2008
DOI: 10.2175/193864708788733378
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enabling the Performance of the MBBR Installed to Treat Meat Processing Wastewater

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the sloughing increases, the microbial flocs are formed and the settling of the suspended solids in the settling tank is improved, increasing TSS removal efficiency. In a similar research, treating slaughterhouse in a MBBR, TSS removal efficiency after settling tank was 97% [40]. In another research, treating domestic wastewater, a value of 76.5% was reported for the response [41].…”
Section: Tss Removal Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As the sloughing increases, the microbial flocs are formed and the settling of the suspended solids in the settling tank is improved, increasing TSS removal efficiency. In a similar research, treating slaughterhouse in a MBBR, TSS removal efficiency after settling tank was 97% [40]. In another research, treating domestic wastewater, a value of 76.5% was reported for the response [41].…”
Section: Tss Removal Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 90%
“…In this study, biodegradable polymer (PCL) was used as both solid carbon source and biofilm carriers to remove nitrogen from wastewater with a low C/N ratio. In average, 74.6% TN removal efficiency was obtained at HRT of 18.5 h. In another work done by the authors [8], the effects of two types of packing media, polyurethane foam (PUF) and biodegradable polymer polycaprolactone (PCL), at different HRT (14,16,24,40 h) on the removal of organics and nitrogen from wastewater with a low C/N ratio were evaluated. The PUF carriers showed better performance in terms of TOC and ammonium removal efficiency (90 and 65% versus 72% and 56%, respectively).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%