4.7 Article

Slow sand filtration of raw wastewater using biochar as an alternative filtration media

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-57981-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF)
  2. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) under the initiative GlobE-Research or the Global Food Supply [031A242-B]
  3. German Research Foundation [DFG, INST 213/816-1FUGG]
  4. DFG Open Access Publication Funds of the Ruhr-Universitat Bochum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficiency of anaerobic biofilters (AnBF) as low-cost wastewater treatment systems was investigated. Miscanthus-biochar was used as filtration media and compared with sand as a common reference material. Raw sewage from a municipal wastewater treatment plant was stored in a sedimentation tank for two days to allow pre-settlement of wastewater particles. Subsequently, wastewater was treated by AnBFs at 22 degrees C room temperature at a hydraulic loading rate of 0.05m.h(-1) with an empty bed contact time of 14.4h and a mean organic loading rate of 509 +/- 173 g(COD).m(-3).d(-1). Mean removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD) of biochar filters was with 74 +/- 18% significantly higher than of sand filters (61 +/- 12%). In contrast to sand filters with a mean reduction of 1.18 +/- 0.31 log-units, E. coli removal through biochar was with 1.35 +/- 0.27 log-units significantly higher and increased with experimental time. Main removal took place within the schmutzdecke, a biologically active dirt layer that develops simultaneously on the surface of filter beds. Since the E. coli contamination of both filter materials was equal, the higher removal efficiency of biochar filters is probably a result of an improved biodegradation within deeper zones of the filter bed. Overall, performance of biochar filters was better or equal compared to sand and have thus demonstrated the suitability of Miscanthus-biochar as filter media for wastewater treatment.

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