4.8 Article

A comprehensive laboratory assessment of the effects of sewer-dosed iron salts on wastewater treatment processes

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 109-117

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.09.021

关键词

Iron salt dosing; Integrated urban water system; Sewer system; Sequencing batch reactor; Anaerobic digestion; Dewaterability

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP 140100386]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of iron-dosing in the sewer system, on wastewater treatment processes, was investigated using laboratory-scale wastewater systems comprising sewers, wastewater treatment reactors, sludge thickeners, and anaerobic sludge digesters. Two systems, fed with real domestic wastewater, were operated for over a year. The experimental system received ferric chloride (FeCl3) dosing at 10 mgFe L-1 in the sewer reactor whereas the control system received none. Wastewater, sludge and biogas were extensively sampled, and analysed for relevant parameters. The FeCl3-dosed experimental system displayed a decreased sulfide concentration (by 4.3 +/- 0.5 mgS L-1) in sewer effluent, decreased phosphate concentration (by 4.7 +/- 0.5 mgP L-1) in biological treatment reactor effluent, and decreased hydrogen sulfide concentration in biogas (911.5 +/- 189.9 ppm to 130.0 +/- 5.9 ppm), as compared with the control system. The biological nitrogen removal performance of the treatment reactor, and biogas production in the anaerobic digester were not affected by FeCl3-dosing. Furthermore, the dewaterability of the anaerobically digested sludge was enhanced by 17.7 +/- 1.0%. These findings demonstrate that iron-dosing to sewers can achieve multiple benefits including sulfide removal in sewers, phosphorus removal during wastewater treatment, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) removal during biogas generation. Therefore, an integrated approach should be taken when considering iron salts usage in an urban wastewater system. (C) 2018 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