4.6 Article

Ammonia removal from anaerobically digested dairy manure by struvite precipitation

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 40, 期 12, 页码 3667-3674

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.02.028

关键词

ammonia nitrogen; struvite; anaerobic digestion; dairy manure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ammonia is one of the most important contaminants impairing the quality of water resources. When this is considered along with the fact that the global demand for nitrogenous fertilizers is in constant rise, the need for recovery as well as removal of nitrogen is well justified. Crystallization of N and P in the form of struvite (MgNH4PO4 center dot 6H(2)O), which is a slow releasing and valuable fertilizer, is one possible technique for this purpose. This study investigated the removal of NR4+ through struvite precipitation from the effluents of one- (R1) and two-phase (R2) anaerobic reactors digesting dairy manure. To force the formation of struvite in the anaerobic reactor effluents, Ma(2+) ion was added by using both Mg(OH)(2) and MgCl2 center dot 6H(2)O. To prevent the effect of different total phosphorus (TP) concentration in the effluents of RI and R2, as well as to not limit the formation of struvite, an excess amount Of PO43- (0.14 M) was added in the form of NaHPO4. Different stoichiometric Mg2+:NH4+:PO43- ratios were tested to determine the required Mg2+ concentrations for maximum NH4+ removal by keeping NH4+:PO43- ratio constant for the effluents of reactors RI and R2. The results revealed that very high NH4+ removal efficiencies (above 95%) were possible by adding Mg 21 ions higher than 0.06 M concentration in the effluents from reactors RI and R2. It was also observed that the initial pH adjustment to 8.50 using NaOH did not result in any significant increase in the removal of NH4+ and the removal of NH4+ in the reactors treated with MgCl2 center dot 6H(2)O was higher than those treated with Mg(OH)(2) for the same Mg2+ concentration. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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