4.7 Article

Efficient model calibration method based on phase experiments for anaerobic-anoxic/nitrifying (A2N) two-sludge process

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 24, Issue 23, Pages 19211-19222

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-9437-z

Keywords

Activated sludge models (ASMs); Model calibration; Anaerobic-anoxic/nitrifying (A2N) two-sludge system; Sensitivity analysis; Genetic algorithm

Funding

  1. Major Science and Technology Project of Water Pollution Control and Management in China [2012ZX07101005]
  2. National Science and Technology Support Program in China [2015BAL01B01]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University [YBJJ1643]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A systematic calibration and validation procedure for the complex mechanistic modeling of anaerobic-anoxic/nitrifying (A2N) two-sludge system is needed. An efficient method based on phase experiments, sensitivity analysis, and genetic algorithm is proposed here for model calibration. Phase experiments (anaerobic phosphorus release, aerobic nitrification, and anoxic denitrifying phosphate accumulation) in an A2N sequencing batch reactor (SBR) were performed to reflect the process conditions accurately and improve the model calibration efficiency. The calibrated model was further validated using 30 batch experiments and 3-month dynamic continuous flow (CF) experiments for A2N-SBR and CF-A2N process, respectively. Several statistical criteria were conducted to evaluate the accuracy of model predications, including the average relative deviation (ARD), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and Janus coefficient. Visual comparisons and statistical analyses indicated that the calibrated model could provide accurate predictions for the effluent chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia nitrogen (NH4 (+)-N), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP), with only one iteration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available