4.6 Article

Kinetic model of a granular sludge SBR: Influences on nutrient removal

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 97, 期 4, 页码 801-815

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/bit.21196

关键词

aerobic granular sludge; modeling; nutrient removal; SBR; simultaneous nitrification/dentrification (SND); P-removal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mathematical model was developed that can be used to describe an aerobic granular sludge reactor, fed with a defined influent, capable of simultaneously removing COD, nitrogen and phosphate in one sequencing batch reactor (SBR). The model described the experimental data from this complex system sufficiently. The effect of process parameters on the nutrient removal rates could therefore be reliably evaluated. The influence of oxygen concentration, temperature, granule diameter, sludge loading rate, and cycle configuration were analyzed. Oxygen penetration depth in combination with the position of the autotrophic-biomass played a crucial role in the conversion rates of the different components and thus an overall nutrient removal efficiencies. The ratio between aerobic and anoxic volume in the granule strongly determines the N-removal efficiency as it was shown by model simulations the N-removal efficiency as it was shown by model simulations with varying oxygen concentration, temperature, and granule size. The optimum granule diameter for maximum N- and P-removal in the standard case operating conditions (DO 2 mg L-1, 20 degrees C) was found between 1.2 and 1.4 mm and the optimum COD loading rate was 1.9 kg COD m(-3) day(-1). When all ammonia is oxidized, oxygen diffuses to the core of the granule inhibiting the dentrification process. In order to optimize the process, anoxic phase can be implemented in the SBR-cycle configuration, leading to a more efficient overall N-removal. Phosphate removal efficiency mainly depends on the sludge age; if the SRT exceeds 30 days not enough biomass is removed from the system to keep effluent phosphate concentration low.

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