Modeling Biofilms on Gas-Permeable Supports: Flux Limitations
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 127, Issue 2
Abstract
A computer model is used to investigate the microbial uptake of oxygen and a carbon-source substrate for biofilms growing on gas-permeable, hollow-fiber membranes and impermeable solid supports of similar geometry. Substrate and oxygen fluxes are predicted for different biofilm thicknesses as a function of fluid velocity and substrate concentration. Under conditions of oxygen limitation, low water velocities, and moderate to high bulk liquid substrate concentration, the membranes have a clear advantage and outperform solid supports. This improvement in performance stems from the ability of the membrane to deliver high oxygen concentrations (8–20 mg/L) directly to the biofilm, whereas it is difficult to maintain bulk dissolved oxygen concentrations much above 4 mg/L in wastewater treatment. The growth of an active biofilm can actually increase the flux of oxygen across the membrane dramatically; however, the presence of a biofilm always reduces the ability of a membrane to oxygenate the surrounding wastewater. This drop in oxygen transfer performance is caused by the fact that the active biofilm consumes oxygen and impedes diffusion of the oxygen into the bulk water. In thick biofilms the oxygen flux can drop to zero so that the external regions of the biofilm and the external wastewater become anaerobic. This may cause some operating problems, but it may also facilitate nitrification-denitrification. Additional aeration of the external wastewater could improve biofilm performance and assist in controlling biofilm growth.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ahmed, T., and Semmens, M. J. ( 1992). “Use of sealed end hollow fibers for bubbleless membrane aeration: Experimental studies.” J. Membrane Sci., 69, 11–20.
2.
Aptel, P., and Semmens, M. J. ( 1997). “Theory of phase contact processes.” Chapter 8, Membranes in water treatment, McGraw-Hill, New York.
3.
Bishop, P. L., Zhang, T. C., and Fu, Y. ( 1995). “Effects of biofilm structure using microbial distributions, and mass transfer on biodegradation processes.” Water Sci. and Technol., 31(1), 143–152.
4.
Bryers, J. D., and Banks, M. K. ( 1990). “Assessment of biofilm ecodynamics.” Physiology of immobilized cells, J. A. M. de Bont, J. Visser, B. Mattiasson, and J. Tramper, eds., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 49–61.
5.
Casey, E., Glennon, B., and Hamer, G. ( 1999). “Oxygen mass transfer characteristics in a membrane-aerated biofilm reactor.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 62(2), 183–192.
6.
Chen, G. H., Ozaki, H., and Terashima, Y. ( 1989). “Modelling of the simultaneous removal of organic substances and nitrogen in a biofilm.” Water Sci. and Technol., 21, 791–804.
7.
Essila, N. J. ( 1997). “Contrasting behavior of biofilms grown on gas-permeable membranes with those grown on solid surfaces: A model study.” MS thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
8.
Essila, N. J., Semmens, M. J., and Voller, V. R. (2000). “Modeling biofilms on gas-permeable supports: Concentration and activity profiles.”J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 126(3), 250–257.
9.
Furumai, H., and Rittmann, B. E. ( 1994). “Evaluation of multiple-species biofilm and floc processes using a simplified aggregate model.” Water Sci. and Technol., 29(10–11), 439–446.
10.
Li, S., and Chen, G. H. ( 1994). “Modeling the organic removal and oxygen consumption by biofilms in an open-channel flow.” Water Sci. and Technol., 30(2), 53–61.
11.
Osa, J. J., et al. ( 1997). “Water treatment with biofilm membrane reactors.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Advanced Wastewater Treatment Processes, Leeds University, Leeds, U.K.
12.
Pavasant, P., Frietas dos Santos, L. M., Pistikopoulos, E. N., and Livingston, A. G. ( 1996). “Prediction of optimal biofilm thickness for membrane-attached biofilms growing in an extractive membrane bioreactor.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 52, 373–386.
13.
Rittmann, B. E. ( 1982a). “Comparative performance of biofilm reactor types.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 24, 1341–1370.
14.
Rittmann, B. E. ( 1982b). “The effect of shear stress on biofilm loss rate.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 24, 501–506.
15.
Rittmann, B. E., and Manem, J. A. ( 1992). “Development and experimental evaluation of a steady-state, multispecies biofilm model.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 39, 914–922.
16.
Timberlake, D. L., Strand, S. E., and Williamson, K. J. ( 1988). “Combined aerobic heterotrophic oxidation, nitrification and denitrification in a permeable-support biofilm.” Water Res., 22(12), 1513–1517.
17.
Voss, M. ( 1994). “Membrane gas transfer practical applications.” MS thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
18.
Wanner, O., Debus, O., and Reichert, P. ( 1994). “Modelling the spatial distribution and dynamics of a xylene-degrading microbial population in a membrane-bound biofilm.” Water Sci. and Technol., 29(10–11), 243–251.
19.
Wanner, O., and Gujer, W. ( 1986). “A multispecies biofilm model.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 28, 314–328.
20.
Williamson, K., and McCarty, P. L. ( 1976). “A model of substrate utilization by bacterial films.” J. Water Pollution Control Fedn., 48(1), 9–24.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 127 • Issue 2 • February 2001
Pages: 126 - 133
History
Received: Mar 23, 1998
Published online: Feb 1, 2001
Published in print: Feb 2001
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.