4.6 Article

Reactor kinetics evaluation and performance investigation of a long-term operated UASB-anammox mixed culture process

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.11.024

关键词

Reactor kinetic parameters; Substrate inhibition; Anammox mixed culture; Gas production simulation; Substrate removal molding

资金

  1. JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) KAKENHI [26.04044]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [14F04044, 15J04403] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To optimize the operation and know the relationships between operation and potential capability of UASB-anammox mixed culture process, reactor kinetic models were conducted and the potential nitrogen conversion rates were estimated. Total nitrogen (TN), NH4+-N and NO2--N removal efficiency were simulated and predicted by modified Stovere-Kincannon model, Monod model, First-order model and Grau second-order substrate removal models. The nitrogen gas production rate was also evaluated by Van der meer and heertjes model. During the process, the nitrogen loading rate (NLR) was increased from 0.93 to 734 g L-1 d(-1) following the substrate increased from 280 to 462 mg N L-1 and hydraulic residence times (HRT) decreased from 24 h to 1.5 h, the highest achieved removal efficiency of NH4+-N, NO2--N and TN were 99, 95 and 90%, respectively. Simulation results proved that the Modified Stover-Kincannon model and the Grau second-order model were the most appropriate models with prospected maximum TN removal rate U-max and saturation value constant K-B were 3.33 and 4.03 g N L-1 d(-1), respectively. Validation of the linearity between the experimental data and predicted values of kinetics illustrated the two models appropriately described the kinetic behavior of UASB-anammox mixed culture. The reactor kinetic evaluation proved valuable information for guiding or optimizing the operation condition. (C) 2015 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

4.6
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