4.8 Article

Development of a simultaneous partial nitrification and anaerobic ammonia oxidation process in a single reactor

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 652-659

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.031

关键词

Autotrophic nitrogen removal; Anammox; Partial nitrification; FISH

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan
  2. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan
  3. Brain Korea 21 program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Up-flow oxygen-controlled biofilm reactors equipped with a non-woven fabric support were used as a single reactor system for autotrophic nitrogen removal based on a combined partial nitrification and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) reaction. The up-flow biofilm reactors were initiated as either a partial nitrifying reactor or an anammox reactor, respectively, and simultaneous partial nitrification and anammox was established by careful control of the aeration rate. The combined partial nitrification and anammox reaction was successfully developed in both biofilm reactors without additional biomass inoculation. The reactor initiated as the anammox reactor gave a slightly higher and more stable mean nitrogen removal rate of 0.35 (+/- 0.19) kg-N m(-3) d(-1) than the reactor initiated as the partial nitrifying reactor (0.23 (+/- 0.16) kg-N m(-3) d(-1)). FISH analysis revealed that the biofilm in the reactor started as the anammox reactor were composed of anammox bacteria located in inner anoxic layers that were surrounded by surface aerobic AOB layers, whereas AOB and anammox bacteria were mixed without a distinguishable niche in the biofilm in the reactor started as the partial nitrifying reactor. However, it was difficult to efficiently maintain the stable partial nitrification owing to inefficient aeration in the reactor, which is a key to development of the combined partial nitrification and anammox reaction in a single biofilm reactor. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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