4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Powdered activated carbon - membrane bioreactor operated under intermittent aeration and short sludge retention times for micro-polluted surface water treatment

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.03.020

关键词

Powdered activated carbon - membrane bioreactor (PAC-MBR); Sludge retention time (SRT); Intermittent aeration; Ammonia removal

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51138008]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University [NSRIF.2014096]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment [2014DX04]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-13-0169]
  5. Science and Technology Planning Project of Chancheng District [2013A1044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long sludge retention time (SRT) and continuous aeration are generally adopted in powdered activated carbon - membrane bioreactor (PAC-MBR) process for micro-polluted surface water treatment. However, in this study, the performance of a pilot-scale PAC-MBR under intermittent aeration and short SRTs (2, 4, 6, and 8 d) was investigated. The settling characteristics of sludge and the decay of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the mixed liquor were examined. The results showed that intermittent aeration with proper aeration intervals barely reduced the removal efficiency of pollutants, due to the low DO consumption in the bioreactor and the low settling velocity of the sludge (mostly at the range of 0.04 -0.08 m min(-1)). High concentration ammonia (similar to 3 mg L-1) could be effectively removed even at a fairly short SRT (6 d). As the SRT increased, the removal efficiencies of organic matter and ammonia increased, but the membrane fouling aggravated correspondingly. The successful adoption of intermittent aeration and short SRTs in the pilot-scale PAC-MBR implied that the results could be extrapolated to full-scale applications to reduce operating costs and alleviate membrane fouling. (C) 2015 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

4.6
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