4.8 Article

The long-term effect of carbon source on the competition between polyphosphorus accumulating organisms and glycogen accumulating organism in a continuous plug-flow anaerobic/aerobic (A/O) process

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 101, Issue 1, Pages 98-104

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.085

Keywords

Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR); Carbon source; Polyphosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs); Glycogen accumulating organism (GAOs); Plug-flow A/O process

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [50608064, 50628808]
  2. Excellent Doctoral Dissertation Nationwide Foundation [200756]
  3. Programs for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-08-0404]
  4. Yong Scientific and Technical Talents in Shanghai [09QA1406100]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laboratory experiments were conducted in a continuous plug-flow anaerobic/aerobic (A/O) process to kinetically investigate the long-term effect of the different carbon sources (i.e., acetate, acetate/propionate, propionate and glucose) on the competition between polyphosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs) and glycogen accumulating organisms (GAOs). It was found that propionate was more benefit than acetate for PAOs even in the A/O process, and PAOs enriched with acetate were readily able to metabolize propionate without the requirement of adaptation. Glucose gave GAOs metabolic advantage in the PAOs-GAOs competition, which thereby worsened the EBPR performance. Nevertheless, the EBPR capacity could recover by returning carbon to acetate, with the acclimation time of approximately 2-SRTs. This suggests that the varying of carbon can be an effective approach to provide PAOs a competitive advantage over GAOs. Additionally, MLVSS/MLSS could indicate the shift of the microorganism between GAOs and PAOs, but it was not as precise as the biomass-P content. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available