4.7 Article

Optimising an outdoor membrane photobioreactor for tertiary sewage treatment

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 245, Issue -, Pages 76-85

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.010

Keywords

Hollow-fibre membrane; Membrane photobioreactor; Microalgae cultivation; Nutrient recovery; Outdoor; Photosynthetic efficiency

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [CTM2014-54980-C2-1-R, CTM2014-54980-C2-2-R]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  3. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport via a pre-doctoral FPU fellowship [FPU14/05082]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The operation of an outdoor membrane photobioreactor plant which treated the effluent of an anaerobic membrane bioreactor was optimised. Biomass retention times of 4.5, 6, and 9 days were tested. At a biomass retention time of 4.5 days, maximum nitrogen recovery rate:light irradiance ratios, photosynthetic efficiencies and carbon biofixations of 51.7 +/- 14.3 mg N.mol(-1), 4.4 +/- 1.6% and 0.50 +/- 0.05 kg CO2 center dot m(influent)(3), respectively, were attained. Minimum membrane fouling rates were achieved when operating at the shortest biomass retention time because of the lower solid concentration and the negligible amount of cyanobacteria and protozoa. Hydraulic retention times of 3.5, 2, and 1.5 days were tested at the optimum biomass retention times of 4.5 days under non-nutrient limited conditions, showing no significant differences in the nutrient recovery rates, photosynthetic efficiencies and membrane fouling rates. However, nitrogen recovery rate:light irradiance ratios and photosynthetic efficiency significantly decreased when hydraulic retention time was further shortened to 1 day, probably due to a rise in the substrate turbidity which reduced the light availability in the culture. Optimal carbon biofixations and theoretical energy recoveries from the biomass were obtained at hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days, which accounted for 0.55 +/- 0.05 kg CO2 center dot m(influent)(-)3 and 0.443 +/- 0.103 kW.hm(influent)(-3), respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available