Two ways to achieve an anammox influent from real reject water treatment at lab-scale:: Partial SBR nitrification and SHARON process

被引:101
作者
Gali, A.
Dosta, J.
van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.
Mata-Alvarez, J.
机构
[1] Univ Barcelona, Dept Chem Engn, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain
[2] Delft Univ Technol, Dept Biochem Engn, Kluyver Lab Biotechnol, NL-2628 BC Delft, Netherlands
关键词
anammox; nitrite; partial nitrification; reject water; SHARON; SBR;
D O I
10.1016/j.procbio.2006.12.002
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
A comparative study to produce the correct influent for Anammox process from anaerobic sludge reject water (700-800 mg NH4+-N L-1) was considered here. The influent for the Anammox process must be composed of NH4+-N and NO2--N in a ratio 1: 1 and therefore only a partial nitrification of ammonium to nitrite is required. The modifications of parameters (temperature, ammonium concentration, pH and solid retention time) allows to achieve this partial nitrification with a final effluent only composed by NH4+-N and NO2--N at the right stoichiometric ratio. The equal ratio of HCO3-/NH4+ in reject water results in a natural pH decrease when approximately 50% of NH4+ is oxidised. A Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and a chemostat type of reactor (single-reactor high activity ammonia removal over nitrite (SHARON) process) were studied to obtain the required Anammox influent. At steady state conditions, both systems had a specific conversion rate around 40 mg NH4+-N g(-1) volatile suspended solids (VSS) h(-1). but in terms of absolute nitrogen removal the SBR conversion was 1.1 kg N day(-1) m(-3), whereas in the SHARON chemostat was 0.35 kg N day(-1) m(-3) due to the different hydraulic retention time (HRT) used. Both systems are compared from operational (including starvation experiments) and kinetic point of view and their advantages/disadvantages are discussed. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:715 / 720
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
ANTHONISEN AC, 1976, J WATER POLLUT CON F, V48, P835
[2]  
*APHA AWWA, 1995, WPCF STAND METH EX W
[3]  
CECH JS, 1985, WATER SCI TECHNOL, V17, P259
[4]   Nitrogen removal from digester supernatant via nitrite - SBR or SHARON? [J].
Fux, C ;
Lange, K ;
Faessler, A ;
Huber, P ;
Grueniger, B ;
Siegrist, H .
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 48 (08) :9-18
[5]   Biological treatment of ammonium-rich wastewater by partial nitritation and subsequent anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) in a pilot plant [J].
Fux, C ;
Boehler, M ;
Huber, P ;
Brunner, I ;
Siegrist, H .
JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2002, 99 (03) :295-306
[6]  
GALI A, 2005, P IWA SPEC C NUTR MA, P925
[7]  
Hellinga C, 1998, WATER SCI TECHNOL, V37, P135, DOI 10.2166/wst.1998.0350
[8]   Model based design of a novel process for nitrogen removal from concentrated flows [J].
Hellinga, C ;
Van Loosdrecht, MCM ;
Heijnen, JJ .
MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS, 1999, 5 (04) :351-371
[9]  
Henze M., 2000, SCI TECHNICAL REPORT
[10]   Don't reject the idea of treating reject water [J].
Janus, HM ;
vanderRoest, HF .
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1997, 35 (10) :27-34