4.7 Article

Biological sulfate removal from construction and demolition debris leachate: Effect of bioreactor configuration

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 269, 期 -, 页码 38-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.10.015

关键词

Construction and demolition debris; Sulfate reduction; UASB; Inversed fluidized bed reactor; Gas lift anaerobic membrane bioreactor

资金

  1. Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Environmental Technologies
  2. UNESCO-IHE Partnership Research Fund (UPaRF)
  3. U.S. National Science Foundation International Research Experience for Students Program [0854306]
  4. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering
  5. Office Of The Director [0854306] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to the contamination of construction and demolition debris (COD) by gypsum drywall, especially, its sand fraction (COD sand, CDDS), the sulfate content in CDDS exceeds the posed limit of the maximum amount of sulfate present in building sand (1.73 g sulfate per kg of sand for the Netherlands). Therefore, the CDDS cannot be reused for construction. The CDDS has to be washed in order to remove most of the impurities and to obtain the right sulfate content, thus generating a leachate, containing high sulfate and calcium concentrations. This study aimed at developing a biological sulfate reduction system for CDDS leachate treatment and compared three different reactor configurations for the sulfate reduction step: the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, inverse fluidized bed (IFB) reactor and gas lift anaerobic membrane bioreactor (GL-AnMBR). This investigation demonstrated that all three systems can be applied for the treatment of CDDS leachate. The highest sulfate removal efficiency of 75-85% was achieved at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 15.5 h. A high calcium concentration up to 1000mgL(-1) did not give any adverse effect on the sulfate removal efficiency of the IFB and GL-AnMBR systems. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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