4.4 Article

A Study on the Reaction Kinetics of Anaerobic Microbes Using Batch Anaerobic Sludge Technique for Beverage Industrial Wastewater

期刊

SEPARATIONS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/separations8040043

关键词

microbial kinetics; anaerobic sludge; wastewater; chemical oxygen demand

资金

  1. TU Wien

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated a low-cost, efficient, and environmentally friendly anaerobic sludge process for treating industrial beverage wastewater, focusing on the effect of bacteria growth on organic matter degradation. The results showed a high substrate degradation rate and COD removal efficiency, demonstrating the effectiveness of the process in treating industrial wastewater.
In this study, a low-cost, efficient, and environmentally friendly anaerobic sludge process for the treatment of industrial beverage wastewater was investigated to analyze the effect of bacteria growth on the degradation of organic matter (chemical oxygen demand). Additionally, the mechanism, interactions between the microbe's growth, and operating conditions of an anaerobic batch reactor along with the wastewater treatment efficiency were evaluated via microbial kinetics. The kinetic coefficients based on chemical oxygen demand (COD) by conventional techniques such as kinetic coefficients growth yield (0.46 mg VSS/mg COD), saturation coefficient (3500 mg/L COD), the maximum rate of substrate utilization per unit mass of biomass (0.0066 mg/L COD), growth rate by Monod equation, M (0.03833 L/h), and maximum growth rate, mu m (0.03672 L/h) were calculated. The results show a higher rate of substrate degradation (0.54 day(-1)) due to the high COD removal efficiency (CRE) of 99.31% during 13 days that was achieved, which can be attributed to the active involvement of anaerobic microbes in the process of degradation. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the current study can be used as an effective way to analyze the industrial beverage wastewater at commercial levels.

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

4.4
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