2005
DOI: 10.1002/j.1554-7531.2005.tb00297.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Full‐Scale Experience for Nitrogen Removal from Piggery Waste

Abstract: The nitrogen-removal performances of three full-scale piggery wastewater treatment plants, with different organic and nitrogen loads, at the capacity ranges of 95 to 130 m 3 /d, were compared in this study. Plants 1 and 2 can be characterized as the modification of anoxic-aerobic operating systems, while an anaerobic and anoxic-aerobic system was used in plant 3. The influent piggery wastewater concentration for plant 1 was relatively lower, but with higher organic and nitrogen loads, resulting in higher chemi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There seems to be a lack of comprehensive overviews on both pig slurry and vapor condensate quality and their systematic research on broader range of influencing factors in the international literature. The composition of pig slurry, the animal's diet, the stabling (slatted floor, straw), and possible anaerobic conversion in storage [31] as well as the amount of water used for cleaning the pig pens and any unused food can have a major influence on slurry composition [32]. Still seldom are these factors reported in studies dealing with the treatment of pig slurries, making it difficult to assess the mentioned compositions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There seems to be a lack of comprehensive overviews on both pig slurry and vapor condensate quality and their systematic research on broader range of influencing factors in the international literature. The composition of pig slurry, the animal's diet, the stabling (slatted floor, straw), and possible anaerobic conversion in storage [31] as well as the amount of water used for cleaning the pig pens and any unused food can have a major influence on slurry composition [32]. Still seldom are these factors reported in studies dealing with the treatment of pig slurries, making it difficult to assess the mentioned compositions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been noticed that nitrite nitrification was more easily achieved in field units because of high pH and nitrogen loads [8] and probably due to higher reactor temperature resulting in a favorable condition for nitrite accumulation. [9] This study observed that the phosphorus removal was the result of the phosphorus utilization for cellular formation and chemical precipitation as magnesium ammonium phosphate (MAP or struvite) and/or calcium hydroxylapatite (HAP).…”
Section: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Profile In A Sbr Operationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…NTSWs evaluated are compared in Table 5 with other similar ones both on farms and domestic waters (with equal number of equivalent inhabitants) [5][6][7]36], it can be observed that similar COD removal values both in % and %/HWR are obtained with livestock effluent treatment plants [37] and the more complete the installation (NTSW Plant 3). Likewise, if the results given are compared against conventional systems, it is observed that they have comparable overall COD removal rates, and again the best installation is Plant 3 [38][39][40][41]. However, as the conventional systems are intensive in energy consumption and with shorter retention times (HRT), in all cases except for those found by [39][40][41] it can be observed that by %/HRT the conventional systems are superior to the natural systems studied, this being the weak point of these systems in terms of retention times [42][43][44][45][46].…”
Section: Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Likewise, if the results given are compared against conventional systems, it is observed that they have comparable overall COD removal rates, and again the best installation is Plant 3 [38][39][40][41]. However, as the conventional systems are intensive in energy consumption and with shorter retention times (HRT), in all cases except for those found by [39][40][41] it can be observed that by %/HRT the conventional systems are superior to the natural systems studied, this being the weak point of these systems in terms of retention times [42][43][44][45][46].…”
Section: Performancementioning
confidence: 99%