4.2 Article

Advanced landfill leachate treatment using a two-stage UASB-SBR system at low temperature

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 481-485

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(09)60133-9

关键词

landfill leachate; two-stage UASB-SBR; advanced nitrogen removal; low temperature; nitrification; denitrification

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50978003]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [8091001]
  3. Funding Project for Academic Human Resources Development in Institutions of Higher Learning Under the Jurisdiction of Beijing Municipality [PHR20090502]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment [QAK200802]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A two-stage upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and sequencing batch reactor (SBR) system was introduced to treat landfill leachate for advanced removal of COD and nitrogen at low temperature. In order to improve the total nitrogen (TN) removal efficiency and to reduce the COD requirement for denitrification, the raw leachate with recycled SBR nitrification supernatant was pumped into the first-stage UASB (UASB1) to achieve simultaneous denitrification and methanogenesis. The results showed that UASB1 played an important role in COD removal and UASB2 and SBR further enhanced the nutrient removal efficiency. When the organic loading rates of UASB1, UASB2 and SBR were 11.95, 1.63 and 1.29 kg COD/(m(3).day), respectively, the total COD removal efficiency of the whole system reached 96.7%. The SBR acted as the real undertaker for Na-4(+)-N removal due to aerobic nitrification. The system obtained about 99.7% of NH4+-N removal efficiency at relatively low temperature (14.9-10.9 degrees C). More than 98.3% TN was removed through complete denitrification in UASB I and SBR. In addition, temperature had a significant effect on the rates of nitrification and denitrification rather than the removal of TN and Na-4(+)-N once the complete nitrification and denitrification were achieved.

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