4.7 Article

Use of autotrophic sulfur-oxidizers to remove nitrate from bank filtrate in a permeable reactive barrier system

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 129, 期 3, 页码 499-507

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.11.004

关键词

bank filtration; autotrophic denitrification; nitrate; permeable reactive barrier; sulfur-oxidizing bacteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to evaluate the potential applicability of an in situ biological reactive barrier system to treat nitrate-contaminated bank filtrate. The reactive barrier consisted of sulfur granules as in electron donor and autotrophic sulfur-oxidizing bacteria as a biological component. Limestone was also used to provide alkalinity. The results showed that the autotrophic sulfur oxidizers were successfully colonized on the surfaces of the Sulfur particles and removed nitrate from synthetic bank filtrate. The sulfur-oxidizing activity continuously increased with time and then was maintained or slightly decreased after five days of column operation. Maximum nitrate removal efficiency and sulfur oxidation rate were observed at near neutral pH. Over 90% of the initial nitrate dissolved in synthetic bank filtrate was removed in all columns tested with some nitrite accumulation. However, nitrite accumulation was observed mainly during the initial operation period, and the concentration markedly diminished with time. The nitrite concentration in effluent was less than 2 mg-N/1 after 12 days of column operation. When influent nitrate concentrations were 30. 40. and 60 mg-N1 and sulfur content in column was 75% half-order autotrophic denitrification reaction rate constants were 31.73x10(-3). 33.3x10(-3). and 36.4x10(-3) mg(1/2)/1(1/2)min, respectively. Our data on the nitrate distribution profile along the column suggest that an appropriate wall thickness of a reactive barrier for autotrophic denitrification may be 30 cm when influent nitrate concentration is less than 60 mg-N/1. (C) 2003 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

4.7
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