4.4 Article

Potential for enhancement of aerobic biological removal of recalcitrant organic matter in bleached pulp mill effluents

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 157-164

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593332808618775

关键词

biodegradability; COD; ECF bleaching; eucalypt; molecular mass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasingly stringent effluent quality limits for bleached kraft pulp mills pose a great challenge to mill wastewater system managers since these limits can require levels of chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiency rarely reported for biological treatment of these types of effluents. The present study was therefore undertaken to better understand the nature of recalcitrant COD in bleached kraft pulp effluents that persists through the biological treatment system. Bleaching effluents from a Brazilian eucalypt bleached kraft pulp mill were collected and treated in a bench-scale sequencing batch reactor. Organic matter in raw and treated effluents was characterized before and after separation into low and high molecular mass fractions. Biological treatment removed 71% of the COD, with 83% removal of the low molecular mass COD but only 36% removal of the high molecular mass COD. Microorganisms capable of degrading the recalcitrant COD were isolated from enrichment cultures of the original activated sludge fed on fractions of the bleaching effluent that presented low biodegradabilities. Use of a microbial consortium composed of ten of these isolates to treat the biologically treated effluent removed a further 12%. of the effluent COD, all from the high molecular mass fraction. Results of this research indicate that microorganisms with potential for degrading recalcitrant COD are present in activated sludge, but that these are not metabolically active during normal activated sludge treatment of mill effluents. The use of biological selectors in the treatment system to promote growth of such microorganisms may enhance removal of recalcitrant organic matter.

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

4.4
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