4.6 Article

Struvite Precipitation for Sustainable Recovery of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Anaerobic Digestion Effluents of Swine Manure

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 12, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12208574

关键词

swine manure; anaerobic digestion effluents; struvite precipitation; optimal condition; biological treatment process; application model

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Research, Republic of Korea [NIER-2019-01-01-034]
  2. Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) [NIER-2019-01-01-034] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we propose the application of struvite precipitation for the sustainable recovery of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from anaerobic digestion (AD) effluents derived from swine manure. The optimal conditions for four major factors that affect the recovery of N and P were derived by conducting batch experiments on AD effluents obtained from four AD facilities. The optimal conditions were a pH of 10.0, NH4-N:Mg:PO4-P molar ratio of 1:1.4:1, mixing intensity of 240 s(-1), and mixing duration of 2 min. Under these optimal conditions, the removal efficiencies of NH4-N and PO4-P were approximately 74% and 83%, respectively, whereas those of Cu and Zn were approximately 74% and 79%, respectively. Herein, a model for swine manure treatment that incorporates AD, struvite precipitation, and biological treatment processes is proposed. We applied this model to 85 public biological treatment facilities in South Korea and recovered 4722 and 51 tons/yr of NH4-N and PO4-P, respectively. The economic analysis of the proposed model's performance predicts a lack of profitability due to the high cost of chemicals; however, this analysis does not consider the resulting protection of the hydrological environment. Field-scale studies should be conducted in future to prove the effectiveness of the model.

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

4.6
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