The Dependence of Removal Rate and Efficiency on COD Loading Rate in Two Anaerobic Systems Treating High Organic Suspended Wastewater
Main Article Content
Abstract
The dependence of removal rate and efficiency on COD loading rate in two anaerobic systems using Internal Circulation (IC) and Modified Internal Circulation (MIC) models were evaluated for the treatment of piggery waste in this study. Two systems were operated at a similar COD loading rate and retention times at room temperature when using an anaerobic sludge concentration of 13.3 gVMLSS/l. Generally, both IC and MIC achieved the similar performances regarding total COD removal rate are in the range of 0.7 - 13.0 kgCOD/m3/day with influent COD loading rate of 1.0 - 20.0 kg/m3/day; soluble COD removal rate are in the range of 0.3 - 4.0 kgCOD/m3/day with influent soluble COD of 0.6 - 7 kgCO/m3/day. Both IC and MIC showed a similar performance regarding total and soluble COD removal efficiencies, which are in the range of 69 - 71% and 65%, respectively. However, MIC is more advantaged in the aspects of system manufacturing and operation.
Keywords
Loading rate, removal capacity, internal circulation, anaerobic.
References
[1] G. Lettinga, Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 1995, Vol.67, Issue 1, pp. 3-28.
[2] Z.A. Kassam, L. Yerushalmi, Guiot, A market study on the anaerobic wastewater treatment systems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143 (2003) 179-192, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[3] B. Jules van Lier, Grietje Zeeman, Current Trends in Anaerobic Digestion: Diversifying from waste(water) treatment to resource oriented energetic conversion techniques, 2009.
[4] J.B. Van Lier, New challenges for wastewater: from pollution prevention to resource recovery in “Nieuwe Uitdagingen”, TU Delf, Published by water Management Academic Press, Delft, The Netherlands, 2009, pp. 57-67.
[5] American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, American Public Health Association, 5220 D Closed Reflux, Colorimetric Method, 1995, pp. 5.15 - 5.16.
[6] Adams. V. Dean, Water & Wastewater Examination Manual, Lewis Publishers, 1990, pp. 168-17.
References
[2] Z.A. Kassam, L. Yerushalmi, Guiot, A market study on the anaerobic wastewater treatment systems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143 (2003) 179-192, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[3] B. Jules van Lier, Grietje Zeeman, Current Trends in Anaerobic Digestion: Diversifying from waste(water) treatment to resource oriented energetic conversion techniques, 2009.
[4] J.B. Van Lier, New challenges for wastewater: from pollution prevention to resource recovery in “Nieuwe Uitdagingen”, TU Delf, Published by water Management Academic Press, Delft, The Netherlands, 2009, pp. 57-67.
[5] American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, American Public Health Association, 5220 D Closed Reflux, Colorimetric Method, 1995, pp. 5.15 - 5.16.
[6] Adams. V. Dean, Water & Wastewater Examination Manual, Lewis Publishers, 1990, pp. 168-17.