|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Microbial Denitrification of Groundwater using Microporous Membranes Andrew R. Reising, University of California, Davis Phillip R. McCleaf, University of California, Davis Bruce O. Mansell, University of California, Davis Asher Brenner, University of California, Davis Edward D. Schroeder, University of California, Davis UC Water Resources Center Technical Completion Report W-837
ABSTRACT: Microbial denitrification, a frequently used and relatively inexpensive method of removing nitrate
from wastewater, has been applied to the treatment of potable water supplies, on a limited scale,
using packed bed reactors. However, two significant drawbacks exist in transferring wastewater
denitrification technology to the treatment of domestic water supplies: (1) the water is intimately
mixed with microbial cultures and (2) organic compounds must be supplied as an energy source to
drive the denitrification reactions and residual organics can be a water quality problem. Process
configurations used experimentally have included both packed beds and fluidized beds.
Denitrifying microbial cultures have been supported on sand, ceramics, polymers, clay, alginate
gel, and agar gel. Work with conventional support materials (sand, ceramics, polymers, clay) has
been relatively straightforward in that the microbial cultures are grown on support surfaces and
water containing nitrate is passed through the fixed or expanded/fluidized bed. Carbon and energy
sources, nearly always organic compounds, are added to the water. Thus the problem outlined
above - introduction of bacteria and organics - is characteristic of systems used to date.
The current work utilizes microporous membranes to separate the water being treated from the
microorganisms carrying out the denitrification reactions. Nitrate passes through the 0.02 urn
membrane pores by molecular diffusion. Water does not move through the pores and therefore
contamination of the product water does not occur. Operation of microporous membrane systems
can incorporate a biofilm on the reaction side of the membrane or utilize a suspended growth
culture. Transport, and hence denitrification rates appear to be greater using suspended growth
systems. In addition, suspended growth systems will have advantages in terms of minimization of
biofouling of hollow fiber continuous flow units.
Measured nitrate diffusivities through the membrane pores was 3.5 x 10-6 cm2/s for biofilm
systems and 5.0x 10-6 cm2/s for suspended growth systems. Nitrate flux is dependent on the
concentration gradient. Potential fluxes for concentration differences of 20 mgIL are in the range
of 10 g/m2-day.
SUGGESTED CITATION:
| |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||