4.7 Article

Performance robustness of the UASB reactors treating saline phenolic wastewater and analysis of microbial community structure

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 331, 期 -, 页码 21-27

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.02.025

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Phenolic wastewater; Performance robustness; Microbial community structure; Saline wastewater

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [JZ2016HGTB0722]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [51208164]
  3. Project of Science and Technology in Anhui Province of China [1501041130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anaerobic digestion was an important way to remove phenols from saline wastewater; however the anaerobic microorganisms were adversely affected by high concentration of salts. In order to clarify the performance robustness and microbial community structure for anaerobic digestion of saline phenolic wastewater, the UASB reactors were compared to treat phenolic wastewater under saline and non-saline conditions. The saline reactors were operated stably with phenols concentration increasing from 100 to 500 mg L-1 at 10 g Na+ L-1. The robustness of the saline reactors was weakened at 1000 mg phenols L-1 and log Na+ L-1. However, the substrate utilization rates (SURs) for phenol, catechol, resorcinol, hydroquinone, and the specific methanogenic activity (SMA) of sludge were decreased by 95%, 85%, 97%, 78%, and 68%, respectively with phenols concentration enhancing from 1000 to 2000 mg L-1. Moreover, the SURs for phenol, catechol, resorcinol, hydroquinone, and the SMA of sludge were reduced by 32%, 65%, 74%, 45%, and 59%, respectively with Na+ concentration increasing from 10 to 20 g L-1, in comparison with the values obtained at 10g Na+ L-1 and 1000 mg phenols L-1. Finally, the analysis of microbial community structure demonstrated that phenols degraders were less tolerant to high concentrations of Na+ and phenols than methanogens. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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