Mabianzhou Island, Daya Bay, Huizhou, China | Halotolerant bacterium | 3% | Diesel oil, | Deng et al. ( | |
| Enriched microbial consortium (Nicholson & Fathepure, | Halophilic bacterium | 14.6% | Benzene, toluene, phenol, 4-hydroxybenzoate, protochatechute, and phenylacetate | Dalvi et al. ( |
Fig. 2.Overview of process requirements for the implementation of halophilic bioremediation in industry. Red box: influent wastewater stream containing contaminants and additional supplements. Yellow boxes: bioreactor system containing biomass to degrade contaminants in the wastewater. Cell suspension is separated into cell-free effluent and broth remaining in the bioreactor. Cell separation can take place inside or outside the reactor. Control loop for a robust process control. Green box: treated wastewater stream within purity specifications.
Bioprocesses for the Treatment of Saline Wastewater, Containing Aromatic Contaminants. Processes are Compared According to Their Process Parameters Like Reactor Volume, Operation Mode, HTR, and Removal Efficiency. Additionally, Information is Given About the Salt Content of the Wastewater, Additional Nutrients, and the Used Microorganisms
| Wastewater source | Reactor volume | Operation mode | Salt concentration | Contaminants | Removal efficiency (%) | Nutrient supplementation | Microorganism | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synthetic wastewater | 10 l | Continuous (HTR = 4.7–5.7 hr), immobilized cells | 0–6.5% | Phenol | 99 | Salts, oxygen | Tan et al. ( | |
| Synthetic wastewater | 20 l | Continuous (HTR = 5 days), membrane-based cell retention | 0–1.5% | Phenylphenol, acetanilide, bisphenol A, etc. | 20–60 | – | Activaled slduge (anaerobic) | Song et al. ( |
| Synthetic wastewater | 625 l | Sequencing batch, immobilized cells | 5% | Phenol | 100 | Salts, oxygen | Jiang et al. ( | |
| Industrial wastewater | 1 l | Continuous (HTR = 10 hr), membrane-based cell retention | 15% | Formate, aniline, phenol, and MDA | 100 | Salts, glycerol, oxygen |
| Mainka et al. ( |
| Industrial wastewater | 30 l | Sequencing batch | 3.7–5.7% | Phenol | 80 | Ammonium, phosphate, starch, glucose, oxygen | Activated sludge from sea mud | Tan et al. ( |
| Synthetic wastewater | 250 ml | Continuous (HTR = 3–14 hr), membrane based cell retention | Controlled to 50 mS (with NaCl) | Phenol | 100 | Salts and trace elements | Praveen and Loh ( | |
| Synthetic wastewater | 1 l | Sequencing batch | 14% | Phenol | 99.5 | Ammonia, phosphorus, iron, inorganic salts | Halophilic mixed culture | Woolard and Irvine ( |
| Synthetic wastewater | 3.5 l | Continuous (HTR = 48 hr) | 10–20 gNa+ l−1 = 2.4–4.8% NaCl | Phenol, catechol | 95–98 | Macro- and micronutrients | Activated sludge (anaerobic) | Wang et al. ( |
Fig. 3.Scheme of the cell retention setup. A constant feed (FF) supplies the cells with fresh substrate and media components. Base (FBase) is added to hold the pH on a constant level of 7.0. A pump continuously circulates the cell suspension as loop flow (FL) through the membrane module to separate cell-free harvest (FH). Bleed flow (FB) is continuously removed to eliminate cells and sustain steady state conditions. To guarantee a constant reactor volume (VR) flows for Feed, Base, Harvest, and Bleed have to meet the following equation: FF+ FBase = FH + FB. Biomass is monitored using a turbidity probe and a soft sensor that is driven by measurements of off-gas composition (Mainka et al., 2019).
Sensors for the Determination of Aromatic Compounds
| Aromatic compound | Measurement principle | Probe | Linear conc. range | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catechol | Enzyme-based | Glassy carbon electrode | 0.036–2.5 µM | Maleki et al. ( |
| Catechol | Electrochemical oxidation | Three-electrode system (working electrode: platinum or copolymer, counter electrode: platinum, reference electrode: calomel (SCE) | 5–80 µM | Mu ( |
| Catechol (cat), hydroquinone (hyd) | Electrochemical detection | Glassy carbon electrode | cat: 0.5–40 µMhyd: 0.13–56.6 µM | Nazari et al. ( |
| Hydroquinone, 4-aminophenol | Enzyme-based | Electrode modified with TiO2 | 4-Aminophenol: 0.05–2 µM | Rahemi et al. ( |
| 3-Methoxyaniline | Electrochemical detection | Glassy carbon electrode | 0.1 nM–0.1 mM | Rahman et al. ( |
| Hydroquinone, catechol, resorcinol (res) | Electrochemical oxidation | Glassy carbon electrode | hyd: 1–200 µMcat: 4–200 µMres: 3–400 µM | Wei et al. ( |