4.7 Article

Sulfate removal rate and metal recovery as settling precipitates in bioreactors: Influence of electron donors

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 403, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123622

关键词

Acid mine drainage; Sulfidogenenis; 16 rRNA sequencing; Copper toxicity; Metal precipitation; Down-flow structured-bed reactors

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation, Brazil [FAPESP 2016/13603-3, FAPESP2018/00213-8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Operating four down-flow structured bed bioreactors targeting biological sulfate reduction and metal recovery, different electron donors were found to not only impact biological sulfate reduction, but also metal toxicity thresholds and metal recovery efficiency as settling precipitates.
Four down-flow structured bed bioreactors were operated targeting biological sulfate-reduction and metal recovery. Three different electron donors were tested: glycerol (R1), lactate (R2), sucrose (R3), and a blend of the previous three (R4) with an increasing copper influent load (5, 15, and 30 mg Cu2+.L-1). Copper inhibited sulfate-reduction in R1 (15 mg Cu2+.L-1) and R3 (5 mg Cu2+.L-1), but the fermentative activity was not affected. R2 and R4 were not inhibited by the copper influent concentration. R2 provided the highest sulfate reduction rate (1767.3 +/- 240.1 mg SO42-.L.day(-1)). Nonetheless, the accumulation of settling precipitates was 22 % higher in R4 than in R2, indicating the former yielded the highest metal recovery as settling precipitates (24.8 g FSS.L-1, 25 % Fe2+, 5% Cu2+). 16S rRNA sequencing showed highest diversity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in R2. A predominance of sulfate-reducing and fermentative bacteria with more similarity was observed between microbial populations in R1 and R4, despite the difference in toxicity thresholds. Hence, the electron donor influenced not only the biological sulfate reduction, but also metal toxicity thresholds and metal recovery as settling precipitates.

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