4.7 Article

Performance and working mechanism of a novel anaerobic self-flotation reactor for treating wastewater with high suspended solids

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 25, 页码 26193-26202

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05885-6

关键词

Anaerobic self-flotation reactor; UASB; Biogas flotation; SS removal; EPS flocculation

资金

  1. Major Scientific and Technological Specialized Project of Zhejiang Province [2015C03013]
  2. National Water Project of China [2017ZX07206-002]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578484, 51778563]
  4. Research Funds for Central Universities [2017xzzx010-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new design of internal flotation components and the use of biogas were employed to develop a novel anaerobic self-flotation (ASF) reactor. Compared with the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, the removal efficiencies of total chemical oxygen demand (COD) and suspended solids (SS) of the ASF reactor were higher than 90% under high SS concentration and high volumetric organic loading rate (OLR). The biogas flotation, sludge bed retention, and effluent washout accounted for 60%, 30%, and 10% of SS mass, respectively, proving that the biogas flotation was the main mechanism of SS removal in the ASF reactor. Extracellular polymer substance, mainly consisting of polysaccharide (PS) and protein (PN), was found to promote the SS removal by biogas flotation via the scum formation at the ratio of 294.12 g-VS/g-PS and 103.09 g-VS/g-PN. The EPS yield was determined as 2.3 +/- 0.6 g-PS/g-COD and 11.5 +/- 2.6 g-PN/g-COD at the OLR of 60 kg/(m(3) day). The biogas production was revealed to enhance the SS removal by providing flotation driving force and by decreasing the scum density. A model was established to describe the quantitative relationship between flotation scum and OLR. This work would shed light on the high SS wastewater treatment challenge of high-rate anaerobic processes by using biogas flotation.

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