Browse > Article

Electron Donor Determination and Comparisons of Reaction Rates for Bioremediation of Nitrate Contaminated Groundwater  

Oa, Seongwook (Department of Railroad, Civil and Env. Engineering, Woosong University)
Lee, Yoonhee (Department of Railroad, Civil and Env. Engineering, Woosong University)
Kim, Geonha (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hannam University)
Kim, Young (Department of Environmental System Engineering, Korea University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment / v.21, no.6, 2005 , pp. 630-636 More about this Journal
Abstract
Groundwater contamination by nitrate exceeding water quality criteria (10 mg $NO_3{^-}-N/L$) occurs frequently. Fumarate, acetate, formate, lactate, propionate, ethanol, methane and hydrogen gas were evaluated for their nitrate removal efficiencies and removal rates for in situ bioremediation of nitrate contaminated groundwater. Denitrification rate for each substrate was in the order of: fumarate > hydrogen > formate/lactate > ethanol > propionate > methanol > acetate. Microcosm studies were performed with fumarate and acetate. When fumarate was used as a substrate, nitrate was removed 100 percent with rate of 0.66 mmol/day while conversion rate from nitrate to nitrogen gas or another by-product was 87 percent. 42 mg of fumarate was needed to remove 30 mg $NO_3{^-}-N/L$. When using acetate as carbon source, 31 percent of nitrate was removed during initial adjustment period. Among removed fraction, however, 83 percent of nitrate removed by cell growth. Overall nitrate removal rate was 0.37 mmol/day. Acetate showed longer lag time in consumption compared to that of nitrate, which implying that acetate would be better carbon source compared to fumarate as more amount was utilized for nitrate removal than cell growth.
Keywords
Groundwater; Nitrate; Bioremediation; Microcosm test; Fumarate; Acetate;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Barak, Y., Tal, Y. and van Rijn, J., Light-Mediated Nitrite Accumulation during Denitrification by Pseudomonas sp. Strain JR12., Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64, pp. 813-817 (1998)
2 Haugen, K. S., Semmens, M. J. and Novak, P. J., A Novel in Situ Technology for the Treatment of Nitrate Contaminated Groundwater, Water Research, 36(14), pp. 3497-3506 (2002)   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Magnusson, G., Edin, H. and Dalhammar, Characterization of Deficient Denitrirying Bacteria Strains Isolated from Activated Sludge by 16S-rRNA Analysis, Wat. Sci. & Tech., 38(8-9), pp. 63-68 (1998)
4 Dermont C. B., Mary K. W. and Rao Y. S., Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater: Sources and Potential Health Effects, J. AWWA, September of 1992, pp. 85-90 (1992)
5 Kim, Y. and Semprini, L., Aerobic Cometabolism of Chloroform and 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane by Butane-Grown Microorganisms, Bioremediation Journal, 2, pp. 135-148 (1997)
6 Rittmann, B. E. and McCarty, P. L., Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications, McGraw-Hill, p. 768 (2000)
7 US EPA, National Primary Drinking Water Standards, EPA 816-F-03-016, www.epa.gov/safewater (2003)
8 환경부, 2002년도 지하수 수질측정망 운영결과, www.me.go.kr. (2003)
9 Philip, B. B., Hanadi, S. R. and Charles, J. N., Ground Water Contamination - Transport and Remediation, 2nd Ed., pp. 75-83 (1999)
10 Madigan, M. T., Martinko, J. and Parker, J., Brock Biology of Microorganisms 10th ed, Prentice Hall, p. 1104 (2002)