Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (5) : 5     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-018-1077-0
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Investigate of in situ sludge reduction in sequencing batch biofilm reactor: Performances, mechanisms and comparison of different carriers
Yonglei Wang1,2,3(), Baozhen Liu1,2, Kefeng Zhang1,2, Yongjian Liu4, Xuexin Xu1, Junqi Jia1
1. School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
2. Co-Innovation Center of Green Building, Jinan 250101, China
3. Shandong Province City Water Supply and Drainage Water Quality Monitoring Center, Jinan 250101, China
4. Shandong Huaihe River Basin Water Conservancy Administration Planning and Design Institute, Jinan 250101, China
Download: PDF(914 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Microbial metabolism uncoupling, sludge decay is the main mechanism to promote in situ sludge reduction on this biofilm system.

The main reduction mechanism inside the biofilm is sludge decay in the longitudinal distribution of biofilm.

Mizugakiibacter and Azospira anaerobic fermentation bacterium dominate the FSC organisms indicating the dominant mechanism on the biofilm is sludge decay.

The floating spherical carriers with compound of the polyurethane and two fiber balls can effectively blocking suspended sludge, improving Biofilm formation efficiency significantly.

Biofilm is an effective simultaneous denitrification and in situ sludge reduction system, and the characteristics of different biofilm carrier have important implications for biofilm growth and in situ sludge reduction. In this study, the performance and mechanism of in situ sludge reduction were compared between FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR with constructed by composite floating spherical carriers (FSC) and multi-faceted polyethylene suspension carriers (SC), respectively. The variation of EPS concentration indicated that the biofilm formation of FSC was faster than SC. Compared with SC-SBBR, the FSC-SBBR yielded 0.16 g MLSS/g COD, almost 27.27% less sludge. The average removal rates of COD and NH4+ -N were 93.39% and 96.66%, respectively, which were 5.21% and 1.43% higher than the average removal rate of SC-SBBR. Investigation of the mechanisms of sludge reduction revealed that, energy uncoupling metabolism and sludge decay were the main factors for sludge reduction inducing 43.13% and 49.65% less sludge, respectively, in FSC-SBBR. EEM fluorescence spectroscopy and SUVA analysis showed that the hydrolytic capacity of biofilm attached in FSC was stronger than those of SC, and the hydrolysis of EPS released more DOM contributed to lysis-cryptic growth metabolism. In additional, Bacteroidetes and Mizugakiibacter associated with sludge reduction were the dominant phylum and genus in FCS-SBBR. Thus, the effect of simultaneous in situ sludge reduction and pollutant removal in FSC-SBBR was better.

Keywords In situ sludge reduction      Biofilm      Composite floating spherical carriers      Microbial community      SBBR     
Corresponding Authors: Yonglei Wang   
Issue Date: 25 September 2018
 Cite this article:   
Yonglei Wang,Baozhen Liu,Kefeng Zhang, et al. Investigate of in situ sludge reduction in sequencing batch biofilm reactor: Performances, mechanisms and comparison of different carriers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 5.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-018-1077-0
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2018/V12/I5/5
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yonglei Wang
Baozhen Liu
Kefeng Zhang
Yongjian Liu
Xuexin Xu
Junqi Jia
Abbreviation Full name
CAS Conventional activated sludge
COD Chemical oxygen demand
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOM Dissolved organic matter
EAS Excess activated sludge
EEM Emission electron microscope
EPS Extracellular polymeric substances
FSC Composite floating spherical carries
HRT Hydraulic retention time
FSC-SBBR Sequencing batch biofilm reactor with composite floating spherical carries
SC-SBBR Sequencing batch biofilm reactor composite floating spherical carries
MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids
MLVSS Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
PN Protein
PS Polysaccharide
SBBR Sequencing batch biofilm reactor
SC Multi-faceted polyethylene suspension carriers
SOUP Specific oxygen uptake rate
SATP Specific adenosine triphosphate
SUVA Specific ultraviolet absorbance
SMP Soluble microbial products
TN Total nitrogen
TP Total phosphorus
Yobs Sludge observed yield
Tab.1  Abbreviated list
Fig.1  Schematic diagram of experimental FSC-SBR, SC-SBBR, FSC and SC.
Carriers Height (mm) Diameter (mm) Density (kg·m3) Specific surface area (m2·g1) Water-holding capacity
FSC 60 1.21–1.23 2.15–2.21 452.38%
SC 60 50 0.96–0.98 1.23–1.25 5.41%
Tab.2  Technical parameters of floating spherical and suspended carriers
Run Temperature (°C) HRT (h) DO (mg·L1)
1 (0–15 d) 15 12 4–5
2 (15–30 d) 20 12 4–5
3 (30–45 d) 25 12 4–5
4 (45–60 d) 30 12 4–5
5 (60–75 d) 25 8 4–5
6 (75–90 d) 25 6 4–5
7 (90–105 d) 25 12 2–3
8 (105–120 d) 25 12 6–7
Tab.3  Operating conditions in different stages
Fig.2  Variation of MLSS (a), the cumulative sludge production (b) and daily Yobs (c) in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR (the numbers 1–8 represent the different operating conditions listed in Table 2).
Fig.3  The variations in biofilm (a) FSC, (b) SC.
System Yobs (g MLSS/g COD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FSC-SBBR 0.32±0.200 0.25±0.097 0.12±0.069 0.24±0.148 0.23±0.084 0.37±0.138 0.21±0.094 0.35±0.214
SC-SBBR 0.77±0.197 0.35±0.078 0.18±0.083 0.32±0.122 0.25±0.118 0.36±0.207 0.22±0.134 0.46±0.208
Tab.4  Values of Yobs in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR under different operating conditions
Fig.4  The variation of EPS (a), concentration of DOM in the supernatant at the end of the sludge decay trial experiment (b), the variation of ATP contents contained in sludge and MLSS from different stages (c), ATP contents contained at different distances of FSC and SC from the surface to the bottom (d), and the variation of SOUR under different HRT (e) and in the different distance from the surface to the inside of the biofilm (f).
System Initial MLSS (g·L1) Final MLSS (g·L1) ΔMLSS (g·L1) SRR
FSC-SBBR 1.015±0.078 1.044±0.071 0.029±0.007 43.13%
SC-SBBR 1.588±0.326 1.639±0.271 0.051±0.055
Tab.5  The values of MLSS variation and sludge-reduction ratio (SRR) of energy-uncoupling metabolism in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR
Fig.5  The EEM-DOM fluorescence spectra of FSC-SBBR (a-influent, c-anaerobic phase and e-effluent), and SC-SBBR (b-influent, d-anaerobic phase, f-effluent).
System SUVA
Temperature (°C) HRT/h
25 30 6 8 12
FSC-SBBR 0.71±0.063 0.58±0.188 0.73±0.168 0.78±0.108 0.83±0.144
SC-SBBR 0.56±0.078 0.55±0.231 0.58±0.122 0.63±0.153 0.61±0.098
Tab.6  SUVA (L/mb-Cm) of effluent in FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR under different operating conditions
Phase COD (mg·L1) COD removal ratio (%) Polysaccharides (mg·L1) SUVA (L/mb-Cm)
Influent 230±14.80 10.94±1.29 0.009±0.003
Anoxic 164±5.57 28.70±0.82 15.21±1.16 0.033±0.017
Anaerobic 124±6.22 46.09±1.02 14.24±2.84 0.032±0.019
Aerobic 30 min 72±4.36 68.70±2.16 14.35±3.02 0.426±0.015
Aerobic 60 min 52±3.00 77.9±2.52 10.71±1.78 0.420±0.032
Aerobic 90 min 36±4.85 84.35±4.14 11.76±1.33 0.980±0.087
Tab.7  Variation of DOM in the supernatant during an operating cycle period in FSC-SBBR (HRT=12 h)
Fig.6  SEM photographs of the biofilm sampled from FSC-SBBR (a) SC-SBBR (b) at different distances from the surface to the bottom of the carriers.
Fig.7  Microbial community structures of FSC-SBBR and SC-SBBR based on 454 pyrosequencing at the phylum level (a) and the genus level (b).
1 An Y, Zhou Z, Yao J, Niu T, Qiu Z, Ruan D, Wei H (2017). Sludge reduction and microbial community structure in an anaerobic/anoxic/oxic process coupled with potassium ferrate disintegration. Bioresource Technology, 245(Pt A): 954–961
2 Bollag D M, Rozycki M D, Edelstein S J 1996Protein Methods, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Liss
3 Bryers J D, Characklis W G, Bryers J D, Characklis W G, Bryers J D, Characklis W G (1990). Biofilms in water and wastewater treatment. Biofilms, 671–696
4 China Water Supply and Drainage 2017 (2017). China Advanced Symposium on Sludge Disposal Technology and Application in Cities and Towns (CASSDTA, 8th). Beijing, China
5 Cieślik B M, Namieśnik J, Konieczka P (2015). Review of sewage sludge management: Standards, regulations and analytical methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90: 1–15
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.031
6 Deng Xm W, Jian-Li M A, Peng-Fei J I (2011). Comparative lab scale study on bio-contact oxidation in treatment of domestic sewage with two new built-in suspension spherical packing. China Environmental Protection Industry, 87: 311–316
7 Di Iaconi C, De Sanctis M, Rossetti S, Ramadori R (2010). SBBGR technology for minimising excess sludge production in biological processes. Water Research, 44(6): 1825–1832
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.12.007 pmid: 20137803
8 Ding A, Wang J, Lin D, Tang X, Cheng X, Wang H, Bai L, Li G, Liang H (2017). A low pressure gravity-driven membrane filtration (GDM) system for rainwater recycling: Flux stabilization and removal performance. Chemosphere, 172: 21–28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.111 pmid: 28061342
9 Feng Q, Yu A, Chu L, Xing X H (2008). Performance study of the reduction of excess sludge and simultaneous removal of organic carbon and nitrogen by a combination of fluidized- and fixed-bed bioreactors with different structured macroporous carriers. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 39(2): 344–352
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2007.10.006
10 Feng X C, Guo W Q, Yang S S, Zheng H S, Du J S, Wu Q L, Ren N Q (2014). Possible causes of excess sludge reduction adding metabolic uncoupler, 3,3′,4′,5-tetrachlorosalicylanilide (TCS), in sequence batch reactors. Bioresource Technology, 173: 96–103
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.085 pmid: 25285765
11 Gikas P, Livingston A G (1997). Specific ATP and specific oxygen uptake rate in immobilized cell aggregates: Experimental results and theoretical analysis using a structured model of immobilized cell growth. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 55(4): 660–673
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19970820)55:4<660::AID-BIT8>3.0.CO;2-F pmid: 18636576
12 Gong B, Wang Y, Wang J, Dou Y, Zhou J (2017). In situ excess sludge reduction in SBBR through uncoupling of metabolism induced by novel aeration modes. RSC Advances, 7(46): 29058–29064
https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA04452F
13 .
14 Hu D, Zhou Z, Shen X, Wei H, Jiang L M, Lv Y (2015). Effects of alkalinity on membrane bioreactors for reject water treatment: Performance improvement, fouling mitigation and microbial structures. Bioresource Technology, 197: 217–226
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.082 pmid: 26340030
15 Iino T, Mori K, Uchino Y, Nakagawa T, Harayama S, Suzuki K (2010). Ignavibacterium album gen. nov., sp. nov., a moderately thermophilic anaerobic bacterium isolated from microbial mats at a terrestrial hot spring and proposal of Ignavibacteria classis nov., for a novel lineage at the periphery of green sulfur bacteria. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 60(Pt 6): 1376–1382
https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.012484-0 pmid: 19671715
16 Imai A, Fukushima T, Matsushige K, Kim Y H, Choi K (2002). Characterization of dissolved organic matter in effluents from wastewater treatment plants. Water Research, 36(4): 859–870
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00283-4 pmid: 11848356
17 Johnsen A R, Karlson U (2004). Evaluation of bacterial strategies to promote the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 63(4): 452–459
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-003-1265-z pmid: 14716468
18 Kämpfer P (1995). Physiological and chemotaxonomic characterization of filamentous bacteria belonging to the genus Haliscomenobacter. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 18(3): 363–367
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0723-2020(11)80429-7
19 Khursheed A, Kazmi A A (2011). Retrospective of ecological approaches to excess sludge reduction. ChemInform, 45(15): 4287–4310
pmid: 21722936
20 Kojima H, Tokizawa R, Fukui M (2014). Mizugakiibacter sediminis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a freshwater lake. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 64(Pt 12): 3983–3987
https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.064659-0 pmid: 25212223
21 Leyva-Díaz J C, González-Martínez A, González-López J, Muñío M M, Poyatos J M (2015). Kinetic modeling and microbiological study of two-step nitrification in a membrane bioreactor and hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 259(23): 692–702
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.136
22 Li X, Liu X, Wu S, Rasool A, Zuo J, Li C, Liu G (2014). Microbial diversity and community distribution in different functional zones of continuous aerobic-anaerobic coupled process for sludge in situ reduction. Chemical Engineering Journal, 257(8): 74–81
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.028
23 Metcalfeddy I, Tchobanoglous G, Stensel H D (2003). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 73(1): 50–51
24 Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of PRC (MOHURD) and National Development and Reform Commission (NDARC), (2011). Urban Sludge Treatment Technology Guide, Beijing, China (in Chinese)
25 Ng H Y, Tan T W, Ong S L (2006). Membrane fouling of submerged membrane bioreactors: Impact of mean cell residence time and the contributing factors. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(8): 2706–2713
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0516155 pmid: 16683612
26 Niu T, Zhou Z, Shen X, Qiao W, Jiang L M, Pan W, Zhou J (2016). Effects of dissolved oxygen on performance and microbial community structure in a micro-aerobic hydrolysis sludge reduction process. Water Research, 90(3): 369–377
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.050 pmid: 26766160
27 Pan L T, Han Y (2016). A novel anoxic-aerobic biofilter process using new composite packing material for the treatment of rural domestic wastewater. Water Science & Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 73(10): 2486
28 Rigano L A, Payette C, Brouillard G, Marano M R, Abramowicz L, Torres P S, Yun M, Castagnaro A P, Oirdi M E, Dufour V, Malamud F, Dow J M, Bouarab K, Vojnov A A (2007). Bacterial cyclic beta-(1,2)-glucan acts in systemic suppression of plant immune responses. Plant Cell, 19(6): 2077–2089
https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.106.047944 pmid: 17601826
29 Rittmann B E (2018). Biofilms, active substrata, and me. Water Research, 132: 135–145
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.043 pmid: 29324293
30 Schügerl K (1997). Three-phase-biofluidization—Application of three-phase fluidization in the biotechnology: A review. Chemical Engineering Science, 52(21): 3661–3668
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)88926-9
31 Shao Y, Shi Y, Mohammed A, Liu Y (2017). Wastewater ammonia removal using an integrated fixed-film activated sludge-sequencing batch biofilm reactor (IFAS-SBR): Comparison of suspended flocs and attached biofilm. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 116: 38–47
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.09.026
32 Shi Y L, Wang S F, Chen X (2012). Biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal in low C/N ratio domestic sewage treatment by velocity discrete biofilter. Environmental Science & Technology, 35(11): 131–134
33 Smolders G J, van der Meij J, van Loosdrecht M C, Heijnen J J (1994). Model of the anaerobic metabolism of the biological phosphorus removal process: Stoichiometry and pH influence. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 43(6): 461–470
https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260430605 pmid: 18615742
34 Tian Y, Li Z, Ding Y, Lu Y (2013). Identification of the change in fouling potential of soluble microbial products (SMP) in membrane bioreactor coupled with worm reactor. Water Research, 47(6): 2015–2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.01.026 pmid: 23399079
35 US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2007). IRIS Chemical Tracking System. Available from:
36 Walter W G (2005). APHA standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Health Laboratory Science, 4(3): 137
37 Wang J, Li X, Fu W, Wu S, Li C (2012). Treatment of artificial soybean wastewater anaerobic effluent in a continuous aerobic-anaerobic coupled (CAAC) process with excess sludge reduction. Bioresource Technology, 126(126C): 142–147
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.127 pmid: 23073101
38 Wu J (2013). Comment on “Modeling nitrous oxide production during biological nitrogen removal via nitrification and denitrification: Extensions to the general asm models”. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(20): 11908–11909
https://doi.org/10.1021/es403417a pmid: 24044616
39 Wu M, Zhu R, Zhu H, Dai X, Yang J (2013). Phosphorus removal and simultaneous sludge reduction in humus soil sequencing batch reactor treating domestic wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215–216(3): 136–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.066
40 Xiao-Su W U, Liao R H, Gang H E (2014). Integration of rapid separation biochemistry process and NAR exchange for treatment of rural sewage in suburbs of Beijing. China Water & Wastewater, 02
41 Yamamura H, Okimoto K, Kimura K, Watanabe Y (2014). Hydrophilic fraction of natural organic matter causing irreversible fouling of microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes. Water Research, 54(5): 123–136
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.024 pmid: 24565803
42 Yang S, Guo W, Chen Y, Peng S, Du J, Zheng H, Feng X, Ren N (2016). Simultaneous in-situ sludge reduction and nutrient removal in an A2MO-M system: Performances, mechanisms, and modeling with an extended ASM2d model. Water Research, 88(4): 524–537
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.046 pmid: 26524657
43 Yue X, Koh Y K, Ng H Y (2015). Effects of dissolved organic matters (DOMs) on membrane fouling in anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactors (AnCMBRs) treating domestic wastewater. Water Research, 86: 96–107
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.038 pmid: 26255104
44 Zhang Y, Wang F, Zhu X, Zeng J, Zhao Q, Jiang X (2015). Extracellular polymeric substances govern the development of biofilm and mass transfer of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for improved biodegradation. Bioresource Technology, 193(1): 274–280
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.110 pmid: 26141288
45 Zhou Z, Qiao W, Xing C, An Y, Shen X, Ren W, Jiang L M, Wang L (2015). Microbial community structure of anoxic—oxic-settling-anaerobic sludge reduction process revealed by 454-pyrosequencing. Chemical Engineering Journal, 266(12): 249–257
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.12.095
[1] FSE-18046-OF-WYL_suppl_1 Download
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Xiao Quan, Kai Huang, Mei Li, Meichao Lan, Baoan Li. Nitrogen removal performance of municipal reverse osmosis concentrate with low C/N ratio by membrane-aerated biofilm reactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(6): 5-.
[2] Guangqing Song, Hongbo Xi, Xiumei Sun, Yudong Song, Yuexi Zhou. Effect of 2-butenal manufacture wastewater to methanogenic activity and microbial community[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 10-.
[3] Zechong Guo, Lei Gao, Ling Wang, Wenzong Liu, Aijie Wang. Enhanced methane recovery and exoelectrogen-methanogen evolution from low-strength wastewater in an up-flow biofilm reactor with conductive granular graphite fillers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 13-.
[4] Liguo Zhang, Qiaoying Ban, Jianzheng Li. Microbial community dynamics at high organic loading rates revealed by pyrosequencing during sugar refinery wastewater treatment in a UASB reactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 4-.
[5] Qiang He, Yinying Zhu, Guo Li, Leilei Fan, Hainan Ai, Xiaoliu Huangfu, Hong Li. Impact of dissolved oxygen on the production of nitrous oxide in biological aerated filters[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 16-.
[6] Ming Zeng, Ping Li, Nan Wu, Xiaofang Li, Chang Wang. Preparation and characterization of a novel microorganism embedding material for simultaneous nitrification and denitrification[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 15-.
[7] Xiaolin Sheng, Rui Liu, Xiaoyan Song, Lujun Chen, Kawagishi Tomoki. Comparative study on microbial community in intermittently aerated sequencing batch reactors (SBR) and a traditional SBR treating digested piggery wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(3): 8-.
[8] Yu Qi, Jin Li, Rui Liang, Sitong Ji, Jianxiang Li, Meng Liu. Chemical additives affect sulfate reducing bacteria biofilm properties adsorbed on stainless steel 316L surface in circulating cooling water system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 14-.
[9] Xiaoyan Song, Rui Liu, Lujun Chen, Tomoki Kawagishi. Comparative experiment on treating digested piggery wastewater with a biofilm MBR and conventional MBR: simultaneous removal of nitrogen and antibiotics[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 11-.
[10] Jiaxuan YANG, Jun MA, Dan SONG, Xuedong ZHAI, Xiujuan KONG. Impact of preozonation on the bioactivity and biodiversity of subsequent biofilters under low temperature conditions—A pilot study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 5-.
[11] Hallvard Ødegaard. A road-map for energy-neutral wastewater treatment plants of the future based on compact technologies (including MBBR)[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 2-.
[12] Veena Bangalore Rangappa, Vidya Shetty Kodialbail, Saidutta Malur Bharthaiyengar. Effect of dilution rate on dynamic and steady-state biofilm characteristics during phenol biodegradation by immobilized Pseudomonas desmolyticum cells in a pulsed plate bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 16-.
[13] Feng ZHANG,Shengsong YU,Jie LI,Wenwei LI,Hanqing YU. Mechanisms behind the accelerated extracellular electron transfer in Geobacter sulfurreducens DL-1 by modifying gold electrode with self-assembled monolayers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 531-538.
[14] Yiwen LIN,Dan LI,Siyu ZENG,Miao HE. Changes of microbial composition during wastewater reclamation and distribution systems revealed by high-throughput sequencing analyses[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 539-547.
[15] Yanling WEI,Xunfei YIN,Lu QI,Hongchen WANG,Yiwei GONG,Yaqian LUO. Effects of carrier-attached biofilm on oxygen transfer efficiency in a moving bed biofilm reactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 569-577.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed