Polysaccharide-hydrolysing enzymes enhance the <em>in vitro</em> cleaning efficiency of Nanofiltration membranes

Ahmed Houari; Patrick Di Martino; Ahmed Houari; Patrick Di Martino

doi:10.3934/microbiol.2019.4.368

AIMS Microbiology

2019, Volume 5, Issue 4: 368-378. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.4.368

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Polysaccharide-hydrolysing enzymes enhance the in vitro cleaning efficiency of Nanofiltration membranes

Ahmed Houari ,
Patrick Di Martino ^,

Laboratoire ERRMECe-EA1391, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, rue Descartes site de Neuville-sur-Oise 95031 Cergy-Pontoise, cedex France

Received: 18 October 2019 Accepted: 13 December 2019 Published: 17 December 2019

The development of biofilm on the surface of filtration membranes is the main fouling component of water filtration systems. Chemical cleaning is only partially effective in removing biofilm components from the membrane surface. In order to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of commercial cleaning solutions used in nanofiltration, we compared the in vitro efficacy of different commercial treatments, with or without the addition of polysaccharidases, to clean fouled membrane samples. The treatments were tested at two stages of biofilm development corresponding to 80 (D80) and 475 (D475) days of filtration in an industrial plant. The cleaning efficiency was evaluated by comparing the ATR-FTIR spectra before and after cleaning. At D80 and D475, all cleaning solutions led to a reduction of infrared signals from the biofilm. At D80, enzymatic alkaline detergent (AEDT) treatment was significantly more effective than alkaline detergent (ADT) treatment in removing proteins, but no significant difference in efficacy between the two treatments was observed for polysaccharides. The addition of polysaccharidases to AEDT did not bring any significant efficiency gain. At D475, ADT and AEDT treatments had the same efficacy, but the addition of polysaccharidases to the AEDT treatment significantly increased the removal of polysaccharides and proteins from the membrane surface. In conclusion, polysaccharidases can increase the in vitro efficacy of a commercially available alkaline enzymatic detergent cleaning solution against sufficiently developed biofilms. These results pave the way for the development of new cleaning solutions containing polysaccharide degrading enzymes for the cleaning of membranes used in the production of drinking water. Further experiments are needed to characterize the mechanism of this polysaccharidase effect and to confirm this increase in cleaning efficiency in an industrial context.
- nanofiltration,
- biofouling,
- biofilm,
- cleaning,
- enzyme,
- polysaccharidase
Citation: Ahmed Houari, Patrick Di Martino. Polysaccharide-hydrolysing enzymes enhance the in vitro cleaning efficiency of Nanofiltration membranes[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(4): 368-378. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.4.368

Related Papers:

Abstract

The development of biofilm on the surface of filtration membranes is the main fouling component of water filtration systems. Chemical cleaning is only partially effective in removing biofilm components from the membrane surface. In order to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of commercial cleaning solutions used in nanofiltration, we compared the in vitro efficacy of different commercial treatments, with or without the addition of polysaccharidases, to clean fouled membrane samples. The treatments were tested at two stages of biofilm development corresponding to 80 (D80) and 475 (D475) days of filtration in an industrial plant. The cleaning efficiency was evaluated by comparing the ATR-FTIR spectra before and after cleaning. At D80 and D475, all cleaning solutions led to a reduction of infrared signals from the biofilm. At D80, enzymatic alkaline detergent (AEDT) treatment was significantly more effective than alkaline detergent (ADT) treatment in removing proteins, but no significant difference in efficacy between the two treatments was observed for polysaccharides. The addition of polysaccharidases to AEDT did not bring any significant efficiency gain. At D475, ADT and AEDT treatments had the same efficacy, but the addition of polysaccharidases to the AEDT treatment significantly increased the removal of polysaccharides and proteins from the membrane surface. In conclusion, polysaccharidases can increase the in vitro efficacy of a commercially available alkaline enzymatic detergent cleaning solution against sufficiently developed biofilms. These results pave the way for the development of new cleaning solutions containing polysaccharide degrading enzymes for the cleaning of membranes used in the production of drinking water. Further experiments are needed to characterize the mechanism of this polysaccharidase effect and to confirm this increase in cleaning efficiency in an industrial context.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported, in part, by a grant from the Syndicat des Eaux d'Ile de France (SEDIF), Paris, France.

Conflict of interest

The author confirms that this article content has no conflicts of interest

References

[1]	Flemming HC, Schaule G, Griebe T, et al. (1997) Biofouling–the achilles heel of membrane processes. Desalination 113: 215–225. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(97)00132-X
[2]	Zhang W, Jiang F (2019) Membrane fouling in aerobic granular sludge (AGS)-membrane bioreactor (MBR): Effect of AGS size. Water Res 157: 445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.07.069
[3]	Speth TF, Gusses AM, Summers RS (2000) Evaluation of nanofiltration pretreatments for flux loss control. Desalination 130: 31–44. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00072-2
[4]	Liikanen R, Yli-Kuivila J, Laukkanen R (2002) Efficiency of various chemical cleanings for nanofiltration membrane fouled by conventionally-treated surface water. J Memb Sci 195: 265–276. doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00569-5
[5]	Chen W, Mo J, Du X, et al. (2019) Biomimetic dynamic membrane for aquatic dye removal. Water Res 151: 243–251. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.11.078
[6]	Flemming HC (2002) Biofouling in water systems-cases, causes, and countermeasures. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56: 629–640.
[7]	Doumèche B, Galas L, Vaudry H, et al. (2007) Membrane foulants characterisation in a drinking water production unit. Food Bioprod Process 85: 42–48. doi: 10.1205/fbp06020
[8]	Allison DG (2003) The biofilm matrix. Biofouling 19: 139–150.
[9]	Houari A, Seyer D, Kecili K, et al. (2013) Kinetic development of biofilm on NF membranes at the Méry-sur-Oise plant, France. Biofouling 29: 109–118. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2012.752464
[10]	Derlon N, Masse A, Escudie R, et al. (2008) Stratification in the cohesion of biofilms grown under various environmental conditions. Water Res 42: 2102–2110. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.11.016
[11]	O'Toole GA, Kaplan HB, Kolter R (2000) Biofilm formation as microbial development. Ann Rev Microbiol 54: 49–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.49
[12]	Sauer K, Cullen MC, Rickard AH, et al. (2004) Characterization of nutrient-induced dispersion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 biofilm. J Bacteriol 186: 7312–7326. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.21.7312-7326.2004
[13]	Vats N, Lee SF (2000) Active detachment of Streptococcus mutans cells adhered to epon-hydroxylapatite surfaces coated with salivary proteins in vitro. Arch oral boil 45: 305–314. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9969(99)00139-9
[14]	Sutherland IW (2001) The biofilm matrix–an immobilized but dynamic microbial environment. Trends Microbiol 9: 222–227. doi: 10.1016/S0966-842X(01)02012-1
[15]	Houari A, Picard J, Habarou H, et al. (2008) Rheology of biofilms formed at the surface of NF membranes in a drinking water production unit. Biofouling 24: 235–240. doi: 10.1080/08927010802023764
[16]	Di Martino P (2018) Extracellular polymeric substances, a key element in understanding the Biofilm phenotype. AIMS Microbiol 4: 274–288. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.274
[17]	Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 623–633. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2415
[18]	Meyer B (2003) Approaches to prevention, removal and killing of biofilms. Int Biodeter Biodegr 51: 249–253. doi: 10.1016/S0964-8305(03)00047-7
[19]	Gwon EM, Yu MJ, Oh HK, et al. (2003) Fouling characteristics of NF and RO operated for removal of dissolved matter from groundwater. Water Res 37: 2989–2997. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00563-8
[20]	Li Q, Elimelech M (2004) Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes: Measurements and mechanisms. Environ sci technol 38: 4683–4693. doi: 10.1021/es0354162
[21]	Paugam L, Rabiller-Baudry M, Delaunay D, et al. (2006) Physico-chemical effect of simple alkaline and acid solutions in cleaning sequences of spiral ultrafiltration membranes fouled by skim milk. Desalination 200: 277–284. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2006.03.339
[22]	Madaeni SS, Mohamamdi T, Moghadam MK (2001) Chemical cleaning of reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 134: 77–82. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00117-5
[23]	Mohammadi T, Madaeni SS, Moghadam MK (2002) Investigation of membrane fouling. Desalination 153: 155–160.
[24]	Lee H, Amy G, Cho J, et al. (2001) Cleaning strategies for flux recovery of an ultrafiltration membrane fouled by natural organic matter. Water Res 35: 3301–3308. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00063-X
[25]	Cui L, Chen P, Zhang B, et al. (2015) Interrogating chemical variation via layer-by-layer SERS during biofouling and cleaning of nanofiltration membranes with further investigations into cleaning efficiency. Water Res 87: 282–291. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.037
[26]	Chen X, Stewart PS (2000) Biofilm removal caused by chemical treatments, Pergamon. Water Res 34: 4229–4233. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00187-1
[27]	Bohner HF, Bradley RL (1992) Effective cleaning and sanitizing of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane systems. J Dairy Sci 75: 718–724. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)77808-4
[28]	AL-Amoudi A (2013) Effect of chemical cleaning agents on virgin nanofiltration membrane as characterized by positron annihilation spectroscopy. Sep Purif Technol 110: 51–56. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2013.02.005
[29]	Whittaker C, Ridgway H, Olson BH (1984) Evaluation of cleaning strategies for removal of biofilms from Reverse-Osmosis Membranes. Appl Environ Microbiol 48: 395–403.
[30]	Oulahal-Lagsir N, Martial-Gros A, Bonneau M, et al. (2003) "Escherichia coli-milk" biofilm removal from stainless steel surfaces: synergism between ultrasonic waves and enzymes. Biofouling 19: 159–168.
[31]	Lequette Y, Boels G, Clarisse M, et al. (2010). Using enzymes to remove biofilms of bacterial isolates sampled in the food-industry. Biofouling 26: 421–431. doi: 10.1080/08927011003699535
[32]	Liu X, Tang B, Gu Q, et al. (2014) Elimination of the formation of biofilm in industrial pipes using enzyme cleaning technique. MethodsX 1: 130–136. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2014.08.008
[33]	Argüello MA, Alvarez S, Riera FA, et al. (2003) Enzymatic cleaning of inorganic membranes used for whey protein fractionation. J Membrane Sci 216: 121–123. doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(03)00064-4
[34]	Johansen C, Falholt P, Gram L (1997) Enzymatic removal and disinfection of bacterial biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 63: 3724–3728.
[35]	Di Martino P, Doumèche B, Galas L, et al. (2007) Assessing chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes in a drinking water production plant: A combination of chemical composition analysis and fluorescence microscopy. Water Sci Technol 55: 219–225.
[36]	Cyna B, Chagneau G, Bablon G, et al. (2002) Two years of nanofiltration at the Méry-sur-Oise plant, France. Desalination 147: 69–75. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00578-7
[37]	Hijnen WAM, Castillo C, Brouwer-Hanzens AH, et al. (2012) Quantitative assessment of the efficacy of spiral-wound membrane cleaning procedures to remove biofilms. Water Res 46: 6369–6381. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.09.013
[38]	Hacıfazlıoğlu MC, Parlar İ, Pek TÖ, et al. (2019) Evaluation of chemical cleaning to control fouling on nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes after desalination of MBR effluent. Desalination 466: 44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2019.05.003
[39]	Houari A, Seyer D, Couquard F, et al. (2010) Characterization of biofouling and cleaning efficiency of nanofiltration membranes. Biofouling 26: 15–21. doi: 10.1080/08927010903277749
[40]	Houari A, Habarou H, Djafer M, et al. (2009) Effect of storage of NF membranes on fouling deposits and cleaning efficiency. Desalin Water Treat 1: 307–311. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2009.293
[41]	Her N, Amy G, Plottu-Pecheux A, et al. (2007) Identification of nanofiltration membrane foulants. Water Res 41: 3936–3947. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.015
[42]	Al-Amoudi A, Lovitt RW (2007) Fouling strategies and the cleaning system of NF membranes and factors affecting cleaning efficiency. J Membrane Sci 303: 4–28. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2007.06.002
[43]	Dogsa I, Kriechbaum M, Stopar D, et al. (2005) Structure of bacterial extracellular polymeric substances at different pH values as determined by SAXS. Biophys J 89: 2711–2720. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.105.061648
[44]	Fadda GC, Lairez D, Arrio B, et al. (2003). Enzyme-catalyzed gel proteolysis: an anomalous diffusion-controlled mechanism. Biophys J 85: 2808–2817. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74704-3

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)