4.8 Article

Treatment of molasses wastewater by acetogenic bacteria BP103 in sequencing batch reactor (SBR) system

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 99, 期 6, 页码 1806-1815

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.040

关键词

molasses wastewater; melanoidin pigment; acetogenic bacteria; sequencing batch reactor (SBR); decolorization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acetogenic bacteria BP103 cells could be used as the absorbent for melanoidin pigment (MP) and molasses wastewater (MWW). The maximum MP adsorption yield of this strain observed from the dead (autoclaved) cell. It was two times higher than that with resting cells. However, the MP adsorption yield of the strain was 50-60% decreased by acclimatization with the media containing NIP. The deteriorated cells (MP-adsorbed cells) could be recovered by washing with 0.1% SDS, 0.1% Tween 80 and 0.1 mol/L NaOH solutions. Among them, 0.1 mol/L NaOH solution was most suitable according to highest elution ability and no-effect to the MP adsorption capacity (The adsorption yield of deteriorated cell was reduced only 10% after washing three times with 0.1 mol/L NaOH solution). In SBR system, the strain showed very low NIP removal yield with both molasses wastewater (MWW) from the anaerobic pond (An-MWW) and stillage from an alcohol factory (U-MWW). However, the MP removal yield was increased by supplementation with carbon sources (glucose). Also, the MP removal efficiency was increased with the increase of supplemented-glucose concentration. The highest COD, BOD5, TKN and NIP removal efficiencies of the SBR system with 10 times-diluted An-MWW solution containing 30 g/L glucose under HRT of seven days were 65.2 +/- 2.5%, 82.8 +/- 3.4%, 32.1 +/- 0.8% and 50.2 +/- 3.7%, respectively. The large molecular weight fraction of NIP in both U-MWW and An-MWW solutions were rapidly removed by acetogenic bacteria BP103, while the small molecular weight fractions of MP still remained in the effluent. (C) 2007 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

4.8
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