4.7 Review

Removal of nitrogen from wastewaters by anaerobic ammonium oxidation (ANAMMOX) using granules in upflow reactors

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 311-328

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10311-017-0607-5

关键词

Ammonium-rich wastewater treatment; Biological nitrogen removal; Sludge granulation; Flotation; Extracellular polymeric substances

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [51674305, 51204213]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitrogen pollution of waters has sometimes caused severe eutrophication, leading to the death of fishes and most aquatic life. There is therefore a need for efficient and cost-effective methods to remove nitrogen from ammonium-rich wastewaters. Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (ANAMMOX) is a promising process to remove nitrogen because this process directly oxidizes ammonium (NH4 (+)) to dinitrogen gas (N-2) under anoxic condition. Nonetheless, a challenge of this process is that chemolithoautotrophic Anammox bacteria grow slowly at the beginning, thus resulting in low Anammox biomass and instability of reactors. Such issues can be overcome by granulation of the Anammox sludge. Here, we review the characteristics of the Anammox bacteria, and the formation, structure and flotation of Anammox granules under high hydraulic loadings. We also evaluate the performances of full-scale granular Anammox processes. The major points are: 1) Anammox bacteria secrete a large amount of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), up to 415 mg g(-1) of volatile suspended solids (VSS), containing many hydrophobic functional groups that facilitate biomass granulation. 2) Granulation enhances the sludge settling property and retention time, which contributes to the extremely high nitrogen removal rate of 77 kg m(-3) d(-1) of Anammox upflow reactors. 3) Flotation of Anammox granules frequently occurs under nitrogen removal rate higher than 10 kg m(-3) d(-1), which is mainly due to the overproduction of EPS under high hydraulic conditions.

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