| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Environ Eng Res > Volume 24(4); 2019 > Article
Köse-Mutlu, Ergön-Can, Koyuncu, and Lee: Quorum quenching for effective control of biofouling in membrane bioreactor: A comprehensive review of approaches, applications, and challenges

Abstract

In comparison to alternative advanced wastewater treatment technologies, the main problem associated with membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology, which has become prominent in recent years, is biofouling. Within these systems, biofouling is typically the result of a biofilm layer resulting from bacterial gathering. One biological system that can be employed to interrupt the process of bacterial gathering is called ‘Quorum Quenching (QQ)’. Existing QQ applications can be classified using three main types: 1) bacterial/whole-cell applications, 2) direct enzyme applications, and 3) natural sourced compounds. The most common and widely recognized applications for membrane fouling control during MBR operation are bacterial and direct enzyme applications. The purpose of this review was to identify and assess biofilm formation mechanism and results, the suggestion of the QQ concept and its potential to control biofilm formation, and the means by which these QQ applications can be applied within the MBR and present QQ MBR studies.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary world, scarcity has become a hot issue. In particular, many areas of the globe currently suffer from a lack of access to clean water and the need for potable and usable water has resulted in the development and increased use of water treatment technologies. According to forecasts produced by von Grebmer [1], by 2050, 52% of the global population, which is estimated as 4.8 billion people, will have a lack of access to clean water, and this water stress will have significant effects like an increase in the operational costs for water, energy, and food supply. The wastewater that is currently discharged into the environment is the byproduct of both domestic and industrial processes. At present, domestic wastewater is accountable for the highest volumetric ratio in terms of total discharge. As such, as the population increases with the development of humanity, so too does the unit water consumption per capita and the unit pollution loads per capita. Furthermore, discharge standards that are designated according to the total daily mass of pollutants required to protect the quality of receiving waterbody necessitates the treatment of wastewater with high removal efficiencies.
Several types of wastewater treatment techniques are currently in use. These can be broadly classified as physical, chemical and biological. Physical treatment is generally employed as the primary treatment mechanism and is used to help and protect the biological treatment units in which the secondary treatment processes take place. Biological wastewater treatment utilizes both conventional approaches, such as activated sludge systems and rotating biological contactors, and innovative applications like activated sludge systems with modifications and membrane bioreactors (MBR).
The membrane bioreactor utilizes a treatment technology that combines the activated sludge and membrane filtration processes. The membrane can be basically defined as a selective wall that can separate into two different phases [2]. While pollutants cannot pass across through the membrane, treated water can be collected from behind it. Biological treatment in the MBR tank can be realized by the activated sludge via organic matter removal during the life cycles of the microorganisms that exist within it. MBRs have many advantages. The lower HRT value results in a smaller tank volume and, thus, entails that the tank can be placed in a smaller area [3, 4]. In addition to this, high Mixed Liquor Suspended Solid (MLSS) values help MBR systems to tolerate shock loadings [5, 6]. Moreover, there is no need for the use of clarifiers in the treatment plant because solids are separated from the mixed liquor by means of filtration [7, 8].
The biggest advantage of MBRs is that effluent can find several beneficial usage areas, like irrigation. It is perhaps due to these advantages that the use of MBRs has increased in recent years. According to existing studies in this domain, the global use of MBRs has grown at a rate of between 10 and 15%, and the total value of the global MBR market, which is 1.81 billion USD in 2016, is expected to witness positive growth in the near future and will be 8.27 billion USD in 2025 [9, 10].
The current market research indicates that MBR technology is increasingly being viewed as a modern and reliable technology; however, uncertainty remains as to the relatively high risks and costs associated with the use of MBRs versus conventional technologies [11]. Furthermore, specific concerns have been raised regarding the fouling problem that is associated with the operation of MBRs. One of the fundamental limitations of all membrane processes is that they result in membrane fouling. Rejected pollutants and microorganisms in the mixed liquor tend to attach to the surface of the filtration membrane. Fouling can result in flux reduction under the constant transmembrane pressure (TMP) or TMP increase under the constant flux, and these changes result in an increase in the unit cost of wastewater treatment [2]. Strategies that are specifically designed to prevent fouling as an output of the MBR operation can be broadly grouped into five different approaches: 1) Physically treating the feed, 2) Physically and chemically cleaning the membrane, 3) Reducing the flux, 4) Increasing the aeration rate, and 5) Making chemical or biochemical modifications to the mixed liquor [2]. Since all of these operation strategies increase the unit treatment cost, researchers have invested a significant amount of effort in identifying alternative methods of preventing fouling that minimizes this cost. Studies on the fouling problem have gradually increased in recent years and generally involve the modification of membrane material or module configuration. However, many people view these studies as insufficient because the modifications proposed are costly and have largely failed to stand the test of time during long-term MBR operations. The reason for this insufficiency is that the creation of biofilm, and the gradual increase of this biofilm, is a totally natural process. Membrane biofouling in the MBR is generally associated with extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and soluble microbial products (SMP) [1215]. EPS is a structural material of microbial aggregations, such as biofilm, floc and activated sludge liquor and a term used for macromolecules like carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and other polymeric substances on the surfaces of the cells or in the gap between the cells [16]. EPS, with its unstable and heterogeneous structure, can create a highly hydrated gel, and this gel structure forms a barrier against the permeate flow during the membrane filtration process [17]. Besides, SMP is used for the definition of cellular compounds created during cell decay, synthesis, etc. [18].
The key aspect of biofilm creation that involves a totally natural process is quorum sensing (QS). QS is the communication between species using signalization. QS microorganisms show several types of group behaviors including EPS and SMP secretions and biofilm creation. Microorganisms in communication with each other start to accumulate in the biofilm and create a bio-cake that has less porosity. In order to prevent this situation, signalization mechanisms have to be interrupted, and this interruption mechanism is known as quorum quenching (QQ). Although the application of QQ in MBRs is a relatively new topic in the area of anti-biofouling MBR studies, there are some examples of the use of QQ within MBRs. For the purposes of this review, existing QQ MBR studies were compiled by evaluating their advantages and disadvantages, and informative explanations on the future potential of this new vision were formulated.

2. Quorum Sensing

Bacteria communicate to one another by producing signal molecules, called ‘Autoinducers (AIs)’ to coordinate their group behaviors. Using these QS signal-response systems, bacteria regulate gene expression in response and synchronize particular behaviors such as bioluminescence, antibiotic production, virulence, biofilm formation, the production of SMP and EPS [19, 20]. These quorum systems are potential targets for biofouling control in MBR because bacteria control the expression of biofilm formation via QS networks. The discovery that bacteria are able to communicate with one another changed our general perception of many single, simple organisms inhabiting our world. However, the concept that bacteria produce pheromones and communicate with one another was met with considerable skepticism by many and disinterest by others in the early 1990s [21]. A schematic drawing of microbial group behaviors via QS, illustrated using data from Greenberg [22], is given in Fig. 1.
Although several QS systems are known, N-Acyl-HSL (AHLs) are the most common signaling molecules used by Gram-negative bacteria and peptide-based signaling systems are used by Gram-positive bacteria [23, 24]. Additionally, both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria produce autoinducer-2 (AI-2), which is a member of a family of signaling molecules used in QS that can facilitate interspecies cell-to-cell signaling.
The first observed QS system based on AHL autoinducer and its cognate regulatory circuit was that of the bioluminescent marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri (V. Fischeri), which was examined as a model for QS in most Gram-negative bacteria. At low cell densities in natural seawater, V. fischeri is non-luminescent. However, when it is proliferated to high cell densities in the laboratory, a V. fischeri culture bioluminesces with a blue-green light [25]. While the squid host uses the bacterial-produced light for counter illumination to mask its shadow as an anti-predation tactic, the bacteria profits from the nutrient-rich squid and grows to a high cell density that is unachievable in seawater. Two regulatory proteins, called LuxI and LuxR, are essential for QS control of bioluminescence in V. fischeri. LuxI is the AI synthase enzyme in V. fischeri, and it catalyzes the formation of the AHL. Then, AHL molecules freely diffuse out of the cell membrane and accumulate. At high AHL concentrations (high cell density), QS signaling molecule produced by LuxI is bound by LuxR and this AHL-LuxR complex activates transcription of the LuxICDABE operon. In the absence of an AHL signal, LuxR is inactive. At low cell densities, the AHL signals produced by LuxI diffuse passively out of the cell following a concentration gradient. Thus, the lux operon is not expressed. Different types of AHL-based QS molecules are produced by different bacteria. AHLs are composed of homoserine lactone (HSL) rings that carry acyl chains that differ from C4 to C18 in length [26]. A large number of other Gram-negative bacteria possess LuxIR-type proteins and communicate with AHL signals for intra-species QS [21].
While Gram-negative bacteria use AHLs as auto-inducers, Gram-positive bacteria mostly use secreted peptides as autoinducers for QS. Peptides are encoded in genes and are made as a larger precursor protein (pro-peptides) inside the cell. These are then further processed to small linear or cyclic peptides during secretion. According to Parsek and Greenberg [24]:
“In contrast to AHL-based signaling, peptide signals are not detected inside the cell. In some cases, a membrane-bound sensor protein belonging to the two-component signal transduction family interacts with the peptide. The peptide-bound sensor then activates an associated response regulator, which modulates expression of quorum-sensing-regulated genes. (p. 1)”
The AI-2 quorum-sensing system was first described in Vibrio harveyi and has been implicated in interspecies communication [27]. In all AI-2-producing bacteria, the precursor for the AI-2 signal is 4, 5-dihydroxy-2, 3-pentanedione (DPD), the product of the reaction catalyzed by the LuxS enzyme. Homologs of luxS exist in hundreds of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, consistent with a role for AI-2 in interspecies communication that allows other luxS-encoding bacteria in a particular environment to contribute to the overall cell-density information [28, 29]. QS signals and QS-controlled behaviors in some bacteria are listed in Table 1, which is adapted and updated from Dobretsov et al. [30].

2.1. The Role of Quorum Sensing in Biofilm Formation

Surfaces are important microbial habitats that generally provide enormous access to nutrients, protection from predation and environmental stresses, and a means for cells to remain in a favorable habitat without being washed away. Biofilm formation occurs when bacterial cells grow on surfaces. Bacterial cells that attach to a surface combine through an adhesive matrix secreted by the cells. The matrix is composed of a variety of polysaccharides and proteins. Biofilms utilize nutrients more easily for microbial growth and help prevent the detachment of cells on dynamic surfaces, such as in flowing systems. Biofilms may contain only one or two species or, more commonly, many species of bacteria. As the organisms adhere to a surface, they keep signaling to one another, and ultimately an expression of genes-related biofilm is initiated [48, 49] (Fig. 2). For example, the major intracellular signaling molecules are AHLs in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. As these lactones accumulate according to population density, they are released and subsequently recognized by adjacent cells. The signaling lactones then control the expression of genes that contribute to biofilm formation:
At least four reasons have been proposed for the formation of biofilms. First, biofilms are a means of microbial self-defense that increase survival. Second, biofilm formation allows cells to remain in a favorable niche. Third, biofilms form because they allow bacterial cells to live in close association with each other. Finally, biofilms seem to be the typical way bacterial cells grow in nature. The biofilm may be the “default” mode of growth for prokaryotes in natural environments, the latter of which differ dramatically in nutrient levels from the rich liquid culture media used in the laboratory [50].

3. Detection of Signal Molecules

The methods by which qualitative and quantitative determination of AHL signal molecules have been made in the previous QQ MBR studies were also examined within the scope of this review. As previously mentioned, the first QQ MBR study was carried by Yeon et al. [51]. They opted to use Agrobacterium tumafaciens (A. tumefaciens) A136 as a biosensor for AHL detection, based on the works of Fuqua and Winans in 1996 and Kawaguchi et al. in 2008 [52, 53].
A. tumefaciens (Ti-)(pCF218)(pCF372) is a genetically modified microorganism for the detection of exogenous AHL signal molecules. This microorganism has the three following genetic characteristics: 1) Knockout of Ti plasmid (Ti-); 2) pCF 218, which codes for traR; and 3) pCF 372, which contains traI-lacZ fusion, which is under traR regulation. A. tumefaciens A136 cannot produce the AHL autoinducers because the Ti plasmid on which regulatory components of the A. tumefaciens QS system are located has been genetically removed. Instead, when exogenous AHL diffuses into A. tumefaciens A136, it makes a complex with TraR protein from the pCF 218. TraR is an AHL-responsive transcription factor that recognizes N-3-(oxooctanoyl)-L-HSL (AHL of A. tumefaciens) as well as a wide range of related AHLs. This AHL-TraR complex activates traI-lacZ on pCF 372 and induces the production of beta-galactosidase, which degrades X-gal and develops a blue color. The blue colors spread on an agar plate covered X-gal as shown in Fig. 3(a), and the diameters of these zones are in direct proportion to the AHL concentrations. By using the calibration equation between the diameters and known AHL concentrations, the concentration of AHL in a sample can be calculated.
The concentrations of AHL molecules are also measured via luminescence method using the same reporter strain of A. tumefaciens A136 [54]. The luminescence method was adopted for the measurement of AHLs in MBR for wastewater treatment by Oh et al. [55]. The reporter strain (A136) and the AHLs sample are mixed and loaded on the microwell plate. The microwell plate is placed on the incubator to keep the temperature at 30°C for 1.5 h, and then the Beta-GloÒ Assay System is added to the solution for the luminescent reaction with b-galactosidase produced by the reporter strain. After 40 min, oxyluciferin is synthesized, resulting in luminescence (Fig. 3(b)). The intensity of luminescence is in direct proportion to the AHL concentration and can be measured by a luminometer. The amounts of AHLs are calculated using relationship equations based on the calibration curve derived from standard samples of AHLs.
The luminometer method is preferred over the agar plate method because the former requires shorter experiment time, leading to the analyses of multiple samples on the same day. The schematic drawing of these two methods for AHL determination is presented in Fig. 3. Although the ultra-sensitive detection of N-Acyl HSL type QS molecules can be realized by bioassay strains like Agrobacterium [56, 57], newly developed techniques have been quite attractive and successful for the signal molecule detection. Ligand-insensitive LuxP mutant fluorescence resonance energy transfer protein sensors could be developed for the detection and quantification of AI-2 QS molecules [58]. Furthermore, Culhane and his colleagues had studied on the development of a new method to create laser-fabricated plasmonic nanostructures for surface- enhanced Raman spectroscopy of bacteria QS molecules. Silver nanostructures were employed in the detection of N-butyryl- L-HSL via Raman signals [59].

4. Enzymatic Quorum Quenching

The most common approaches to control bacterial growth in a given environment involve the use of antibiotics; however, it is a well-known fact that bacteria species can develop resistance to these anti-bacterial agents [60, 61]. In addition, the main aim of biofouling prevention during membrane bioreactor operation is not to kill or deactivate all bacteria because a high level of death and deactivation may reduce the efficiency with which pollutants are removed. It is widely recognized that N-acyl Homoserine Lactone (AHL) - mediated QS plays the main role in biofilm creation. As such, some researchers have suggested the use of a new paradigm “QQ” to control the group behaviors of bacteria without affecting their lifecycles [62]. Because the number of Gram-negative bacteria is higher than the number of Gram-positive bacteria in the activated sludge, AHL-mediated QQ has been investigated. There are three main AHL-mediated QQ mechanisms (schematically shown in Fig. 4): 1) Blocking AHL synthesis in the sender cell, 2) Deactivating AHL via enzymatic destruction, and 3) Interfering with the signal receptor in the receiving cell [63].
As mentioned above, the first mechanism involves blocking AHL synthesis. The inhibition of AHL synthesis by blocking LuxI-type synthase proteins is possible and, since AHL is synthesized from S-adenosylmethionine, the analogues of this amino acid can be used to block AHL synthesis [64, 65]. Additional research has found that erythromycin can block AHL synthesis at the ribosomal level through the use of an unknown mechanism [66].
The second mechanism, AHL degradation, is the most well-known mechanism. Enzymatic destruction of AHL molecules can be realized by different types of enzymes, and this prevents AHL accumulating in the environment. Seven different AHL degradation enzymes have been described in the literature. While some of them prefer the decomposition pathway, others use the modification pathway (Fig. 5). The name of QQ enzymes and the final products that result from AHL degradation are presented in Fig. 6.
While lactonases open the homoserine (HSL) ring by disruption of the bond at the left of the double-bonded oxygen [6769], decarboxylases open this ring by disrupting the bond at the right of the double bonded oxygen [70]. At present, no studies have investigated the mechanism of decarboxylase with a certain bacteria species. In addition, acylases, which has synonyms in the literature like aminase and amidohydrolysis, cleave the acyl side chain from the HSL ring [65, 71] and create fatty acid and HSL. Even though there are no examples of studies that have been carried out with a certain bacteria species, deaminase can also cleave the acyl side chain from the HSL ring, but only with a different point. Deaminases create final products as an HSL chain with OH and a side chain with NH2 [70]. The last example of the QQ enzymes that carry degradation pathway is paraoxonase. Paraoxonase is an enzyme that is sourced from mammalian cells, and information about its mechanism has not yet been exactly determined; however, research has proven that it can both disrupt the chain and cleave the side chain of AHL [7275]. On the other hand, two enzymes can carry the modification pathway: oxidoreductase and oxidase. While oxidoreductase can convert the oxygen that is double bonded to the side chain of AHL to OH [76, 77], oxidase modifies the last bond of the side chain [77]. Species that use these QQ enzymes are listed in Table 2.
The last AHL-mediated QQ mechanism involves interfering with the signal receptor [116, 117]. AHL analogues that compete with receptors have been tested in order to prevent microorganism from receiving QS signals. The analogues can be produced by using side chains of AHL. These compounds interact with LuxR, the receptor protein responsible for AHL, and result in the elimination of AHL [118].

5. Biofouling Prevention via Quorum Quenching in MBR

As mentioned, biofilms are unwanted in the MBR process for wastewater treatment because they significantly decrease the permeate flux during membrane filtration and removal of biofilms by chemical treatments may not be sufficient via the tolerance of microorganisms. Since the relationship between QS signal and membrane biofouling was proved, different QQ applications including enzymatic QQ, bacterial QQ, and fungal QQ have been studied in MBR processes for biofouling control. Within the scope of this review, examples of QQ MBR applications that have been developed for the purposes of preventing the biofouling of the filtration membranes located in these MBRs were examined and compiled. A list of the studies examined is presented in Table 3. These studies were listed according to application methods, such as QQ media type. Grouping the research in this way also resulted in them being generally listed chronologically because application methods have changed over time, continuously improving existing methods. In Table 3, QQ applications in MBR were compared to each other in terms of QQ enzyme, QQ microorganism, QQ media, and advantages and disadvantages of QQ method.
Yeon and his colleagues published the first QQ MBR study in 2009. They directly added an enzyme (Acylase) in the MBR to inhibit QS by decomposing signal molecules (AHLs) [51]. They confirmed that the addition of acylase retarded the TMP rise compared with that of the control reactor by regulating EPS concentration. In this study, a QQ mechanism efficiency of 57% was achieved, and a huge contribution to the literature was realized. However, they observed free enzyme (Acylase) had been rapidly inactivated [102]. Then, they prepared magnetic enzyme carriers (MECs) on which free acylase enzymes were immobilized. By using MECs, not only higher QQ activities were prolonged, but also the immobilization media were easily separated from activated sludge to be reused [102]. Kim et al. [119] immobilized a QQ enzyme (Acylase) onto a nanofiltration membrane and visualized the spatial distribution of cells and polysaccharides on the surface of control and immobilized membranes. They concluded that QQ inhibits polysaccharides and thus mitigates biofilm formation on the acylase immobilized membrane. At the end of these studies that could result in a significant delay of the TMP increase reflecting slower biofilm formation on the membrane surface, it was also surprisingly observed that the inhibition of biofouling by enzymatic QQ was reversible and the following filtration performance of the membrane returned to the original state if QQ enzyme application interrupted. In the light of these results, it can be mentioned that continuous QQ enzyme addition is indispensable for a continuous biofouling control.
QQ enzymes are commercially available; however, the cost of the enzyme is too high to be applied to MBR for wastewater treatment. Following enzymatic QQ, a lot of bacterial QQ studies have been conducted to seek an economically feasible way [112, 120]. It is obvious that the activity of whole cell catalysts cannot as high as that of isolated enzymes; however, there are three reasons for the preference of bacterial QQ. These reasons can be listed as follows: i) more readily and less expensively preparation, ii) more stability for long-term application as the QQ enzymes inside cells are protected from the external environment (activated sludge), and lastly iii) easier handling. Within this regard, researchers have developed various immobilization media that can interfere with QS continuously. These immobilization media provided protection of immobilized QQ bacteria against other microorganisms in activated sludge and a microporous structure for efficient mass transfer of dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Oh et al. isolated and identified QQ bacteria Rhodococcus sp. BH4 in a real MBR plant and prepared a polymeric microbial vessel containing these QQ bacteria [120]. The polymeric microbial vessel was stimulated as a small tube containing 10–12 hollow fiber membranes. In this study, biofouling was prevented with a success rate of 50%. The polymeric microbial vessel showed reproducible QQ efficiency, delaying TMP rise-up substantially. The location of the vessel in MBR had a direct effect on the QQ efficiency because the vessel is fixed and thus decomposition of signal molecules are very diffusion limited. The QQ vessel was more efficient when it was placed in a membrane tank instead of bio-reactor in MBR [121]. F/M ratio for QQ bacteria in the vessel could be relatively low due to mass transfer limitation. Cheong et al. [122] substituted a ceramic vessel for a polymeric one. The ceramic microbial vessel contained a few lumens through which inner mode feeding was possible. They increased the F/M ratio for QQ bacteria in the ceramic vessel with an inner mode feeding, resulting in a higher QQ efficiency. In addition, the rotation microbial carrier frame (RMCF) was composed of a polycarbonate frame and four cubbyholes that were covered with a microfiltration flat sheet membrane and the usage of RMCF resulted in a higher anti-biofouling effect during MBR operation when compared to the anti-biofouling effect obtained with the usage of normal QQ-vessels [123].
Since vessels have no mobility, moving beads are generally preferred as QQ media in MBR. The advantage of moving QQ beads is the extra physical washing of biocakes deposited on membrane due to their continuous collision to each other. While Jiang et al. immobilized acylase enzymes into globular beads [19], Kim et al. entrapped Rhodococcus sp. BH4 into beads [101] using a natural polymer (sodium alginate). With the combination of biological QQ effect and physical washing effect, 10 times longer time passed to reach the same TMP compared to an MBR without QQ beads (a very high QQ efficiency of 87%). Jiang et al. achieved efficient biofouling prevention and energy saving, whereas the high cost of enzyme still remained an issue with this application [19]. However, moving microbial beads offered high efficiency and long-term life span.
The only disadvantage of alginate beads is that they are subject to biodegradation in the bioreactor during the MBR operation, leading to short life span. To reinforce alginate beads, Lee et al. [124] immobilized acylase into magnetically-separable mesoporous silica, Kim et al. [125] tried to coat the alginate beads with a synthetic polymer (polysulfone), which prevented QQ bacteria from leaking outside the macrocapsules. Another approach to overcome the disadvantage of alginate beads was to mix a natural polymer, sodium alginate with a synthetic polymer, polyvinylalcohol [126, 127]. Furthermore, there are various studies that are innovative and mention about new QQ MBR applications. First one of these innovative applications is the fungal QQ study carried out with to success the energy saving through fungal-to-bacterial QQ and researchers could decrease the rate of TMP rise-up even for lower aeration intensities [126]. After some results showed that the QQ bacteria located at the periphery of a bead can degrade signal molecules more than the QQ bacteria located inside of the bead have come to light, it was needed to create new immobilization media designs. In 2016, another QQ study with QQ-hollow cylinder was also presented to the readers and this newly developed immobilization medium could increase the surface area and eliminate the disadvantage of hollow fibers used as an immobilization medium [129]. QQ-hollow cylinder presented higher QQ activity than did the QQ beads. Furthermore, the shape of the QQ-hollow cylinder provided more physical contact between media and biofilm and this led to a higher efficiency of physical washing. The final step for the immobilization medium design and development is small QQ-sheets that showed 2.5-fold higher biological QQ activity when compared to the QQ activity of QQ beads [129]. Besides, immobilization of QQ enzymes on the membrane surface has been a hot issue and stability problems for enzyme immobilization for QQ applications have started to be recently solved [130]. All the existing QQ media have their own advantages and disadvantages and offer some elements of superiority to others. In this regard, the development of QQ MBR studies is expected to enhance continuously together with innovative QQ media and new QQ microorganisms.
Lastly, it is necessary to check the QQ effect on the system performance of MBR and energy and cost saving of QQ applications in MBRs. QQ MBR studies to date showed that there is no negative effect on the system performance of MBR while EPS secretion is inhibited without affecting the bacterial growth and treatment level. Effluent quality was checked by looking to the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total nitrogen (TN) in various studies and no significant difference in effluent quality between conventional (control) and QQ MBRs [19, 23, 55, 102, 112, 123]. Besides, biofouling in an MBR process is directly associated with energy consumption via TMP increase. When TMP increases to obtain a stable permeate volume during the process, it results in more physical and chemical membrane cleaning, a higher aeration rate and higher suction pump rates. In the study carried out by Jahangir et al. indicated that the application of QQ-vessel in an MBR could decrease the aeration intensity for membrane aeration (the reduction of the aeration rate by 0.5–1.0 L/min) that can be pointed out as one of the main contributors of total energy consumption during an MBR operation [121]. In addition, the reduction in the energy need for the membrane aeration and permeate suction pumps were determined and evaluated by Köse-Mutlu et al. for the use of QQ beads, QQ vessels and RMCF and it was mentioned that these QQ applications resulted in important savings in operating costs and the most feasible one was found as RMCF especially for long-term operations [123]. These are the most powerful arguments of the QQ MBR technology.

6. Chanllenges in Quorum Quenching

Although QS inhibition is a promising mechanism to prevent microbial communication, it is better for researchers to be aware of the challenges of QQ. Firstly, there is a variation in the number of LuxI and LuxR homologs between different strains of the same species that were determined for several bacteria. Burkholderia mallei, Burkholderia pseudomallei, and Rhizobium etli, in which the number of LuxR homolog ranges from two to nine, can be given as examples for these species [131]. This situation can result in a challenge for the design of receptor-binding antagonists. Moreover, some of the LuxR homologs are orphans. The existence of these orphans comes up with some questions regarding the possible roles of these orphan LuxR homologs [132]. In addition to these, there is a possibility of the development of a resistance against the QS inhibition. Compensatory mutation leads to the re-organization of social independence with the playing a role as a QS-proficient (a cooperator) instead of QS-deficient (a cheater). It was mentioned in the literature that this mutation is a possible mechanism of bacteria to overcome the QS inhibition [133, 134]. One of the explanations for this situation is the binding of a signaling molecule to another QS regulator [135]. A study showed that the mutation in Qrr sRNA resulted to the failure of Qrr/hapR binding, where hapR is the gene encoding LuxR homolog in V. cholera and prevents different genes activities; however, a mutant possessing only one of these four Qrr sRNAs can activate the QS-related activities [136]. This results in a challenge for receptor-binding antagonists to play against the QS system of V. cholera. Four strategies to reduce the risk of QQ resistance development that were mentioned in the literature can be listed as follows [137139]: the use of QQ enzymes that target a broad range of AHLs like lactonase and acylase, the use of different QQ compounds against bacteria, the combination of the QQ approach with other treatments like antibiotics, to create a synergistic effect, and finally targeting the virulence factors.
Another challenge has been the correct detection of QS. As mentioned in this review, there are a few basic biochemistry experiments that can be used by the researchers who aim to have information about the QS molecules. When the first QS signal was discovered in the early 90s, the mass spectrophotometry could not measure up and researchers tended to use and develop some traditional methods based on the light. The challenge is that AHL reporter systems are tended to false positives when used to detect QS inhibitors [140, 141]. It can be basically said that an inhibitor may be interacting with the reporter gene instead of the QS gene. If the researchers analyze a sample, they should take care to confirm that the found molecules are really involved in QS.

7. Conclusions

MBR, which are involved in water recovery and reuse, are currently plagued by a range of biofouling problems. One of the most common causes of biofouling is the development of a thickened biofilm layer that results from bacterial adhesion. For this reason, the studies described in this literature review have attempted to develop detailed insights into the QS system and to apply the QQ system as a means of preventing biofouling in MBRs. The results of these studies indicate that extra energy consumption caused by the biofouling problem can be significantly reduced.
If bio-product and biocompatible materials are described as two important elements, while bio-products can involve bacteria and enzymes, the biocompatible material can refer to the immobilization media. For an effective QQ-MBR operation, bio-product and biocompatible material are of equal importance. When the future of this study subject is considered, two essential windows can be opened: 1) there can be the need for new bacteria species and new enzymes originated from these bacteria species or other creatures, and 2) there can be a new open multi-disciplinary research area on biocompatible innovative materials used in immobilization media.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the TUBITAK (the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey), and KORANET (the Korean Scientific Cooperation Network with the European Research Area) under project no 112M739. Tülay Ergön-Can thanks to TUBITAK 2218-National Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program for financial support.

References

1. Von Grebmer K, Ringler C, Rosegrant MW, Olofinbiyi T, Wiesmann D, Thompson JGlobal hunger index: The challenge of hunger: Ensuring sustainable food security under land, water, and energy stresses. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 2012;


2. Lee S, Park SK, Kwon H, et alCrossing the border between laboratory and field: Bacterial quorum quenching for anti-biofouling strategy in an MBR. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:1788–1795.
crossref

3. Meng F, Chae SR, Drew A, Kraume M, Shin HS, Yang FRecent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane fouling and membrane material. Water Res. 2009;43:489–1512.
crossref

4. Judd SA review of fouling of membrane bioreactors in sewage treatment. Water Sci Technol. 2004;492:229–235.
crossref pdf

5. Noble JGE ZeeWeed MBR technology for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment. Membr Technol. 2006;2006:7–9.
crossref

6. Chen W, Liu JThe possibility and applicability of coagulation-MBR hybrid system in reclamation of dairy wastewater. Desalination. 2012;285:226–231.
crossref

7. Ortiz M, Raluy RG, Serra L, Uche JLife cycle assessment of water treatment technologies: Wastewater and water-reuse in a small town. Desalination. 2007;204:121–131.
crossref

8. Pandey A, Singh RKIndustrial waste water treatment by membrane bioreactor system. Elixir Chem Eng. 2014;70:23772–23777.


9. BCC Research. Global market for membrane bioreactors worth $488 million by 2013. International report. Massachusetts, USA: 2008.


10. Grand view research. Membrane bioreactor (MBR) market analysis by product (hollow fiber, flat sheet, multi-tubular), by configuration (submerged, side stream), by application, and segment forecasts, 2018-2025. International report. California, USA: 2017.


11. Drews AMembrane fouling in membrane bioreactors–Characterisation, contradictions, cause and cures. J Membr Sci. 2010;363:1–28.
crossref

12. Bouayed N, Dietrich N, Lafforgue C, Lee CH, Guigui CProcess-oriented review of bacterial quorum quenching for membrane biofouling mitigation in membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Membranes. 2016;6:52
crossref

13. Lade H, Paul D, Kweon JHN-Acyl homoserine lactone-mediated quorum sensing with special reference to use of quorum quenching bacteria in membrane biofouling control. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:162584
crossref pdf

14. Lim AL, Bai RMembrane fouling and cleaning in microfiltration of activated sludge wastewater. J Membr Sci. 2003;216:279–290.
crossref

15. Van den Broeck R, Krzeminski P, Van Dierdonck J, et alActivated sludge characteristics affecting sludge filterability in municipal and industrial MBRs: Unraveling correlations using multi-component regression analysis. J Membr Sci. 378:330–338.
crossref

16. Adav SS, Lee DJExtraction of extracellular polymeric substances from aerobic granule with compact interior structure. J Hazard Mater. 2008;154:1120–1126.
crossref

17. Tansel B, Sager J, Garland J, Xu S, Levine L, Bisbee PDeposition of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and microtopographical changes on membrane surfaces during intermittent filtration conditions. J Membr Sci. 2006;285:225–231.
crossref

18. Laspidou CS, Rittmann BEA unified theory for extracellular polymeric substances soluble microbial products and active and inert biomass. Water Res. 2002;36:2711–2720.
crossref

19. Jiang W, Xia S, Liang J, Zhang Z, Hermanowicz SWEffect of quorum quenching on the reactor performance biofouling and biomass characteristics in membrane bioreactors. Water Res. 2013;47:187–196.
crossref

20. Ham SY, Kim HS, Cha E, Park JH, Park HDMitigation of membrane biofouling by a quorum quenching bacterium for membrane bioreactors. Biores Technol. 2018;258:220–226.
crossref

21. Greenberg EPQuorum Sensing in Gram-Negative Bacteria. ASM News. 1997;63:371–377.


22. Greenberg EPBacterial communication and group behavior. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1288–1290.
crossref

23. Kim AL, Park SY, Lee CH, Lee CH, Lee JKQuorum quenching bacteria isolated from the sludge of a wastewater treatment plant and their application for controlling biofilm formation. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;24:1574–1582.
crossref

24. Parsek MR, Greenberg EPSociomicrobiology: The connections between quorum sensing and biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13:27–33.
crossref

25. Whitehead NA, Barnard AM, Slater H, Simpson NJ, Salmond GPQuorum sensing in Gram-negative bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2001;25:365–404.
crossref pdf

26. Ng WL, Bassler BLBacterial quorum-sensing network architectures. Annu Rev Genet. 2009;43:197–222.
crossref

27. Chen X, Schauder S, Potier N, et alStructural identification of a bacterial quorum-sensing signal containing boron. Nature. 2002;415:545–549.
crossref pdf

28. Federle MJ, Bassler LInterspecies communication in bacteria. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1291–1299.
crossref

29. Xavier KB, Bassler BLRegulation of uptake and processing of the quorum-sensing autoinducer AI-2 in Escherichia coli . J Bacteriol. 2005;187:238–248.
crossref

30. Dobretsov S, Teplitski M, Paul VMini-review: Quorum sensing in the marine environment and its relationship to biofouling. Biofouling. 2009;25:413–427.
crossref

31. Nealson KH, Platt T, Hastings JWCellular control of the synthesis and activity of the bacterial luminescent system. J Bacteriol. 1970;104:313–322.


32. Eberhard A, Burlingame AL, Eberhard C, Kenyon GL, Nealson KH, Oppenheimer NJStructural identification of autoinducer of Photobacterium fischeri luciferase. Biochemistry. 1981;20:2444–2449.
crossref

33. Pearson JP, Gray KM, Passador L, et alStructure of the autoinducer required for expression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:197–201.
crossref

34. Cha C, Gao P, Chen YC, Shaw PD, Farrand SKProduction of acyl-homoserine lactone quorum-sensing signals by gram-negative plant-associated bacteria. Mol Plant Microb Interact. 1998;11:1119–1129.
crossref

35. Fuqua C, Parsek MR, Greenberg EPRegulation of gene expression by cell-to-cell communication: Acylhomoserine lactone quorum sensing. Annu Rev Genet. 2001;35:439–468.
crossref

36. Swift S, Lynch MJ, Fish L, et alQuorum sensing-dependent regulation and blockade of exoprotease production in Aeromonas hydrophila . Infect Immun. 1999;67:5192–5199.


37. Holden MTG, Chhabra SR, De Nys R, et alQuorum-sensing cross talk: Isolation and chemical characterization of cyclic dipeptides from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other Gram-negative bacteria. Mol Microbiol. 1999;33:1254–1266.
crossref

38. Lyon GJ, Mayville P, Muir TW, Novick RPRational design of a global inhibitor of the virulence response in Staphylococcus aureus based in part on localization of the site of inhibition to the receptor-histidine kinase. AgrC Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:13330–13335.
crossref

39. Miller MB, Bassler BLQuorum sensing in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2001;55:165–199.
crossref

40. Chen X, Schauder S, Potier N, et alStructural identification of a bacterial quorum sensing signal containing boron. Nature. 2002;415:545–549.
crossref pdf

41. Miller ST, Xavier KB, Campagna SR, et al Salmonella typhimurium recognizes a chemically distinct form of the bacterial quorum-sensing signal AI-2. Mol Cell. 2004;15:677–687.
crossref

42. Defoirdt T, Boon N, Bossier P, Verstraete WDisruption of bacterial quorum sensing: An unexplored strategy to fight infections in aquaculture. Aquaculture. 2004;240:69–88.
crossref

43. Zhang LH, Dong YHQuorum sensing and signal interference: Diverse implications. Mol Microbiol. 2004;53:1563–1571.
crossref

44. Chong TM, Koh CL, Sam CK, Choo YM, Yin WF, Chan KGCharacterization of quorum sensing and quorum quenching soil bacteria isolated from Malaysian tropical montane forest. Sensors. 2012;12:4846–4859.
crossref

45. Lau YY, Sulaiman J, Chen JW, Yin WF, Chan GKQuorum sensing activity of Enterobacter asburiae isolated from lettuce leaves. Sensors. 2013;13:14189–14199.
crossref

46. Tan WS, Yunos NYM, Tan PW, et alFreshwater-borne bacteria isolated from a malaysian rainforest waterfall exhibiting quorum sensing properties. Sensors. 2014;14:10527–10537.
crossref

47. Zan J, Liu Y, Fuqua C, Hill RTAcyl-homoserine lactone quorum sensing in the Roseobacter clade . Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15:654–669.
crossref

48. Sandle TBacterial adhesion: An introduction. J Valid Technol. 2013;19:1–10.


49. Lade H, Paul D, Kweon JHIsolation and molecular characterization of biofouling bacteria and profiling of quorum sensing signal molecules from membrane bioreactor activated sludge. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;152:2255–2273.
crossref

50. Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Stahl DA, Clark DPBrock biology of microorganisms. 13th edUSA: Benjamin Cummings Publishers; 2010. p. 14–15.


51. Yeon KM, Cheong WS, Oh HS, et alQuorum sensing: A new biofouling control paradigm in a membrane bioreactor for advanced wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;432:380–385.
crossref

52. Fuqua C, Winans SCConserved cis-acting promoter elements are required for density-dependent transcription of Agrobacterium tumefaciens conjugal transfer genes. J Bacteriol. 1996;178:435–440.
crossref

53. Kawaguchi T, Chen YP, Norman RS, Decho AWRapid screening of quorum-sensing signal N-Acyl homoserine lactones by an in vitro cell-free assay. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:3667–3671.
crossref

54. Hannah R, Stroke I, Betz NBeta-Glo® Assay System: A luminescent β-galactosidase assay for multiple cell types and media. Cell Note. 2003;6:16–18.


55. Oh HS, Kim SR, Cheong WS, Lee CH, Lee JKBiofouling inhibition in MBR by Rhodococcus sp. BH4 isolated from real MBR plant. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;9723:10223–10231.
crossref

56. Zhu J, Chai Y, Zhong Z, Li S, Winans SCAgrobacterium bioassay strain for ultrasensitive detection of N-acylhomoserine lactone-type quorum-sensing molecules: detection of autoinducers in Mesorhizobium huakuii . Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:6949–6953.
crossref

57. Steindler L, Venturi VDetection of quorum-sensing N-acyl homoserine lactone signal molecules by bacterial biosensors. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006;26:1–9.


58. Rajamani S, Sayre RBiosensors for the detection and quantification of AI-2 class quorum-sensing compounds. Quorum Sensing. New York: Humana Press; 2018. p. 73–88.
crossref

59. Culhane K, Jiang K, Neumann A, Pinchuk AOLaser-fabricated plasmonic nanostructures for surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy of bacteria quorum sensing molecules. MRS Adv. 2017;2:2287–2294.
crossref

60. Wopperer J, Cardona ST, Huber B, Jacobi CA, Valvano MA, Eberl LA quorum-quenching approach to investigate the conservation of quorum-sensing-regulated functions within the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:1579–1587.
crossref

61. García-Aljaro C, Eberl L, Riedel K, Blanch ARDetection of quorum-sensing-related molecules in Vibrio scophthalmi . BMC Microbiol. 2008;8:138
crossref

62. Uroz S, Dessaux Y, Oger PQuorum sensing and quorum quenching: The yin and yang of bacterial communication. ChemBioChem. 2009;10:205–216.
crossref

63. Whiteley M, Diggle SP, Greenberg EPProgress in and promise of bacterial quorum sensing research. Nature. 2017;551:31–320.
crossref pdf

64. Geske GD, O’Neill JC, Blackwell HEExpanding dialogues: From natural autoinducers to non-natural analogues that modulate quorum sensing in Gram-negative bacteria. Chem Soc Rev. 2008;37:1432–1447.
crossref

65. Parveen N, Cornell KAMethylthioadenosine/S-adenosylhomocysteine nucleosidase a critical enzyme for bacterial metabolism. Mol Microbiol. 2011;79:7–20.
crossref

66. Rasmussen TB, Givskov MQuorum-sensing inhibitors as antipathogenic drugs. Int J Med Microbiol. 2006;152:149–161.
crossref

67. Dong YH, Xu JL, Li XZ, Zhang LHAiiA, an enzyme that inactivates the acylhomoserine lactone quorum sensing signal and attenuates the virulence of Erwinia carotovora . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:3526–3531.
crossref

68. Dong YH, Wang LH, Xu JL, Zhang HB, Zhang XF, Zhang LHQuenching quorum-sensing-dependent bacterial infection by an N-acyl homoserine lactonase. Nature. 2001;411:813–817.
crossref pdf

69. Leadbetter JR, Greenberg EPMetabolism of acyl-homoserine lactone quorum-sensing signals by Variovorax paradoxus . J Bacteriol. 2000;182:6921–6926.
crossref

70. Zhang HB, Wang LH, Zhang LHGenetic control of quorum-sensing signal turnover in Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99:4638–4643.
crossref

71. Fetzner SQuorum quenching enzymes. J Biotechnol. 2015;201:2–14.
crossref

72. Kiran GS, Hassan S, Sajayan A, Selvin JQuorum quenching compounds from natural sources. Bioresour Bioproc Biotechnol. 2017;351–364.


73. Draganov DI, Stetson PL, Watson CE, Billecke SS, La Du BNRabbit serum paraoxonase 3 (PON3); is a high density lipoprotein-associated lactonase and protects low density lipoprotein against oxidation. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:33435–33442.
crossref

74. Teiber JF, Draganov DI, La Du BNLactonase and lactonizing activities of human serum paraoxonase (PON1) and rabbit serum PON3. Biol Chem Pharmacol. 2003;66:887–896.
crossref

75. Chun CK, Ozer EA, Welsh MJ, Zabner J, Greenberg EPInactivation of pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing signal by human airway epithelia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:3587–3590.
crossref

76. Chowdhary PK, Keshavan N, Nguyen HQ, Peterson JA, Gonzales JE, Haines DC Bacillus megaterium CYP102A1 oxidation of acyl homoserine lactones and acyl homoserines. Biol Chem. 2007;46:14429–14437.


77. Uroz S, Chabra SR, Cámara M, Williams P, Oger P, Dessaux YN-acylhomoserine lactone quorum-sensing molecules are modified and degraded by Rhodococcus erythropolis W2 by both amidolytic and novel oxidoreductase activities. Microbiology. 2005;151:3313–3322.
crossref

78. Yang F, Wang LH, Wang J, Dong YH, Hu JY, Zhang LHQuorum quenching enzyme activity is widely conserved in the sera of mammalian species. FEBS Lett. 2005;579:3713–3717.
crossref

79. Götz C, Fakete A, Gebefuegi I, et alUptake, degradation and chiral discrimination of N-acyl-D/L-homoserine lactones by barley (Hordeum vulgare) and yam bean (Pachyrhizus erosus) plants. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;389:1447–1457.
crossref pdf

80. Ogawa K, Nakajima-Kambe T, Nakahara T, Kokufuta ECoimmobilization of gluconolactonase with glucose oxidase for improvement in kinetic property of enzymatically induced volume collapse in ionic gels. Biomacromolecules. 2002;3:625–631.
crossref

81. Ulrich RLQuorum quenching: Enzymatic disruption of N-acylhomoserine lactone-mediated bacterial communication in Burkholderia thailandensis. Appl. Environ . Microbiol. 2004;70:6173–6180.


82. Dong YH, Gusti AR, Zhang Q, Xu JL, Zhang LHIdentification of quorum-quenching N-acyl homoserine lactonases from Bacillus species. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:1754–1759.
crossref

83. Carlier A, Uroz S, Smadja B, et alThe Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens harbors an attM-Paralogous gene, aiiB, also encoding N-acyl homoserine lactonase activity. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:4989–4993.
crossref

84. Liu D, Thomas PW, Momb J, et alStructure and specificity of a quorum-quenching lactonase (AiiB) from Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Biochemistry. 2007;46:11789–11799.
crossref

85. Chow JY, Xue B, Lee KH, et alDirected evolution of a thermostable quorum-quenching lactonase from the amidohydrolase superfamily. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:40911–40920.
crossref

86. Wang WZ, Morohoshi T, Ikenoya M, Someya N, Ikeda TAiiM, a novel class of N-acylhomoserine lactonase from the leaf-associated bacterium microbacterium testaceum . Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:2524–2530.
crossref

87. Chow JY, Wu L, Yew WSDirected evolution of a quorum-quenching lactonase from Mycobacterium avium sub sp. paratuberculosis K-10 in the amidohydrolase superfamily. Biochemistry. 2009;48:4344–4353.
crossref

88. Afriat L, Roodveldt C, Manco G, Tawfik DSThe latent promiscuity of newly identified microbial lactonases is linked to a recently diverged phosphotriesterase. Biochemistry. 2006;45:13677–13686.
crossref

89. Mei GY, Yan XX, Turak A, Luo ZQ, Zhang LQ AidH, an alpha/ beta-hydrolase fold family member from an Ochrobactrum sp. strain is a novel N-acylhomoserine lactonase. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:4933–4942.
crossref

90. Morohoshi T, Tominaga Y, Someya N, Ikeda TComplete genome sequence and characterization of the N-acylhomoserine lactone-degrading gene of the potato leaf-associated solibacillus silvestris . J Biosci Bioeng. 2012;113:20–25.
crossref

91. Merone L, Mandrich L, Rossi M, Manco GA thermostable phosphotriesterase from the archaeon sulfolobus solfataricus: Cloning overexpression and properties. Extremophiles. 2005;9:297–305.
crossref pdf

92. Elias M, Dupuy J, Merone L, et alStructural basis for natural lactonase and promiscuous phosphotriesterase activities. J Mol Biol. 2008;379:1017–1028.
crossref

93. Uroz S, Oger PM, Chapelle E, Adeline MT, Faure D, Dessaux YA Rhodococcus qsdA-encoded enzyme defines a novel class of large-spectrum quorum-quenching lactonases. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:1357–1366.
crossref

94. Riaz K, Elmerich C, Moreira D, Raffoux A, Dessaux Y, Faure DA metagenomic analysis of soil bacteria extends the diversity of quorum-quenching lactonases. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:560–570.
crossref

95. Park SY, Lee SJ, Oh TK, et alAhlD, an N-acylhomoserine lactonase in Arthrobacter sp., and predicted homologues in other bacteria. Microbiology. 2003;149:1541–1550.
crossref

96. Park SY, Hwang BJ, Shin MH, Kim JA, Kim HK, Lee JK N-acylhomoserine lactonase-producing Rhodococcus spp. with different AHL-degrading activities. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006;261:102–108.
crossref pdf

97. Lynch MJ, Swift S, Kirke DF, Keevil CW, Dodd CE, Williams PThe regulation of biofilm development by quorum sensing in Aeromonas hydrophila . Environ Microbiol. 2002;4:18–28.
crossref

98. Paul D, Kim YS, Ponnusamy K, Kwon JHApplication of quorum quenching to inhibit biofilm formation. Environ Eng Sci. 2009;26:1319–1324.
crossref

99. Sauer K, Camper AKCharacterization of phenotypic changes in Pseudomonas putida in response to surface associated growth. J Bacteriol. 2001;183:6579–6589.
crossref

100. Xu F, Byun T, Deussen HJ, Duke KRDegradation of N-acylhomoserine lactones the bacterial quorum sensing molecules by acylase. J Biotechnol. 2003;101:89–96.
crossref

101. Kim SR, Oh HS, Jo SJ, et alBiofouling control with bead-entrapped quorum quenching bacteria in membrane bioreactors: Physical and biological effects. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;472:836–842.
crossref

102. Yeon KM, Lee CH, Kim JMagnetic enzyme carrier for effective biofouling control in the membrane bioreactor based on enzymatic quorum quenching. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:7403–7409.
crossref

103. Lin YH, Xu JL, Hu J, et alAcyl‐homoserine lactone acylase from Ralstonia strain XJ12B represents a novel and potent class of quorum‐quenching enzymes. Mol Microbiol. 2003;47:849–860.
crossref

104. Romero M, Diggle SP, Heeb S, Camara M, Otero AQuorum quenching activity in Anabaena sp. PCC 7120: Identification of AiiC a novel AHL-acylase. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008;280:73–80.
crossref pdf

105. Huang JJ, Han JI, Zhang LH, Leadbetter JRUtilization of acyl-homoserine lactone quorum signals for growth by a soil pseudomonad and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:5941–5949.
crossref

106. Sio CF, Otten LG, Cool RH, et alQuorum quenching by an N-acyl-homoserine lactone acylase from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Infect Immun. 2006;74:1673–1682.
crossref

107. Shepherd RW, Lindow SETwo dissimilar N-acyl-homoserine lactone acylases of Pseudomonas syringae influence colony and biofilm morphology. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:45–53.
crossref

108. Chen CN, Chen CJ, Liao CT, Lee CYA probable aculeacin A acylase from the ralstonia solanacearum GMI1000 is N-acyl- homoserine lactone acylase with quorum quenching activity. BMC Microbiol. 2009;9:89
crossref

109. Morohoshi T, Nakazawa S, Ebata A, Kato N, Ikeda TIdentification and characterization of N-acylhomoserine lactone-acylase from the fish intestinal Shewanella sp. strain MIB015. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2008;72:1887–1893.
crossref

110. Park SY, Kang HO, Jang HS, Lee JK, Koo BT, Yum DYIdentification of extracellular N-acylhomoserine lactone acylase from a Streptomyces sp. and its application to quorum quenching. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:2632–2641.
crossref

111. Chan KG, Atkinson S, Mathee K, et alCharacterization of N-acylhomoserine lactone-degrading bacteria associated with the zingiber officinale ginger; rhizosphere: Co-existence of quorum quenching and quorum sensing in Acinetobacter and Burkholderia. BMC Microbiol. 2011;11:51
crossref

112. Cheong WS, Lee CH, Moon YH, et alIsolation and identification of indigenous quorum quenching bacteria pseudomonas sp. 1A1 for biofouling control in MBR. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2013;52:10554–10560.
crossref

113. Uroz S, Oger P, Chhabra SR, Camara M, Williams P, Dessaux YN-acyl homoserine lactones are degraded via an amidolytic activity in Comamonas sp. strain D1. Arch Microbiol. 2006;187:249–256.
crossref pdf

114. Lithgow JK, Wilkinson A, Hardman A, et alThe regulatory locus cinRI in Rhizobium leguminosarum controls a network of quorum-sensing loci. Mol Microbiol. 2000;37:81–97.
crossref

115. Bassler BL, Losick RBacterially speaking. Cell. 2006;125:237–246.
crossref

116. Koch B, Liljefors T, Persson T, Nielsen J, Kjelleberg S, Givskov MThe LuxR Receptor: The sites of interaction with quorum-sensing signals and inhibitors. Microbiology. 2005;151:3589–3602.
crossref

117. Chen G, Swern LR, Swern DL, et alA strategy for antagonizing quorum sensing. Mol Cell. 2011;42:199–209.
crossref

118. Jimenez PN, Koch G, Thompson JA, Xavier KB, Cool RH, Quax WJThe multiple signaling systems regulating virulence in pseudomonas aeruginosa . Microbiol Molecul Bio Rev. 2012;76:46–65.
crossref

119. Kim JH, Choi DC, Yeon KM, Kim SR, Lee CHEnzyme-immobilized nanofiltration membrane to mitigate biofouling based on quorum quenching. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:1601–1607.
crossref

120. Oh HS, Yeon KM, Yang CS, et alControl of membrane biofouling in MBR for wastewater treatment by quorum quenching bacteria encapsulated in microporous membrane. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46:4877–4884.
crossref

121. Jahangir D, Oh HS, Kim SR, Park PK, Lee CH, Lee JKSpecific location of encapsulated quorum quenching bacteria for biofouling control in an external submerged membrane bioreactor. J Membr Sci. 2012;411–412:130–136.
crossref

122. Cheong WS, Kim SR, Oh HS, et alDesign of quorum quenching microbial vessel to enhance cell viability for biofouling control in membrane bioreactor. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;24:97–105.
crossref

123. Köse-Mutlu B, Ergön-Can T, Koyuncu İ, Lee CHQuorum quenching MBR operations for biofouling control under different operation conditions and using different immobilization media. Desalin Water Treat. 2015;17696–17706.
crossref

124. Lee B, Yeon KM, Shim J, et alEffective antifouling using quorum-quenching acylase stabilized in magnetically- separable mesoporous silica. Biomacromolecules. 2014;15:1153–1159.
crossref

125. Kim SR, Lee KB, Kim JE, et alMacroencapsulation of quorum quenching bacteria by polymeric membrane layer and its application to MBR for biofouling control. J Membr Sci. 2015;437:109–117.
crossref

126. Lee KB, Lee SK, Lee SH, et alFungal quorum quenching: A paradigm shift for energy savings in membrane bioreactor (MBR) for wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:10914–10922.
crossref

127. Lee SK, Lee SH, Lee KB, et alEffect of shape and size of quorum quenching medium on biofouling control in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016;26:1746–1754.
crossref pdf

128. Lee SH, Lee S, Lee K, et alMore efficient media design for enhanced biofouling control in a membrane bioreactor: quorum quenching bacteria entrapping hollow cylinder. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:8596–8604.
crossref

129. Nahm CH, Choi DC, Kwon H, et alApplication of quorum quenching bacteria entrapping sheets to enhance biofouling control in a membrane bioreactor with a hollow fiber module. J Membr Sci. 2017;526:264–271.
crossref

130. Lee J, Lee I, Nam J, Hwang DS, Yeon KM, Kim JImmobilization and stabilization of acylase on carboxylated polyaniline nanofibers for highly effective antifouling application via quorum quenching. ACS Appl Mater Interf. 2017;9:15424–15432.
crossref

131. Hong KW, Koh CL, Sam CK, Yin WF, Chan KGQuorum quenching revisited-from signal decays to signalling confusion. Sensors. 2012;12:4661–4696.
crossref

132. Patankar AV, González JEOrphan LuxR regulators of quorum sensing. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2009;33:739–756.
crossref pdf

133. Sandoz KM, Mitzimberg SM, Schuster MSocial cheating in Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing. Proceed Nat Acad Sci. 2007;104:15876–15881.
crossref

134. Beatson SA, Whitchurch CB, Semmler AB, Mattick JSQuorum sensing is not required for twitching motility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa . J Bacteriol. 2002;184:3598–3604.
crossref

135. Choi Y, Park HY, Park SJ, et alGrowth phase-differential quorum sensing regulation of anthranilate metabolism in pseudomonas aeruginosa . Mol Cell. 2011;32:57–65.
crossref

136. Bardill JP, Zhao X, Hammer BKThe Vibrio cholerae quorum sensing response is mediated by Hfq‐dependent sRNA/mRNA base pairing interactions. Mol Microbiol. 2011;80:1381–1394.
crossref

137. Defoirdt T, Boon N, Bossier PCan bacteria evolve resistance to quorum sensing disruption? PLoS Pathogens. 2010;6:e1000989
crossref

138. Estrela AB, Abraham WRCombining biofilm-controlling compounds and antibiotics as a promising new way to control biofilm infections. Pharmaceuticals. 2010;3:1374–1393.
crossref

139. Clatworthy AE, Pierson E, Hung DTTargeting virulence: A new paradigm for antimicrobial therapy. Nat Chem Biol. 2007;3:541–548.
crossref pdf

140. Kalia VCQuorum sensing and its biotechnological applications. Springer Nature; 2018. p. 119–131.


141. Ran T, Zhou CS, Xu LW, et alInitial detection of the quorum sensing autoinducer activity in the rumen of goats in vivo and in vitro . J Integ Agri. 2016;15:2343–2352.
crossref

Fig. 1
QS mechanism and group behaviors.
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2018-380f1.gif
Fig. 2
QS mechanism and group behaviors.
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2018-380f2.gif
Fig. 3
Bio-assay methods for AHL determination in QQ MBR studies (a) and the reaction with Beta-galactosidase and Beta-glo (b).
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2018-380f3.gif
Fig. 4
Main AHL-mediated quorum quenching mechanisms.
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2018-380f4.gif
Fig. 5
Enzymatic AHL degradation mechanism and final products (N.Y.D.: Not yet determined).
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2018-380f5.gif
Table 1
Quorum Sensing Signals and QS-Controlled Behaviors in Some Bacteria
QS signals Bacteria Signal synthase Process controlled by QS Reference
3-oxo-C6-HSL Vibrio fischeri LuxI Bio-luminescence [31, 32]
3-oxo-C12-HSL P. aeruginosa LasI Virulence production [33]
3-oxo-C8-HSL Agrobacterium tumefaciens TraI Conjugal transfer of the virulence plasmid [34, 35]
C6-HSL Chromobacterium violaceum CvI Violacein, antibiotics and enzyme production [34]
C4-HSL, C6-HSL Aeromonas hydrophyla, A. salmonicida AhyI AsaI Biofilm formation, enzyme production [36]
Diketopiperazines (DKP)
Cyclo(Ala-l-Val) and cyclo(l-Pro-l-Tyr)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
E. coli
Proteus mirabilis
Citrobacter freundii
Enterobacter sp.
- Cross-species communication [37]
Group I thiolactone Staphylococcus aureus AIP-I Virulence [38]
Group III thioloactone S. aureus AIP-III Virulence [38]
Group IV thioloactone S. aureus AIP-IV Virulence [38]
C4-HSL Seratia marcescens SwrI Swarming [39]
C6-HSL, Oxo-C6-HSL, C8-HSL Yersinia enterocolytica, Y. pseudotuberculosis YenI YpsI Motility Aggregation [39]
Furanosyl borate diester Vibrio harveyii AI-2 Luminescence [40]
(2R,4S) -2-methyl-2,3,3,4-tetrahydroxy tetrahydrofuran Salmonella enterica sv Typhimurum AI-2 Virulence gene expression [41]
3-oxo-C10-HSL Vibrio anguillarum VanI Virulence [42]
Cyclic thiolactone S. aureus AIP-II Virulence [43]
3OH-C4-HSL Vibrio harveyi LuxM Bio-luminescence, biofilm production [21]
C4-HSL Pseudomonas aeruginosa RhII Biofilm maturation, adhesion [21]
ADPITRQWGD Bacillus subtilis ComX Sporulation [21]
EMRLSKFFRDFILQRKK S. pneumonie CSP Competence [21]
g-butyrolactones
g-butyrolactone
Streptomyces griseus A-factor Induce biosynthesis of antibiotics [21]
C12-HSL Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis (isolate BT9) AI-2 Virulence, biofilm formation [44]
C4-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL Enterobacter AI-2 Virulence [45, 46]
HSL Phaeobacter inhibens DSM17395
Ruegeria sp. KLH11
Dinoroseobacter shibae
AI-2 Symbiosis [47]
Table 2
Quorum Quenching Species According to the Enzyme Types
QQ Enzymes Source/Bacterial strains Gene/Protein AHL type Reference
Lactonase Mammalian cell Lactonase C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [75, 78]
Fungi n.d. C6-HSL [79]
As. Niger IAN 2094 Glocono lactonase Lactone ring hydrolysis [80]
A. Tumafaciens c58 AttM 3-oxo-C8-HSL [69]
Bacillus sp. 240B1 AiiA C8-HSL [67, 60]
B. anthracis AiiA C6-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL [81]
B. cereus AiiA C6-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL [82]
B. mycoides AiiA C6-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL [82]
A. Tumafaciens C58 AiiB 3-oxo-C6-HSL, C6-HSL, C8-HSL, C7-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL [83]
A. Tumafaciens AiiB C4-HSL, 3-oxo-C6-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL [84]
Ge. Kaustophilus HTA426 GKL C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [85]
M. testaceum StLB037 AiiM 3-oxo-C6-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, C10-HSL [86]
My. Paratuberculosis K-10 MCP C7-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL, C12-HSL [87]
Lactonase My. Tuberculosis PPH C4-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C10-HSL [88]
Ochrobactrum sp. T63 AidH C4-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C10-HSL [89]
So. Silverstris StLB046 AHLs C10-HSL [90]
Sul. Solfataricus P2 SspPox 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [91, 92]
Rho. Erythropolis W2 QsdA 3-oxo-C6-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL, C12-HSL, 3-oxo-C14-HSL, C14-HSL [93]
Acidobacteria sp. QIcA 3-oxo-C6-HSL, C6-HSL, C7-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, C10-HSL [94]
Arthrobacter sp. IBN110 AhlD C4-HSL, 3-oxo-C6-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, C10-HSL [95]
Agrobacterium radiobacter K84 AiiS Broad spectrum [62]
Klebsiella pneumonia KCTC2241 AhlK C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C6-HSL [95]
Rhodococcus sp. BH4 n.d. Broad spectrum [93, 96]
Paraoxonase Mammalian cells Pon 1,2,3 Long chain AHL [78]
Acylase Porcine Acylase I C4-HSL, C6-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [97102]
Ralstonia sp. XJ12B AiiD 3-oxo-C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [103]
Anabena sp. PCC7120 AiiC C4-HSL, C14-HSL [104]
Pseudomonas sp. PAI-A PvdQ 3-oxo-C10-HSL, C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL, C12-HSL, C14-HSL, C16-HSL [105, 106]
P. synringae B728a HacA C8-HSL, C10-HSL, C12-HSL [107]
P. synringae B728a HacB C6-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL, C12-HSL [107]
R. solanacearum GMI1000 Aac C7-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C10-HSL [108]
Shewanella sp. MIB015 Aac C8-HSL, C10-HSL, C12-HSL [109]
Streptomyces sp. M664 AhlM C8-HSL, C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [110]
P. aeruginosa QuiP C6-HSL, C8-HSL, C10-HSL, C12-HSL [111]
Pseuodomonas sp. 1A1 n.d. C6-HSL, C8-HSL, 3-oxo-C8-HSL, C10-HSL, 3-oxo-C10-HSL, C12-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL [112]
V. pradoxus n.d. n.d. [69, 83]
R. eutropha AiiD n.d. [103]
Comamonas n.d. n.d. [113]
Rhodococcus n.d. Broad spectrum [114]
Oxidoreductase B. megaterium CYP102A1 P450BM3 Oxidizes; C12-HSL, 3-oxo-C12-HSL, C14-HSL, 3-oxo-C14-HSL, C16-HSL, C18-HSL, C20-HSL [76]
Burkholderia sp. GG4 n.d. Reduces; 3-oxo-AHL [114]
Rho. Erythropolis W2 n.d. Converts; C8-HSL to C14-HSL [77]
Rhodococcus n.d. Long 3-oxo-AHL [114]
Oxidase Bacillus megaterium CYP102A1 P450BM-3 Long chain AHL [115]
Table 3
QQ MBR Applications
Immobilization medium QQ specie QQ enzyme Advantages Disadvantages Reference
- - Acylase No need to encapsulate Cost and instability of the enzyme [51]
Magnetic enzyme carrier - Acylase Easy recovery Cost and instability of the enzyme [102]
Enzyme immobilized membrane - Acylase No need to separate from activated sludge Cost and instability of the enzyme [119]
Polymeric microbial vessel Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase No need to separate from activated sludge Localization of QQ bacteria inside the vessel, Low mass transfer through the vessel [120, 121]
Polymeric microbial vessel Pseudomonas sp. 1A1 Acylase No need to separate from activated sludge Contamination of exo-enzyme, Low mass transfer through the vessel, Localization of QQ bacteria inside the vessel [112]
Ceramic microbial vessel Pseudomonas sp. 1A1 Acylase High F/M ratio for QQ-bacteria, No need to separate from activated sludge Contamination of exo-enzyme, Low mass transfer through the vessel, Localization of QQ bacteria inside the vessel [122]
Rotating microbial carrier frame Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Even distribution of QQ-bacteria inside frame via rotation, Convenience for the larger pilot- and real-scale MBR plants Medium F:M ratio, Inconvenience for small lab-scale MBRs [123]
Sodium alginate beads - Acylase Extra physical washing effect, Even distribution of enzyme Cost and bio-instability of the bead, [19]
Sodium alginate beads Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Extra physical washing effect Even distribution of QQ-bacteria Bio-instability of the bead, [101]
Magnetically-separable mesoporous silica - Acylase Highly stable and separable material, Extra physical washing effect Cost and instability of the enzyme [124]
Sodium alginate bead covered with the polymeric membrane layer Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Extra physical washing effect, The high mechanical strength of bead, Even distribution of QQ-bacteria Low mass transfer through the bead [125]
(Sodium alginate + PVA) beads Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Extra physical washing effect, Resistant to biodegradation of beads, Even distribution of QQ-bacteria Cost of bead [126]
Polymer beads Candida albicans AI-2 enzyme Fungal-to-bacterial QQ The need of economic feasibility for the pilot- and real-scale plants [126]
(Sodium alginate + PVA) cylinder Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Higher mass transfer, Extra physical washing effect Cost of bead [127]
Hollow-cylinder Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Higher surface area and enhanced physical effect The need of economic feasibility for the pilot- and real-scale plants [128]
Sheets Rhodococcus sp. BH4 Lactonase Higher surface area Low durability for long operation [129]
Carboxylated polyaniline nanofibers - Acylase No need to separate from activated sludge, improved stability Cost of enzyme [130]
TOOLS
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
  E-Mail
  Print
Share:      
METRICS
2
Crossref
0
Scopus
2,053
View
117
Download
Editorial Office
464 Cheongpa-ro, #726, Jung-gu, Seoul 04510, Republic of Korea
TEL : +82-2-383-9697   FAX : +82-2-383-9654   E-mail : eer@kosenv.or.kr

Copyright© Korean Society of Environmental Engineers. All rights reserved.        Developed in M2community
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers