Subscriber access provided by University of Newcastle, Australia
Article
Evaluation of mechanistic models for nitrate removal in woodchip bioreactors Brian James Halaburka, Gregory H. LeFevre, and Richard G Luthy Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01025 • Publication Date (Web): 10 Apr 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 10, 2017
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 31
Environmental Science & Technology
1
Evaluation of mechanistic models for nitrate
2
removal in woodchip bioreactors
3
Brian J. Halaburka1,2, Gregory H. LeFevre1,3, Richard G. Luthy1,2,*
4
1. Re-inventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure (ReNUWIt), National Science
5
Foundation Engineering Research Center
6
2. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
7
94305-4020 USA
8
3. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa,
9
52242, USA
10
ABSTRACT
11
Woodchip bioreactors (WBRs) are increasingly being applied to remove nitrate from runoff. In
12
this study, replicate columns with aged woodchips were subjected to a range of measured flow
13
rates and influent nitrate concentrations with an artificial stormwater matrix. Dissolved oxygen
14
(DO), nitrate, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) were measured along the length of the
15
columns. A multi-species reactive transport model with Michaelis-Menten kinetics was
16
developed to explain the concentration profiles of DO, nitrate, and DOC. Four additional models
17
were developed based on simplifying assumptions, and all five models were tested for their
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
1
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 2 of 31
18
ability to predict nitrate concentrations in the experimental columns. Global sensitivity analysis
19
and constrained optimization determined the set of parameters that minimized the root-mean-
20
squared error (RMSE) between the model and the experimental data. A k-fold validation test
21
revealed no statistical difference in RMSE for predicting nitrate concentrations between a zero-
22
order model and the other multi-species reactive transport models tested. Additionally, the multi-
23
species reactive transport models demonstrated no significant differences in predicting DO and
24
DOC concentrations. These results suggest that denitrification in an aged woodchip bioreactor at
25
constant temperature can effectively be modeled using zero-order kinetics when nitrate
26
concentrations >2 mg-N L-1. A multi-species model may be used if predicting DOC or DO
27
concentrations is desired.
28
INTRODUCTION
29
The National Academy of Engineering has identified managing the nitrogen cycle as one of the
30
14 Great Challenges for Engineering in the 21st Century,1 and woodchip bioreactors (WBRs)
31
have emerged as a promising approach to reduce nitrate exports in agricultural runoff and urban
32
stormwater.2-4 Woodchips are inexpensive and renewable, and current forest management
33
practices generate a substantial volume of low quality/low value wood.5 Additionally, woodchips
34
support high permeability, have a high C:N ratio (ranging from 30:1 to 3000:1), and robust
35
durability.6,7 Long-term field experiments indicate wood-particle media can provide consistent
36
nitrate removal for up to 15 years.8-10
37
Despite the increasing application and perceived advantages, the mechanisms governing nitrate
38
removal rates in WBRs are still poorly understood. The literature reports a wide range of
39
denitrification rates,6,11,12 ranging from 0.7-22.0 g-N m-3 media d-1. Numerous factors are
40
suggested for the large range of denitrification rates measured in the field, such as woodchip
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
2
Page 3 of 31
Environmental Science & Technology
41
age,7,11 temperature,13,14 and carbon substrate.15 Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on the
42
appropriate model to explain woodchip-based denitrification. The most popular model to predict
43
reactor performance is a simple zero-order model, where the denitrification rate is constant and
44
nitrate removal is linearly related to hydraulic residence time (HRT).6,13,16 However, other
45
models have been proposed. Leverenz et al.17 suggested that a first-order model provides a better
46
fit for reactors operating at low nitrate concentrations and reduced temperatures. Hoover et al.18
47
reported influent nitrate concentration influences nitrate reduction rates up to 30-50 mg-N L-1,
48
suggesting first-order or Michaelis-Menten reaction kinetics.
49
In addition to simple zero- or first-order reaction kinetic models, several one-dimensional
50
transport models have been proposed. Jaynes et al.19 proposed a dual porosity model that
51
specifies a mobile and immobile fraction of water within the woodchip reactor based on the
52
assumption that denitrification occurs primarily inside the woodchips. Results were inconclusive
53
whether zero- or first-order reaction kinetics best described the data, and the fitted parameters for
54
the mobile and immobile fraction were significantly different from experimentally measured
55
values.19 Ghane et al.20 proposed a non-Darcy transport model with Michaelis-Menten kinetics to
56
describe denitrification rates. The Forcheimer hydraulic model closely matched the tracer test
57
data for horizontal flow in woodchip reactor beds,21 but the Michaelis-Menten reaction kinetic
58
parameters were estimated without replicate measurements and thus should not be deemed fully
59
robust. In addition, the denitrification rates in the reactor were abnormally high with a maximum
60
nitrate removal rate of 7.1 mg-N L-1 hr-1 at 23.5 °C, or 144.8 g-N m-3 media d-1, indicating the
61
woodchips were not fully aged.
62
A number of factors may explain the wide range of denitrification rates and models reported in
63
the literature. New woodchips have higher denitrification rates within the first year of operation
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 4 of 31
64
due to the leaching of excess organic material, and after approximately one year of operation the
65
rate stabilizes.22-24 Many studies use insufficiently aged woodchips, and as a result the reported
66
rates do not reflect long-term performance. In addition, many studies have poor spatial resolution
67
along the length of the reactor or do not take replicate measurements, making the assertion of
68
trends tenuous. Temperature variation and packing density of carbon source also can
69
substantially alter denitrification rates,14,23 but wood type and grain size do not.12,15
70
The critical parameters needed to model nitrate removal in woodchip reactors are still poorly
71
understood.2 Under conditions where heterotrophic denitrification is controlled by dissolved
72
oxygen (DO), nitrate, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations,25 a complete
73
mechanistic model of denitrification in woodchip reactors would include all three of these
74
parameters. Although a complete mechanistic model may improve understanding of the
75
processes involved in denitrification in woodchip bioreactors (WBRs), the optimal model to use
76
in practice is the most parsimonious and several simplifying assumptions may be made.
77
The objective of this work was to quantitatively evaluate mechanistic reactive transport models
78
describing denitrification in laboratory WBR columns using aged woodchips. Five models were
79
evaluated in this study. The models were calibrated using experimental data collected from
80
laboratory woodchip columns that were aged for over a year, then evaluated using sensitivity
81
analysis and a k-fold validation test. The results of this study will increase understanding of the
82
underlying mechanisms of denitrification in WBRs, while providing justification for the use of
83
the simplest model to describe WBR performance.
84
METHODS
85
Column Design
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
4
Page 5 of 31
Environmental Science & Technology
86
Woodchips were obtained from an arborist woodchip waste pile in Portola Valley, CA. The
87
woodchips were composed of a mix of species, including California redwood (Sequoia
88
sempervirens), oak (Quercus sp.), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The woodchips were
89
dried at 50 °C for 48 hours in a drying oven then sieved to a diameter between 2-10 mm.
90
Woodchip type and particle size have been reported to have no significant effect on nitrate
91
removal rates,12,15 thus additional woodchip composition analysis was not performed.
92
Three PCV column reactor columns (10 cm ID x 50 cm) were constructed with sample ports
93
installed every 5 cm (Figure S1). For sample ports, 3.81 cm long luer-lock needles (gauge #16)
94
with ball valves were wrapped with PTFE tape and press-fit into holes drilled in the side of the
95
columns (Figure S2), allowing sampling from the center of the column. A total of 11 sample
96
ports were installed on each column. A stainless steel screen (mesh #10) was placed at the
97
bottom of each column to support the woodchips. 700 g of the dried and sieved woodchips were
98
added to each column and lightly compacted every 5 cm such that woodchips filled the column
99
to the top, corresponding to a packing density of 0.18 g cm-3. Upon completion of the
100
experiments, drainable porosity (specific yield) of the columns was determined by draining the
101
columns from the bottom over a 1-hour period, measuring the weight of the drained water, and
102
subtracting the volume of the bottom cap from the total volume drained. The woodchips were
103
then removed from the column and specific retention was determined by measuring the
104
difference between the wet and dry media after 48 hours in a drying oven at 50 °C. Total
105
porosity was determined by summing drainable porosity and specific retention.
106
Tracer Tests
107
Prior to running the experiments, linear pore-water velocity and dispersion coefficients were
108
estimated for each column with an interval-pulse bromide tracer test at a flow rate of 26 mL min-
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
5
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 6 of 31
(described in the SI). Theoretical HRT (τ) was calculated as = V n ⁄60Q where Vr is volume
109
1
110
of the reactor (mL), ne is effective porosity (-), and Q is flow rate (mL min-1). Effective porosity
111
is the fraction of the total volume that contributes to fluid flow, and drainable porosity was used
112
as an estimate of effective porosity for the calculation of τ. Actual mean HRT (̅) was calculated
113
as ̅ = / where L is reactor length (cm) and ν is porewater velocity (cm h-1). Hydraulic
114
̅ . The ideal reactor would have an eV efficiency, eV, of the reactor was calculated26 as = ⁄
115
value of 1, indicating plug flow conditions. An eV value of less than 1 indicates short-circuiting,
116
while an eV value greater than 1 may indicate drainable porosity is less than effective porosity or
117
that physical retardation is occurring such as fluid entering micropores (specific retention) within
118
the woodchips.27
119
Column Experiments
120
The columns were operated at room temperature (21 °C) in up-flow mode using variable speed
121
digital peristaltic pumps (Masterflex) to maintain saturated hydraulic conditions. Each column
122
was fed artificial stormwater at a different measured flow rate (1.5 mL min-1, 3.8 mL min-1, and
123
8.4 mL min-1). The artificial stormwater matrix was composed of 0.75 mM CaCl2, 0.075 mM
124
MgCl2, 0.33 mM Na2SO4, 1 mM NaHCO3, 0.0715 mM NH4Cl, and 0.016 mM Na2HPO4,
125
representing the average concentration of major ions in urban stormwater.28 NaNO3 was added to
126
the stormwater matrix to achieve an initial nitrate concentration of 10 mg-N L-1. Columns were
127
aged for 13 months with the flowing stormwater matrix prior to conducting tracer tests and
128
column experiments. For the column experiments, all columns were exposed to three influent
129
nitrate concentrations of 11 mg-N L-1, 5 mg-N L-1, and 2 mg-N L-1. Preliminary measurements
130
showed that concentration profiles of all the columns reached steady-steady within 2-3 days
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
6
Page 7 of 31
Environmental Science & Technology
131
following a change of influent nitrate concentration. For each concentration, the columns were
132
allowed to run for one week at the new nitrate concentration before sampling began.
133 134
Sampling and Analysis
135
The columns were sampled along the entire length for DO, nitrate, and DOC. Sampling was
136
repeated four times during a period of one week to obtain replicate measurements. Thus four
137
replicates were collected from the reactors at three different flow rates and three different
138
influent nitrate concentrations for a total of nine different conditions tested. For each sampling
139
event, samples were collected from all sample ports as well as the artificial stormwater matrix
140
tank to verify the stability of the solution. DOC and nitrate samples were collected starting at the
141
top-most sample port (at outlet) and moving downward (toward inlet) such that each sample was
142
representative of the porewater at or just above the sample port. Fifteen milliliters of sample was
143
collected in a 25 mL plastic syringe and filtered using a sterile 0.45 μm PVDF filter into a 24 mL
144
glass vial baked at 450 °C for four hours in a muffle furnace. All samples were analyzed within
145
four hours of sample collection and in random order using a random number generator. Nitrate
146
was measured using a WestCo SmartChem 200 Discrete Analyzer (detection limit: 0.05 mg-N L-
147
1
148
a Unisense dissolved oxygen needle probe (model DO-NP) and the Unisense SensorTrace
149
Software.
). DOC was measured using a Shimadzu TOC-L Autoanalyzer. DO was measured in situ using
150
Model Development
151
Five models were quantitatively evaluated to describe denitrification in the experimental
152
woodchip columns. The first model evaluated was a system of one-dimensional advection
153
dispersion equations with coupled Michaelis-Menten reaction kinetics to describe the transport
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
7
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 8 of 31
154
of DO, nitrate, and DOC (Model 1). This system of 1-D advection-dispersion equations was
155
chosen because similar reactive transport models have been used with success to describe
156
microbial substrate, oxygen, and nitrate uptake in porous media,29,30 contaminant degradation in
157
porous media,31,32 and denitrification in hyporheic zone sediments.33,34 The generalized model
158
for each constituent takes the form = − − (1)
159
where Ci is the concentration of the ith species (mg L-1), t is time (h), D is the dispersion
160
coefficient (cm2 h-1), ν is the effective porewater velocity (cm h-1), x is distance along the column
161
(cm), and Ri is the biological reaction rate term for the ith species (mg L-1 h-1). The biological
162
reactions modeled in the woodchip columns are aerobic respiration, denitrification, and cellulose
163
hydrolysis. For aerobic respiration of DOC, both the availability of DO and DOC can limit the
164
overall reaction rate. Without knowing the limiting substrate a priori, coupled Michaelis-Menten
165
kinetics is an effective method to model the overall microbial kinetics.35 The aerobic reaction
166
rate can be expressed in the form =
! "
' &" & (2) #$ + #( + '
167
where RO is the rate of oxygen uptake (mg-O2 L-1 h-1), XO is the concentration of aerobic
168
heterotrophs (mg-biomass L-1), VO is the maximum uptake rate of DO (mg-O2 mg-biomass-1 h-1),
169
C is the concentration of DOC (mg-C L-1), Kc is the half-saturation constant for DOC (mg-C L-
170
1
171
O2 L-1).
), O is the concentration of DO (mg-O2 L-1), and Ko is the half-saturation constant for DO (mg-
172
Denitrification can similarly be expressed as a coupled Michaelis-Menten reaction, with the
173
addition of a non-competitive inhibition term representing the inhibiting effect of DO on
174
denitrification. This reaction rate takes the form
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
8
Page 9 of 31
Environmental Science & Technology
* =
+ #, &" &" & (3) #$ + #* + + #, + '
* !* "
175
where RN is the rate of denitrification (mg-N L-1 h-1), XN is the concentration of heterotrophic
176
denitrifiers (mg-biomass L-1), VN is the maximum rate of denitrification (mg-N mg-biomass-1 h-
177
1
178
N L-1), and KI is the inhibition constant of DO (mg-O2 L-1).
), N is the concentration of nitrate (mg-N L-1), KN is the half-saturation constant for nitrate (mg-
179
DOC is consumed through both aerobic respiration and denitrification, and the DOC reaction
180
rate is modeled as a combination of the Michealis-Menten reaction equations for the two
181
processes. The DOC reaction term takes the form . = /
' &" & + /* #$ + #( + '
! "
* !* "
+ #, &" &" & (4) #$ + #* + + #, + '
182
where RC is the rate of DOC uptake (mg-C L-1 h-1), βO is the uptake coefficient for DO (mg-C
183
mg-O2-1), βN is the uptake coefficient for nitrate (mg-C mg-N-1). The uptake coefficients for DO
184
and nitrate are the ratios of the mass of DOC consumed per mass of DO or nitrate consumed,
185
respectively.
186
In addition to the degradation term, the DOC transport equation includes a DOC production
187
term for cellulose hydrolysis. Cellulose hydrolysis is the enzymatic process by which microbes
188
cleave crystalline cellulose into smaller soluble oligosaccharides.36 Cellulose in woody material
189
is obstructed by lignin such that only certain surface binding sites are available for cellulase
190
adsorption. As more cellulose is hydrolyzed, fewer binding sites are available so the DOC
191
hydrolysis rate decreases over time following a power-law function.22,37 After an initial sharp
192
decrease in DOC release, the power law function reaches a quasi-steady state wherein the DOC
193
release rate remains relatively constant. This behavior is observed in field-scale woodchip
194
reactors where reaction rates drop rapidly within the first year of operation but then stay
195
relatively constant.6,11,24 The presence of fungi in oxic zones may increase the rate of DOC
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
9
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 10 of 31
196
release due to their ability to break down lignin, making available more cellulose to be
197
hydrolyzed.36 To account for different DOC release rates in oxic and anoxic zones, DOC release
198
kinetics are modeled using the equation #1 = !12 "
' #, & + !1 " & (5) # + ' #, + '
199
where Kh is the DOC production rate (mg-C L-1 h-1), Vh1 is the aerobic maximum DOC
200
production rate (mg-C L-1 h-1), and Vh2 is the anaerobic maximum DOC production rate (mg-C L-
201
1
202
for DO uptake and denitrification, respectively.
h-1). The values for KO and KI are assumed to be the same as those in the reaction rate equations
203
Three coupled equations (DO, nitrate, and DOC) comprise the model. The model assumes that
204
(1) the system is in steady-state and the transient term is zero, (2) the microbial biomass is
205
constant within each region and fixed to surfaces so that the microbial biomass terms XO and XN
206
can be combined with VO and VN, (3) substrate and electron acceptors (O2 and NO3-) are the only
207
limitations to sustaining growth, (4) all DOC is labile and bioavailable, and only dissolved
208
substrate is taken up by bacteria, (5) insoluble substrate mass remains relatively constant due to
209
the longevity of woodchips,16 and (6) sorption and intra-particle diffusion of DOC through
210
woodchips is not important because the equations are solved at steady-state. Thus the three
211
partial differential equations to model DO, nitrate, and DOC mass transport are
212
213
Dissolved Oxygen:
Nitrate:
(Model 1) ' ' ' − ! " &" & 0 = − #$ + #( + '
0= 214
+ + + #, − − ! " & " & " & * #$ + #* + + #, + '
Dissolved Organic Carbon:
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
10
Page 11 of 31
Environmental Science & Technology
' + #, 0 = − − / ! " &" & − /* !* " &" &" & #$ + #( + ' #$ + #* + + #, + ' ' #, + !12 " & + !1 " & # + ' #, + '
215
The second model (Model 2) simplifies Model 1 by assuming DO does not significantly
216
impact the overall denitrification rate. It is well established that DO inhibits denitrification;35
217
however, denitrification has been observed in WBRs13,38 with DO concentrations between 0.5-
218
4.5 mg L-1. One explanation is that micropores within the woodchips create anaerobic
219
environments where denitrification can occur,25 suggesting that bulk solution DO concentrations
220
have little effect on the overall denitrification rate of WBRs. Alternatively, aerobic respiration
221
and denitrification may occur in the bulk solution, but aerobic respiration occurs at a much faster
222
rate and DO inhibition has a relatively minor effect on the over nitrate removal rate. The DO
223
terms are removed from the system of equations, and the model takes the form
224
Nitrate:
(Model 2) 0=
225
Dissolved Organic Carbon: 0=
+ + + − − !* " &" & #$ + #* + +
+ − − / ! " & " & + !1 * * #$ + #* + +
226
The third model (Model 3) is an alternate simplification of Model 1 by assuming
227
denitrification is not dependent on DOC concentrations. DOC has been identified as the limiting
228
reactant in WBR denitrification.13,39 Nevertheless, a number of published denitrification models
229
ignore DOC concentrations, yet adequately fit experimental nitrate data.20,40 If denitrification in
230
WBRs is carbon limited, then C