Team:Calgary/Project/OSCAR/Bioreactor

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(55 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/9d/UCalgary2012_OSCAR_Bioreactor_Low-Res.png" style="float:right; max-width: 200px; padding: 10px;"></img>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/9/9d/UCalgary2012_OSCAR_Bioreactor_Low-Res.png" style="float:right; max-width: 200px; padding: 10px;"></img>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
-
<p>A major goal of our project was to use genetically engineered bacteria to convert toxic organic compounds into recoverable hydrocarbons.  In order to accomplish this goal our team needed to create a contained bioreactor system for our organisms to carry out these conversions. Because of the scale of the oil sands, such a vessel must be built on a large scale to accommodate the volume of tailings. Examples of such large scale bioreactors are found in wastewater treatment plants, tissue engineering, and even beer fermentation. All these types of systems need proper heat and oxygen exchange as well as suitable pH and agitation control, and for our system the addition of ideal flow rates, growth medium, and optimizing conditions for bacterial growth and biochemical conversion left us with many design considerations to take into account. </p>
+
<p>We want to use the genetically engineered bacteria of the OSCAR project to convert toxic organic compounds into recoverable hydrocarbons.  To accomplish this goal our team has designed a contained bioreactor system to operate in the locations of oil sands tailings ponds and oil refineries. We used what is known of similarly sized bioreactors and hydrocarbon recovery techniques to decide what factors to consider in the design of OSCAR's home: culture conditions, method for hydrocarbon extraction, and containment of the genetically modified organisms.
-
      <p>In addition to developing a design for the bioreactor that took these factors into account, we were also tasked with finding a way of extracting the produced hydrocarbon product from the bioreactor. Theoretically, the hydrophobicity and light density of the hydrocarbons should cause them to settle in the top layer of the solution. There are many methods that can be used to separate a certain layer into various components such as using a centrifuge or even various filters.</p>
+
</p>
-
<p>The bacteria we are working with in our system are safe, lab strains of <i>Escherichia coli</i> which have been engineered to contain genes that are found in naturally occurring tailings pond organisms. Even though they are harmless, in order to prevent escape into the environment and horizontal gene transfer we have implemented biological controls in the form of a genetic kill switch mechanism to prevent our organisms from surviving outside the bioreactor system. Secondly, because of their lab-strain nature, our organisms should in theory be out-competed in any natural environment due to the the high metabolic costs associated with the metabolic pathways we have engineered them to express. In light of the issue of containment with genetically modified organisms, we have designed our system with multiple levels of controls that range from biological to physical containment measures to keep our organisms contained. </p>
+
<h2>Research</h2>
<h2>Research</h2>
-
</html>[[File:Wastewater plant-ucalgary.JPG|thumb|200px|right|'''Figure 1:''' Visiting Calgary's Bonneybrook wastewater treatment plant, overlooking one of the plants bioreactors. ]]<html>
+
</html>[[File:Wastewater plant-ucalgary.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Figure 1: Visiting Calgary's Bonneybrook wastewater treatment plant, overlooking one of the bioreactors. ]]<html>
-
<p>Before diving into a making bioreactor, we first had to research current solutions in the field. To help us with this phase, we read research papers on bioreactors, toured a wastewater treatment plant, interviewed graduate students in the field, and had weekly meetings with the supervisors and biologists on our team. The bioreactors at the wastewater treatment plant were contained in open systems since they used natural microbes. The reactor also contained an air sparger to oxygenate the solution and spun at an extraordinarily slow rate. This was one of the many bioreactor processes we looked into. Below are pictures from our trip!</p>
+
<p>Before diving into making a bioreactor, we first had to research current solutions in the field. To help us with this phase, we read papers on bioreactors that exist with such diverse applications as wastewater treatment, tissue engineering and beer fermentation.
 +
To observe a large scale bioreactor, we toured a wastewater treatment plant (we would have preferred a brewery) where we interviewed plant managers and learned conditions that need to be considered in big systems: open or closed system (theirs was open), methods for oxygenation and preventing contents from settling.  We also interviewed graduate students and professors doing research on bioreactors at the University of Calgary for their insight as well as meeting weekly with the supervisors and biologists on our team. Here is a picture from our trip to the wastewater plant!</p>
 +
 
<h2>Our Bioreactor Evolution</h2>
<h2>Our Bioreactor Evolution</h2>
-
<p>Throughout the summer we worked on creating a prototype of the bioreactor. Our ideal process would be a fed-batch system, where the reactors would be continually fed with more bacterial nutrients and fresh tailings. The fresh tailing would be added when the naphthenic acid concentration within the bioreactor is lower, thus allowing the bacteria to continually convert naphthenic acid to hydrocarbons. Additionally, the process would have to occur within an enclosed system to ensure its sterility.</p>
+
<p>Throughout the summer we worked on creating a prototype of the bioreactor. The process that was deemed most suitable was a cross between a fed-batch system and a continuous stir method in a closed system, where the reactors would be continually fed with more bacterial nutrients and fresh tailings. To remove the hydrocarbons from the culture we decided to use a belt skimmer, similar to those used to help clean up oil spills. This method allows us to run the belt to pick up hydrocarbons without having to remove the entire solution of the batch. This way the bacterial culture already present in the tank can be maintained in active culture to continuously produce more hydrocarbons, which is favored for an industrial scale (1000+ L tanks).  Tailings are pre-filtered to prevent environmental strains from joining the mix. Additionally, the process would have to occur within an enclosed system to ensure its containment.</p>  
-
</html>[[File:UCalgary2012_BioreactorOverview.jpg|thumb|745px|left|'''Figure 2:''' From computer to prototype, how we made our bioreactor. a) Our system began with a model built using Google Sketch Up. It had two chambers and a tube acting as a siphon to pull off hydrocarbons. b/c) The first prototype took its shape from the materials we were able to find in the lab (including the recycling bin). This system was meant to show that the bioreactor could agitate a solution with the turbine. d) This prototype is our first manufactured design we put together. It needs a power source to turn on the computer fan motor which runs the turbine. It also includes an air sparger system to allow our system to be oxygenated. Apart from the plastic gears, it is fully autoclavable. e/f) Our final prototype, which includes the belt skimmer in an enclosed system. It is able to skim off the top oil layer in a solution of water and canola oil into a small falcon tube.]]<html>
+
<p>To make sure that the belt does not transfer live bacteria into the hydrocarbon collection tank, we will have a UV light aimed at the most apical point in the belt path to ensure that any bacteria picked up by the skimmer receive a lethal dose of radiation just before the hydrocarbons are removed from the bioreactor chamber.</p>
-
<h2>The Prototype</h2>
+
</html>[[File:UCalgary2012_BioreactorOverview.jpg|thumb|745px|left|Figure 2: From computer to prototype: how we made our bioreactor. a) Our system began with a model built using Google Sketch Up. It had two chambers and a tube acting as a siphon to pull off hydrocarbons. b/c) The first prototype took shape using materials we found in the lab (including the recycling bin). This system was meant to show that the bioreactor could agitate a solution with the turbine. d) This prototype is the first manufactured design we put together. It needs a power source to turn on the computer fan motor which runs the turbine. It also includes an air sparger system to allow our system to be oxygenated. Apart from the plastic gears, it is fully autoclavable. e/f) Our final prototype, which includes the belt skimmer in an enclosed system. It is able to skim off the top oil layer in a solution of water and canola oil into a small falcon tube.]]<html>
-
<p>We determined a few basic concepts that needed to be included in the prototype. For one, we needed to make our bioreactor a closed system in order to keep our solution sterile. This is necessary to allow only our bacteria (<i>E. coli</i> with an ampicillin resistance marker) to grow. Employing a closed system bioreactor is also necessary as a physical containment measure to confine our organisms to our system.</p>
+
-
<p>Next, we needed to use a batch system for our system to work at lab scale (for competition data). This means that we are allowing the entire process to occur, and then removing all of our solution when our reactions have come to completion. This batch will include an appropriate growth medium to optimize our organisms growth, as well as a compound. This opposes a continuous stir method, where product is removed at the same rate that biomass and nutrients are added. A continuous method would be more appropriate at an industrial scale (1000+ L tanks), where the bacteria will have enough time to convert NA’s in such large tanks. </p>
+
-
<p>Furthermore, we had to find a way to remove the hydrocarbons once they were produced. We decided to use a belt skimmer, similar to those used to help clean up oil spills. This method is useful because it allows us to run the belt to pick up hydrocarbons without having to remove the entire solution of the batch. This way the bacterial culture already present in the tank can be maintained in active culture to continuously produce more hydrocarbons. To ensure sterility the belt skimmer will have a UV light attached across the belt to ensure sterilization of any bacteria picked up by the skimmer before the hydrocarbons are skimmed from the bioreactor chamber.</p>
+
 +
<h2>The Prototype Design</h2>
 +
<p>We determined the essential concepts that needed to be developed in the prototype. As with the scaled up design, we included the belt skimmer, powered by a small motor to move the belt into and out of the system. Since our bioreactor would necessarily have live cells, our prototype operated as a completely closed system to prevent cross contamination with microbes outside the chamber.  </p>
 +
 +
<h2>The Belt Skimmer in Action</h2>
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<iframe width="600" height="338" align="center" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DVTR68DMi5U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="600" height="338" align="center" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DVTR68DMi5U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
</div>
 +
<p> This video showcase our belt skimmer. The model hydrocarbons stick to the belt shown in the video and are skimmed off into a Tim Horton's coffee cup (the only disposable cup we could find in the lab. </p>
-
<p>Finally to ensure optimal bacterial growth and production of our desired product, we included both a sparger and a turbine in the bioreactor design.  The purpose of the turbine was to mix the solution preventing bacterial cells and other heavier materials from settling at the bottom of the vessel. Continuous mixing of the solution would also ensure even nutrient and reactant distribution in the tank. The sparger oxygenated the solution, aeration which is necessary for our aerobic bacteria to thrive. When assembled together the turbine would be located above the sparger thus breaking each bubble from the sparger into smaller ones. In a thicker solution such as tailings, both the air sparger and turbine will agitate the solution thus mixing it and prevent heavier materials from settling at the bottom of the chamber.</p>
+
<h2>Current Prototype with both the Sparger and Turbine</h2>
-
 
+
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<iframe width="338" height="600" align="center" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4onfIfuQJ9c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="338" height="600" align="center" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4onfIfuQJ9c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
</div>
 +
<p> The second video shows our bioreactor prototype in action with both the sparger and turbine running. </p>
-
<p>Once we had these designs in place, we were able to start building models and presentation material. One of our goals was to have a computer animation of our design in motion. We were able to meet this goal by using programs called Maya and RealFlow. Maya is a complex and extremely versatile computer animation program used for many animated movies, including James Cameron’s “Avatar”. RealFlow is a particle-generating program, used primarily for creating fluid flow and fluid effects. Combining both of these programs, we created a seventeen second long video showing the basic idea of how our bioreactor will work. In addition to this, we made a functioning model of a tank with our turbine, belt skimmer, and sparger included inside. Our model is also a closed system, which will be brought to the competition to demonstrate to the judges.</p>
+
<h2>Belt Skimmer with a Collection Chamber</h2>
 +
<div align="center">
 +
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HtcgPG3reH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 +
</div>
 +
<p> This video shows the collection chamber we added to the bioreactor. There is a hole at the bottom of the chamber so that during the bioreactors' showcase the model hydrocarbons don't accumulate in the chamber. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>Once we had these designs in place, we were able to start building models and presentation material. One of our goals was to have a computer animation of our design in motion. We were able to meet this goal by using the Maya and RealFlow programs. Maya is a complex and extremely versatile computer animation program used in many animated movies, including James Cameron’s “Avatar”. RealFlow is a particle-generating program, used primarily for creating fluid flow and fluid effects. Combining both of these programs, we created a seventeen second long video showing the basic idea of how our bioreactor will work. Our model will be brought to the competition for demonstration purposes.</p>
<h2>Particle Simulation Using RealFlow2012</h2>
<h2>Particle Simulation Using RealFlow2012</h2>
Line 53: Line 63:
<h2>Testing and Results</h2>
<h2>Testing and Results</h2>
-
<p>Using the physical models that we made, we were able to conduct experiments to help determine what will make our design most efficient. We received five different belt samples from a belt skimming company (Abanaki), so we conducted three different tests to determine which belt would work best for us. Our tests sought to find the belt that picked up the most oil, least tailing pond material, and least amount of bacteria. </p>
+
<p>Using the physical models that we made, we were able to conduct experiments to help determine what will make our design most efficient. We received five different belt samples from a belt skimming company (Abanaki), and conducted three different tests to determine which belt is most suitable for us. Our tests sought to find the belt that picked up the most oil, least tailing pond material, and least amount of bacteria. </p>
-
</html>[[File:UCalgary-Bioreactor-Materials.jpg|thumb|745px|left|'''Figure 3:''' This table represents the belt rankings of three different tests. We tested for the ability of the belts to pick up hydrocarbons, and the abilities of the belts to not pick up bacteria or tailings pond solution. Our five tested belts and a sample of canola oil used for hydrocarbon pick up. From left to right: metallic material, blue texture, fur belt, white plastic, white texture]]<html>
+
</html>[[File:UCalgary-Bioreactor-Materials.jpg|thumb|745px|left|Figure 3: Left panel: Belt rankings from three different tests. We tested the ability of the belts to pick up hydrocarbons, and to exclude bacteria or tailings pond water. Right panel: The five belts we tested and a sample of canola oil used for hydrocarbon pick up. From left to right: metallic material, blue texture, fur belt, white plastic, white texture]]<html>
 +
 
 +
<p>Additionally, we ran three different twenty-four hour bacterial growth tests in our tank to determine the effectiveness of the agitator and sparger on bacterial growth. The turbine mixes the solution so as to prevent the settling of bacterial cells and other heavier materials and to ensure even nutrient and reactant distribution in the tank. The sparger aerates the solution, which is necessary for aerobic bacteria to thrive. When assembled together, the turbine is located above the sparger thus breaking each bubble from the sparger into smaller ones. The test was conducted with a turbine and a sparger, a turbine only, and a sparger only. At the end of each experiment we measured the optical density of the solution with a spectrophotometer to quantify the bacterial growth. Operating our bioreactor with both a turbine and sparger resulted in slightly greater bacterial growth than just the turbine, which coincides with our hypothesis. In order to use the air sparger, we decided to use a HEPA filter to screen air coming out of the system to maintain constant pressure in the tank. The results are displayed below:</p>
-
<p>Additionally, we ran three different twenty-four hour bacterial growth tests in our tank to determine the effectiveness of the agitator and sparger on bacterial growth. The test was conducted with a turbine and a sparger, only a turbine, and only a sparger. At the end of each experiment we measured the optical density of the solution with a spectrophotometer to quantify the bacterial growth. Operating our bioreactor with both a turbine and sparger resulted in slightly greater bacterial growth than just the turbine, which coincides with our hypothesis. The results are displayed below:</p>
+
</html>[[Image:UCalgary-Bioreactor-ODNA.jpg|thumb|745px|left|Figure 4: This is the spinner flask and sparger system we used for our bacterial growth tests. Each bacterial growth experiment lasted 24 hours in an incubator at 37 degrees Celsius. This is our data for the optical density reading of each bacterial growth experiment. As expected, we had the most growth when both the turbine and sparger were in operation for 24 hours. This image shows NA and Hydrocarbon Separation in a falcon tube after sitting for 5 minutes. As can be seen, a hydrocarbon layer forms on top of the naphthenic acid layer. This was a very encouraging result since we want to skim the hydrocarbon products from the top layer of our bioreactor.]]<html>
-
</html>[[Image:UCalgary-Bioreactor-ODNA.jpg|thumb|745px|left|'''Figure 4:''' This is the spinner flask and sparger system we used for our bacterial growth tests. Each bacterial growth experiment lasted 24 hours in an incubator at 37 degrees Celsius. This is our data for the optical density reading of each bacterial growth experiment. As expected, we had the most growth when both the turbine and sparger were in operation for 24 hours.This image shows NA and Hydrocarbon Separation in a falcon tube after sitting for 5 minutes. As can be seen, a hydrocarbon layer forms on top of the naphthenic acid layer. This was very encouraging data since we want to skim our produced hydrocarbons from the top layer of our bioreactor.]]<html>
+
<p> Furthermore, we tested our belts' ability to pick up hydrocarbons in a solution of water and commercial naphthenic acid. We dipped our belt in a solution of hexadecane, water and naphthenic acid, then removed and scraped the picked up solution into a separate beaker. This sample was then run through GC-MS to analyze the concentration of naphthenic acid found in our skimmed solution. This is an important test since we do not want to be removing too many NAs before they have the chance to be converted to hydrocarbons. Our first tests were involved using the fur material belt. The results of the GC-MS were very promising. Since we used commercial NAs, many different types of NAs were represented in our original solution. To find the concentration of each NA, the number of carbons and rings for each type of NA are counted. As can be seen below, the figures show plots of the number of carbons and rings of each NA found in the water layer and hydrocarbon layer of our skimmed solution. Based on the size of the bars on the graph, our data shows that a higher abundance of NA were found to be associated with the water and not the hydrocarbon layer. This data suggests that minimal NAs were found in our skimmed hydrocarbon layer and that most were left in the water layer.
 +
</html>[[File:HC layer, skimmed (no NaOH)-ucalgary.png|thumb|600px|center|Figure 5: This graph shows the amount of NAs found in the skimmed hydrocarbon layer. The x-axis represents the carbon number, the y-axis is the % abundance of each compound, and the z-axis is the ring number of the NAs. Clearly, minimal NAs were skimmed into the hydrocarbon layer.]]<html>
 +
</html>[[File:Water layer, skimmed-ucalgary.png|thumb|600px|centre|Figure 6: This graph shows how many NAs were left in the water layer of our skimmed solution. The x-axis represents the carbon number, the y-axis is the % abundance of each compound, and the z-axis is the ring number of the NAs. This data suggests that minimal amounts of NA were skimmed into our solution, and with most of those skimmed found in the water layer.]] <html>
 +
<p> We also conducted these tests with our preferred belt made of metallic material. The results below show the amount of each type of naphthenic acid found in the hydrocarbon layer of our skimmed solution. As can be seen, the use of this belt also resulted in the removal of very few naphthenic acids. However, the amount of naphthenic acids removed using the metallic belt was almost the same if not greater than the amount of naphthenic acid removed by the fur material belt. Based on our previous experiments (shown in Figure 3), we expected the metallic belt to pick up far fewer naphthenic acids than the fur material belt. Although this data could potentially sway our preferred belt choice, the metallic belt still picked up much fewer bacteria which is very important when analyzing the safety of our design.</p>
 +
</html>[[File:Metallic Belt NA-Hydrocarbon test-ucalgary.png|thumb|600px|center|Figure 7: This graph shows how many NAs were present in our skimmed solution using the metallic material belt. The x-axis represents the carbon number, the y-axis is the % abundance of each compound, and the z-axis is the ring number of the NAs.]]<html>
-
<p>Also, we mixed water, commercial NA’s, and hexadecane (model hydrocarbon) together in a small test tube to determine if we will indeed get a top layer of hydrocarbons like what we need. Indeed, this top layer of hydrocarbons was formed after two minutes of time to allow for separation.</p>
 
<h2>The Final System</h2>
<h2>The Final System</h2>
 +
<p>Along with physical considerations of the containment unit, we must also consider the composition and growth of the bacteria in the reactor.  Each OSCAR bacterium would have the most suitable kill-switch circuit attached to its respective hydrocarbon conversion circuit. The bacterium would also have a deletion of a gene for the biosynthesis of glycine.  Glycine would be supplemented in our defined production media, but cells would not survive outside of the bioreactor where glycine is absent. We envision OSCAR to be a co-culture of decarboxylation, decatecholization, denitrogenation, and desulfurization.  Lastly, due to the energetically expensive nature of maintaining the circuits, we anticipate that if the circuits are constitutively produced cell growth rate may be very slow.  Therefore in the final circuits we may want them to be activated by quorum sensing promoter systems.  Essentially, when cells are at low density they focus energy on growth; when cells reach appropriate density for the reaction chamber, transcription of the circuit is enabled.  Together we hope that the system will clean up recalcitrant petroleum waste and produce energy.
-
<h2>Next Steps</h2>
 
-
<p>The next steps would include developing a feedback and sensing method to monitor the temperature, Ph, and C02 in a highly toxic and corrosive environment. Once the genetically engineered bacterium is produced we can start modeling the bacterial life cycle. Since our bacteria will only produce hydrocarbons within its stationary phase, we would like to look into increasing this portion of the lifecycle and possibly into adding bacteria to the bioreactor when it is in its exponential phase rather than the lag phase. This should reduce the time needed for each reactor cycle. Also, another important aspect we can test after the bacteria are made is the rate of hydrocarbon production by the bacteria.</p>
 
</html>
</html>
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 02:51, 27 October 2012

[http://www.example.com link title]

Hello! iGEM Calgary's wiki functions best with Javascript enabled, especially for mobile devices. We recommend that you enable Javascript on your device for the best wiki-viewing experience. Thanks!

Bioreactor: The House of OSCAR

Introduction

We want to use the genetically engineered bacteria of the OSCAR project to convert toxic organic compounds into recoverable hydrocarbons. To accomplish this goal our team has designed a contained bioreactor system to operate in the locations of oil sands tailings ponds and oil refineries. We used what is known of similarly sized bioreactors and hydrocarbon recovery techniques to decide what factors to consider in the design of OSCAR's home: culture conditions, method for hydrocarbon extraction, and containment of the genetically modified organisms.

Research

Figure 1: Visiting Calgary's Bonneybrook wastewater treatment plant, overlooking one of the bioreactors.

Before diving into making a bioreactor, we first had to research current solutions in the field. To help us with this phase, we read papers on bioreactors that exist with such diverse applications as wastewater treatment, tissue engineering and beer fermentation. To observe a large scale bioreactor, we toured a wastewater treatment plant (we would have preferred a brewery) where we interviewed plant managers and learned conditions that need to be considered in big systems: open or closed system (theirs was open), methods for oxygenation and preventing contents from settling. We also interviewed graduate students and professors doing research on bioreactors at the University of Calgary for their insight as well as meeting weekly with the supervisors and biologists on our team. Here is a picture from our trip to the wastewater plant!

Our Bioreactor Evolution

Throughout the summer we worked on creating a prototype of the bioreactor. The process that was deemed most suitable was a cross between a fed-batch system and a continuous stir method in a closed system, where the reactors would be continually fed with more bacterial nutrients and fresh tailings. To remove the hydrocarbons from the culture we decided to use a belt skimmer, similar to those used to help clean up oil spills. This method allows us to run the belt to pick up hydrocarbons without having to remove the entire solution of the batch. This way the bacterial culture already present in the tank can be maintained in active culture to continuously produce more hydrocarbons, which is favored for an industrial scale (1000+ L tanks). Tailings are pre-filtered to prevent environmental strains from joining the mix. Additionally, the process would have to occur within an enclosed system to ensure its containment.

To make sure that the belt does not transfer live bacteria into the hydrocarbon collection tank, we will have a UV light aimed at the most apical point in the belt path to ensure that any bacteria picked up by the skimmer receive a lethal dose of radiation just before the hydrocarbons are removed from the bioreactor chamber.

Figure 2: From computer to prototype: how we made our bioreactor. a) Our system began with a model built using Google Sketch Up. It had two chambers and a tube acting as a siphon to pull off hydrocarbons. b/c) The first prototype took shape using materials we found in the lab (including the recycling bin). This system was meant to show that the bioreactor could agitate a solution with the turbine. d) This prototype is the first manufactured design we put together. It needs a power source to turn on the computer fan motor which runs the turbine. It also includes an air sparger system to allow our system to be oxygenated. Apart from the plastic gears, it is fully autoclavable. e/f) Our final prototype, which includes the belt skimmer in an enclosed system. It is able to skim off the top oil layer in a solution of water and canola oil into a small falcon tube.

The Prototype Design

We determined the essential concepts that needed to be developed in the prototype. As with the scaled up design, we included the belt skimmer, powered by a small motor to move the belt into and out of the system. Since our bioreactor would necessarily have live cells, our prototype operated as a completely closed system to prevent cross contamination with microbes outside the chamber.

The Belt Skimmer in Action

This video showcase our belt skimmer. The model hydrocarbons stick to the belt shown in the video and are skimmed off into a Tim Horton's coffee cup (the only disposable cup we could find in the lab.

Current Prototype with both the Sparger and Turbine

The second video shows our bioreactor prototype in action with both the sparger and turbine running.

Belt Skimmer with a Collection Chamber

This video shows the collection chamber we added to the bioreactor. There is a hole at the bottom of the chamber so that during the bioreactors' showcase the model hydrocarbons don't accumulate in the chamber.

Once we had these designs in place, we were able to start building models and presentation material. One of our goals was to have a computer animation of our design in motion. We were able to meet this goal by using the Maya and RealFlow programs. Maya is a complex and extremely versatile computer animation program used in many animated movies, including James Cameron’s “Avatar”. RealFlow is a particle-generating program, used primarily for creating fluid flow and fluid effects. Combining both of these programs, we created a seventeen second long video showing the basic idea of how our bioreactor will work. Our model will be brought to the competition for demonstration purposes.

Particle Simulation Using RealFlow2012

Open System Showing Separation of Hydrocarbon Layer

Closed System Showing Emulsified Hydrocarbons

Testing and Results

Using the physical models that we made, we were able to conduct experiments to help determine what will make our design most efficient. We received five different belt samples from a belt skimming company (Abanaki), and conducted three different tests to determine which belt is most suitable for us. Our tests sought to find the belt that picked up the most oil, least tailing pond material, and least amount of bacteria.

Figure 3: Left panel: Belt rankings from three different tests. We tested the ability of the belts to pick up hydrocarbons, and to exclude bacteria or tailings pond water. Right panel: The five belts we tested and a sample of canola oil used for hydrocarbon pick up. From left to right: metallic material, blue texture, fur belt, white plastic, white texture

Additionally, we ran three different twenty-four hour bacterial growth tests in our tank to determine the effectiveness of the agitator and sparger on bacterial growth. The turbine mixes the solution so as to prevent the settling of bacterial cells and other heavier materials and to ensure even nutrient and reactant distribution in the tank. The sparger aerates the solution, which is necessary for aerobic bacteria to thrive. When assembled together, the turbine is located above the sparger thus breaking each bubble from the sparger into smaller ones. The test was conducted with a turbine and a sparger, a turbine only, and a sparger only. At the end of each experiment we measured the optical density of the solution with a spectrophotometer to quantify the bacterial growth. Operating our bioreactor with both a turbine and sparger resulted in slightly greater bacterial growth than just the turbine, which coincides with our hypothesis. In order to use the air sparger, we decided to use a HEPA filter to screen air coming out of the system to maintain constant pressure in the tank. The results are displayed below:

Figure 4: This is the spinner flask and sparger system we used for our bacterial growth tests. Each bacterial growth experiment lasted 24 hours in an incubator at 37 degrees Celsius. This is our data for the optical density reading of each bacterial growth experiment. As expected, we had the most growth when both the turbine and sparger were in operation for 24 hours. This image shows NA and Hydrocarbon Separation in a falcon tube after sitting for 5 minutes. As can be seen, a hydrocarbon layer forms on top of the naphthenic acid layer. This was a very encouraging result since we want to skim the hydrocarbon products from the top layer of our bioreactor.

Furthermore, we tested our belts' ability to pick up hydrocarbons in a solution of water and commercial naphthenic acid. We dipped our belt in a solution of hexadecane, water and naphthenic acid, then removed and scraped the picked up solution into a separate beaker. This sample was then run through GC-MS to analyze the concentration of naphthenic acid found in our skimmed solution. This is an important test since we do not want to be removing too many NAs before they have the chance to be converted to hydrocarbons. Our first tests were involved using the fur material belt. The results of the GC-MS were very promising. Since we used commercial NAs, many different types of NAs were represented in our original solution. To find the concentration of each NA, the number of carbons and rings for each type of NA are counted. As can be seen below, the figures show plots of the number of carbons and rings of each NA found in the water layer and hydrocarbon layer of our skimmed solution. Based on the size of the bars on the graph, our data shows that a higher abundance of NA were found to be associated with the water and not the hydrocarbon layer. This data suggests that minimal NAs were found in our skimmed hydrocarbon layer and that most were left in the water layer.

Figure 5: This graph shows the amount of NAs found in the skimmed hydrocarbon layer. The x-axis represents the carbon number, the y-axis is the % abundance of each compound, and the z-axis is the ring number of the NAs. Clearly, minimal NAs were skimmed into the hydrocarbon layer.
Figure 6: This graph shows how many NAs were left in the water layer of our skimmed solution. The x-axis represents the carbon number, the y-axis is the % abundance of each compound, and the z-axis is the ring number of the NAs. This data suggests that minimal amounts of NA were skimmed into our solution, and with most of those skimmed found in the water layer.

We also conducted these tests with our preferred belt made of metallic material. The results below show the amount of each type of naphthenic acid found in the hydrocarbon layer of our skimmed solution. As can be seen, the use of this belt also resulted in the removal of very few naphthenic acids. However, the amount of naphthenic acids removed using the metallic belt was almost the same if not greater than the amount of naphthenic acid removed by the fur material belt. Based on our previous experiments (shown in Figure 3), we expected the metallic belt to pick up far fewer naphthenic acids than the fur material belt. Although this data could potentially sway our preferred belt choice, the metallic belt still picked up much fewer bacteria which is very important when analyzing the safety of our design.

Figure 7: This graph shows how many NAs were present in our skimmed solution using the metallic material belt. The x-axis represents the carbon number, the y-axis is the % abundance of each compound, and the z-axis is the ring number of the NAs.

The Final System

Along with physical considerations of the containment unit, we must also consider the composition and growth of the bacteria in the reactor. Each OSCAR bacterium would have the most suitable kill-switch circuit attached to its respective hydrocarbon conversion circuit. The bacterium would also have a deletion of a gene for the biosynthesis of glycine. Glycine would be supplemented in our defined production media, but cells would not survive outside of the bioreactor where glycine is absent. We envision OSCAR to be a co-culture of decarboxylation, decatecholization, denitrogenation, and desulfurization. Lastly, due to the energetically expensive nature of maintaining the circuits, we anticipate that if the circuits are constitutively produced cell growth rate may be very slow. Therefore in the final circuits we may want them to be activated by quorum sensing promoter systems. Essentially, when cells are at low density they focus energy on growth; when cells reach appropriate density for the reaction chamber, transcription of the circuit is enabled. Together we hope that the system will clean up recalcitrant petroleum waste and produce energy.