4.7 Article

Anaerobic treatment of glutamate-rich wastewater in a continuous UASB reactor: Effect of hydraulic retention time and methanogenic degradation pathway

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 245, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125672

Keywords

3-Methylaspartate pathway; Biodegradation; Glutamate fermentation; Methanogenesis; Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51308068]
  2. China Hunan Provincial Science & Technology Department [2017SK2361]
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  4. Majorbio Bio-Pharm Technology Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the anaerobic treatment efficiency and degradation pathways of glutamate-rich wastewater under various hydraulic retention times (HRTs), a lab-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor was operated continuously for 180 days. Results showed that high chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiencies of 95.5%-96.5% were achieved at HRTs of 4.5 h-6 h with a maximum methane yield of 0.31 L-CH4/g-COD. When the HRT was shortened to less than 3 h, the removal performance of the reactor declined. There also was an excessive accumulation of volatile fatty acids, which implies that an appropriately small HRT is applicable to the UASB reactor treating glutamate-rich wastewater. Methanogenic degradation of glutamate in the UASB reactor depended on the HRT applied, and the typical methane-producing capability of the sludge at an HRT of 3 h, in descending order, was acetate > glutamate > butyrate > H-2/CO2 > valerate > propionate. Clostridium and Methanosaeta were predominant in the glutamate-degrading sludge. At least three degradation pathways most likely existed in the UASB reactor, and the pathway via 3-methlaspartate by Clostridium pascui was expected to be dominant. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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