4.7 Article

Treatment of municipal landfill leachate: Optimization of organic loading rate in a two-stage CSTR followed by aerobic degradation

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 163, Issue -, Pages 1210-1221

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.010

Keywords

Anaerobic-aerobic digestion; Biogas; COD removal; Leachate treatment

Funding

  1. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM) [41218]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the performance of a combined anaerobic-aerobic system in the treatment of leachate within 5 months. The optimal OLR was found to be 2.05 kg COD/m(3). day, achieving COD removal efficiency of 95.6% and BOD5 removal efficiency of 96.8%. The two-stage anaerobic phase increased some parameters while the aerobic phase reduced them.
This study investigates the performance of a combined anaerobic-aerobic system in the treatment of leachate within 5 months. Experiments were carried out in a two-stage anaerobic completely stirred tank reactor followed by an aerobic reactor with effective volumes of 10, 30, and 14 L at a constant rate of 2 L/day. The reactors were placed in series so that the output from the first anaerobic reactor was the input for the second one, and the output from the second reactor was connected to the input of the aerobic phase. After an initiation phase, the organic loading rate (OLR) was increased from 0.55 to 2.65 kg COD/m(3). day. The optimum OLR was found to be 2.05 kg COD/m(3). day at which, the removal efficiency of chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the two-stage anaerobic phase, the aerobic phase, and the treatment system as a whole were 93%, 37.1%, and 95.6%, respectively. The BOD5 removal efficiency of the system was 96.8%. The coefficients of determination between the removed COD and produced biogas were 0.98 and 0.99. Although the two-stage anaerobic phase increased the levels of ammonia nitrogen, alkalinity and turbidity by 31.28%, 15.18%, and 18.7%, the aerobic phase reduced these parameters by 50.30%, 57.23%, and 72.1%, respectively. (C) 2020 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