4.8 Article

Influence of mixed liquor recycle ratio and dissolved oxygen on performance of pre-denitrification submerged membrane bioreactors

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 4-5, 页码 1122-1132

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.08.028

关键词

aeration rate; denitrification; fouling; MBR; DO concentration; recycle ratio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The conflicting influence of mixed liquor recycle ratio and dissolved oxygen on nitrogen removal and membrane fouling of a pre-denitrification submerged MBR was investigated in this study. it was found that a high aeration rate of 10L air/min was able to minimize membrane fouling as compared with lower aeration rates of 5 and 2.5 L air/min in this study. Faster fouling at lower aeration rate was due to the decrease in cross-flow velocity across the membrane surface. However, high DO concentration (average of 5.1 +/- 0.5 mg O-2/L) present in the recycle mixed liquor at an aeration rate of 10 L air/min deteriorated the TN removal efficiency when operating at a recycle ratio of more than 3. A lower aeration rate of 5 L air/min, resulting in an average DO concentration of 3.4 +/- 0.7 mg O-2/L in the recycle mixed liquor, led to an improvement in TN removal efficiency: 63%, 80%, 84% and 89% for mixed liquor recycle ratio of 1, 3, 5 and 10, respectively. Further decrease in aeration rate to 2.5 L air/min, resulting in an average DO concentration of 1.9 +/- 0.8 mg O-2/L, did not improve the TN removal efficiency. Using a newly developed simplified nitrification-denitrification model, it was calculated that the COD/NO3--N required for denitrification at 10 L air/min aeration rate was higher than those associated with 5 and 2.5 L air/min aeration rates. The model also revealed that denitrification at an aeration rate of 10 L air/min was limited by COD concentration present in the wastewater when operating at a mixed liquor recycle ratio of 3 and higher. (C) 2007 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