analysis of a pilot-scale anaerobic baffled reactor treating domestic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

126
Table 5.6: Inflow and outflow characteristics, Phase II, III and IV. Data are presented as mean value ± 95 % conf. Interval, [min, max] (number <strong>of</strong> observations) COD mgCOD/ℓ Soluble COD mgCOD/ℓ Alkalinity mgCaCO3/ℓ Free and saline ammonia Total Kjeldahl nitrogen mgN/ℓ mgN/ℓ Soluble phosphate mgP/ℓ Total solids mgTS/ℓ Volatile solids mgVS/ℓ pH (median value reported) VFA mgCOD/ℓ Sulphate mgSO4/ℓ Sodium mgNa/ℓ Potassium mgK/ℓ In 1 680 ± 25 [246, 1749] (258) 154 ± 40 [69, 395] (20) 243 ± 6 [43, 369] (269) 39 ± 2 [3.8, 204] (273) 45 ± 2 [40, 51] (8) 15 ± 0.8 [0.95, 64] (245) 673 ± 66 [253, 1 076] (43) 417 ± 66 [125, 705] (25) 7.1 [4, 7.94] (289) 30 ± 31 [0, 74] (4) 4.5 ± 1.1 [2.4, 5.8] (5) 150 ± 104 [87, 362] (5) 21 ± 3 [16, 26] (6) 127 Out Phase II 299 ± 57 [125, 674] (20) 204 ± 37 [132, 298] (8) 226 ± 35 [59, 353] (15) n.d. 3 Out Phase III 212 ± 37 [107, 1 202] (57) 71 ± 8 [27, 121] (26) 268 ± 20 [185, 316] (13) 34 ± 2 [30, 39] (7) n.d. n.d. n.d. 450 ± 52 [310, 675] (15) 268 ± 102 [118, 605] (11) 6.2 [4.5, 7.1] (7) 5.6 ± 0.5 [4.7, 6] (5) 225 ± 50 [80, 390] (14) 127 ± 42 [5, 290] (14) 6.5 [6.2, 6.7] (9) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Out Phase IV 130 ± 29 [63, 339] (18) 61 ± 50 2 [18, 427] (19) 246 ±52 [168, 286] (4) 51 ± 14 [20, 90] (10) 38 ± 3 [32, 45] (8) 22 ± 4 [10, 26] (7) 378 ± 39 [135, 556] (26) n.d. 6.5 [6.2, 7.4] (6) 0 [0, 0] (4) 0.42 ± 0.28 [0.20, 0.97] (5) 132 ± 123 [40, 380] (5) 25 ± 4 [19, 31] (6) 1 Overall average conditions are reported for the inlet stream (i.e. all inflow data Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV are considered in the reported descriptive statistics. 2 Note: these data are not normally distributed as a result <strong>of</strong> a few high outlet values. 3 Not determined
Page 1:
ANALYSIS OF A PILOT-SCALE ANAEROBIC
Page 5:
i DECLARATIONS I, Katherine Maria F
Page 8 and 9:
My deepest thanks must be extended
Page 11 and 12:
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ANALYSIS OF A
Page 13 and 14:
5.3 Feed characteristics and loadin
Page 15 and 16:
xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: List o
Page 17 and 18:
xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Gr
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 5.1 Installation of the ABR
Page 21 and 22:
Figure 6.8: WEST® representation o
Page 23 and 24:
xix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A-HRT App
Page 25 and 26:
1 1 INTRODUCTION The work presented
Page 27 and 28:
obtained from anaerobic systems rel
Page 29 and 30:
• Lalbahadur (MTech, 2005) perfor
Page 31 and 32:
1.7 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS This
Page 33 and 34:
9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW A detailed re
Page 35 and 36:
• Disintegration of composite par
Page 37 and 38:
Homoacetogens are one of the most v
Page 39 and 40:
Most of the control in anaerobic di
Page 41 and 42:
therefore the sensitivity of the ov
Page 43 and 44:
∆Gº (W) [kcal] -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 L
Page 45 and 46:
For systems with low potential for
Page 47 and 48:
design of the digester in which the
Page 49 and 50:
2.2.2 Expanded granular sludge bed
Page 51 and 52:
fact that for most non-ideal flow s
Page 53 and 54:
hydrolysis steps to convert them to
Page 55 and 56:
from the clarified zone between the
Page 57 and 58:
Table 2.4: Typical pathogen surviva
Page 59:
Table 2.5: Studies using anaerobic
Page 62 and 63:
• There is no requirement for bio
Page 64 and 65:
Kennedy and Barriault (2005) perfor
Page 66 and 67:
methanogenic (Akunna and Clark, 200
Page 68 and 69:
and 6 h with no significant differe
Page 70 and 71:
2.5.1.12 Granule formation in ABRs
Page 72 and 73:
• A baffled reactor is described
Page 74 and 75:
2.5.3.4 Scanning electron microscop
Page 76 and 77:
spacing on flow patterns in a singl
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 3.5: Orthographic projection
Page 80 and 81:
PLC calculated the fraction of that
Page 82 and 83:
epresent buulk conditionns. Compart
Page 85 and 86:
The rreactor was initially commmiss
Page 87 and 88:
Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Page 89 and 90:
Table 4.1: Characteristics of degri
Page 91 and 92:
Table 4.2: Pilot-scale ABR approxim
Page 93 and 94:
COD [mgCOD/ℓ] 2000 1800 1600 1400
Page 95 and 96:
4.3.5 Phosphorus Figure 4.8 present
Page 97 and 98:
Observation of sludge in compartmen
Page 99 and 100: Another interesting observation is
Page 101 and 102: 4.4.3 pH pH measurements were perfo
Page 103 and 104: esult in low pH values. The reasons
Page 105 and 106: 4.5 SUMMARY: PHASE I - OPERATION AT
Page 107 and 108: than the optimal range for methanog
Page 109 and 110: 5 EXPERIMENTAL PHASES II-IV: KINGSB
Page 111 and 112: sludge on a number of occasions. Wh
Page 113 and 114: On days 99 and 100 of Phase III, a
Page 115 and 116: 5.3.2 Analysis of variations in fee
Page 117 and 118: Table 5.2: Pilot-scale ABR average
Page 119 and 120: 5.4.1.2 Phase III In Phase III, (Fi
Page 121 and 122: Phase II: Alkalinity [mgCaCO3/ℓ]
Page 123 and 124: Eq. 5-1 However, at a COD/SO4 2- ra
Page 125 and 126: wastewater was probably higher than
Page 127 and 128: 5.5.2.2 Damping Figure 5.12 and Fig
Page 129 and 130: • The outflow COD values were not
Page 131 and 132: • Information about the volume of
Page 133 and 134: As with the total volume of sludge
Page 135 and 136: It is not clear why the rate of acc
Page 137 and 138: most compartments was exactly 6.5,
Page 139 and 140: Soluble COD [mg/ℓ] 600 500 400 30
Page 141 and 142: pathogens and parasites, which may
Page 143 and 144: % Probe of DAPI % Probe of DAPI % P
Page 145 and 146: later compartments at all. Furtherm
Page 147 and 148: and 4, with decreasing observations
Page 149: • The mechanism of sludge build-u
Page 154 and 155: Behling et al. (1997) studied the p
Page 156 and 157: organisms in previous compartments.
Page 158 and 159: velocities. Unfortunately, these tw
Page 160 and 161: Thus for a fixed sludge load, at hi
Page 162 and 163: sampling was not possible since in
Page 164 and 165: Wentzel (2006) recommends a COD to
Page 166 and 167: 6.2.1.4 Calculation of CH4 producti
Page 168 and 169: organically bound N) or that N accu
Page 170 and 171: All VFA is consumed in the process,
Page 172 and 173: However, these assumptions are clea
Page 174 and 175: The calculated pH value is compared
Page 176 and 177: influent alkalinity will increase d
Page 178 and 179: The original objective to develop a
Page 180 and 181: • It was not possible to simulate
Page 182 and 183: employed for a medium strength wast
Page 184 and 185: 6.6.4 Alternative baffle design Thi
Page 186 and 187: 6.7.3 Monitoring requirements The m
Page 188 and 189: compartments (Section 6.1.1) pH val
Page 190 and 191: generally about anaerobic digestion
Page 192 and 193: 7.1.1.6 Effect of sludge age on bio
Page 194 and 195: 7.1.2.4 Critical design parameters
Page 196 and 197: 172
Page 198 and 199: Batstone D. J., Keller J., Angelida
Page 200 and 201:
Gopala K. G. V. T. (2007). Treatmen
Page 202 and 203:
MacLeod F. A., Guiot S. R. and Cost
Page 204 and 205:
Sasse L. (1998). Decentralised wast
Page 206 and 207:
Wanasen (2003). Upgrading conventio
Page 209 and 210:
METTHODS OFF SAMPLINNG AND ANNALYSI
Page 211 and 212:
3.6 Enumeration of total coliforms
Page 213 and 214:
that the means are the same, or con
Page 215 and 216:
And the significance of the regress
Page 217 and 218:
ADDITIONAL RESULTS 193 APPENDIX A3
Page 219 and 220:
Table A3. 1 cont. Phase I Phase II
Page 221 and 222:
each of the eight compartments were
Page 223 and 224:
3.2 Pathogen indicator organisms A
Page 225 and 226:
APPLIED VS. APPARENT HYDRAULIC RETE
Page 227 and 228:
19 h apparent HRT 14 h apparent HRT
Page 229 and 230:
205 APPENDIX A5 CALCULATION OF SOLI
Page 231 and 232:
i.e. the average SRT of an accumula
Page 233:
X X = P Inert ⋅ where Xinert is t
Page 236 and 237:
iodegradable organic material may b
Page 238 and 239:
Substituting Eq. A6- 1 in Eq. A6- 7
Page 240 and 241:
1.5 Implementation of steady-state
Page 242 and 243:
X = 7⋅ Y = 7 Z = 7⋅ A = 7⋅ (
Page 244 and 245:
Dama, P., Bell J., Naidoo, V., Foxo
Page 246:
Lalbahadur T. (2004) Characterisati
show all

analysis of a pilot-scale anaerobic baffled reactor treating domestic ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?