4.7 Article

Removal of petroleum hydrocarbons and sulfates from produced water using different bioelectrochemical reactor configurations

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 665, 期 -, 页码 820-827

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.181

关键词

MFC configuration; Produced water; Total petroleum hydrocarbons; Sulfates; Green energy

资金

  1. NPRP grant from the Qatar National Research Fund (amember of Qatar Foundation) [NPRP9-093-1-021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Produced water (PW) is a wastewater generated in large quantities from the extraction of oil and gas. PW found to have high amounts of dissolved solids (TDS) and residual petroleum hydrocarbons causing considerable damage to the environment. PW also contains sulfates in significant amounts, due to which treating this wastewater is essential prior to discharge. The present study was aimed for bioelectrochemical treatment of PW and simultaneous bioelectrogenesis in the two most studied configurations viz., single and dual chamber microbial fuel cells (MFCs). The study evidenced treatment of recalcitrant pollutants of PW. Both MFCs were operated by keeping similar operating conditions such as anode chamber volume, hydraulic retention time (HRT) for batch mode of operation, electrode materials, inlet characteristics of PW and ambient temperature. Among both configurations, dual chamber MFC showed higher efficiency with respect to bioelectrogenesis (single chamber 789 mW/m(2); dual chamber - 1089 mW/m(2)), sulfates removal (single chamber - 79.6%; dual chamber 93.9%), total petroleum hydrocarbons removal (TPH, single chamber - 47.6%; dual chamber - 53.1%) and chemical oxygen demand degradation (COD, single chamber - 0.30 kg COD/m(3)-day (COD removal efficiency, 54.7%); dual chamber - 0.33 kg COD/m(3)-day (COD removal efficiency, 60.2%)). Evaluated polarization behavior of both MFCs were also evidenced the effective response of the electroactive anodic biofilm. (c) 2019 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