Environmental Engineering Research

Korean Society of Environmental Engineers (대한환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Tertiary denitrification of the secondary effluent in biofilters packed with composite carriers under different carbon to nitrogen ratios

  • Shi, Yunhong (Key Laboratory of Microorganism Application and Risk Control (MARC) of Shenzhen, Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University) ;
  • Wei, Nan (Key Laboratory of Microorganism Application and Risk Control (MARC) of Shenzhen, Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University) ;
  • Wu, Guangxue (Key Laboratory of Microorganism Application and Risk Control (MARC) of Shenzhen, Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University)
  • Received : 2015.11.23
  • Accepted : 2016.06.01
  • Published : 2016.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A new type of biofilter packed with composite carriers was designed for tertiary denitrification of the secondary effluent with removal of both oxidized nitrogen and suspended solids (SS). At the empty bed residence time of 15 min and organic carbon to nitrate nitrogen ($C/NO_3-N$) ratios of 2, 1.5 and 1 g/g, the removal percentage of $NO_3-N$ was 67%, 58% and 36% in the ethanol biofilter, and was 61%, 43% and 26% in the acetate biofilter, respectively. The biofilters packed with composite carriers removed SS effectively, with the effluent turbidity in both biofilters of less than 3 NTU. During the operating cycle between the biofilter backwashings, the $NO_3-N$ removal percentage decreased initially after backwashing, and then gradually increased. Under $C/NO_3-N$ ratios of 2, 1.5 and 1 g/g, the $NO_3-N$ reduction rate was 1.75, 1.04 and $0.68g/m^2/d$ in the ethanol biofilter, and was 1.56, 1.07 and $0.76g/m^2/d$ in the acetate biofilter, respectively. In addition, during denitrification, the ratio of the consumed chemical oxygen demand to the removed $NO_3-N$ was 5.06-8.23 g/g in the ethanol biofilter, and was 4.26-8.6 g/g in the acetate biofilter.

Keywords

References

  1. McGettigan J, Stinson B, Wilson T. Tertiary denitrifying MBBRs:The right choice. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. Florida; 2009. p. 446-457.
  2. Taljemark K, Aspegren H, Gruvberger C, Hanner N, Nyberg U, Andersson B. 10 Years of experiences of an MBBR process for post-denitrication. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. Louisiana; 2004. p. 355-366.
  3. Motsch S, Fetherolf D, Guhse G, McGettigan J, Wilson T. MBBR and IFAS pilot program for denitrification at Fairfax County's Noman Cole Pollution Control Plant. Water Practice 2007;1:1-11.
  4. Stinson B, Peric M, Neupane D, et al. Design and operating considerations for a post denitrification MBBR to achieve limit of technology effluent NOx 1 mg/L and effluent TP 0.18 mg/L. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Nutrient Removal. Florida; 2009. p. 1225-1254.
  5. Wilson T, Toth Z, Anderson G, McSweeny R, McGettign J. Using MBBRs to meet ENR nitrogen levels for over 8 years. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. Chicago; 2008. p. 3622-3630.
  6. AEsOy A, Odegaard H, Bach K, Pujol R, Hamon M. Denitrification in a packed bed biofilm reactor (BIOFOR)-Experiments with different carbon sources. Water Res. 1998;32:1463-1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00358-8
  7. Mokhayeri Y, Nichols A, Murthy S, Riffat R, Dold P. Examining the influence of substrates and temperature on maximum specific growth rate of denitrifiers. Water Sci. Technol. 2006;54:155-162.
  8. Van Rijn J, Tal Y, Barak Y. Influence of volatile fatty acids on nitrite accumulation by a Pseudomonas stutzeri strain isolated from a denitrifying fluidized bed reactor. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996;62:2615-2620.
  9. Shrestha A, Riffat R, Bott C, et al. Denitrification stoichiometry and kinetics of moving bed biofilm reactor. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Nutrient Removal. Washington; 2009. p. 153-165.
  10. American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington DC, USA; 1998.
  11. Harremoes P. The significance of pore diffusion to filter denitrification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1976;48:377-388.
  12. Aspegren H, Nyberg U, Andersson B, Gotthardsson S, Jansen J. Post denitrification in a moving bed biofilm reactor process. Water Sci. Technol. 1998;38:31-38.
  13. Bill KA, Bott CB, Murthy SN. Evaluation of alternative electron donors for denitrifying moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs). Water Sci. Technol. 2009;60:2647-2657. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.622
  14. deBarbadillo C, Miller P, Ledwell S. A comparison of operating issues and dosing requirements for alternative carbon sources in denitrification filters. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. Chicago; 2008. p. 6603-6617.
  15. Nyberg U, Andersson B, Aspegren H. Long-term experiences with external carbon sources for nitrogen removal. Water Sci. Technol. 1996;33:109-116.
  16. Farabegoli G, Gavasci R, Lombardi F, Romani F. Denitrification in tertiary filtration: application of an up-flow filter. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 2003;38:2169-2177. https://doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120023349
  17. Koch G, Siegrist H. Denitrification with methanol in tertiary filtration at wastewater treatment plant Zurich-Werdhoolzli. Water Sci. Technol. 1997;36:165-172.
  18. Constantin H, Fick M. Influence of C-sources on the denitrification rate of a high-nitrate concentrated industrial wastewater. Water Res. 1997;31:583-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00268-0
  19. Dos Santos SG, Varesche MBA, Zaiat M, Foresti E. Comparison of methanol, ethanol, and methane as electron donors for denitrification. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2004;21:313-320. https://doi.org/10.1089/109287504323066950
  20. Betlach MR, Tiedje JM. Kinetic explanation for accumulation of nitrite, nitric oxide, and nitrous oxide during bacterial denitrification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1981;42:1074-1084.
  21. Martienssen M, Schops R. Population dynamics of denitrifying bacteria in a model biocommunity. Water Res. 1999;33:639-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00222-X
  22. Yin FF, Wang SY, Ang XY, Peng YZ, Wang W. Effects of carbon source types on denitrification performance at low temperature. Environ. Sci. 2009;30:108-113.
  23. Choi HJ, Lee AH, Lee SM. Comparison between a moving bed bioreactor and a fixed bed bioreactor for biological phosphate removal and denitrification. Water Sci. Technol. 2012;65:1834-183. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.847

Cited by

  1. Removal Characteristics of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen and Its Bioavailable Portion in a Postdenitrifying Biofilter: Effect of the C/N Ratio vol.52, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05115
  2. The mechanisms of conventional pollutants adsorption by modified granular steel slag vol.26, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2019.352
  3. Sulfur autotrophic denitrification filter and heterotrophic denitrification filter: Comparison on denitrification performance, hydrodynamic characteristics and operating cost vol.197, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111029