4.8 Article

Granular biochar compared with activated carbon for wastewater treatment and resource recovery

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 225-232

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.02.059

关键词

Biochar; Activated carbon; Wastewater; Nutrient recovery; Sustainability

资金

  1. Maria Medeiros ONR through the University Laboratory Initiative [N00014-12-1-0293]
  2. NURP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Granular wood-derived biochar (BC) was compared to granular activated carbon (GAC) for the treatment and nutrient recovery of real wastewater in both batch and column studies. Batch adsorption studies showed that BC material had a greater adsorption capacity at the high initial concentrations of total chemical oxygen demand (COD-T) (1200 mg L-1), PO4 (18 mg L-1), and NH4 (50 mg L-1) compared to GAC. Conversely the BC material showed a lower adsorption capacity for all concentrations of dissolved chemical oxygen demand (COD-D) and the lower concentrations, of PO4 (5 mg L-1) and NH4 (10 mg L-1). Packed bed column studies showed similar average COD-T removal rate for BC with 0.27 +/- 0.01 kg m(-3) d(-1) and GAC with 0.24 +/- 0.01 kg m(-3) d(-1), but BC had nearly twice the average removal rate (0.41 +/- 0.08 kg m(-3) d(-3)) compared to GAC during high COD-T concentrations (>500 mg L-1). Elemental analysis showed that both materials accumulated phosphorous during wastewater treatment (2.6 +/- 0.4 g kg(-1) and 1.9 +/- 0.1 g kg(-1) for BC and GAC respectively). They also contained high concentrations of other macronutrients (K, Ca, and Mg) and low concentrations of metals (As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn, and Cu). The good performance of BC is attributed to its macroporous structure compared with the micro porous GAC. These favorable treatment data for high strength wastewater, coupled with additional life cycle benefits, helps support the use of BC in packed bed column filters for enhanced wastewater treatment and nutrient recovery. (C) 2016 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

4.8
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