Ex situ treatment of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in groundwater using a fluidized bed reactor

Webster, Todd S.; Condee, Charles W.; Hatzinger, Paul B.

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.011

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, most of the bacterial strains currently known to degrade 1,4‐dioxane are actinomycetes, and these organisms are known to form filaments or mycelia, and when grown with agitation, they can form dense or loose pellets, pellicles, or other aggregates (Lawton et al ). Strain CB1190, for example, is reported to form branching aerial and vegetative mycelium (Mahendra and Alvarez‐Cohen ), and strain ENV425 forms cell clumps and attaches rapidly to surfaces (Hatzinger et al ; Webster et al ). It is possible that such cell morphologies and growth characteristics could impede transport of 1,4‐dioxane‐degrading cultures in situ.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the day 63 of propane distribution test, dissolved propane concentrations in groundwater at well 24-SW-2B demonstrated its tendency to attach to surfaces (Hatzinger et al 2011;Webster et al 2013), propane monooxygenase gene numbers did not increase measurably in groundwater despite the high levels of propane consumption measured during the demonstration. We have observed similar low propane monooxygenase gene copies in groundwater at another demonstration site where high rates of propane consumption were observed during propane biosparging (manuscript in preparation).…”

Section: Field-scale Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Given the ability of several bacteria to degrade 1,4-dioxane either metabolically or cometabolically, bioremediation of 1,4-dioxane-contaminated sites should be possible. Cometabolic treatment has been demonstrated for a variety of pollutants (Wilson and Wilson 1985;Semprini and McCarty 1991;Semprini 1997;Steffan et al 1999;Fournier et al 2009), and some studies demonstrate that very low contaminant levels can be achieved because the organisms can generate sufficient metabolic energy from the primary substrate (Fournier et al 2009;Webster et al 2013). Cometabolic treatment of 1,4-dioxane in situ, however, also has some potential challenges.…”

Section: Analyticalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bioaugmentation and Propane Biosparging for In Situ Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane

Lippincott¹,

Streger²,

Schaefer³

et al. 2015

Groundwater Monit R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Propane biosparging and bioaugmentation were applied to promote in situ biodegradation of 1,4‐dioxane at Site 24, Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), CA. Laboratory microcosm and enrichment culture testing demonstrated that although native propanotrophs appeared abundant in the shallow water‐bearing unit of the aquifer (8 to 23 ft below ground surface [bgs]), they were difficult to be enriched from a deeper water‐bearing unit (82 to 90 feet bgs). Bioaugmentation with the propanotroph Rhodococcus ruber ENV425, however, supported 1,4‐dioxane biodegradation in microcosms constructed with samples from the deep aquifer. For field testing, a propane‐biosparging system consisting of a single sparging well and four performance monitoring wells was constructed in the deep aquifer. 1,4‐dioxane biodegradation began immediately after bioaugmentation with R. ruber ENV425 (36 L; 4 × 109 cells/mL), and apparent first‐order decay rates for 1,4‐dioxane ranged from 0.021 day−1 to 0.036 day−1. First‐order propane consumption rates increased from 0.01 to 0.05 min−1 during treatment. 1,4‐dioxane concentrations in the sparging well and two of the performance monitoring wells were reduced from as high as 1090 µg/L to <2 µg/L, while 1,4‐dioxane concentration was reduced from 135 µg/L to 7.3 µg/L in a more distal third monitoring well. No 1,4‐dioxane degradation was observed in the intermediate aquifer control well even though propane and oxygen were present. The demonstration showed that propane biosparging and bioaugmentation can be used for in situ treatment of 1,4‐dioxane to regulatory levels.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Field-scale Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Analyticalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bioaugmentation and Propane Biosparging for In Situ Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane

Lippincott¹,

Streger²,

Schaefer³

et al. 2015

Groundwater Monit R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies have demonstrated that aerobic cometabolic biodegradation (ACB) can treat target contaminants to very low levels because the active microorganisms obtain carbon and energy for growth and sustained activity from primary substrate metabolism (Semprini ; Hazen ; Webster et al ). In contrast, co‐substrate oxidation is fortuitous and is not thought to contribute significant carbon or energy to active cells.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Treatment of 1,4‐Dioxane and Chlorinated Aliphatics in a Groundwater Recirculation System Via Aerobic Cometabolism

Chu¹,

Bennett²,

Dolan³

et al. 2018

Groundwater Monitoring Rem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research demonstrates that groundwater contaminated by a relatively dilute but persistent concentration of 1,4‐dioxane (1,4‐D), approximately 60 μg/L, and chlorinated aliphatic co‐contaminants (1.4 to 10 μg/L) can be efficiently and reliably treated by in situ aerobic cometabolic biodegradation (ACB). A field trial lasting 265 days was conducted at Operable Unit D at the former McClellan Air Force Base and involved establishing an in situ ACB reactor through amending recirculated groundwater with propane and oxygen. The stimulated indigenous microbial population was able to consistently degrade 1,4‐D to below 3 μg/L while the co‐contaminants trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,2‐dichloroethane (1,2‐DCA) were decreased to below 1 μg/L and 0.18 μg/L, respectively. A stable treatment efficiency of more than 95% removal for 1,4‐D and 1,2‐DCA and of more than 90% removal for TCE was achieved. High treatment efficiencies for 1,4‐D and all co‐contaminants were sustained even without propane and oxygen addition for a 2‐week period.

show abstract

“…Results from batch experiments and a laboratory bioreactor study with the propanotroph R. ruber ENV425 revealed that NDMA treatment to levels of < 10 ng/L were achievable through biodegradation (Hatzinger et al, 2011;Fournier et al, 2009). In the first phase of this ESTCP demonstration, a treatability study was conducted in which a bench-scale FBR was tested for NDMA removal from water (Webster et al, 2009;Webster et al, 2013). The FBR is an efficient fixed-film bioreactor in which a high concentration of biomass is attached onto fluidized medium and has been widely used for the treatment of groundwater contaminated with a variety of compounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in Groundwater Using a Fluidized Bed Bioreactor

Hatzinger¹,

Webster²

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ex situ treatment of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in groundwater using a fluidized bed reactor

Cited by 21 publications

References 28 publications

Bioaugmentation and Propane Biosparging for In Situ Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane

Bioaugmentation and Propane Biosparging for In Situ Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane

Concurrent Treatment of 1,4‐Dioxane and Chlorinated Aliphatics in a Groundwater Recirculation System Via Aerobic Cometabolism

Treatment of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in Groundwater Using a Fluidized Bed Bioreactor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About