4.5 Article

Process Performance of a Biotrickling Filter Using a Flow-Directional-Switching Method

期刊

CLEAN-SOIL AIR WATER
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 522-527

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/clen.201100574

关键词

Elimination capacity; Metabolic activity; Recovery performance; Volatile contaminant

资金

  1. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
  2. Program of Environmental Science and Technology of Jiangsu Province [2007024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-uniform distribution of biomass and the accumulation of excess biomass at the inlet of a unidirectional flow biotrickling filter (UF-BTF) may lead to severe operating problems including increasing airflow resistance in packed bed, clogging, and low contaminant removal efficiencies, even performance loss. Therefore, a flow-directional-switching biotrickling filter (FDS-BTF) was designed to improve performance such as the maximum elimination capacity and elimination efficiency. Toluene was chosen as the unique carbon source for microorganism. The results indicated that the purification performance of FDS-BTF was superior to UF-BTF. The maximum elimination capacity of FDS-BTF was up to 480g/(m3h), which was 17.1% higher than that of UF-BTF. After a 50-day continuous operation, FDS-BTF attained the stable purification performance and the outlet concentrations of toluene could meet the emission standard with inlet concentrations ranging from 720 to 1100mg/m3 for an empty bed residence time (EBRT) of 23.9s. The average well color development in FDS-BTF was higher than that in UF-BTF. It indicated that FDS-BTF could improve the metabolic activity, which may improve the uniform distribution of biomass along the length of packed bed. When two systems were shut down, 24 and 48h, respectively, the time that FDS-BTF and UF-BTF needed to restore the former elimination efficiency after a shut down of 48h were 3-4 and 9-10h. These data indicated that the purification performance of FDS-BTF was superior to UF-BTF.

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

4.5
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