Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (4) : 57     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1236-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Sulfur cycle as an electron mediator between carbon and nitrate in a constructed wetland microcosm
Wenrui Guo1,2, Yue Wen1,2(), Yi Chen3, Qi Zhou1
1. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2. Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai 200092, China
3. Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Region’s Eco-Environment, Ministry of Education, College of Environment and Ecology, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
Download: PDF(1530 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

• Fe(III) accepted the most electrons from organics, followed by NO3, SO42‒, and O2.

• The electrons accepted by SO42‒ could be stored in the solid AVS, FeS2-S, and S0.

• The autotrophic denitrification driven by solid S had two-phase characteristics.

• A conceptual model involving electron acceptance, storage, and donation was built.

• S cycle transferred electrons between organics and NO3 with an efficiency of 15%.

A constructed wetland microcosm was employed to investigate the sulfur cycle-mediated electron transfer between carbon and nitrate. Sulfate accepted electrons from organics at the average rate of 0.84 mol/(m3·d) through sulfate reduction, which accounted for 20.0% of the electron input rate. The remainder of the electrons derived from organics were accepted by dissolved oxygen (2.6%), nitrate (26.8%), and iron(III) (39.9%). The sulfide produced from sulfate reduction was transformed into acid-volatile sulfide, pyrite, and elemental sulfur, which were deposited in the substratum, storing electrons in the microcosm at the average rate of 0.52 mol/(m3·d). In the presence of nitrate, the acid-volatile and elemental sulfur were oxidized to sulfate, donating electrons at the average rate of 0.14 mol/(m3·d) and driving autotrophic denitrification at the average rate of 0.30 g N/(m3·d). The overall electron transfer efficiency of the sulfur cycle for autotrophic denitrification was 15.3%. A mass balance assessment indicated that approximately 50% of the input sulfur was discharged from the microcosm, and the remainder was removed through deposition (49%) and plant uptake (1%). Dominant sulfate-reducing (i.e., Desulfovirga, Desulforhopalus, Desulfatitalea, and Desulfatirhabdium) and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (i.e., Thiohalobacter, Thiobacillus, Sulfuritalea, and Sulfurisoma), which jointly fulfilled a sustainable sulfur cycle, were identified. These results improved understanding of electron transfers among carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles in constructed wetlands, and are of engineering significance.

Keywords Constructed wetland      Sulfur cycle      Electron transfer      Denitrification     
Corresponding Author(s): Yue Wen   
Issue Date: 01 April 2020
 Cite this article:   
Wenrui Guo,Yue Wen,Yi Chen, et al. Sulfur cycle as an electron mediator between carbon and nitrate in a constructed wetland microcosm[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 57.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-020-1236-y
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2020/V14/I4/57
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Wenrui Guo
Yue Wen
Yi Chen
Qi Zhou
Parameters Concentrationa) (mg/L)
Wastewater treatment plant secondary effluent CW microcosm influent for the pre-incubation and batch experiment
COD 19.8±3.4 422±42
NO3?-N 10.1±1.0 43.6±3.0
NO2?-N 1.3±0.2 0.9±0.3
NH4+-N 1.1±0.2 1.7±0.3
TN 14.7±2.8 48.5±2.5
SO42?-S 22.1±3.0 41.5±1.5
TS 23.2±1.9 42.7±3.1
Tab.1  Characteristics of the wastewater treatment plant secondary effluent and the CW microcosm influent
Fig.1  Nitrate and sulfate concentrations (a), and sulfide, elemental sulfur, and thiosulfate concentrations (b) in the pore water of the microcosm. Error bars represent±standard deviation (n = 12).
Fig.2  Concentration of dissolved oxygen and ferrous ion in the CW microcosm. Error bars represent±standard deviation (n = 12).
Fig.3  Kinetics of apparent sulfate reduction in the microcosm. The equation of apparent sulfate reduction rate was obtained based on the calculation method in Table S4.
Fig.4  X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectra of S2p of the solid-phase (a) and accumulated deposited sulfur species (b) in the substratum. Error bars represent ±standard deviation (n = 3).
Fig.5  Sulfate concentration during stage I (0–8 h). Error bars represent ±standard deviation (n = 12).
Process Sulfur species Rate (g S/(m3·d))
Sulfur input Sulfate 3.32
Other sulfur 0.10
Sulfur output Sulfate 0.55
Sulfide 0.87
Elemental sulfur 0.03
Thiosulfate 0.13
Other sulfur 0.10
Sulfur deposition AVS 0.74
Pyrite 0.89
Elemental sulfur 0.04
Plant uptake Organic sulfur 0.03
Volatilization Hydrogen sulfide nd.
Tab.2  Sulfur input, output, deposition, plant uptake, and volatilization rates, as well as the sulfur recovery factor for the mass balance calculation for the CW microcosm
Fig.6  Rarefaction curve base on pyrosequencing of bacterial communities (a) and distribution of phylogenetic taxa at phylum level (b), class level (c), and genus level (only the top 50 genera in abundance are shown) (d). The genera in bold indicate sulfate-reducing (SRB) and/or sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (SOB).
Fig.7  A conceptual model for the sulfur cycle-mediated electron transfer in the constructed wetland microcosm. Solid and dashed arrows indicate the substance transformation and electron transfer processes, respectively. Processes “a,” “b,” “c,” and “d” indicate the electron acceptance of sulfate, oxygen, nitrate, and iron(III), respectively. Processes “e,” “f,” and “g” indicate electron output in effluent, electron storage, and electron donation to nitrate, respectively.
1 APHA (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association
2 B Batchelor, A W Lawrence (1978). A kinetic model for autotrophic denitrification using elemental sulfur. Water Research, 12(12): 1075–1084
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(78)90053-2
3 E D Burton, R T Bush, L A Sullivan (2006a). Acid-volatile sulfide oxidation in coastal flood plain drains: Iron-sulfur cycling and effects on water quality. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(4): 1217–1222
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0520058
4 E D Burton, R T Bush, L A Sullivan (2006b). Reduced inorganic sulfur speciation in drain sediments from acid sulfate soil landscapes. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(3): 888–893
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0516763
5 D Chen, X Gu, W Zhu, S He, F Wu, J Huang, W Zhou (2019). Denitrification- and anammox-dominant simultaneous nitrification, anammox and denitrification (SNAD) process in subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Bioresource Technology, 271: 298–305
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.123
6 Y Chen, Y Wen, J Zhou, Z Tang, L Li, Q Zhou, J Vymazal (2014). Effects of cattail biomass on sulfate removal and carbon sources competition in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands treating secondary effluent. Water Research, 59: 1–10
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.077
7 Y Chen, Y Wen, Q Zhou, J Huang, J Vymazal, P Kuschk (2016). Sulfate removal and sulfur transformation in constructed wetlands: The roles of filling material and plant biomass. Water Research, 102: 572–581
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.001
8 J García, D P L Rousseau, J Morató, E L S Lesage, V Matamoros, J M Bayona (2010). Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 40(7): 561–661
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380802471076
9 L R Gardner, I Lerche (1987). Simulation of sulfate-dependent sulfate reduction using Monod kinetics. Mathematical Geology, 19(3): 219–239
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00897748
10 J Guerrero, A Guisasola, J A Baeza (2011). The nature of the carbon source rules the competition between PAO and denitrifiers in systems for simultaneous biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Water Research, 45(16): 4793–4802
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.06.019
11 A J H Janssen, G Lettinga, A de Keizer (1999). Removal of hydrogen sulphide from wastewater and waste gases by biological conversion to elemental sulphur. Colloids and Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 151(1–2): 389–397
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(98)00507-X
12 Z Jing, Y Hu, Q Niu, Y Liu, Y Y Li, X C Wang (2013). UASB performance and electron competition between methane-producing archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria in treating sulfate-rich wastewater containing ethanol and acetate. Bioresource Technology, 137: 349–357
13 R H Kadlec, S D Wallace (2009). Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group
14 A Kamyshny, I Ekeltchik, J Gun, O Lev (2006). Method for the determination of inorganic polysulfide distribution in aquatic systems. Analytical Chemistry, 78(8): 2631–2639
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac051854a
15 J Kjellin, S Hallin, A W�rman (2007). Spatial variations in denitrification activity in wetland sediments explained by hydrology and denitrifying community structure. Water Research, 41(20): 4710–4720
16 S Lin, H R Mackey, T Hao, G Guo, M C M Van Loosdrecht, G Chen (2018). Biological sulfur oxidation in wastewater treatment: A review of emerging opportunities. Water Research, 143: 399–415
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.051
17 H Lu, J Wang, S Li, G H Chen, M C Van Loosdrecht, G A Ekama (2009). Steady-state model-based evaluation of sulfate reduction, autotrophic denitrification and nitrification integrated (SANI) process. Water Research, 43(14): 3613–3621
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.05.013
18 L J Lund, A J Horne, A E Williams (2000). Estimating denitrification in a large constructed wetland using stable nitrogen isotope ratios. Ecological Engineering, 14(1–2): 67–76
19 V M Madrid, R C Aller, J Y Aller, A Y Chistoserdov (2006). Evidence of the activity of dissimilatory sulfate-reducing prokaryotes in nonsulfidogenic tropical mobile muds. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 57(2): 169–181
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00123.x
20 M Margulies, M Egholm, W E Altman, S Attiya, J S Bader, L A Bemben, J Berka, M S Braverman, Y J Chen, Z T Chen, S B Dewell, A de Winter, J Drake, L Du, J M Fierro, R Forte, X V Gomes, B C Godwin, W He, S Helgesen, C H Ho, S Hutchinson, G P Irzyk, S C Jando, M L I Alenquer, T P Jarvie, K B Jirage, J B Kim, J R Knight, J R Lanza, J H Leamon, W L Lee, S M Lefkowitz, M Lei, J Li, K L Lohman, H Lu, V B Makhijani, K E Mcdade, M P Mckenna, E W Myers, E Nickerson, J R Nobile, R Plant, B P Puc, M Reifler, M T Ronan, G T Roth, G J Sarkis, J F Simons, J W Simpson, M Srinivasan, K R Tartaro, A Tomasz, K A Vogt, G A Volkmer, S H Wang, Y Wang, M P Weiner, D A Willoughby, P G Yu, R F Begley, J M Rothberg (2005). Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature, 437(7057): 376–380
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03959
21 T L Messer, F Birgand, M R Burchell (2019). Diel fluctuations of high level nitrate and dissolved organic carbon concentrations in constructed wetland mesocosms. Ecological Engineering, 133: 76–87
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.027
22 E Metcalf, M Eddy (2014). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. New York: Mic Graw-Hill
23 M Mora, L R Lopez, J Lafuente, J Perez, R Kleerebezem, M C Van Loosdrecht, X Gamisans, D Gabriel (2016). Respirometric characterization of aerobic sulfide, thiosulfate and elemental sulfur oxidation by S-oxidizing biomass. Water Research, 89: 282–292
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.061
24 E J P Phillips, D R Lovley (1987). Determination of Fe(III) and Fe(II) in oxalate extracts of sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51(4): 938–941
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100040021x
25 M M Rahman, K L Roberts, M R Grace, A J Kessler, P L M Cook (2019). Role of organic carbon, nitrate and ferrous iron on the partitioning between denitrification and DNRA in constructed stormwater urban wetlands. Science of the Total Environment, 666: 608–617
26 N Q Ren, A J Wang, Y G Zhao (2009). Ecology of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in Anaerobic Biotreatment Processes. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese)
27 J Rethmeier, A Rabenstein, M Langer, U Fischer (1997). Detection of traces of oxidized and reduced sulfur compounds in small samples by combination of different high-performance liquid chromatography methods. Journal of Chromatography. A, 760(2): 295–302
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(96)00809-6
28 B E Rittmann, P L McCarty (2001). Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications. New York: McGraw Hill
29 S Venturi, J Cabassi, F Tassi, F Capecchiacci, O Vaselli, S Bellomo, S Calabrese, W D’alessandro (2016). Hydrogen sulfide measurements in air by passive/diffusive samplers and high-frequency analyzer: A critical comparison. Applied Geochemistry, 72: 51–58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2016.07.001
30 D Wan, H Liu, J Qu, P Lei, S Xiao, Y Hou (2009). Using the combined bioelectrochemical and sulfur autotrophic denitrification system for groundwater denitrification. Bioresource Technology, 100(1): 142–148
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.05.042
31 W Wang, D Wei, F Li, Y Zhang, R Li (2019a). Sulfur-siderite autotrophic denitrification system for simultaneous nitrate and phosphate removal: From feasibility to pilot experiments. Water Research, 160: 52–59
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.054
32 Y Wang, Z Lin, Y Wang, W Huang, J Wang, J Zhou, Q He (2019b). Sulfur and iron cycles promoted nitrogen and phosphorus removal in electrochemically assisted vertical flow constructed wetland treating wastewater treatment plant effluent with high S/N ratio. Water Research, 151: 20–30
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.005
33 A Wiessner, P Kuschk, P M Nguyen, J A Muller (2017). The sulfur depot in the rhizosphere of a common wetland plant, Juncus effusus, can support long-term dynamics of inorganic sulfur transformations. Chemosphere, 184: 375–383
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.06.016
34 A Wiessner, K Z Rahman, P Kuschk, M Kastner, M Jechorek (2010). Dynamics of sulphur compounds in horizontal sub-surface flow laboratory-scale constructed wetlands treating artificial sewage. Water Research, 44(20): 6175–6185
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.044
35 S Wu, C Jeschke, R Dong, H Paschke, P Kuschk, K Knoller (2011). Sulfur transformations in pilot-scale constructed wetland treating high sulfate-containing contaminated groundwater: A stable isotope assessment. Water Research, 45(20): 6688–6698
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.008
36 S Wu, P Kuschk, H Brix, J Vymazal, R Dong (2014). Development of constructed wetlands in performance intensifications for wastewater treatment: A nitrogen and organic matter targeted review. Water Research, 57: 40–55
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.020
37 S Wu, P Kuschk, A Wiessner, J Müller, R A B Saad, R Dong (2013). Sulphur transformations in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: A review. Ecological Engineering, 52: 278–289
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.11.003
38 H Xu, N Tong, S Huang, W Hayat, S Fazal, J Li, S Li, J Yan, Y Zhang (2018). Simultaneous autotrophic removal of sulphate and nitrate at different voltages in a bioelectrochemical reactor (BER): Evaluation of degradation efficiency and characterization of microbial communities. Bioresource Technology, 265: 340–348
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.040
39 X J Xu, C Chen, X Guan, Y Yuan, A J Wang, D J Lee, Z F Zhang, J Zhang, Y J Zhong, N Q Ren (2017). Performance and microbial community analysis of a microaerophilic sulfate and nitrate co-reduction system. Chemical Engineering Journal, 330: 63–70
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.07.136
[1] FSE-20011-OF-GWR_suppl_1 Download
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Weichuan Qiao, Rong Li, Tianhao Tang, Achuo Anitta Zuh. Removal, distribution and plant uptake of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in a simulated constructed wetland system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 20-.
[2] Binbin Sheng, Depeng Wang, Xianrong Liu, Guangxing Yang, Wu Zeng, Yiqing Yang, Fangang Meng. Taxonomic and functional variations in the microbial community during the upgrade process of a full-scale landfill leachate treatment plant – from conventional to partial nitrification-denitrification[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 93-.
[3] Chao Lu, Kanglan Deng, Chun Hu, Lai Lyu. Dual-reaction-center catalytic process continues Fenton’s story[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 82-.
[4] Zhihao Si, Xinshan Song, Xin Cao, Yuhui Wang, Yifei Wang, Yufeng Zhao, Xiaoyan Ge, Awet Arefe Tesfahunegn. Nitrate removal to its fate in wetland mesocosm filled with sponge iron: Impact of influent COD/N ratio[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 4-.
[5] Zhenfeng Han, Ying Miao, Jing Dong, Zhiqiang Shen, Yuexi Zhou, Shan Liu, Chunping Yang. Enhanced nitrogen removal and microbial analysis in partially saturated constructed wetland for treating anaerobically digested swine wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 52-.
[6] Xiaohui Wang, Shuai Du, Tao Ya, Zhiqiang Shen, Jing Dong, Xiaobiao Zhu. Removal of tetrachlorobisphenol A and the effects on bacterial communities in a hybrid sequencing biofilm batch reactor-constructed wetland system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 14-.
[7] Yujiao Sun, Juanjuan Zhao, Lili Chen, Yueqiao Liu, Jiane Zuo. Methanogenic community structure in simultaneous methanogenesis and denitrification granular sludge[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 10-.
[8] Lifeng Cao, Weihua Sun, Yuting Zhang, Shimin Feng, Jinyun Dong, Yongming Zhang, Bruce E. Rittmann. Competition for electrons between reductive dechlorination and denitrification[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 14-.
[9] 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-.
[10] Takashi Osada, Makoto Shiraishi, Teruaki Hasegawa, Hirofumi Kawahara. Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Ammonia generation in full-scale swine wastewater purification facilities[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(3): 10-.
[11] 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.
[12] Ning YAN,Lu WANG,Ling CHANG,Cuiyi ZHANG,Yang ZHOU,Yongming ZHANG,Bruce E. RITTMANN. Coupled aerobic and anoxic biodegradation for quinoline and nitrogen removals[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(4): 738-744.
[13] Yi ZHAO,Tianxiang GUO,Zili ZANG. Activity and characteristics of “Oxygen-enriched” highly reactive absorbent for simultaneous flue gas desulfurization and denitrification[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 222-229.
[14] Tian WAN,Guangming ZHANG,Fengwei DU,Junguo HE,Pan WU. Combined biologic aerated filter and sulfur/ceramisite autotrophic denitrification for advanced wastewater nitrogen removal at low temperatures[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8(6): 967-972.
[15] Lei SHEN,Yuntao GUAN,Guangxue WU,Xinmin ZHAN. N2O emission from a sequencing batch reactor for biological N and P removal from wastewater[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2014, 8(5): 776-783.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed