4.7 Article

Struvite precipitation under changing ionic conditions in synthetic wastewater: Experiment and modeling

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 474, 期 -, 页码 93-102

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2016.04.013

关键词

Struvite; Synthetic wastewater; Computational model; Phosphorus recovery

资金

  1. Nuclear R&D, and Mid-career Researchers Program of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2013069183]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A computational model was developed and applied to investigate struvite precipitation under different pH levels and ionic concentrations. Ionic species, including ammonium (NH4-), hydrogen phosphate (HPO42-), magnesium (Mg2+), calcium (Ca2+), and struvite, were incorporated into the proposed model. The unknown kinetic coefficients of struvite were identified from the experimental data. In this study, the kinetics of struvite precipitation, which combined the ionic reactions (NH4+/NH3 and HPO42-/H2PO4) on the basis of pseudo-equilibrium conditions was parameterized. The experiments for model verification were conducted at a constant initial Mg/P ratio with changing ionic concentrations at pH levels of 8.7 and 9.7. The batch experiments showed high struvite precipitation (>90% for 300 mg-N L-1 and 100 mg-P L-1). The presence of Ca2+ (Ca2+/Mg2+ >0.5) in the reactors interfered with the formation and growth of struvite. The decrease in the pH level with the struvite precipitation verified the simulation data. The model also confirmed the optimal ionic conditions in order to maximize the struvite precipitation (300 mg-P L-1, and N/P molar ratio >7). The model responding to the ionic conditions provided good prediction of the decrease in the pH levels and the positive role of the nitrogen levels for struvite precipitation. High nitrogen concentrations provided high P removal due to pH buffering and crystal purity. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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