4.8 Article

Comparing the use of a two-stage MBBR system with a methanogenic MBBR coupled with a microalgae reactor for medium-strength dairy wastewater treatment

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 323, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124629

Keywords

Milk processing wastewater treatment; Biocarriers; Microalgae; Biogas production; Biomass characteristics

Funding

  1. project FoodOmicsGR Comprehensive Characterisation of Foods under the Action Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure - Operational Programme Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (NSRF 2014-2020) [MIS 5029057]
  2. European Union (European Regional Development Fund)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two systems were compared for medium-strength dairy wastewater treatment, with one achieving energy autonomy through a combination of a methanogenic reactor and an aerobic reactor, effectively removing COD, NH4-N, TKN, and PO4-P. The other system, using a reactor and Chlorella sorokiniana, completely removed COD but only partially removed other pollutants.
Two systems were compared for medium-strength dairy wastewater treatment. The first comprised a methanogenic Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (AnMBBR) and an aerobic MBBR (AeMBBR), while the second an AnMBBR and a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) with Chlorella sorokiniana. The AnMBBR, under ambient conditions, achieves biogas production sufficient enough to attain energy autonomy. The produced energy was 0.538 kWh m(-3), whereas the energy consumption 0.025 kWh m(-3). Its coupling with the AeMBBR removed COD, NH4-N TKN, and PO4-P by 93 +/- 4%, 97 +/- 3%, 99 +/- 1% and 49 +/- 15%, respectively, while the use of the SBR as a second step eliminated totally COD but partially the other pollutants. The higher nitrogen removal in the first system was due to nitrification occurring in the AeMBBR. The acclimatization of microalgae to dairy wastewater enhanced their growth. Their protein content was 54.56%, while starch and lipids were 3.39% and 23.1%, 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available