Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol.29, No.10, 1352-1361, 2012
Comparison of different fluid dynamics in activated sludge system for the treatment of a stimulated milk processing wastewater: Process analysis and optimization
Wastewater from the milk industry usually undergoes activated sludge ahead of refining treatments, final discharge or reuse. To identify the most effective bioreactor hydraulic regime for the secondary treatment of wastewater resulting from the milk industry in an activated sludge system, two lab-scale activated sludge systems characterized by a different configuration and fluid dynamics (i.e., a compartmentalized activated sludge (CAS) with plug flow regime and a complete mixed activated sludge (AS)) were operated in parallel, inoculated with the same microbial consortium and fed with identical streams of a stimulated dairy wastewater. The effect of three process and operational variables--influent chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration, sludge recycle ratio (R) and hydraulic retention time (HRT)--on the performance of the two systems were investigated. Experiments were conducted based on a central composite
face-centered design (CCFD) and analyzed using response surface methodology (RSM). The region of exploration for treatment of the synthetic wastewater was taken as the area enclosed by the CODin (200, 1,000 mg/l), R (1, 5), and HRT (2, 5 h) boundaries. To evaluate the process, three parameters, COD removal efficiency (E), specific substrate utilization rate (U), and sludge volume index (SVI), were measured and calculated over the course of the experiments as the process responses. The change of the flow regime from complete-mix to plug flow resulted in considerable improvements in the COD removal efficiency of milk wastewater and sludge settling properties. SVI levels for CAS system (30-58 ml/g) were considerably smaller that for the AS system (50-145 ml/g). In addition, the biomass production yield could be reduced by about 10% compared to the AS system. The results indicated that for the wastewater, the design HRT of a CAS reactor could be shortened to 2-4 h.
Abdulgader ME, Yu QJ, Williams P, Zinatizadeh AAL, In Proceedings of 1st Conference on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics, Greece, 2007
Yu QJ, Xu H, Yao D, Williams P, Water Sci. Technol., 11, 189, 2003
Sirianuntapilboon S, Jeeyachok N, Larplai R, J. Environ. Manage., 76, 177, 2005
Lim JW, Ng SL, Khor SM, Seng CE, Korean J. Chem.Eng., DOI:10.1007/s11814-011-0267-2, 2012
Raj SA, Murthy DVS, J. Environ. Sci. Health., A34, 357, 1999
Britz TJ, Schalkwyk C, Hung YT, Waste Treatment in the Food Processing Industry, Chapter one, Treatment of Dairy Processing Wastewater, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2006
Donkin J, Russell JM, Water Sci. Technol., 36, 79, 1997
Mohseni-Bandpi A, Bazari H, Iranian, J. Env. Health Sci. Eng., 1, 65, 2004
Flapper TG, Ashbolt NJ, Lee AT, From the lab to full scale SBR operation: Treating high strength variable industrial wastewater, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology, July, 2000
Kuehl R, Design of Experiments: Statistical principles of research design and analysis, C. A: Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, 2000
Khuri AI, Cornell JA, Response surfaces: Design and analyses, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996
APHA, WPCF, AWWA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed., American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington DC, 1999
Montgomery DC, Design and analysis of experiments, John Wiley & Sons, USA, 1996
Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL, Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments, eighth applications to engineering and science, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003
Hosseini B, Najafpour GD, Sadeghpour M, Asadi M, Chem.Ind., 3, 468, 2008