| Literature DB >> 35530984 |
Dachao Zhang1, Shi Xu1, Philip Antwi1, Longwen Xiao1, Wuhui Luo1, Zuwen Liu1, Jianzheng Li2, Hao Su1, Cheng Lai1, Frederick Ayivi3.
Abstract
The anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) process has gained much popularity in recent years following its success in nitrogen removal. However, not much has been reported on techniques to promote anammox bacteria immobilization and associated microbial community evolution. In this study, a novel upflow porous-plate anaerobic reactor (UPPAR) was developed and explored to promote biomass (anammox) retention and growth. To comprehend the performance of the UPPAR, its nitrogen removal efficiencies, as well as the microbial community dynamics involved in the nitrogen removal process, was evaluated and reported. When NLR ranging 0.98-1.08 kg m-3 d-1 was introduced at various stages of the UPPAR operation, a rapid start-up was achieved in 63 d, and the overall nitrogen removal rate could reach 90-95%. By the end of the start-up period, it was revealed that Proteobacteria abundance had reduced by 43.92% as opposed Planctomycetes which increased from 2.95% to 43.52%. Conversely, after the UPPAR had been operated for 124 d, thus at steady-state, the most pronounced phylum observed was Planctomycetes (43.52%) followed by Proteobacteria (26.63%), Chloroflexi (5.87%), Ignavibacteriae (5.55%), and Bacteroidetes (4.9%). Predominant genera observed included Candidatus Kuenenia - (25.46%) and Candidatus Brocadia - (3.15%), an indication that nitrogen removal mechanism within the UPPAR was mainly conducted via autotrophic anammox process. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed that sludge samples obtained at steady-state were predominantly in granular form with sizes ranging between 2 mm to 5 mm. Granules surfaces were dominated with normal to coccoid-shaped cells as revealed by the SEM. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35530984 PMCID: PMC9070342 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra04225c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of the upflow porous-plate anaerobic reactor and nitrogen removal pathways occurring within the reactor: (1) settling zone; (2) influent pump; (3) recycling pump; (4) influent tank; (5) effluent tank; (6) sampling port; (7) water seal; (8) online DO, ORP and temperature control system.
UPPAR operating conditions and stoichiometric ratios (ΔNH4+ : ΔNO2− : ΔNO3−)
| Phase | Stage | Time (d) | HRT (h) | Av. NH4+-N (mg L−1) | Av. NO2−-N (mg L−1) | Average NLR (kg m−3 d−1) | ΔNH4+ : ΔNO2− : ΔNO3− ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start-up | I | 1–6 | 10 | 51.95 | 62.5 | 0.27 | 1 : 0.37 : (−1.09) |
| II | 7–23 | 10 | 50.42 | 62.5 | 0.27 | 1 : 0.94 : 0.16 | |
| III | 24–63 | 10 | 184.27 | 225.87 | 0.98 | 1 : 1.25 : 0.24 | |
| Long term | IV | 64–124 | 10 | 200.84 | 250.34 | 1.08 | 1 : 1.29 : 0.25 |
Fig. 2Start-up and long-term performance of the UPPAR: (A) nitrogen loading and removal rate; (B) NH4+-N removal efficiency; (C) NO2−-N uptake efficiency; (D) nitrate production and accumulation; (E) stoichiometric ratio; (F) pH profile.
Comparison of immobilized methods for anammox bacteria retentiona
| Start-up (day) | Dominant genera | Biomass (gVSS L−1) | NRRs (kg N m−3 d−1) | Reactor type | Temp (°C) | Biomass retention | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 |
| 3.80 | 8.20 | CSTR | 33 | Immobilize gel |
|
| 100 | Not reported | 0.10 | 4.40 | CSTR | 30 | Immobilize gel |
|
| 67 |
| 0.55 | 3.70 | CSTR | 36 | Immobilize gel |
|
| 180 | Mixed sludge | 0.32 | 1.69 | CSTR | 34 | Immobilize gel |
|
| 65 |
| 1.34 | 3.80 | CSTR | 30 | Immobilize gel |
|
| 85 | NR | 11.33 | NR | UASB | 30 | Bamboo char |
|
| 75 |
| 4.90 | NR | CAMBR | 13 | Hollow fiber |
|
| 90 |
| 4.90 | NR | CAMBR | 13 | Hollow fiber |
|
| 63 |
| 3.52 | 0.92 | UPPAR | 35 | Porous plate | This study |
CSTR, continuous stirred tank reactor; UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; CAMBR, combined ABR and MBR; NR, not reported.
Fig. 3Changes in sludge characteristics and morphology as revealed by SEM: (A1, A2 and A3) inoculum; (B1, B2 and B3) sludge obtained in stage II; (C1, C2 and C3) sludge obtained in stage III; (D1, D2 and D3) sludge obtained in stage IV.
Distribution of granular sludge with various sizes
| Stage | Time (d) | Particle size distribution (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.25 mm | 0.25–1 mm | 1–2 mm | >2 mm | ||
| I | 1–6 | 67.8 | 24.2 | 7.4 | 0.6 |
| II | 7–23 | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| III | 24–63 | 45.3 | 33.2 | 15.2 | 6.3 |
| IV | 64–124 | 37.4 | 24.6 | 28.3 | 9.7 |
Not determined.
Fig. 4Distribution of microbial community composition (sequence reads ≥1%) at: (a) phylum; (b) class; (c) structure of Proteobacteria at class level; (d) order.
Richness, diversity, sequence reads and operational taxonomic units (OTUs) associated with microbial communities of sludge samples at 97% sequence identity
| Sludge sample | Sequences | OTU | Shannon | ACE | Chao | Coverage | Simpson |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inoculum | 56 500 | 1124 | 4.73 | 1217.33 | 1176.58 | 1.00 | 0.03 |
| End of stage II | 59 013 | 1394 | 4.84 | 1665.91 | 1591.07 | 0.99 | 0.03 |
| End of stage III | 52 308 | 1062 | 4.48 | 1628.19 | 1391.12 | 0.99 | 0.03 |
| End of stage IV | 56 175 | 898 | 3.92 | 1425.58 | 1250.68 | 0.99 | 0.08 |
Relative abundance of top two phyla affiliated to anammox process within the UPPAR
| Sludge sample | Label | Relative abundance of dominant phylum (%) | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planctomycetes | Proteobacteria | |||
| Inoculum | X0 | 2.95 | 60.63 | 63.58 |
| End of stage II | XII | 19.34 | 33.07 | 52.41 |
| End of stage III | XIII | 22.47 | 31.7 | 54.17 |
| End of stage IV | XIV | 43.52 | 26.63 | 70.15 |
Fig. 5Distribution of microbial community composition at the genus level (sequence reads ≥1%): (a) X0; (b) XII; (c) XIII; (d) XIV; (e) richness heatmap depicting top 26 predominant genera within inoculum and reactor sludge samples.
Relative abundances of genus and closest relatives as revealed by BLAST algorithm in GenBanka
| Accession numbers assigned to gene sequences (in this study) | Relative abundance of the genus in sludge sample (%) | Closest relatives and source in NCBI GenBank [similarity (%)] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X0 | XII | XIII | XIV | ||
|
| 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.9 |
|
|
| 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.2 |
|
|
| 10.1 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
|
|
| 3.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 2.1 |
|
|
| 7.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
|
|
| 3.3 | 6.5 | 7.7 | 5.9 |
|
|
| 6.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
|
|
| 7.6 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
|
|
| 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.03 | 2.2 |
|
|
| 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1 |
|
|
| 1.5 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
|
|
| 2.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1.1 |
|
|
| 4.1 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
|
|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 3.2 |
|
|
| 0.2 | 16.5 | 18.9 | 25.7 |
|
The closest related sequence was established using the NCBI's BLAST platform.