Effect of fermented wastes on denitrification in activated sludge

Lee, Sang-III; Koopman, Ben; Park, Seung-Kuk; Cadee, Keith

doi:10.2175/106143095x133383

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the literature is somewhat contradictory, it has been observed that methanol requires an acclimation period prior to achieving the denitrification rates consistent with other carbon sources, perhaps more due to the establishment of a new population of methylotrophic C1 degrading denitrifying bacteria than acclimation (Kang et al 1992;Lee et al 1995;Regan et al 1998). There is also recent evidence suggesting that methanol utilization kinetics may be significantly slower than previously thought (significantly slower than ethanol) and that low temperature effects may be more pronounced (higher Arrhenius u value) .…”

Section: Alternative Carbon Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of alternative electron donors for denitrifying moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs)

Bill

Bott

Murthy

2009

Water Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of four different electron donors, specifically methanol, ethanol, glycerol, and sulfide (added as Na(2)S), were evaluated in post-denitrifying bench-scale moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs). With the requirement for more wastewater treatment plants to reach effluent total nitrogen levels approaching 3 mg/L, alternative electron donors could promote more rapid MBBR startup/acclimation times and increased cold weather denitrification rates compared to methanol, which has been most commonly used for post-denitrification processes due to low cost and effectiveness. While the application of alternative substrates in suspended growth processes has been studied extensively, fixed film post denitrification processes have been designed to use primarily low yield substrates like methanol. Bench-scale MBBRs were operated continuously at 12 degrees Celsius, and performance was monitored by weekly sampling and insitu batch profile testing. Ethanol and glycerol, though visually exhibited much higher biofilm carrier biomass content, performed better than methanol in terms of removal rate (0.9 and 1.0 versus 0.6 g N/m(2)/day, respectively.) Maximum denitrification rate measurements from profile testing suggested that ethanol and glycerol (2.2 and 1.9 g N/m(2)/day, respectively) exhibited rates that were four times that of methanol (0.49 g N/m(2)/day.) Sulfide also performed much better than either of the other three electron donors with maximum rates at 3.6 g N/m(2)/day and with yield (COD/NO(3)-N) that was similar to or slightly less than that of methanol.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Carbon Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of alternative electron donors for denitrifying moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs)

Bill

Bott

Murthy

2009

Water Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…for acetate (Carrera et al, 2003) and 0.077 (Peng et al, 2007), 0.17 (Carrera et al, 2003), and 0.29 g NO 3 2 -N/g VSS?d (Lee et al, 1995) for methanol.…”

Section: Figure 1-comparison Of Nomentioning

confidence: 95%

Feasibility of Focused‐Pulsed Treated Waste Activated Sludge as a Supplemental Electron Donor for Denitrification

Lee

Parameswaran

Alder

et al. 2010

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the feasibility of using waste activated sludge (WAS) from a wastewater treatment plant as an internal electron donor to fuel denitrification, by increasing its bioavailability with Focused-Pulsed (FP) technology. The focused-pulsed treatment of WAS (producing FP-WAS) increased the semi-soluble chemical oxygen demand (SSCOD) by 26 times compared with the control WAS. The maximum denitrification rate of FP-WAS (0.25 g nitrate-nitrogen [NO 3 2 -N]/g volatile suspended solids [VSS]?d) was greater than for untreated WAS (0.05 g NO 3 2 -N/g VSS?d) and methanol (0.15 NO 3 2 -N/g VSS?d).Centrifuging out the larger suspended solids created FP-centrate, which had a rate (0.14 g NO 3 2 -N/g VSS?d) comparable with that of methanol. Thus, FP treatment of WAS created SSCOD, which was an internal electron donor that was able to drive denitrification at a rate similar to or greater than methanol. One trade-off of using FP-WAS for denitrification is an increase in total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) loading. While FP-WAS achieved the lowest total nitrogen and NO 3 2 -N concentrations in the batch denitrification test, its final ammonia-nitrogen (NH 3 -N) concentration was the highest, as a result of the release of organic nitrogen from the FPtreated biomass; FP-centrate had less release of total soluble nitrogen. While the return of total nitrogen (TN) is small compared with the SSCOD, the effects of the added nitrogen loading need to be considered. Water Environ. Res., 82, 2316Res., 82, (2010.

show abstract

“…Methanol storage and usage represents a health and safety concern due operator exposure and flammability (methanol burns without a visible flame). Although the literature is somewhat contradictory, it has been observed that methanol requires an acclimation period prior to achieving the denitrification rates consistent with other carbon sources, perhaps more due to the establishment of a new population of methylotrophic C1 degrading denitrifying bacteria than acclimation (Kang et al, 1992;Lee et al, 1995;Regan et al, 1998). There is also recent evidence suggesting that methanol utilization kinetics may be significantly slower than previously thought (significantly slower than ethanol) and that low temperature effects may be more pronounced (higher Arrhenius θ value) (Mokhayeri et al, 2006).…”

Section: Alternative Carbon Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Alternative Electron Donors in Anoxic Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBRs) Configured for Post-Denitrification

Bill¹,

Bott²,

Yi³

et al. 2008

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of four different electron donors, specifically methanol, ethanol, glycerol, and sulfide, was evaluated in post-denitrifying bench-scale moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs). With increased concern for wastewater treatment plants to meet lower effluent nitrogen levels, alternate substrates could promote quicker startup/acclimation times and higher denitrification rates than methanol, which is most commonly used. While application of alternative substrates in suspended growth processes has been studied extensively, fixed film post denitrification processes have been designed to use primarily low yield substrates like methanol. Preliminary results indicate that ethanol and glycerol both provide consistent denitrification, with average COD consumption factors of 0.96 and 1.07 at assumed anoxic yield values of 0.5 and 0.55, respectively. Both ethanol and glycerol have shown substantially shorter acclimation times and much higher removal rates at 20°C than either methanol or sulfide.

show abstract

Effect of fermented wastes on denitrification in activated sludge

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

Evaluation of alternative electron donors for denitrifying moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs)

Evaluation of alternative electron donors for denitrifying moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs)

Feasibility of Focused‐Pulsed Treated Waste Activated Sludge as a Supplemental Electron Donor for Denitrification

Evaluation of Alternative Electron Donors in Anoxic Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBRs) Configured for Post-Denitrification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About