The deposition of bacterial cells from laminar flows onto solid surfaces

Powell, Martin S.; Slater, Nigel K.H.

doi:10.1002/bit.260250402

Cited by 37 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the end of the experiments, the biofilm thickness at the top and the bottom of the membrane tube were 1.83 and 0.82 mm for the JS150 biofilm and 1.21 and 1.07 mm for the GJ10 biofilm, respectively. Similar phenomena were reported previously and have been explained as the result of mixing conditions on the biomedium side of the module, and the concentration of suspended biomass in the biomedium (Buffiere et al, 1995;Freitas dos Santos and Livingston, 1995a;Powell and Slater 1983). The biofilm developed more uniformly in Run 3 in which a lower starting biomass concentration was used.…”

Section: Biofilm Thicknesssupporting

confidence: 87%

Determination of pollutant diffusion coefficients in naturally formed biofilms using a single tube extractive membrane bioreactor

Zhang

Splendiani

Santos

et al. 1998

Biotechnol. Bioeng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A novel technique has been used to determine the effective diffusion coefficients for 1,1,2‐trichloroethane (TCE), a nonreacting tracer, in biofilms growing on the external surface of a silicone rubber membrane tube during degradation of 1,2‐dichloroethane (DCE) by Xanthobacter autotrophicus GJ10 and monochlorobenzene (MCB) by Pseudomonas JS150. Experiments were carried out in a single tube extractive membrane bioreactor (STEMB), whose configuration makes it possible to measure the transmembrane flux of substrates. A video imaging technique (VIT) was employed for in situ biofilm thickness measurement and recording. Diffusion coefficients of TCE in the biofilms and TCE mass transfer coefficients in the liquid films adjacent to the biofilms were determined simultaneously using a resistances‐in‐series diffusion model. It was found that the flux and overall mass transfer coefficient of TCE decrease with increasing biofilm thickness, showing the importance of biofilm diffusion on the mass transfer process. Similar fluxes were observed for the nonreacting tracer (TCE) and the reactive substrates (MCB or DCE), suggesting that membrane‐attached biofilm systems can be rate controlled primarily by substrate diffusion. The TCE diffusion coefficient in the JS150 biofilm appeared to be dependent on biofilm thickness, decreasing markedly for biofilm thicknesses of > 1 mm. The values of the TCE diffusion coefficients in the JS150 biofilms <1‐mm thick are approximately twice those in water and fall to around 30% of the water value for biofilms > 1‐mm thick. The TCE diffusion coefficients in the GJ10 biofilms were apparently constant at about the water value. The change in the diffusion coefficient for the JS150 biofilms is attributed to the influence of eddy diffusion and convective flow on transport in the thinner (<1‐mm thick) biofilms. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Biotechnol Bioeng 59:80–89, 1998.

show abstract

Section: Biofilm Thicknesssupporting

confidence: 87%

Determination of pollutant diffusion coefficients in naturally formed biofilms using a single tube extractive membrane bioreactor

Zhang

Splendiani

Santos

et al. 1998

Biotechnol. Bioeng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It must be noted that biofilm formation on the carrier particles was not merely retarded by the high shear conditions, eventually stabilizing at a reduced total biomass concentration, as is generally reported (Duddridge et al, 1982;Lau and Liu, 1993;Powell and Slater, 1983). Instead, most of the biomass attached to the particles during the first 10 days thereafter detached again (Fig.…”

Section: P Putida Biofilm Formationmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…This is supported by the observation of Sjollema et al (1988) that desorption of Streptococcus salivarius cells occurred only during the first 5-10 s after deposition. Powell and Slater (1983) reported that the relative number of Bacillus cereus cells with short residence times (<10 s) on the surface of clean glass capillaries was significantly reduced under higher shear stress, together with the total number of adhering cells.…”

Section: P Putida Adhesion Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Adhesion and biofilm development on suspended carriers in airlift reactors: Hydrodynamic conditions versus surface characteristics

Gjaltema

Marel

Loosdrecht

et al. 1997

Biotechnol. Bioeng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…'6 They concluded that this was due to a decreased amount of time spent by the cell in the vicinity of the surface resulting in a reduced ability to bond irreversibly to the surface through exopolymer bridging. 26 Other groups, however, have observed increased colonization of rougher s u b~t r a t u m .~~ It has recently been pointed out that little conclusive evidence is currently available to quantify the effect of substratum surface roughness on biofilm for ma ti or^^',^^ and further examination is required to establish a clear trend.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of pure culture biofilms of P. putida on solid supports

Shrove

Olsen

Vogel

1991

Biotech & Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pseudomonas putida biofilms were developed on and biofilm accumulation rate data were obtained for the following two classes of support materials: charged surfaces and noncharged hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces. The effects of surface roughness and porosity on the rate of microbial attachment were also examined. Materials bearing a net positive or negative surface charge supported the greatest biofilm accumulation and the highest biofilm accumulation rate. Uncharged hydrophobic materials achieved the next greatest biofilm accumulation, averaging approximately 50% of the total biomass which was accumulated on the charged surface materials after 16 days. Uncharged hydrophilic materials supported very little biofilm development. In general, biofilm accumulation increased with decreased surface roughness. The effect of pore size on biofilm accumulation was not conclusive.The biofilm accumulation kinetics showed an exponential accumulation rate for the charged surfaces and an approximately linear accumulation rate for the hydrophobic materials. This difference in accumulation kinetics is consistent with proposed differences in the physicochemical mechanism governing attachment to these two types of surface materials.

show abstract

The deposition of bacterial cells from laminar flows onto solid surfaces

Cited by 37 publications

References 12 publications

Determination of pollutant diffusion coefficients in naturally formed biofilms using a single tube extractive membrane bioreactor

Determination of pollutant diffusion coefficients in naturally formed biofilms using a single tube extractive membrane bioreactor

Adhesion and biofilm development on suspended carriers in airlift reactors: Hydrodynamic conditions versus surface characteristics

Development of pure culture biofilms of P. putida on solid supports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About