4.8 Article

Performance and mechanism of pilot-scale carbon fibers enhanced ecological floating beds for urban tail water treatment in optimized ecological floating beds water surface coverage

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 393, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.130095

关键词

Performance enhancement; Suspended filler; Denitrification; Functional gene prediction; Operation management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A pilot-scale carbon fibers enhanced ecological floating beds (CF-EFBs) were constructed and found to have better removal efficiency for nitrogen, phosphorus, and chemical oxygen demand compared to non-enhanced EFBs. The concentrations of COD, TIN, and TP in the effluent were 18.11 +/- 4.52 mgL-1, 1.95 +/- 0.92 mgL-1, and 0.13 +/- 0.08 mgL-1 respectively, while the average removal of TIN, TP, and COD from tailwater was 0.96 gm- 2d-1, 0.07 gm- 2d-1, and 2.37 gm- 2d-1 respectively.
A pilot-scale carbon fibers enhanced ecological floating beds (CF-EFBs) was constructed. Compared to EFBs without carbon fibers enhancement, CF-EFBs have the better removal of total inorganic nitrogen (TIN), total phosphorus (TP), and chemical oxygen demand (COD), the removal efficiencies were 3.19, 3.49, and 2.74 times higher than EFBs. Throughout the pilot test (under three different coverage rates), the concentrations of COD, TIN and TP of effluent were 18.11 +/- 4.52 mgL-1, 1.95 +/- 0.92 mgL-1 and 0.13 +/- 0.08 mgL-1. Meanwhile, the average removal of TIN, TP and COD from tailwater was 0.96 gm- 2d-1, 0.07 gm- 2d-1 and 2.37 gm- 2d-1 respectively. When the coverage was 30 %, the CF-EFBs had better nitrogen removal effectiveness (TIN purifi-cation ability of 1.49 gm-2d-1). The enrichment of denitrifying bacteria, such as Aridibacter, Nitrospira, Povali-bacter, and Phaeodactylibacter increased denitrification efficiency. These results verified the feasibility of CF-EFBs in tailwater treatment at pilot-scale, which was of great significance for the practical application of CF-EFBs.

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