4.7 Article

Simultaneous biodegradation of pyridine, indole, and ammonium along with phenol and thiocyanate by aerobic granular sludge

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 422, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126861

关键词

Aerobic granular sludge; Nitrogenous heterocyclic compounds; Pyridine; Indole; Sludge volume index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research investigated the potential of aerobic granular sludge to concurrently biodegrade two nitrogenous heterocyclic compounds and other pollutants. Pyridine showed minimal adverse effects on granular characteristics at high concentrations, while indole had a substantial negative impact. This study provides an experimental treatment method for wastewater containing multiple contaminants.
Aerobic granular sludge potential for concurrent biodegradation of two nitrogenous heterocyclic compounds (NHCs), i.e., pyridine and indole, and ammonia nitrogen along with phenol and thiocyanate was investigated in three sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) (R1, R2, and R3). Pyridine and indole were provided, respectively, in R1 and R2, whereas R3 was operated with a mixture of equimolar concentrations of pyridine and indole. Three concentrations of NHCs (1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 mM) were investigated to observe the impact on aerobic granules. Pyridine did not exhibit any adverse effect on the granular characteristics (volatile suspended solids of 6.00 +/- 0.08 g L(-1)and sludge volume index of 37.98 +/- 0.84 mL gTSS(-1)) up to a concentration of 5.0 mM (402.93 +/- 6.29 mg L-1) (R1) with around 74% and >98% removal for pyridine and other pollutants (phenol, thiocyanate, and ammonia nitrogen), respectively. However, indole had a substantial adverse impact on the granular characteristics and other contaminants removal with a concentration of more than 1.0 mM (120.65 +/- 4.84 mg L-1) (R2). The current research work provides an experimental treatment methodology for the wastewater in which pyridine, indole, ammonium, phenol, and thiocyanate coexist.

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