مقایسة مشخصات کیفی لجن در فرایند تلفیقی بیوراکتور غشایی رشد چسبیده با بستر شناور و بیوراکتور غشایی متعارف

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی

نویسندگان

1 تهران، دانشگاه تهران، دانشکدة محیط زیست، گروه مهندسی محیط زیست

2 تهران، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، پردیس شهید عباسپور، دانشکدة آب و محیط زیست

چکیده

در این تحقیق، مشخصات لجن مازاد حاصل از یک فرایند تلفیقی رشد ثابت با بستر شناور و بیوراکتور غشایی و یک بیوراکتور غشایی متعارف در مقیاس پایلوت بررسی شد و مشخصات کیفی لجن شامل: SVI، غلظت ازت و فسفر در جرم خشک، FI، میزان مصرف پلیمر، درجة تثبیت لجن و غلظت EPS و SMP اندازه‌گیری شد. با درنظرگرفتن شرایط بهره‌برداری مشابه (بار آلی، F/M، HRT، دما و pH) برای راکتورها، تفاوت‌های معناداری در شاخص‌های لجن آن‌ها مشاهده شد. نتایج بیانگر ارتباط مستقیم درجة تثبیت با سن لجن بود و میزان تثبیت لجن فرایند MB-MBR نسبت به فرایند MBR متعارف 15 درصد بیشتر مشاهده شد. بر اساس نتایج، غلظت EPS و SMP در لجن فرایند MB-MBR بالاتر از میزان آن در MBR متعارف بود. همچنین میزان پلی‌الکترولیت مصرفی برای آمایش لجن دو فرایند در محدودة 4-5 گرم بر کیلوگرم جامدات لجن بود و تفاوت معناداری میان دو فرایند مشاهده نشد. نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که تلفیق فرایند رشد چسبیده با بستر شناور و بیوراکتور غشایی، علاوه بر امکان حذف توأم ازت و فسفر، موجب بهبود کیفیت لجن تولیدی از نظر میزان تثبیت و میزان مواد مغذی خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparing the Sludge Characteristics in a Moving Bed Membrane Bioreactor and Conventional Membrane Bioreactor

نویسندگان [English]

  • Yousef Rahimi 1
  • Ali Torabian 1
  • Naser Mehrdadi 1
  • Hossein Nayeb 2
1 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran
2 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Water and Environmental Engineering, Abbaspour University of Technology
چکیده [English]

The properties of excess sludge wasted from two parallel pilot plants membrane bioreactor (MB-MBR and conventional MBR) have been monitored. Sludge samples of MB-MBR and MBR have been examined and compared in terms of VSS/TSS, filtration index, EPS and SMP concentration, nitrogen and phosphorous in dry matter, FI, SVI and polyelectrolyte requirement for sludge conditioning. By keeping similar operational conditions (organic loading, F/M, HRT, temperature, and pH) in both reactors, their sludge characteristics in some terms were significantly different. Results showed that the direct correlation between sludge stabilization ratio and SRT and stabilization ratio in MB-MBR process was 15% higher than stabilization ratio in MBR process. In MB-MBR reactor the SMP and EPS concentration were higher than MBR process. Polyelectrolyte requirement for sludge conditioning in both processes was in range of 4-5 g/kg dry solids and no significant difference was observed. In MB-MBR process SND occurs, and also its excess sludge has higher quality especially in terms of stabilization ratio, nutrient content and higher fertility value.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • attached growth
  • filtration index
  • membrane bioreactor
  • Nutrients
  • sludge quality

مراجع

[1]. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. (2003). “Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse”. 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
[2]. Gil, J. A., Túa, L., Rueda, A., Montaño, B., Rodríguez, M., Prats, D. (2010). “Monitoring and analysis of the energy cost of an MBR”, Desalination, 250 (3), 997-1001.
[3]. Guo, W. S., Vigneswaran, S., Ngo, H. H., Xing, W. (2008). “Comparison of membrane bioreactor systems in wastewater treatment”, Desalination, 231 (1-3), 61–70.
[4]. Lesage, N., Sperandio, M., Cabassud, C. (2008). “Study of a hybrid process: Adsorption on activated carbon/membrane bioreactor for the treatment of an industrial wastewater”, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 47 (3), 303–307.
[5]. Miyoshi, T., Tsuyuharaa, T., Ogyua, R., Kimuraa, K., Watanabe, Y. (2009). “Seasonal variation in membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) treating municipal wastewater”, Water Research, 43 (20), 5109–5118.
[6]. Meng, F., Chaeb, S. R., Drewsc, A., Kraumec, M., Shind, H. S., Yang, F. (2009). “Recent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane fouling and membrane material”, Water Research, 43 (6), 1489 -1512.
[7]. Yang, S., Yang, F., Fu, Z., Lei, R. (2009). “Comparison Between a Moving Bed Membrane Bioreactor and a Conventional Membrane Bioreactor an Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Removal”, Bioresource Technology, 100 (8), 2369-2374.
[8]. Cho, J., Song, K. G., Ahn, K. H. (2005). “The Activated Sludge and Microbial Substances Influences on Membrane Fouling in Submerged Membrane Bioreactor: Unstirred Batch Cell Test”, Desalination, 183 (1-3), 425-429.
[9]. Trussell, R. S., Merlo, R. P., Hermanowicz, S. W., Jenkins, D. (2007). “Influence of Mixed Liquor Properties and Aeration Intensity on Membrane Fouling in a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor at High Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Concentrations”, Water Research, 41 (5), 974-958.
[10]. Fan, F., zhou, H., Husain, H. (2006). “Identification of Wastewater Sludge Characteristics to Predict Critical Flux for Membrane Bioreactor Processes”, Water Research, 40 (2), 205-212.
[11]. Khongnakorn, W., Wisniewski, C., Pottier, L., Vachoud, L. (2007). “Physical properties of activated sludge in a submerged membrane bioreactor and relation with membrane fouling”, Separation and Purification Technology, 55 (1), 125-131.
[12]. Guglielmi, G., Chiarani, D., Saroj, D. P., Andreottola, G. (2009). “Sludge filterability and dewaterability in a membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment”, Desalination, 250 (2), 660-665.
[13]. Merlo, R. P. (2004). “Properties Affecting the Solids Processing of Sludges from the Submerged Membrane Bioreactor and Activated Sludge Process”, Department of Graduate Devision, Vol. PhD, University of California,Berkley, Berkley, California.
[14]. Rosenberger, S., Kraume, M. (2002). “Filterability of activated sludge in membrane bioreactors”, Desalination, 146 (1-3), 373-379.
[15]. APHA., AWWA., WEF. (American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation) (1998). “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater”, 20th Ed, APHA, Washington, DC.
[16]. Al-Halbouni, D., Traberb, J., Lykoc, S., Wintgensc, T., Melin, T., Tacked, D., Janote, A., Dotta, W., Hollender, J. (2008). “Correlation of EPS content in activated sludge at different sludge retention times with membrane fouling phenomena”, Water Research, 42 (6-7), 1475-1488.
[17]. Judd, S., C., Judd. (2006). “The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors in Water and Wastewater Treatment”, First ed. Elsevier Ltd,, AMSTERDAM.
[18]. Ahmed, H. (1959). “Principles and reactions of protein extraction, purification, and characterization”, CRC press, Boca Raton.
[19]. Bradford, M. M. (1976). “A Rapid and Sensitive Method for the Quantitation of Microgram Quantities of Rotein Utilizing the Principle of Protein-Dye Binding”, Analytical Biochemistry, 72 (1-2), 248-254.
[20]. Miller, G. L. (1959). “Use of Dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing suger”, Analytical Chemistry, 31(3), 426-428.
[21]. Berthouex, P. M., Brown, L. C. (2002). “Statistics for Environmental Engineers”, Lewis Publishers, 2nd Ed, Boca Raton.
[22]. Turovskiy, I. S., Mathai, P. K. (2006). “Wastewater Sludge Processing”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey.
[23]. McFarland, J. M. (2001). “Biosolids Engineering”, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York ISBN.
[24]. Wang, L. K., Shammas, N. K., Hung, Y. T. (2007). “Handbook of Environmental Engineering: Biosolids Treatment Processes”, Vol. 6, Humana Press Inc. Totowa, New Jersey
[25]. Ouyang, K., LIU, J. (2009). “Effect of sludge retention time on sludge characteristics and membrane fouling of membrane bioreactor”, Journal of Environmental Sciences, 21(10), 1329-1335.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار