4.8 Article

Determination of the external mass transfer coefficient and influence of mixing intensity in moving bed biofilm reactors for wastewater treatment

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 90-98

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.010

关键词

MBBR; External mass transfer; Mixing intensity

资金

  1. CNPq [302893/2013-0, 140595/2012-0, 245253/2012-2]
  2. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR), the removal of pollutants from wastewater is due to the substrate consumption by bacteria attached on suspended carriers. As a biofilm process, the substrates are transported from the bulk phase to the biofilm passing through a mass transfer resistance layer. This study proposes a methodology to determine the external mass transfer coefficient and identify the influence of the mixing intensity on the conversion process in-situ in MBBR systems. The method allows the determination of the external mass transfer coefficient in the reactor, which is a major advantage when compared to the previous methods that require mimicking hydrodynamics of the reactor in a flow chamber or in a separate vessel. The proposed methodology was evaluated in an aerobic lab-scale system operating with COD removal and nitrification. The impact of the mixing intensity on the conversion rates for ammonium and COD was tested individually. When comparing the effect of mixing intensity on the removal rates of COD and ammonium, a higher apparent external mass transfer resistance was found for ammonium. For the used aeration intensities, the external mass transfer coefficient for ammonium oxidation was ranging from 0.68 to 13.50 m d(-1) and for COD removal 2.9 to 22.4 m d(-1). The lower coefficient range for ammonium oxidation is likely related to the location of nitrifiers deeper in the biofilm. The measurement of external mass transfer rates in MBBR will help in better design and evaluation of MBBR system-based technologies. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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