Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.25, No.4, 793-800, 2008
Characteristics of nitrogen and phosphorus removal in SBR and SBBR with different ammonium loading rates
Laboratory scale experiments were conducted to study the deterioration of enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) due to influent ammonium concentration, and to compare the performance of two types of sequencing batch reactor (SBR) systems, a conventional SBR and sequencing batch biofilm reactor (SBBR). Both in SBR and SBBR, the total nitrogen removal efficiency decreased from 100% to 53% and from 87.5% to 54.4%, respectively, with the increase of influent ammonium concentration from 20 mg/l to 80 mg/l. When the influent ammonium concentration was as low as 20 mg/l (C : N : P=200 : 20 : 15), denitrifying glycogen-accumulating organisms (DGAOs) were successfully grown and activated by using glucose as a sole carbon source in a lab-scale anaerobic-oxic-anoxic (A2O) SBR. In the SBR, due to the effect of incomplete denitrification and pH drop, the nitrogen and phosphorus removal efficiency decreased from 77% to 33.3% when the influent ammonium concentration increased from 20 mg/l to 80 mg/l. However, in the SBBR, simultaneous nitrification/denitrification (SND) occurred, and the nitrification rate in the aerobic phase did not change remarkably in spite of the increase in influent ammonium concentration. Phosphorus removal was not affected by the increase of influent ammonium concentration.
[References]
  1. Lee MG, Hano T, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 18(2), 178, 2001
  2. Nam HU, Lee TH, Kim YO, Park SH, Park TJ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 21(3), 635, 2004
  3. Gapes D, Keller J, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 76(4), 361, 2001
  4. Liu WT, Mino T, Nakamura K, Matsuo T, Water Res., 30, 75, 1996
  5. Irvine RL, Ketchum LH, Crit. Rev. Envir. Engrg., 18, 255, 1988
  6. Poo KM, Im JH, Ko JH, Kim YJ, Woo HJ, Kim CW, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 22(5), 666, 2005
  7. Wilderer PA, Sequencing batch biofilm reactor technology. In: Harnessing biotechnology for the 21st century, Ladish M. R. and Bose A. Eds., American Chemical Society, 1992
  8. White DM, Pilon TA, Woolard C, Water Res., 34(7), 2105, 2000
  9. Zhang Z, Zhou J, Wang J, Guo H, Tong J, Process Biochem., 41, 599, 2006
  10. Gieseke A, Arnz P, Amann R, Schramm A, Water Res., 36, 501, 2002
  11. Falkentoft CM, Arnz P, Henze M, Mosbaek H, Muller E, Wilderer PA, Harremoes P, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 76(1), 77, 2001
  12. Morgenroth E, Wilderer PA, Water Sci. Technol., 39(7), 33, 1999
  13. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th Ed., APHA/AWWA/WEF, Washington DC, USA, 1998
  14. Kuba T, van Loosdrecht MCM, Brandse FA, Heijnen JJ, Water Res., 31, 777, 1997
  15. Ahn J, Daidou T, Tsuneda S, Hirata A, Water Res., 36, 403, 2002
  16. Zeng RJ, Yuan ZG, Keller J, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 81(4), 397, 2003
  17. Oehmen A, Saunder A, Blackall LL, Yuan Z, Keller J, Presented at the IWA world water congress, Melbourne, Australia, 2002
  18. Munch EV, Lant PA, Keller J, Water Res., 30(2), 277, 1996
  19. Guo H, Zhou J, Su J, Zhang Z, Biochem. Eng. J., 23, 57, 2005
  20. Zeng RJ, Lemaire R, Yuan Z, Keller J, Water Sci. Technol., 50(10), 163, 2004
  21. Smolders GJ, Vandermeij J, Vanloosdrecht MC, Heijnen JJ, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 43(6), 461, 1994
  22. Kumar BM, Chaudhari S, Water Sci. Technol., 48(3), 73, 2003
  23. Filipe CDM, Daigger GT, Grady CPL, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 76(1), 17, 2001
  24. Filipe CDM, Daigger GT, Grady CLP, Water Environ. Res., 73(2), 213, 2001
  25. Feng HPH, Zhang T, Liu Y, Water Res., 36(13), 3211, 2002