4.7 Article

Swine wastewater treatment by Fenton?s process and integrated methodologies involving coagulation and bio fi ltration

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 293, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126105

关键词

Swine wastewater; Fenton?s process; Coagulation; Biofiltration; Corbicula fluminea; Processes integration

资金

  1. European Union through the European Fund for Regional Development (FEDER) within the COMPETE2020 [POCI010247FEDER033193]
  2. FCT (Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Portugal) [SFRH/BD/144096/2019]
  3. Foundation for Science and Technology e FCT (Portugal) [CEECIND/01207/2018]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/144096/2019] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated Fenton's process as an alternative treatment for swine effluent, integrating coagulation and biofiltration to improve depuration. Results showed that the integration of Fenton's process with biofiltration removed 91% of sCOD, while coagulation after Fenton's process achieved an 86% degradation rate of sCOD. The integration of treatment processes reduced luminescence inhibition to about 30%.
In this work, Fenton's process was evaluated as an alternative treatment of swine effluent. In order to improve depuration, coagulation and biofiltration were integrated with Fenton's peroxidation. With the optimum loads of 750 mg/L of hydrogen peroxide and iron, this process was able to remove 72% of sCOD and lowering Aliivibrio fischeri luminescence inhibition to 65%. On the other hand, integration between Fenton's process and biofiltration removed 91% of sCOD. Whereas, after coagulation sCOD degradation reaches 86%. Regarding to luminescence inhibition, the treatment processes integration can decrease it to about 30%. Coagulation and biofiltration after Fenton's process proved to be able to remove dissolved iron in the treated effluent and thus overcoming Fenton's process major disadvantage. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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