4.4 Article

Continuous nitrogen removal by a single-stage reactor packed with ring-laced string medium

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCE AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 124, 期 6, 页码 660-667

出版社

SOC BIOSCIENCE BIOENGINEERING JAPAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2017.06.013

关键词

Anammox; Ammonia oxidizing bacteria; Nitritation; Deammonification; Denitrification; Packed-bed reactor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficiency of nitrogen removal by a partial-nitritation/anammox (PNA) reaction was investigated using a packed bed reactor in which ring-laced strings were used as the supporting medium. A stable population of PNA microorganisms was established from typical activated sludge, after less than two months of acclimation in the packed-bed reactor, by applying a high nitrogen-loading rate (NLR: 0.53 kg/m(3)/d) and short hydraulic retention time (HRT: 1.8 h). The stability of reactor performance was confirmed in industrial wastewater (IW), demonstrating a nitrogen removal efficiency (NRE) of greater than 77% during 260 days of continuous operation, between 0.19 and 0.53 kg/m(3)/d of NLR. Partial nitrification was adequately controlled by low-level oxygen supply to the reactor. Pyro-tag sequencing analysis of the biofilm revealed a clear abundance of anammox bacteria in the inner part of the biofilm and ammonium-oxidizing bacteria in the outer part. In the synthetic inorganic medium (SIM), the microbial community structure did not change drastically between the early and late phases of the experiment's continuous operation, which lasted over 200 days. In however, the existence ratio of anammox bacteria decreased to 4% on day 249 of continuous operation. The number of detected operational taxonomic units (OTUs) increased in the IW, implying that the community structure was widely diversified. However, anammox bacteria could propagate sufficiently to catalyze nitrogen removal under this condition because the NRE was stable at approximately 88%. (C) 2017, The Society for Biotechnology, Japan. All rights reserved.

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