4.8 Article

Design parameters for sludge reduction in an aquatic worm reactor

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 1017-1023

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.10.025

关键词

Lumbriculus variegatus; Oxygen uptake rate; Sludge load; Sludge reduction; Sludge type; Worm density

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs
  2. European Union Regional Development Fund
  3. Province of Fryslan
  4. City of Leeuwarden
  5. EZ/Kompas program of the Samenwerkingsverband Noord-Nederland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduction and compaction of biological waste sludge from waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) can be achieved with the aquatic worm Lumbriculus variegatus. In our reactor concept for a worm reactor, the worms are immobilised in a carrier material. The size of a worm reactor will therefore mainly be determined by the sludge consumption rate per unit of surface area. This design parameter was determined in sequencing batch experiments using sludge from a municipal WWTP. Long-term experiments using carrier materials with 300 and 350 mu m mesh sizes showed surface specific consumption rates of 45 and 58 g TSS/(m(2) d), respectively. Using a 350 mu m mesh will therefore result in a 29% smaller reactor compared to using a 300 pm mesh. Large differences in consumption rates were found between different sludge types, although it was not clear what caused these differences. Worm biomass growth and decay rate were determined in sequencing batch experiments. The decay rate of 0.023 d(-1) for worms in a carrier material was considerably higher than the decay rate of 0.018 d(-1) for free worms. As a result, the net worm biomass growth rate for free worms of 0.026 d(-1) was much higher than the 0.009-0.011 d(-1) for immobilised worms. Finally, the specific oxygen uptake rate of the worms was determined at 4.9 mg O-2/(g ww d), which needs to be supplied to the worms by aeration of the water compartment in the worm reactor. (c) 2009 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