4.6 Article

Nutrients removal from swine wastewater by struvite precipitation recycling technology with the use of Mg3(PO4)2 as active component

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 111-118

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.03.023

关键词

Nutrients; Swine wastewater; Recycling; Magnesium phosphate; Struvite

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51408529]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [E2014203080, B2012203005]
  3. Outstanding Young Scholars Project of Colleges and Universities of Hebei province [BJ2014059]
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project [2015M580215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recovery and removal of nutrients from swine wastewater was investigated by employing a struvite recycling process, which used magnesium phosphate (MP) as the active component. In this study, the effect of organic matters (sodium alginate, bovine albumin and acetic acid) in swine wastewater on the crystallization of struvite and the feasibility of MP as the phosphate and magnesium sources of struvite precipitation were first evaluated. The results demonstrated that sodium alginate and bovine albumin could slightly influence the crystallization of struvite while acetic acid did not. Using MP as the phosphate and magnesium sources of struvite precipitation could achieve a removal efficiency of the total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) close to that of using pure chemicals (MgCl2 center dot 6H(2)O and Na2HPO4 center dot 12H(2)O). The results of struvite pyrgenation revealed that the optimal pyrogenation condition of struvite was at Mg(OH)(2):NH4+ 1:1 and temperature 150 degrees C for 3 h, at which the main pyrogenation product was MP. Recycling the pyrolysate at pH 8.5 could achieve a TAN removal of 78%. When the pyrolysate was recycled for six cycles, the TAN removal efficiency could be maintained above 70%, and 67% of the struvite precipitation cost could be reduced compared to using pure chemicals. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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