4.2 Article

Effect of sludge retention time on sludge characteristics and membrane fouling of membrane bioreactor

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 21, 期 10, 页码 1329-1335

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62422-5

关键词

membrane bioreactor; sludge retention time; extracellular polymeric substances; wastewater treatment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50678170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three identical membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were operated over 2 years at different sludge retention time (SRT) of 10 d, 40 d and no sludge withdrawal (NS), to elucidate and quantify the effect of SRT on the sludge characteristics and membrane fouling. The hydraulic retention times of these MBRs were controlled at 12 h. With increasing SRT, the sludge concentrations in the MBRs increased, whereas the ratio of volatile suspended solid to the total solid decreased, and the size of sludge granule diminished in the meantime. A higher sludge concentration at long SRT could maintain a better organic removal efficiency, and a longer SRT was propitious to the growth of nitrifiers. The performance of these MBRs for the removal of COD and NH4+-N did not change much with different SRTs. However, the bioactivity decreased as SRT increase. The measurement of specific oxygen uptake rates (SOUR) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes testified that SOUR and the proportion of the bacteria-specific probe EUB338 in all DAPI-stainable bacteria decreased with increasing SRT. The concentrations of total organic carbon, protein, polysaccharides and soluble extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) in the mixed liquor supernatant also decreased with increasing SRT. The membrane fouling rate was higher at shorter SRT, and the highest fouling rate appeared at a SRT of 10 d. Both the sludge cake layer and gel layer had contribution to the fouling resistance, but the relative contribution of the gel layer decreased as SRT increase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据