P a g e | 1
ABSTRACT
P a g e | 2
ABSTRACT
In this present work, the effectiveness of pseudomonas and bacillus on degradation of
different oils, especially diesel, petrol, engine oils, etc., were studied. Biological method has
been found to be the harmless method for degrading hydrocarbons with low cost and high
efficiency. Among the biological methods, bioreactor has been the sophisticated method that
can degrade the hydrocarbons to concentrations below the standard limits. Membrane
bioreactors can be broadly defined as systems integrating biological degradation of waste
products with membrane filtration, with good control of biological activity. The effluent from
these bioreactors will be free from chemicals and micro organisms. For the degradation
studies, I developed a media using Plackett-Burman design. It has been found to be the
easiest and time saving procedure for the development of different media with varying
concentrations of nutrients. It offers reduction in BOD within the range of 60-75% and COD
reduction up to 83% within 3 days when introduced into the bioreactor. The temperature was
maintained at 32oC at a pH of 7.
P a g e | 3
INTRODUCTION
P a g e | 4
INTRODUCTION
The worldwide rise in population and the industrialization during the last few
decades have resulted in ecological unbalance and degradation of the natural resources. One
of the most essential natural resources which have been the worst victim of population
explosion and growing industrialization is water. Today, we withdraw water far faster than it
can be recharged—unsustainably mining what was once a renewable resource (Abramovitz,
1996). Huge quantity of wastewater generated from human settlement and industrial sectors
accompany the disposal system either as municipal wastewater or as industrial wastewater.
This wastewater enriched with varied pollutants and harmful both for human being and the
aquatic flora and fauna, finds its way out into the nearly flowing or stationary water bodies
and thus make the natural sources of water seriously contaminated. The presence of some
harmful pollutants in wastewater deteriorates the water quality considerably and has
damaging effect on both aquatic life and human health (B.C. Meikap, Roy, 1995).
The world’s rapid population growth over the last century has been a major
factor in increasing global water usage. But demand for water is also rising because of
urbanization economic development, and improved living standards. Between 1900 and
1995, for example, global water withdrawals increased by over six times—more than double
the rate of population growth ( Gleick ,1998). In developing countries, water withdrawals are
rising more rapidly—by four percent to eight percent a year for the past decade—also
because of rapid population growth and increasing demand per capita (Marcoux, 1994).
Caught between (a) finite and increasingly polluted water supplies, and (b) rapidly rising
demand from population growth and development, many developing countries face difficult
and uneasy choices. As the World Bank has warned, lack of water is likely to be the major
factor limiting economic development in the decades to come ( Serageldin , 1995).
In recent years, considerable attention has been paid to industrial wastes
discharged to land and surface water. Industrial effluents often contain various toxic metals,
harmful dissolved gases, and several organic and inorganic compounds. Huge quantity of
waste water generated from human settlement and industrial sectors accompany the disposal
system either as municipal wastewater or industrial wastewater (H.M. Jena, et al, 2005). This
P a g e | 5
wastewater is enriched with varied pollutants and harmful both to human being and the
aquatic flora and fauna and its successive accumulation in the soil has adverse effect on soil
productivity. All of India’s 14 major rivers are badly polluted. Together they transport 50
million cubic meters of untreated sewage into India’s coastal waters every year. India’s
capital, New Delhi, dumps 200 million liters of raw sewage and 20 million liters of industrial
wastes into the Yamuna River every day as it passes through the city on its way to the Ganges
( Harrison,1992)..
Environmental contamination due to spills and leaks of petroleum
hydrocarbons from storage facilities and distribution systems has resulted in the
contamination of soil and water environments worldwide. Because of the threat they
represent to public health, environmental regulations and the need for the safe use of
renewable and non-renewable resources, multiple clean up strategies for contamination due to
petroleum products have been developed .( Rodríguez-Martínez , 2006).
The exploration, production, refining and distribution of petroleum and
petrochemical products results in the generation of a considerable volume of waste oil
sludges. These sludges come from a variety of sources including storage tank bottoms, oil-
water separators, dissolved air floatation units, cleaning of processing equipment, biological
sludges from waste water treatment units and oil spills in the oil fields, drilling sites and
refineries (Ajay Singh, et al, 2001). The oily sludges are basically composed of oil, water,
solids and their characteristics, such as varied composition, make their reutilization very
difficult, and confer on them high recalcitrance (Ururahy, et al,1999).
A variety of physical, chemical and biological approaches have been
taken to remediating refinery sludges. In many countries these sludges have been
accumulated in large lagoons, facilitating some recycling of oil but requiring later
remediation of residual oily sludges. Attempts to process these sludges using centrifugal
methods to separate oil, water and solids phases is highly capital intensive, is not consistently
effective and still produces residual solids with high petroleum hydrocarbon content.
Another option is to direct oily sludge waste to a delayed coker, however,
this can degrade the sludge quality and reduce its economic value. Foul odors are often
P a g e | 6
reported in the coke product after sludge injection and can result in operator complaints.
Sludge injection requires modifications to the coker as well as pretreatment of the sludge.
This pretreatment step requires the use of milling, filtering and centrifugation equipment and
a skilled operator. Thermal desorbers and incinerators have been used for the treatment of
oily sludges. However, most of the above methods are capital intensive and therefore are
associated with overall high sludge treatment costs.(Ajay Singh ,et al,2001).
Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons, through either naturally occurring
processes or engineered systems, has been successfully used to reduce concentrations of these
pollutants to safer environmental levels. Pump and treat systems are one engineering
approach that allows the design of a treatment units for optimum biological operation. When
combined with fixed film microbial growth, such strategies have shown effectiveness in the
processing of sewage and contaminated groundwater. (Enid M. Rodríguez-Martínez, 2006).
Oil effluents from different industries such as refineries, petroleum
treatment plants and different large scale and small scale industries that are dealing with the
petroleum oils contain large amounts of hydrocarbons mainly benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, xylene. Most of them are highly water soluble and are toxic. When released into
water sources, they could cause serious consequences in aquatic flora and fauna and can both
directly and indirectly affect humans.
Due to the high energy costs, the potential risk of air pollution and the
persistence of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), incineration is not recommended.
Biotreatment can be applied, using the following methods: Composting, Landfarming and
Biopile. All of them exploit the soil biodiversity; however they have the disadvantage of
needing long process times and there is the risk of contaminating air and aquifiers by
leaching. They also demand large areas and are affected by climate. An interesting alternative
to this problem is the use of a bioreactor, since optimum process conditions can be easily
controlled, allowing higher quality final effluent in shorter times (Ururahy,et al,1999).
Several aerobic and anaerobic bioreactors are available for the effective
treatment of hydrocarbons from the petroleum effluents. During the last few years, several
bacterial cultures have been isolated with the ability to degrade the hydrocarbons (Enid M.
P a g e | 7
Rodríguez-Martínez, 2006). These bacterial cultures when introduced into suitable bioreactor
with optimum conditions, within a short period degrade the harmful effluents into harmless
products, with concentrations well below the recommended limits (Ururahy,et al,1999). The
treated water from the bioreactor can be either reused or discharged into the water bodies.
MEMBRANE BIOREACTORS
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) can be broadly defined as systems integrating
biological degradation of waste products with membrane filtration. They have proven quite
effective in removing organic and inorganic contaminants as well as biological entities from
wastewater. Advantages of the MBR include good control of biological activity, high quality
effluent free of bacteria and pathogens, smaller plant size, and higher organic loading rates
(Cicek,2003). Current applications include water recycling in buildings, municipal
wastewater treatment for small communities, industrial wastewater treatment, and landfill
leachate treatment.
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process, consisting of an activated sludge
bioreactor and a microfiltration membrane, is an emerging and promising technology
utilizing a biological treatment process. It takes advantage of the rapid development in
membrane manufacturing and has the potential to fundamentally advance the biological
treatment of wastewater. The MBR system has exhibited an excellent effluent quality, a high
biomass concentration without concern for sludge settling problems, a simple flow
configuration, and a small footprint demand. The MBR has been used successfully for
biological treatment of wastewater and for the reclamation of treated effluents (Min Jin, et al,
2005).
ANAEROBIC BIOREACTORS:
As the name indicates, these bioreactors are designed to carry out
biodegradation in the absence of oxygen. The anaerobic process comprises a series of
interdependent phases. Initially complex organic compounds such as lipids, proteins and
carbohydrates, if present, are hydrolyzed to simpler organics. The latter are then fermented to
volatile fatty acids (VFAs) by acidogens .The most common of these fatty acids is ethanoic
P a g e | 8
acid. However, propanoic, butanoic and pentanoic acids may also be present in varying
quantities depending on the stability of the process. The acidogens include both facultative
and obligate anaerobic bacteria. Subsequent to the acidogenic phase is the methanogenic
phase. The methanogens are obligate anaerobes and they convert the fatty acids from
acidogenesis to methane and carbon dioxide. This results in substantial decrease in the
organic content of the wastewater. The methane generated offers an avenue for energy
recovery (Buyukgungor, Gurel, 2009).
AEROBIC BIOREACTORS:
The aerobic biodegradation process is represented by the following equation
CxHy + O2 + (microorganisms / nutrient ) ---------- H2O + CO2 + biomass. Aerobic treatment
of waste is the degradation and purification process in which bacteria that thrive in oxygen –
rich environments break down and digest the waste. The mixed aerobic microbial consortium
uses the organic carbon present in the effluent as their carbon and energy source. The
complex organics finally get converted to microbial biomass (sludge) and carbon di oxide
(Behera,2009).
PLACKETT – BURMAN DESIGN:
The efficiency of degradation can be increased several fold by using a media
that supports the growth of the microorganism. The microorganisms belonging to
Pseudomonas species have the ability to use Oil as the sole source of Carbon and energy,
which results in degradation of the oil. When it is supplied with a medium that catalyzes its
growth, the efficiency can be increased by several folds (Allia, et al, 2006).
The cell growth and accumulation of metabolic products in bacteria
are strongly influenced by media composition such as carbon sources, nitrogen sources and
inorganic salts. Thus it is difficult to search for major factors and to optimize them for
biotechnological factors as several factors are involved. The classical method of optimization
involves changing one variable at a time by keeping other factors at fixed levels. Statistical
method for optimization of media effectively tackles the problem, which involves specific
design of experiments which minimizes the error in determining the effect of variables.
Placket-Burman design allows reliable short listing of medium components in fermentation
for further optimization and allows one to obtain unbiased estimates of linear effects of all
P a g e | 9
factors with maximum accuracy for given number of observations. (Aravindan Rajendran,et
al,2007).
DEGRADATION OF HYDROCARBONS BY THE MICROORGANISMS
Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is a complex process that
depends on the nature and on the amount of the hydrocarbons present. Petroleum
hydrocarbons can be divided into four classes: the saturates, the aromatics, the asphaltenes
(phenols, fatty acids,ketones, esters, and porphyrins), and the resins (pyridines, quinolines,
carbazoles, sulfoxides and amides).Several factors influence the hydrocarbon degradation.
One of the important factors is their limited availability to the microorganisms.Hydrocarbons
differ in their susceptibility to microbial attack. On the basis of susceptibility to degradation,
the hydrocarbons can be ranked as follows: linear alkanes > branched alkanes > small
aromatics > cyclic alkanes. High molecular weight compounds such as Poly Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are not degraded at all. Bacteria are the microorganisms that are highly
efficient in degrading petroleum hydrocarbons. Bacteria such as Pseudomonas have the
ability to use oil constituents for energy.
FACTORS AFFECTING PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON DEGRADATION
Several factors limit the degradation of hydrocarbons. One among the
important limiting factor is temperature. Decrease in temperature results in lowering the
efficiency of biodegradation. Nutrients are very important ingredients for successful
biodegradation of hydrocarbon pollutants especially nitrogen, phosphorus and in some cases
iron.Another important factor is availability of oxygen. In case of oil spills, the most
important organism capable of degradation is Pseudomonas. Among Pseudomonas sp.,
Pseudomonas putida is the master in degrading oil spills. It has been found that under
aerobic conditions, the efficiency of this organism in degradation is increased several folds.
Hence aerobic treatment is normally preferred for catalyzing the efficiency of this organism.
P a g e | 10
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
P a g e | 11
BIO-REMEDIATION
Bioremediation is a powerful technical and scientific approach to
alternatively deal with contaminated sites. This process involves the use of microorganisms
to degrade organic pollutants such as hydrocarbons, to concentrations that are undetectable or
below the limits established as safe to all the living organisms and the environment. (Enid M.
Rodríguez-Martínez,2006).
BIO TRANSFORMATION
Biotransformations involve the use of biological agents, in the form of whole
cells or isolated enzymes, to catalyze chemical reactions. Such biotransformation systems
may be used for environmentally benign biocatalysis of synthetic reactions, bioremediation of
pollutants, or waste beneficiation, a combination of these in which the biological agents
convert industrial residues to useful chemical products. In each case, suitable biocatalysts,
and suitable bioreactor systems, each with particular characteristics, are required.(Stephanie
G. Burton,2001)
BIOREACTORS AS USEFUL TOOLS FOR EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
REMEDIATION
As waste management practices become more specific, for particular type of
chemical waste, specific treatment system will have to be developed and applied to abate
pollution. In near future, since the regulation concerning discharged wastewater will be
imposed more strictly, an economical, compact and highly efficient wastewater treatment will
be required ( Vijayagopal, Sabarathinam, 2006).
Bioreactors have been commonly developed and implemented for
bioremediation processes. The goal of bioreactor treatment strategies is to optimize
degradation by microbial communities in biofilm or suspended systems in artificially
constructed units that allow tightly controlled growth conditions. In suspended growth
systems, such as activated sludge, or sequencing batch reactors, the contaminated water is
circulated in an aeration basin where microbial populations aerobically degrade the organic
P a g e | 12
matter while CO2, H2O and new cells are produced as degradation products. The cells form
sludge, which are settled out in a clarifier unit, and are then either recycled to the aeration
basin or disposed of. (Enid M. Rodríguez-Martínez,2006).
Several aerobic and anaerobic bioreactors are available for the effective
treatment of hydrocarbons from the petroleum effluents. During the last few years, several
bacterial cultures have been isolated with the ability to degrade the hydrocarbons (Enid M.
Rodríguez-Martínez, 2006). These bacterial cultures when introduced into suitable bioreactor
with optimum conditions, within a short period degrade the harmful effluents into harmless
products, with concentrations well below the recommended limits (Ururahy,et al,1999). The
treated water from the bioreactor can be either reused or discharged into the waterbodies
MEMBRANE BIOREACTORS
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) can be broadly defined as systems integrating
biological degradation of waste products with membrane filtration. They have proven quite
effective in removing organic and inorganic contaminants as well as biological entities from
wastewater. Advantages of the MBR include good control of biological activity, high quality
effluent free of bacteria and pathogens, smaller plant size, and higher organic loading rates
(Cicek,2003). Current applications include water recycling in buildings, municipal
wastewater treatment for small communities, industrial wastewater treatment, and landfill
leachate treatment.
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process, consisting of an activated sludge
bioreactor and a microfiltration membrane, is an emerging and promising technology
utilizing a biological treatment process. It takes advantage of the rapid development in
membrane manufacturing and has the potential to fundamentally advance the biological
treatment of wastewater. The MBR system has exhibited an excellent effluent quality, a high
biomass concentration without concern for sludge settling problems, a simple flow
configuration, and a small footprint demand. The MBR has been used successfully for
biological treatment of wastewater and for the reclamation of treated effluents (Min Jin, et al,
2005).
P a g e | 13
COMPONENTS OF A MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR:
Membrane bioreactors are composed of two primary parts:
1) The biological unit responsible for the biodegradation of the waste compounds, and
2) The membrane module for the physical separation of the treated water from mixed
liquor.
TYPES OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTORS:
MBR systems can be classified into two major groups according to their
configuration.
1) The first group, which is also commonly known as the integrated MBR, involves outer
skin membranes that are internal to the bioreactor. The driving force across the membrane is
achieved by pressurizing the bioreactor or creating negative pressure on the permeate side of
the membrane. Cleaning of the membrane is achieved through frequent permeate back-
pulsing and occasional chemical backwashing.
2) The second configuration is the recirculated (external) MBR, which involves the
recirculation of the mixed liquor through a membrane module that is outside the bioreactor.
The driving force is the pressure created by high cross-flow velocity along the membrane
surface .(Cicek, 2003).
ANAEROBIC BIOREACTORS:
As the name indicates, these bioreactors are designed to carry out
biodegradation in the absence of oxygen. The anaerobic process comprises a series of
interdependent phases. Initially complex organic compounds such as lipids, proteins and
carbohydrates, if present, are hydrolyzed to simpler organics. The latter are then fermented to
volatile fatty acids (VFAs) by acidogens .The most common of these fatty acids is ethanoic
acid. However, propanoic, butanoic and pentanoic acids may also be present in varying
quantities depending on the stability of the process. The acidogens include both facultative
P a g e | 14
and obligate anaerobic bacteria. Subsequent to the acidogenic phase is the methanogenic
phase. The methanogens are obligate anaerobes and they convert the fatty acids from
acidogenesis to methane and carbon dioxide. This results in substantial decrease in the
organic content of the wastewater. The methane generated offers an avenue for energy
recovery (Buyukgungor, Gurel, 2009).
AEROBIC BIOREACTORS:
The aerobic biodegradation process is represented by the following equation
CxHy + O2 + (microorganisms / nutrient ) ---------- H2O + CO2 + biomass. Aerobic treatment
of waste is the degradation and purification process in which bacteria that thrive in oxygen –
rich environments break down and digest the waste. The mixed aerobic microbial consortium
uses the organic carbon present in the effluent as their carbon and energy source. The
complex organics finally get converted to microbial biomass (sludge) and carbon di oxide
(Behera,2009).
DIGESTION PATHWAY
During the oxidation process, continuous contaminants and pollutants are
broken down into end products such as carbon dioxide, water , nitrates, sulphates and
biomass (microorganisms). In the aerobic system, the substrate is used as a source of carbon
and energy.
Synthesis More microorganisms
Waste + Oxygen + Microorganisms
Respiration Energy + End products
It serves as an electron donor, resulting in bacterial growth. The extent of
degradation is correlated with the rate of oxygen consumption in the same substrate. Two
enzymes primarily involved in the process are di and mono oxygenases. The latter enzyme
can act on both aromatic and aliphatic compounds, while the former can act only on aromatic
compounds. Another class of enzymes involved in aerobic condition is peroxidases.
TREATMENT OF OIL SPILLS:
Petroleum based products are the major source of energy for industry and daily
life. Leaks and accidental spills occur regularly during the exploration, production, refining,
P a g e | 15
transport and storage of petroleum and petroleum products. The amount of natural crude oil
seepage was estimated to be 600,000 metric tons per year with a range of uncertainty of
200,000 metric tons per year. Release of hydrocarbons into the environment whether
accidental or due to human activities is a main cause of water and soil pollution.
Basically, the oil in the oily wastewater can be classified into three fractions: free oil,
oil/water emulsion and soluble components (Thanh, 2002).
Biodegradation by natural populations of microorganisms represents one of
the primary mechanisms by which petroleum and other hydrocarbon pollutants can be
removed from the environment and is cheaper than other remediation technologies. The
success of oil spill bioremediation depends on one’s ability to establish and maintain
conditions that favor enhanced oil biodegradation rates in the contaminated
environment ( Izanloo, 2007).
One important requirement is the presence of microorganisms with the
appropriate metabolic capabilities. If these microorganisms are present, then optimal rates of
growth and hydrocarbon biodegradation can be sustained by ensuring that adequate
concentrations of nutrients and oxygen are present and that the pH is between 6 and 9. The
physical and chemical characteristics of the oil and oil surface area are also important
determinants of bioremediation success. There are the two main approaches to oil spill
bioremediation : (a) Bioaugmentation, in which known oil-degrading bacteria are added to
supplement the existing microbial population, and (b) Biostimulation, in which the growth of
indigenous oil degraders is stimulated by the addition of nutrients or other growth limiting
co-substrates
PLACKETT-BURMAN DESIGN
The Plackett-Burman Design was developed by R. L.Plackett and
J.P.Burman. Here the design of experiments looks like a matrix, has variables across and runs
down. It is used to study the effects of design parameters on the system states so that
intelligent design decisions can be made. The design was basically meant to improve the
quality control process. It can be used to find out the upper and lower limits of a variable.
P a g e | 16
Through this, the quality of a product can be improved in a less expensive way. Overall
quality improvement can save time and money.
The study of factors influencing the production of biomolecules is very
much essential in any bioprocess development. Generally a higher productivity has been
achieved by culture medium optimization. The classical practice of changing one variable at a
time while keeping others at a constant level was found inefficient. This single dimensional
task does not explain interaction effects among the variables and their effect on the
fermentation process. (Aravindan Rajendran,et al,2008).
Moreover it is a time consuming laborious practice because of the large
number of experiments. Conversely, rapid statistical approach enables us to obtain the
physicochemical parameters and factors influencing the fermentation process with limited
number of planned experiments. One such approach is Plackett-Burman design that allows
efficient screening of key variables for further optimization. For the given number of
observation the linear effect of all factors can be screened with maximum accuracy. This
design is practical when investigating large number of factors to produce optimal or near
optimal response.(Aravindan Rajendran,et al,2008).
The cell growth and accumulation of metabolic products in bacteria
are strongly influenced by media composition such as carbon sources, nitrogen sources and
inorganic salts. Thus it is difficult to search for major factors and to optimize them for
biotechnological factors as several factors are involved. The classical method of optimization
involves changing one variable at a time by keeping other factors at fixed levels. Statistical
method for optimization of media effectively tackles the problem, which involves specific
design of experiments which minimizes the the error in determining the effect of variables.
Placket-Burman design allows reliable short listing of medium components in fermentation
for further optimization and allows one to obtain unbiased estimates of linear effects of all
factors with maximum accuracy for given number of observations. (Aravindan Rajendran,et
al,2007).
P a g e | 17
AIM:
The present study is focused on the application of Plackett-Burman Design for the
comparative study of the efficiencies of membrane bioreactors for the treatment of
hydrocarbons.
OBJECTIVES OF THE WORK:
Design a Membrane bioreactor incorporating both aerobic and anaerobic phases.
Formulation of a media that enhances the growth and activity of pseudomonas.
Determination of the maximum concentration with which the organism acts.
Comparison of the efficiencies of different types of bioreactors.
Comparison of the efficiencies of different microorganisms.
Measuring the Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
Estimation of the Chemical Oxygen Demand.
P a g e | 18
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
P a g e | 19
MATERIALS
SAMPLES TAKEN
1) Diesel2) Automobile Engine Oil3) Machine Oil (Heavy Machines)4) Petrol5) Lubrication Oil (Small Machines)
TEST MICROORGANISMS
The bacterial strains used in this study were Pseudomonas Bacillus
CHEMICALS USED
1)FOR PERFORMING PLACKETT- BURMAN DESIGN
a) Magnesium Sulphate
b) Calcium Chloride
c) Di Hydrogen Potassium Phosphate
d) Ammonium Nitrate
e) Ferric Chloride
f) Sodium Chloride
g) Glucose
h) Sodium Carbonate
2)FOR PERFORMING CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND TEST
a) POTASSIUM DICHROMATE SOLUTION (0.1 N)
b) SODIUM THIOSULPHATE(0.1M)
c) SULPHURIC ACID(2M)
d) STARCH SOLUTION
e) POTASSIUM IODIDE (10%)
P a g e | 20
3. FOR PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND TEST
SODIUMTHIOSULPHATE ( 0.02N)
MANGANESE SULPHATE : 48%
ALKALINE IODINE:
STARCH INDICATOR : 1%
CONCENTRATED SULPHURIC ACID.
GLASSWARES USED
FOR PLACKETT-BURMAN DESIGNBoiling tubes and conical flasks
FOR PERFORMING CODBurette, conical flasks, beakers, pipettes etc.
FOR PERFORMING BODBurette, BOD bottles, conical flasks, beakers, pipettes.
SETTING UP OF BIOREACTORS
Plastic jars Drip bottles Syringes Drip tubes Aerator Air controller Flow regulator Other requirements: glue, packing tape, M-seal.
P a g e | 21
METHODOLOGY
1) BIOREACTOR;
P a g e | 22
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) was installed in the Biochemistry laboratory of S.B
College, Changanassery. The water sample to be treated during the experiment is prepared by
mixing sterilized water and Oils. .
The MBR consisted of cylindrical bioreactors with a working volume of 5 L and 3 L. The
bioreactors were made of plastic jars. An outlet is fixed 5 cm above the jar’s bottom level.
Similarly, on the top of each bioreactor jar, a hole was made through which the connection
tubes were inserted. The sample water was first stored in the storage tank. From there, the
sample was pumped into the constant water level tank. This tank controlled the influent and
kept the water level in the bioreactor constant as the inflow rate was set by the water level.
The effluent rate of flow was controlled by a flow meter. Aeration pipes were placed in the
jars to provide oxygen for the microorganisms and to generate a shear force which hindered
membrane fouling.
Two membrane bioreactors were used in the experiment, which were operated in a steady
state.
a) Aerobic + Anaerobic MBR
(( ( (Aerobic Tank with
Aerator & Agitator)
Flow Regulator
(Aerobic Tank With
Aerator & Agitator)
Flow Regulator
(Tank for
Back washing) Relesed to Membrane filter
+ Flow regulator Effluent
b) Anaerobic + Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor
P a g e | 23
Flow Regulator
Flow Regulator
Flow Regulator
( StorageTank for BackWashing)
Flow Regulator
Effluent
2) PROCEDURE FOR PLACKETT-BURMAN DESIGN
Anaerobic Tank -1
Anaerobic Tank-2
Aerobic Tank with aerator, agitator and membrane
P a g e | 24
1) All the chemicals listed in the table were weighed accurately.
2) 12 tubes were arranged serially and labelled as T1-T12 respectively.
3) To each tube, the weighed chemicals were added one by one as shown in the table.
4) The chemicals added were properly mixed by little amount of water and the volume in
all the tubes were made up to 30 ml using distilled water.
5) 30ml of distilled water was poured in another tube labelled as 'c' or control.
6) After mixed properly, the tubes were sterilized in the autoclave.
7) The sterilized tubes were taken out, cooled and to each tube 5% oil was added and
mixed well.
8) All the tubes except the control tube 'C' were inoculated with bacilli.
9) The tubes were then incubated at 37 degrees for 3 days.
10) After 3 days, the absorbance of each sample at 440 nm was estimated
colorimetrically and the percentage of degradation of the oil samples was estimated
by comparing each with a control.
11) Tube labelled T10 showed a higher efficiency.
T10= 83.33%
12) The concentrations of chemicals added in tube T10 were found to be the most efficient.
Trial Level and concentration of variable ( g/L )
P a g e | 25
X1
MgSO4
X2
CaCl2
X3
KH2PO4
X4
NH4NO3
X5
FeCl3
X6
NaClX7
GlucoseX8
Na2CO3
T1 0.6 0.2 1 1 0.05 1 3 0.1
T2 0.6 0.6 3 3 0.O5 1 1 0.3
T3 0.2 0.6 1 1 0.15 1 1 0.1
T4 0.6 0.2 3 3 0.05 3 1 0.1
T5 0.6 0.6 3 3 0.15 1 3 0.1
T6 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.15 3 1 0.3
T7 0.2 0.6 1 3 0.05 3 3 0.1
T8 0.2 0.2 1 3 0.15 3 1 0.3
T9 0.2 0.2 3 3 0.15 3 1 0.3
T10 0.6 0.2 3 1 0.15 3 3 0.1
T11 0.2 0.6 3 1 0.05 3 3 0.3
T12 0.2 0.2 3 1 0.05 1 1 0.1
3) THE WINKLER METHOD- Measuring Dissolved Oxygen
PROCEDURE:
a) Carefully fill a 300 ml glass Biological Oxygen Demand stoppered bottle brim- full
with sample water.
b) Immediately add 2ml of manganese sulphate to the collection bottle by inserting the
calibrated pipette just below the surface of the liquid.
c) Add 2ml of alkaline potassium iodide reagent in the same manner.
d) Stopper the bottle with care to be sure no air is introduced. Mix the sample by
inverting several times. Check for air bubbles; discard the sample and start over if any
P a g e | 26
are seen. If oxygen is present, a brownish – orange cloud of precipitate or floc will
appear. When this floc has settle to the bottom, mix the sample by turning it upside
down several times and let it settle again.
e) Add 2ml of concentrated sulphuric acid via a pipette held just above the surface of the
sample. Carefully stopper and invert several times to dissolve the floc. At this point,
the sample is “ fixed” .
f) Add 2ml of starch solution, resulting in blue colour.
g) Continue slowly titrating until the sample turns clear.
h) The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the sample is equivalent to the number of
milliliters of titrant used.
4) PROCEDURE FOR CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND:
a) 50ml of the untreated sample was taken in a dry conical flask.
b) In another conical flask 50ml of distilled water was taken separately.
c) To both of the conical flasks 5ml of potassium dichromate was added. These were then
kept in boiling water bath for 1 hour at 100 degrees.
d) Samples were then taken out and were cooled. To each conical flask 5ml of potassium
iodide and 10ml of sulphuric acid were added. Mixed well.
e) In the mean time a burette was washed, cleaned and was rinsed with sodium
thiosulphate solution. Burette was then filled up to the zero mark with
sodiumthiosulphate solution.
f) The samples in the conical flask were titrated against this sodiumthiosulphate solution
to get a pale yellow colored solution.
g) At this point 2ml of saturated starch solution was added, mixed and was again titrated
until the blue color disappears.
h) This value was note as the COD value of day 1. Similarly the process was repeated after
3 days to get the COD value of day 3. Both the COD values were compared and
substituted in the formula to get the percentage of COD change.
P a g e | 27
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
P a g e | 28
1)PLACKETT- BURMAN DESIGN
The Optical Density measurement was carried out for the media in all the tubes used in
Plackett – Burman design and the values obtained are then compared with that of a Control.
This shows the percentage of degradation of the oil content in each tube.
The percentage of degradation is calculated as follows;
Percentage of degradation = Optical density of untreated sample - Optical density of treated
sample / Optical density of treated sample × 100
The Optical Density readings at 440 nm along with percentage of degradation are represented
as follows;
Test tubes (Serial No)
Control (Untreated sample)
Test (Treated sample)
Percentage of degradation
T1 0.29 0.22 24.14T2 0.04 0.01 75T3 0.06 0.02 75T4 0.04 0.01 75T5 0.05 0.02 60T6 0.23 0.09 39.01T7 0.06 0.02 66.66T8 0.05 0.03 60T9 0.04 0.01 75T10 0.06 0.01 83.33T11 0.05 0.01 80T12 0.05 0.01 80
The media in the tube labelled as T10 shows the highest rate of degradation. It has increased
concentration of Magnesium sulphate, Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, Ferric chloride,
Sodium chloride and Glucose. This clearly indicates that the growth and proliferation of
Pseudomonas is enhanced by these compounds and hence by increasing the concentration of
these compounds, the activity of the organism is enhanced. The Plackett – Burman media,T10,
because of its increased efficiency , was selected for the further degradation studies
P a g e | 29
BOD analysis (Nutrient broth Vs Plackett- Burman Media, T10)Organism: Pseudomonas
BODDay 1 Day 3 D1
( mg /L)D2
( mg /L)Percentage 0f
decrease
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Nutrient Broth
5.4 2.8 18.09 9.38 48.15
Plackett- Burman
Media, T10
5.4 2.2 18.09 7.37 59.26
D1 - Dissolved Oxygen content of the untreated sample.
D2 – Dissolved Oxygen content of the treated sample.
FORMULA:
Dissolved Oxygen content (D) = K × 200× 0.698 ×Volume of sodium thiosulphate used Volume of sample
Where ‘K’ is a constant with a value of 1.2.
COD analysis (Nutrient broth Vs Plackett- Burman Media, T3 & T10)
CODDay 1 Day 3 Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease in
COD
100 – xNutrient Broth 18.5 14.5 49.23 50.77
Plackett- Burman Media, T10
18.5 13.7 40 60
P a g e | 30
FORMULA FOR CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND:
COD = 8× 0.1(Volume of sample run- Volume of distilled water run) 50
Change in COD = final day COD/ 1st COD ×100
Decrease in COD= 100- Change in COD.
The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) studies
were carried out using three mediums;
1)Nutrient Broth Media
2) Plackett- Burman Media,T3
The media T10 shows the highest percentage of reduction, both in BOD and COD. Hence it
was selected for the further biodegradation studies .
BOD analysis (5 % Diesel)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Pseudomonas
Bioreactor Type
Day 1 Day 3 D1( mg /L)
D2( mg /L)
BOD(mg /L)
Percentage 0f decrease
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Aerobic + Anaerobic
4.5 1.4 15.08 4.69 10.39 68.89
Anaerobic + Aerobic
4.5 1.6 15.08 5.36 9.72 64.46
P a g e | 31
COD analysis (5 % Diesel)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor. Organism : Pseudomonas
PARTICULARSDay
1Day 3 COD
(1st Day)COD
(3rd Day)Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease
in COD
100 – xAerobic + Anaerobic
18.2 12.2 0.12 0.12 16.67 83.33
Anaerobic + Aerobic
18.2 12.4 0.02 0.03 25 75
The first experiment was carried out in a sample with 5% Diesel. Samples were collected
both before and after treatment. Two types of membrane bioreactors were used;
1) Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane bioreactor.
2) Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane bioreactor.
10 ml of the pseudomonas containing media, T10 was used. The aerobic + anaerobic
membrane bioreactor was found to best with reduction in BOD upto 67.26% and
COD reduction upto 83.33 % within 3 days.
BOD analysis (10 % Diesel)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor. Organism : Pseudomonas
Bioreactor Type
Day 1 Day 3 D1( mg /L)
D2( mg /L)
B0D(mg /L)
Percentage 0f decrease in dissolved oxygen
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Aerobic + Anaerobic
5.5 1.8 18.42 6.03 12.39 67.26
Anaerobic + Aerobic
5.5 2 18.42 6.70 11.72 63.63
P a g e | 32
COD analysis (10 % Diesel)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Pseudomonas
CODDay 1 Day 3 COD
( 1st Day)COD
(3rd Day)Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease
in COD
100 – xAerobic + Anaerobic
18.6 12.8 0.13 0.03 23.1 76.9
Anaerobic + Aerobic
18.6 13 0.13 0.04 26.92 73.08
The efficiency of the biodegradation was found to be 76.29% for COD and 67.26% for
BOD within 3 days. Since a fair percent of degradation was obtained, attention was turned
towards the treatment of oil mixture.
BOD analysis (5 % Oil mixture)Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor. Organism : Pseudomonas
Bioreactor Type
Day 1 Day 3 D1( mg /L)
D2( mg /L)
B0D(mg /L)
Percentage 0f decrease in dissolved oxygen
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Aerobic + Anaerobic
5.1 1.7 17.09 5.70 11.39 66.65
Anaerobic + Aerobic
5.1 1.9 17.09 6.37 10.72 62.75
P a g e | 33
COD analysis (5 % Oil mixture )
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Pseudomonas
CODDay 1 Day 3 COD
(1st Day)COD
(3rd Day)Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease
in COD
100 – xAerobic + Anaerobic
18.5 12.6 0.13 0.033 25.85 74.15
Anaerobic + Aerobic
18.5 13 0.13 0.038 29.54 70.46
BOD analysis (5 % Oil mixture)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Bacillus
Bioreactor Type
Day 1 Day 3 D1( mg /L)
D2( mg /L)
B0D(mg /L)
Percentage 0f decrease in dissolved oxygen
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Aerobic + Anaerobic
5.1 2 17.09 6.70 10.39 60.08
Anaerobic + Aerobic
5.1 2.3 17.09 7.71 9.38 54.89
P a g e | 34
COD analysis (5 % Oil mixture )
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Bacillus
CODDay 1 Day 3 COD
(1st Day)COD
(3rd Day)Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease
in COD
100 – xAerobic + Anaerobic
18.5 13.4 0.13 0.045 34.46 65.54
Anaerobic + Aerobic
18.5 13.7 0.13 0.051 39.23 60.77
BOD analysis (10 % Oil mixture)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Pseudomonas
Bioreactor Type
Day 1 Day 3 D1( mg /L)
D2( mg /L)
B0D(mg /L)
Percentage 0f decrease in dissolved oxygen
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Aerobic + Anaerobic
6 2.1 20.10 7.04 13.06 64.98
Anaerobic + Aerobic
6 2.3 20.10 7.71 12.39 61.64
P a g e | 35
COD analysis (10 % Oil mixture )
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Pseudomonas
CODDay 1 Day 3 COD
(1st Day)COD
(3rd Day)Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease
in COD
100 – xAerobic + Anaerobic
19.4 13.2 0.1424 0.043 30.28% 69.72
Anaerobic + Aerobic
19.4 13.5 0.1424 0.048 33.80 66.20
BOD analysis (10 % Oil mixture)
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Bacillus
Bioreactor Type
Day 1 Day 3 D1( mg /L)
D2( mg /L)
B0D(mg /L)
Percentage 0f decrease in dissolved oxygen
D1- D2 /D1 × 100
Aerobic + Anaerobic
6 2.4 20.10 8.05 12.05 59.95
Anaerobic + Aerobic
6 2.8 20.10 9.38 10.72 53.33
P a g e | 36
COD analysis (10 % Oil mixture )
Bioreactor Types
Aerobic + Anaerobic membrane Bioreactor &
Anaerobic + Aerobic membrane Bioreactor.
Organism : Bacillus
CODDay 1 Day 3 COD
(1st Day)COD
(3rd Day)Change in
COD(x %)
Percentage 0f decrease
in COD
100 – xAerobic + Anaerobic
19.4 13.7 0.1424 0.05 35.71 64.29
Anaerobic + Aerobic
19.4 13.5 0.1424 0.056 40 60
The results obtained from the Biochemical Oxygen Demand and the Chemical Oxygen
Demand shows the highest efficiency of degradation of the aerobic + anaerobic membrane
bioreactor, compared with that of anaerobic + aerobic membrane bioreactor. It shows an
efficiency upto 83.33% for COD and BOD reduction upto 68.89%.Pseudomonas was found
to be more effective than Bacillus in degrading hydrocarbons.
P a g e | 37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nutrient Broth Plackett Burman Media,T 10
Perc
enta
ge o
f Deg
rada
tion
Plackett - Burman Media Vs Nutrient Broth (Pseudomonas)
BOD
COD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Aerobic + Anaerobic Bireactor Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
Perc
enta
ge o
f D
egra
dati
on
BOD and COD analysis of 5% Diesel (Pseudomonas)
BOD
COD
P a g e | 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Aerobic + Anaerobic Bireactor Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
Perc
enta
ge o
f Deg
rada
tion
BOD and COD analysis of 10% Diesel (Pseudomonas)
BOD
COD
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
Aerobic + Anaerobic Bireactor Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
Perc
enta
ge o
f Deg
rada
tion
BOD and COD analysis of 5 % Oil mixture (Pseudomonas)
BOD
COD
P a g e | 39
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
Aerobic + Anaerobic Bireactor Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
Perc
enta
ge o
f D
egra
dati
onBOD and COD analysis of 5 % Oil mixture (Bacillus)
BOD
COD
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
Aerobic + Anaerobic Bireactor Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
Perc
enta
ge o
f Deg
rada
tion
BOD and COD analysis of 10 % Oil mixture (Pseudomonas)
BOD
COD
P a g e | 40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Aerobic + Anaerobic Bireactor Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
Perc
enta
ge o
f Deg
rada
tion
BOD and COD analysis of 10 % Oil mixture (Bacillus)
BOD
COD
Percentage Of Change In BOD & COD
The efficiency of Bioreactors under different conditions such as variations in treatment
phase, concentration of oil content, type of organism used were studied and is tabulated in
percentage as follows
SERIAL NO.
PARTICULARS BOD CODAerobic
+ Anaerobic Bioreactor
Anaerobic + Aerobic
Bioreactor
Aerobic+ Anaerobic Bioreactor
Anaerobic + Aerobic Bioreactor
1 5 % Diesel(Pseudomonas)
68.89 64.46 83.33 75
2 10 % Diesel(Pseudomonas)
67.26 63.63 76.9 73.08
3 5 % oil mixture(Pseudomonas)
66.65 62.75 74.15 70.46
4 5 % oil mixture(Bacillus)
60.08 54.89 65.54 60.77
5 10 % oil mixture(Pseudomonas)
64.98 61.64 69.72 66.20
6 10 % oil mixture(Bacillus)
59.95 53.33 64.29 60
P a g e | 41
The results clearly indicates that the activity and proliferation of the bacteria, Pseudomonas
is greatly increased by the presence of oxygen. After the activation, it can effectively degrade
hydrocarbons and use it for energy and other metabolic activities. This is indicated by the
tests conducted to measure the Biochemical Oxygen Demand and the Chemical Oxygen
Demand. Presence of oxygen is necessary for enhancing the activity of Pseudomonas at the
initaial condition.
P a g e | 42
APPENDIX
P a g e | 43
1 ) TABLE SHOWING THE CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICALS USED IN PLACKETT-BURMAN DESIGNTrial Level and concentration of variable ( g/L )
X1
MgSO4
X2
CaCl2
X3
KH2PO4
X4
NH4NO3
X5
FeCl3
X6
NaClX7
GlucoseX8
Na2CO3
T1 0.6 0.2 1 1 0.05 1 3 0.1
T2 0.6 0.6 3 3 0.O5 1 1 0.3
T3 0.2 0.6 1 1 0.15 1 1 0.1
T4 0.6 0.2 3 3 0.05 3 1 0.1
T5 0.6 0.6 3 3 0.15 1 3 0.1
T6 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.15 3 1 0.3
T7 0.2 0.6 1 3 0.05 3 3 0.1
T8 0.2 0.2 1 3 0.15 3 1 0.3
T9 0.2 0.2 3 3 0.15 3 1 0.3
T10 0.6 0.2 3 1 0.15 3 3 0.1
T11 0.2 0.6 3 1 0.05 3 3 0.3
T12 0.2 0.2 3 1 0.05 1 1 0.1
P a g e | 44
2)FOR PERFORMING CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND TEST
POTASSIUM DICHROMATE SOLUTION (0.1 N):
3.676g of potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) in 1L distilled water.
SODIUM THIOSULPHATE(0.1M):
5.811g of sodium thiosulphate (Na2S2O3)in 2L of distilled water.
SULPHURIC ACID(2M):
10.8ml of concentrated sulphuric acid (H2SO4) in 100ml of distilled water
STARCH SOLUTION: 0.5g in 50ml distilled water.
POTASSIUM IODIDE (10%): 5 g in 50ml
3. FOR PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND TEST
SODIUMTHIOSULPHATE ( 0.02N): 0.49g of sodiumthiosulphate in
100ml distilled water.
MANGANESE SULPHATE : 48%
ALKALINE IODINE:
7.5g of potassium iodide in 70% potassium hydroxide.
STARCH INDICATOR : 1%
CONCENTRATED SULPHURIC ACID.
P a g e | 45
Conclusion
CONCLUSION
P a g e | 46
In this study a media formulated by Plackett- Burman design,T10 was found as a suitable
medium for the growth and activity of pseudomonas. This media was used in the Membrane
Bioreactors for the treatment of water samples by pseudomonas.. T10 media provided the
entire essential nutrients for the organism so that it can grow and degrade oils efficiently.
Under this study a lab scale Membrane bioreactor was designed and was used to compare the
efficiency of various aerobic- anaerobic bioreactors in the treatment of oils. A comparative
study of the efficiencies of the organisms, Pseudomonas and Bacillus, in the degradation of
the hydrocarbon content of the oil samples, under different conditions (Aerobic + Anaerobic
and Anaerobic + Aerobic) were carried out. It was found that the aerobic + anaerobic
bioreactor was the best with 83.33% reduction in COD and more than 60% reduction in
BOD. In both these cases, Pseudomonas, was found to be the best, since it depends the oils
for its energy and growth. Hence it can degrade the oil content far faster and better than
bacilli and it is indicated accurately by the Biochemical Oxygen Demand Test and the
Chemical Oxygen Demand Test.
P a g e | 47
REFERENCES
P a g e | 48
REFERENCES:
1) C. Viswanathan and R.Ben Aim, Membrane Bio-reactor Applications in waste water
treatment, 2000 environmental Science & Technology, Vol 30, page 1-48.
2) B.C. Meikap, GK Roy, Recent advances in biochemical reactors for treatment of
waste water, IJEP, Vol-15 (I), Jan-1995,44-49.
3) B.Lew, S Tarre, M Beliavski, C Dosorete, M Green, Anaerobic bioreactor for
domestic waste water treatment, 2008. Desalination 243 (2009) 251-257.
4) Yasaman Sanayei, Norli Ismail, Tjoon Tow Teng, Norhaashimah Morad.Biological
treatment of reactive dye by sequencing batch reactor performance, 2009. Australian
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 3 (4): 4071-4077.
5) Abramovitz, Janet. (1996, March). Imperiled waters, impoverished future: The
decline of freshwater ecosystems (World watch Paper No. 128). Washington, DC:
World watch Institute.
6) Brautigam, A. (1999). “The freshwater biodiversity crisis.” World Conservation 30
(2), 4-5.
7) Patel, T. (1997, April 26). “India faces chaos over water rights.” New Scientist, 12.
8) A. V. Vinod, G. V. Reddy, Dynamic behaviour of a fluidized bed bioreactor treating
9) waste water, Indian Chem. Engr., Section A, Vol.45, No.1, Jan-Mar 2003, 20-27.
10) A. Nuhoglu, T. Pekdemir, E. Yildiz, B. Keskinler, G. Akay, Drinking water
denitrification by a membrane bio-reactor, Water Research 36 (2002) 1155-1166.
11) K. Alllia, N. Tahar, L. Taumi, Z.Salem, Biological treatment of water contaminated
by hydrocarbons in three phase gas-liqid-solid fluidized bed, Global NEST Journal,
Vol 8, No 1, pp 9-15, 2006.
12) Kvenvolden, K.A. and C. K. Cooper, 2003. Natural seepage of crude oil into the
marine environment. Earth and Environ Sci., 23(3-4):140-146.
13) Holliger, C., S. Gaspard, G. Glod, C. Heijman, W.Schumacher,, K.P.Schwarzenbach
and F.Vazquez, 1997. Contaminated environment in the subsurface and
bioremediation of organic contaminants. FEMS Microbiol Rev., 20 (3-4): 517-523.
14) Leahy, J.G. and R.R. Colwell, 1990. Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the
environment. American Society of Microbiol., 54(3):305-315.
15) Atlas, R.M. 1981. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: An
environmental perspective. Microb. Rev., 45: 180-209.
P a g e | 49
16) Cooney, J.J., S.A. Silver and E.A. Beck. 1985. Factors influencing hydrocarbon
degradation in three fresh water lakes. Micro Ecol., 11: 127-137.
17) Cooney, J.J. 1984. The fate of petroleum pollutants in fresh water ecosystems. In :
R.M. Atlas (Ed.), Petroleum Microbiol, Macmillian Pub Co, Newyork, pp, 399-434.
18) Das, K and A.K. Mukherjee, 2007. Crude petroleum oil biodegradation efficiency of
Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from petroleum oil
contaminated soil from North East India. Bioresour Technology, 98:1339-1345.
19) Pratibha Singh,Sequential anaerobic and aerobic treatment of pulp and paper mill
effluent in pilot scale bioreactor. Journal of Environmental Biology. January 2007,
28(1) 77-82.
20) Devendra V. Deshmukh and Pravin R. Puranik., Application of Plackett-Burman
Design to evaluateMedia Components Affecting Antibacterial Activity of
Alkaliphilic Cyanobacteria Isolated from Lonar Lake. Turkish Journal of
Biochemistry–Turk J Biochem. 2010; 35 (2) ; 114–120.
21) Enid M. Rodríguez-Martínez (February,2006) , Microbal diversity of a fluidized –
bed bioreactor treating diesel contaminated ground water ( Vega Baja, Puerto Rico),
thesis submitted to t A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science in Biology, University of Puerto Rico, 1- 10.
22) M. Perez , R. Rodriguez-Cano, L.I. Romero, D. Sales Performance of anaerobic
thermophilic fluidized bed in the treatment of cutting-oil wastewater, Bioresource
Technology 98 (2007) 3456–3463.
23) Bertrand, J. C., P. Caumette, G. Mille, M. Gilewicz, and M. Denis. 1989.Anaerobic
biodegradation of hydrocarbons. Sci. Prog. 73: 333-350.
24) Bregnard, T., P. Höhener, A. Häner, and J. Zeyer. 1996. Degradation of weathered
diesel fuel by microorganisms from a contaminated aquifer in aerobic and anaerobic
microcosms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.15: 299-307.
25) Hollinger, C. and A.J. Zehnder. 1996. Anaerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons.
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 7,326-330.
26) Mikesell, M.D., J.J. Kukor, and R.H. Olsen. 1993. Metabolic diversity of aromatic
hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria from a petroleum-contaminated aquifer.
Biodegradation.4: 249-259.
27) Rölling, W.F.M., M.G. Milner, D.M. Jones, F. Frateprieto, R.P.J. Swannell, F.
Daniel, and I.M. Head. 2004. Bacterial community dynamics and hydrocarbon
P a g e | 50
degradation during a field-scale evaluation of bioremediation on a mudflat beach
contaminated with buried oil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68: 2603-2613.
28) Rölling, W.F.M., M.G. Milner, D.M. Jones, K. Lee, F. Daniel, R.J.P. Swannell,
and I.M. Head. 2002. Robust hydrocarbon degradation and dynamics of bacterial
communities during nutrient-enhanced oil spill bioremediation. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 68: 5537-5548.
29) Tolker-Nielsen, T., U. C. Brinch, P. C. Ragas, J.B. Andersen, C. S. Jacobsen, and
S. Molin. 2000. Development and dynamics of Pseudomonas sp. biofilms. J.
Bacteriol. 182: 6482-6489. 93. Top, E.M. and D. Springael.
30) Abdel-Gawad, S., Abdel-Shafy, M., 2002. Pollution control of industrial
wastewater from soap and oil industries: a case study. Water Sci.Technol. 46, 77–82.
31) H.Izanloo, A. Medaghinia, R. Nabizadeh, K.Nadaffi, S.Nasseri, A.H.Mahvi and
S.Nazmara,The treatment of wastewater containing crude oil with aerated
submerged- fixed film reactor,Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences10 (17); 2905-
2909,2007.
32) Al-Sharekh, H. A., Hamoda, M. F., (2001). Removal oforganics from wastewater
using a novel biological hybrid system. Water Sci. Technol., 43: 321–326.
33) Tellez, G. T., Nirmalakhandan, N., Gardea-Torresdey, J. L.,(2002). Performance
evaluation of an activated sludge system for removing petroleum hydrocarbons from
. oil field produced water. Adv. Environ. Res., 6: 455–470.
34) Zhao, R., Wang, Y., Ye, Z., Borthwick, A. G. L., Ni, J.,(2006). Oil field wastewater
treatment in biological aerated filter by immobilized microorganisms. Process
Biochem.,41: 1475–1483.
35) Jianlong, W., Hanchang, S., Yi, Q., (2000). Wastewater treatment in a hybrid
36) biological reactor (HBR): effect of organic loading rates. Process Biochem., 36: 297–
303.
37) Cicek, N., J.P. Franco, M.T. Suidan, V. Urbain and J. Manem.1999c.
Characterization and comparison of a membrane bioreactor and a conventional
activated-sludge system in the treatment of wastewater containing high-molecular-
weight compounds. Water Environment Research 71(1): 64-70.
38) Cicek, N., J. Macomber, J. Davel, M.T. Suidan, J. Audic and P.Genestet.
2001.Effect of solids retention time on the performance and biological characteristics
of a membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology 43(11): 43-50.
P a g e | 51
39) Lu, S.G., T. Imai, M. Ukita, M. Sekine, M. Fukagawa and H.Nakanishi. 2000. The
performance of fermentation wastewater treatment in ultrafiltration membrane
bioreactor by continuous and intermittent aeration processes. Water Science and
Technology 42(3-4): 323-329.
40) Scholzy, W. and W. Fuchs. 2000. Treatment of oil contaminated wastewater in a
membrane bioreactor. Water Research 34(14): 3621-3629.
41) Stephenson, T., K. Brindle, S. Judd and B. Jefferson. 2000.Membrane Bioreactors
for Wastewater Treatment. London,UK: IWA Publishing.
42) Pillay, V.L., B. Townsend and C.A. Buckley. 1994. Improving the performance of
anaerobic digesters at wastewater treatment works: The coupled cross-flow
microfiltration/digester process. Water Science and Technology 30(12): 329-337.
43) Visvanathan, C., R. Ben Aim and K. Parameshwaran. 2000.Membrane separation
bioreactors for wastewater treatment.Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology,30(1): 1-48.
44) M.Sunitha, P. Ellaiah and R. Bhavani Devi, Screening and optimization of
nutrients for Lasparaginase production by Bacillus cereus MNTG-7 in SmF by
plackett-burmann design, African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 4 (4), pp.
297-303, 18 February, 2010.
45) Gleick, Peter. (1993). “An introduction to global fresh water issues.” In Peter Gleick
(Ed.), Water in crisis (pages 3-12). New York: Oxford University Press.
46) Harrison, P. (1992). The third revolution: Environment, population and a sustainable
world. London:I.B. Tauris.
47)Marcoux, A. (1994). Population and water resources. Rome: FAO.
48) Serageldin, I. (1995). Toward sustainable management of water resource. .
Washington ,DC: World Bank.
49) Rosenberger S, Kruger U, Witzig R, Manz W, Szewzyk U, Kraume M
(2002)Performance of a bioreactor with submerged membrane for aerobic treatment of
municipal waste water. Water.Res 36:413–420
P a g e | 52
P a g e | 53
P a g e | 54
P a g e | 55
P a g e | 56
P a g e | 57
P a g e | 58
P a g e | 59
P a g e | 60
P a g e | 61
P a g e | 62
P a g e | 63
P a g e | 64
P a g e | 65
P a g e | 66