4.8 Article

A secret of high-rate mass transfer in anammox granular sludge: Lung-like breathing

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 189-198

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.039

关键词

Anammox granular sludge; Lung-like breathing; Expansion/contraction amplitude; Expansion/contraction frequency; Mass transfer flux

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578484]
  2. Research Funds for Central Universities [2017xzzx010-03]
  3. Major Scientific and Technological Specialized Project of Zhejiang Province [2015C03013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The granulation of anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox) biomass can play a key role in developing stable and high-rate working of anammox process. It is important to know the working mechanism of anammox granular sludge (AnGS) for the optimization of reactor performance. In this study, a lung-like breathing determinator was invented to investigate the working behavior of AnGS in the bioreactor. The results showed that the AnGS had a regular expansion and contraction phenomenon, which was called lung-like breathing. With the biological loading rate (BLR) at 0.114 kg-N/(kg-VSS.d), the expansion and contraction amplitude (ExCA) was 1.29 +/- 0.05%, and the expansion and contraction frequency (ExCF) was 39.3 +/- 1.6 times/h. The AnGS cultivated in a bioreactor with higher nitrogen removal rate (NRR) was found to have the higher ExCA and ExCF when determinated at the same BLR, and the lung-like breathing behavior of one type of AnGS was revealed to bear a significantly (p < 0.05) positive correlation with the specific anammox activity (SAA). The mass transfer flux from lung-like breathing was far greater than that from molecular diffusion, which was regarded as a vital mechanism for the AnGS to demonstrate its high activity. These findings provided theoretical basis and technical parameters for the optimization of anammox nitrogen removal process. (C) 2019 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