4.4 Article

Optimizing Hydraulic Retention Times in Denitrifying Woodchip Bioreactors Treating Recirculating Aquaculture System Wastewater

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 813-821

出版社

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2015.05.0242

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tides Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia
  2. USDA Agriculture Research Service [59-1930-0-046]
  3. ARS [813669, ARS-0428109] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of wood-based denitrifying bioreactors to treat high-nitrate wastewaters from aquaculture systems has not previously been demonstrated. Four pilot-scale woodchip bioreactors (approximately 1: 10 scale) were constructed and operated for 268 d to determine the optimal range of design hydraulic retention times (HRTs) for nitrate removal. The bioreactors were operated under HRTs ranging from 6.6 to 55 h with influent nitrate concentrations generally between 20 and 80 mg NO3--N L-1. These combinations resulted in N removal rates >39 g N m(-3) d(-1), which is greater than previously reported. These high removal rates were due in large part to the relatively high chemical oxygen demand and warm temperature (similar to 19 degrees C) of the wastewater. An optimized design HRT may not be the same based on metrics of N removal rate versus N removal efficiency; longer HRTs demonstrated higher removal efficiencies, and shorter HRTs had higher removal rates. When nitrate influent concentrations were approximately 75 mg NO3-N L-1 (n = 6 sample events), the shortest HRT (12 h) had the lowest removal efficiency (45%) but a significantly greater removal rate than the two longest HRTs (42 and 55 h), which were N limited. Sulfate reduction was also observed under highly reduced conditions and was exacerbated under prolonged N-limited environments. Balancing the removal rate and removal efficiency for this water chemistry with a design HRT of approximately 24 h would result in a 65% removal efficiency and removal rates of at least 18 g N m(-3) d(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据