4.7 Article

Understanding why fat, oil and grease (FOG) bioremediation can be unsuccessful

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110647

关键词

Bioadditives; Bioadditions; Kitchen wastewater; Fatberg; Lipids; FOG

资金

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through STREAM Industrial Doctorate Centre [EP/L015412/1]
  2. FOG Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Commercial kitchen wastewaters are typically strong organic and fat-rich effluents, often identified as major contributors to fatberg formation and associated blockages in sewers. Experimental trials were done using synthetic kitchen wastewater to understand the complex reactions involved in microbial remediation in grease traps/separators prior discharge in sewers. The principle organic components (FOG, carbohydrate and protein nitrogen), were varied using ranges observed in a previous study on real kitchen wastewater characterisation. A model bacterium, Bacillus licheniformis NCIMB 9375, was used to evaluate microbial utilisation of the different organic fractions in relation to fat, oil and grease (FOG) degradation. Novel results in the treatment of these effluents showed that, the presence and concentration of alternative carbon sources and the ratio of carbon to nitrogen (COD:N) had great influence on FOG-degradation response. For example, FOG removal decreased from 24 to 10 mg/l/h when glucose was substitute for starch at equivalent concentrations (500 mg/l); and from 26 to 5 mg/l/h when initial COD:N increased from 45:1 to 147:1. The dominant influence of COD:N was validated using a commercial bioadditive and real kitchen wastewater adjusted to different COD:N ratios, confirming the strong influence of kitchen wastewater composition on bioremediation outcomes. These results can therefore have major implications for biological management of FOG in kitchens and sewers as they provide a scientific explanation for bioremediation success or failure.

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