4.8 Article

Influences of humic-rich natural materials on efficiencies of UASB reactor: A comparative study

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 341, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125844

Keywords

Anerobic biological treatment; Phenolic wastewater; Humic-rich natural materials; Lignite; Peat soil

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China, China [2019YFC1806201-01]
  2. Science Foundation of China University of Petroleum-Beijing, China [2462018BJB001, 2462020YXZZ035]
  3. CNPC Innovation Foun-dation, China [2020D-5007-0505]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The addition of humic-rich natural materials, peat soil and lignite, in UASB bioreactors showed different effects on phenol degradation and reactor stability. Peat soil improved phenol degradation and reactor stability, while lignite displayed poor phenol degradation.
Two humic-rich natural materials namely peat soil and lignite were supplemented in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) bioreactors for the treatment of phenolic wastewater. Peat soil improved phenol degradation and resistance to shock load; ultimately, contributing to higher COD removal efficiency (83.3%), methane production (4532 mL d-1), and better reactor's stability. Accordingly, the amount of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and coenzyme F420 in sludge were increased to 1.3-fold and 2.5-fold, respectively, as compared to the control treatment. The addition of lignite however displayed poor phenol degradation and no effects on the secretion of EPS and F420. The peat soil significantly influenced the microbial community structures, whereas the effect of lignite was inconspicuous. In the presence of peat soil, the abundance of syntrophic fermentation bacteria and methanogens was significantly increased. This study illustrates the potential use of peat soil in UASB for the treatment of phenolic wastewaters.

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