Kinetic study on anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to denitrification

Yu, Hua-Zhong; Kashima, Hiroyuki; Regan, John J.; Hussain, Abid; Elbeshbishy, Elsayed; Lee, Hyung-Sool

doi:10.1016/j.enzmictec.2017.05.005

Cited by 30 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To evaluate the sensitivity of the simulation results to the two most‐critical kinetic parameters—K 2 and k max2 —the feasible nitrate surface‐loading range and the maximum nitrate‐removal flux are simulated for a wide range of K 2 (in Figure a) and a wide range of k max2 (in Figure b). The simulation results do not vary significantly for the range of K 2 reported in the literature (He et al, ; Van Bodegom, Stams, Mollema, Boeke, & Leffelaar, ; Vavilin & Rytov, ; Yu et al, ), but vary significantly for the range of k max2 reported in the literature (Van Bodegom et al, ; Yu et al, ). Therefore, higher nitrate‐removal flux, up to 2.6 g N/m 2 ‐day, can be achieved by using a culture with the highest k max2 reported in the literature (1.5 g CH 4 /g cell‐day or 6 g COD/g cell‐day in Figure b).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…The modeling framework for simulating AOM‐D in the CH 4 ‐based MBfR is presented in Lee et al (). We briefly summarize the model in this section and use kinetic parameters unique to the AOM‐D syntrophic consortium (AOM‐SC; Yu et al, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The AOM‐SC oxidizes CH 4 via reverse methanogenesis to reduce NO 3 − and produce CO 2 and N 2 . The model assumes that the two types of micro‐organisms (denitrifiers and reverse methanogens) are so tightly coupled that they can be represented by one type of biomass that limits the denitrification kinetics (Yu et al, ). As shown in Figure S1, the AOM process produces IB and EPS, and EPS degrade through hydrolysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Model inputs are summarized in Table , and model outputs are summarized in Table . We use the AOM‐D kinetic parameters in Yu et al () as model input because (a) it is the only experimental study that provides a full set of kinetic parameters, and (b) the parameters in Yu et al () correspond to an AOM‐D syntrophic consortium. Processes and expressions for their reaction kinetics are summarized in Table .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It also provides a direct comparison of the CH 4 ‐based and H 2 ‐based MBfRs for denitrification. The active biomass in this study represents a syntrophic consortium that uses reverse methanogenesis coupled to nitrate reduction to N 2 , as described in Yu et al (). The first objective of this study is to use the model to determine the factors that limit the nitrate‐removal flux of the AOM‐D in the CH 4 ‐based MBfR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Kinetics of anaerobic methane oxidation coupled to denitrification in the membrane biofilm reactor

Tang

Zhang

Rittmann

et al. 2019

Biotech & Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to denitrification (AOM-D) in a membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR), a platform used for efficiently coupling gas delivery and biofilm development, has attracted attention in recent years due to the low cost and high availability of methane. However, experimental studies have shown that the nitrate-removal flux in the CH 4 -based MBfR (<1.0 g N/m 2 -day) is about one order of magnitude smaller than that in the H 2 -based MBfR (1.1-6.7 g N/m 2 -day). A onedimensional multispecies biofilm model predicts that the nitrate-removal flux in the CH 4 -based MBfR is limited to <1.7 g N/m 2 -day, consistent with the experimental studies reported in the literature. The model also determines the two major limiting factors for the nitrate-removal flux: The methane half-maximum-rate concentration (K 2 ) and the specific maximum methane utilization rate of the AOM-D syntrophic consortium (k max2 ), with k max2 being more important. Model simulations show that increasing k max2 to >3 g chemical oxygen demand (COD)/g cell-day (from its current 1.8 g COD/g cell-day) and developing a new membrane with doubled methanedelivery capacity (D m ) could bring the nitrate-removal flux to ≥4.0 g N/m 2 -day, which is close to the nitrate-removal flux for the H 2 -based MBfR. Further increase of the maximum nitrate-removal flux can be achieved when D m and k max2 increase together.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Kinetics of anaerobic methane oxidation coupled to denitrification in the membrane biofilm reactor

Tang

Zhang

Rittmann

et al. 2019

Biotech & Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Practical implications of methanotrophic denitrification as post‐treatment unit of anaerobic effluents in tropical areas

Costa

Okada

Foresti

2021

J of Chemical Tech & Biotech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The use of methane as electron donor for denitrification addresses nitrogen removal in anaerobic effluents and can help to abate greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment plants. However, applicable rates of methanotrophic denitrification were only reached under temperature controlled conditions, and in membrane bioreactors, which are not widely available in low‐income countries. In this study, polyurethane foam was used as support media in an up‐flow fixed structured bed reactor (Up‐FSBR). Methane was provided as the sole electron donor and carbon source to the Up‐FSBR, fed with synthetic medium mimicking nitrified sewage pre‐treated anaerobically and operated without temperature control or previous medium sterilization. RESULTS The denitrification rate was 16.7 ± 6.9 mg N·day−1 and the average efficiency was 42.7 ± 14.6%. Data dispersion is linked to the operation conditions, such as temperature variation that ranged up to 18 °C in a 24 h period. The temperature variation caused a swallow in the metallic valves used in the methane input device, leading to a high fluctuation in methane availability and bubble size, influencing gas–liquid transfer. 16S rDNA sequencing revealed a complex interplay among aerobic methane oxidizers (10.8% of relative abundance), non‐methanotrophic methylotrophs (7.0% RA), heterotrophic denitrifiers (14.3% RA), and microorganisms affiliated with the archaeal Methanosarcinales (13.2%). CONCLUSIONS The Up‐FSBR is a promising alternative for methanotrophic denitrification. The operation challenges are linked with methane input rather than with the reactor configuration. The Up‐FSBR was efficient in selecting a microbial community that is capable of performing methane oxidation and heterotrophic denitrification. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

show abstract