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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5.22: Median pH values for inflow, compartments and outflow in the ABR obtained in the Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV. ............................................................................... 113 Figure 5.23: Phase IV: COD concentrations in compartments of the pilot-scale ABR. .................... 115 Figure 5.24: pH profiles in the ABR compartments showing good operation, pH profile shortly after souring and profiles 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, 9 days and 10 days after souring during Phase II. ...................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 5.25: Domain-specific probe counts (Eubacteria and Archaea) as a fraction of total cell counts in each compartment for samples obtained on day 36, 57, 85, 101 and 127 respectively during Phase III.. ......................................................................................................... 119 Figure 5.26: Scanning electron micrographs showing (a) the surface topology of an entire granule taken from compartment 3 of the pilot-scale ABR during Phase III; and (b) Cleaved granule showing loosely packed, cavity filled structure of the granule interior. ........ 120 Figure 5.27: Bamboo-shaped bacteria that closely resemble the acetoclastic methanogen, Methanosaeta observed in dispersed sludge during Phase IV .................................... 121 Figure 5.28: Scanning electron micrographs of granules from compartments 2 and 3 harvested from the pilot-scale ABR during Phase IV .......................................................................... 122 Figure 5.29: Scanning electron micrographs of (a) a dissected granule showing cavities (GC) in the granule interior and (b) interior matrix composed of rod and filamentous forms of Methanosaeta-like morphotypes in a matrix of extracellular polymer. ...................... 122 Figure 6.1: Location of solids in downflow and upflow sections of each compartment: ................ 132 Figure 6.2: Black box representation of ABR for mass balance modelling .................................... 139 Figure 6.3: Growth-Death-Regeneration scheme used in the hydrolysis part of the steady-state model of Sötemann et al. (2005) ................................................................................. 146 Figure 6.4: Steady-state model predictions of outlet characteristics alkalinity, free and saline ammonia (NH3+NH4 + ) and pH value compared to average or median values obtained from Phase IV operation. ............................................................................................ 150 Figure 6.5: Steady-state model predictions of outlet characteristics (a) Alkalinity, outflow/accumulating COD, free and saline ammonia and (b) PCO2 and pH value for increasing influent wastewater strength ...................................................................... 150 Figure 6.6: Steady-state model sensitivity analysis: Estimated effect of influent alkalinity concentration and COD concentration on digester pH values for fixed wastewater composition (but varying strength). ............................................................................ 151 Figure 6.7: Steady-state model sensitivity analysis: Estimated effect of ratio of carbohydrate (C), lipid (L) and protein (P) and COD concentration on digester pH values for fixed feed alkalinity. .................................................................................................................... 151 xvi
Figure 6.8: WEST® representation of the ABR flow configuration. ............................................. 154 Figure 6.9: Flow diagram showing route taken during catabolic degradation of COD in the anaerobic digestion model proposed by Siegrist et al. (1993). ................................... 155 Figure A2.1: Core Sampler filled with compartment 1 sludge (left) and compartment 8 sludge and supernatant (right) ....................................................................................................... 187 Figure A3.1: Rank probit plots showing concentrations of determinands in inflow stream during Phase I at Umbilo WWTP (a) COD; (b) alkalinity; (c) free and saline ammonia; (d) total phosphate; (e) total solids; and (f) pH values. .................................................... 198 Figure A3.2: Rank probit plots showing concentrations of determinands in inflow stream during Phase II-IV at Kingsburgh WWTP (a) COD; (b) alkalinity; (c) free and saline ammonia; (d) total phosphate; (e) total solids; and (f) pH values. ............................. 200 Figure A3.3: Phase IV: Pathogen indicator organisms in the inflow and outflow (Mean A-HRT approximately 42 h). Inflow and outflow total coliforms, E. Coli and coliphage. .... 201 Figure A4.1: Apparent compartment volume is related to the total compartment volume and the volume occupied by solids that are retained in the compartment. .............................. 203 Figure A4.3: Construction of data tables for correlation analysis for 19 h and 14 h apparent hydraulic retention time.. ............................................................................................................ 205 Figure A4.4: Significance (P) of correlation coefficient between inflow and outflow alkalinity concentration measurements for apparent hydraulic retention times between 12 h and 18 h. ............................................................................................................................ 206 Figure A5.1: Example of SRT vs. length of operating time for accumulating system model ....... 210 Figure A6.1: Growth-Death-Regeneration scheme used in the hydrolysis part of the steady-state model of Sötemann et al. (2005)................................................................................. 214 xvii
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: Figure 5.1 Installation of the ABR
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 and 150:
• The mechanism of sludge build-u
Page 151:
Table 5.6: Inflow and outflow chara
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?