4.2 Article

Microfauna community during pulp and paper wastewater treatment in a UNOX system

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROTISTOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages 143-151

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejop.2017.02.004

Keywords

Activated sludge; Protozoan community; Pulp and paper wastewater; SBI; UNOX system

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland [18.610.002-300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study characterized the microfauna community during treatment of pulp and paper wastewater in a UNOX system aerated with pure oxygen, and with a high organic loading rate (0.4 +/- 0.06 kg BOD/kg MLSS day), low sludge retention time (3.73 +/- 0.33 day), and high oxygen concentration (<= 20 mg O-2/L) in comparison to municipal treatment systems. In the aeration tank, temperatures were high, averaging 35.7 degrees C (March-May), then 38.9 degrees C (June August). Effluent quality was acceptable: 180 +/- 22 mg COD/L, 7.2 +/- 2.1 mg BOD5/L, and 33 +/- 5 mg TSS/L. At 35.7 degrees C, 5 taxa were identified in the activated sludge: small flagellates (flagellates <20 mu m), attached ciliates (Vorticella infusionum, Vorticella octava), crawling ciliates (Chilodonella uncinata) and free-swimming ciliates (Sathrophilus muscorum). During this period, the SBI (Sludge Biotic Index) was 6-7, corresponding to Quality Class II. At 38.9 degrees C, two taxa co-dominated (Vorticella infitsionum, Sathrophilus muscorum). When Vorticella infusionum dominated, the SBI was 5 or 7 (Quality Class III/II); when Sathrophilus muscorum dominated, the SBI was 0 (Quality Class IV). Slight changes in the abundance of two opposing Madoni keygroups impeded proper classification of activated sludge. However, effluent quality remained the same, showing that these indicators of activated sludge quality do not always reflect effluent quality. (C) 2017 Elsevier GmbH. 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available