4.8 Article

White and infrared light continuous photobioreactors for resource recovery from poultry processing wastewater - A comparison

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 144, Issue -, Pages 665-676

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.07.040

Keywords

Agri-industrial; Resource recovery; Wastewater; Photobioreactor; PPB

Funding

  1. Australian Pork Limited
  2. Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Australia [2014/534.05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Concentrated wastewaters from agricultural industries represent a key opportunity for the upcycling of organics, nitrogen and phosphorus to higher value products such as microbial protein. Phototrophic or photosynthetic microbes very effectively capture input organics and nutrients as microbial protein. This study compares purple phototrophic bacteria (PPB) and microalgae (photosynthesis) for this purpose, treating real, high strength poultry processing wastewater in continuous photo bioreactors utilising infrared (IR) and white light (WL) respectively. Both reactors could effectively treat the wastewaters, and at similar loading rates (4 kgCOD m(-3)d(-1)). The infrared reactor (IRR) was irradiated at 18 W m(-2) and the white light reactor (WLR) reactor at 1.5-2 times this. The IRR could remove up to 90% total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD), 90% total nitrogen (TN) and 45% total phosphorus (TP) at 1.0d hydraulic retention time (HRT) and recover around 190 kg of crude protein per tonne of influent COD at 7.0 kWh per dry tonne(-1) light input, with PPB dominating all samples. In comparison, the WLR removed up to 98% COD, 94% TN and 44% TP at 43-90% higher irradiance compared to the PPB reactor. Microalgae did not dominate the WLR and the community was instead a mix of microbes (algae, bacteria, zooplankton and detritus - ALBAZOD) with a production of approximately 140 kg crude protein per tonne influent (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available