JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Comparative study on response of thiocyanate shock load on continuous and fed batch anaerobic-anoxic-aerobic sequential moving bed reactors
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Environmental Engineering Research
  • Volume 20, Issue 1,  2015, pp.65-72
  • Publisher : Korean Society of Environmental Engineering
  • DOI : 10.4491/eer.2014.049
 Title & Authors
Comparative study on response of thiocyanate shock load on continuous and fed batch anaerobic-anoxic-aerobic sequential moving bed reactors
Sahariah, B.P.; Chakraborty, S.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
A comparative study on response of a toxic compound thiocyanate () was carried out in continuous and fed batch moving bed reactor systems. Both systems had three sequential anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic reactors and operated at same hydraulic retention time. Feed was first increased from 600 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L for 3 days (shock 1) and then from 600 to 1,200 mg/L for 3 days (shock 2). In anaerobic continuous reactor, increase of effluent COD (chemical oxygen demand) due to shock load was only 2%, whereas in fed batch reactor it was 14%. In anoxic fed batch reactor recovery was partial in terms of , phenol, COD and -N and -N removals and in continuous reactor complete recovery was possible. In both systems, inhibition was more significant on aerobic reactors than anaerobic and anoxic reactors. In aerobic reactors ammonia removal efficiency deteriorated and damage was irreversible. Present study showed that fed batch reactors showed higher substrate removal efficiency than continuous reactors during regular operation, but are more susceptible to toxic feed shock load and in nitrifying reactor damage was irreversible.
 Keywords
Ammonia-nitrogen;Biomass washout;Continuous reactors;Fed batch reactor;Substrate peak;Thiocyanate shock load;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Veeresh GS, Kumar P, Mehrotra I. Treatment of phenol and cresols in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process: a review. Water Res. 2005;39:154-170. crossref(new window)

2.
Odegaard H. Innovations in wastewater treatment: the moving bed bioreactor. Water Sci. Technol. 2006;53:17-33.

3.
Li YM, Gu GW, Zhao JF, Yu HQ, Qiu YL, Peng YG. Treatment of coke- plant wastewater by biofilm systems for removal of organic compounds and nitrogen. Chemosphere 2003;52:997-1005. crossref(new window)

4.
Vazquez I, Rodriguez J, Maranon E, Castrillon L, Fernandez Y. Study of the aerobic biodegradation of coke wastewater in a two and three-step activated sludge process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006;137:1681-1688. crossref(new window)

5.
Hung CH, Pavlostathis SG. Fate and transformation of thiocyanate and cyanate under methanogenic conditions. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1998;49:112-116. crossref(new window)

6.
Zhao W, Huang X, Lee D. Enhanced treatment of coke plant wastewater using an anaerobic-anoxic-oxic membrane bioreactor system. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2009;66:279-286. crossref(new window)

7.
Chakraborty S, Veeramani H. Effect of HRT and recycle ratio on removal of cyanide, phenol, thiocyanate and ammonia in an anaerobic-anoxic-aerobic continuous system. Process Biochem. 2006;41:96-105. crossref(new window)

8.
Sahariah BP, Chakraborty S. Kinetic analysis of phenol, thiocyanate and ammonia-nitrogen removals in an anaerobic-anoxic- aerobic moving bed bioreactor system. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011;190:260-267. crossref(new window)

9.
Sahariah BP, Chakraborty S. Effect of cycle and fill time on performance of sequential anaerobic-anoxic-aerobic fed batch moving bed reactor. Environ. Technol. 2013;34:245-256. crossref(new window)

10.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1998.

11.
Kim YM, Cho HU, Lee DS, Park C, Park D, Park JM. Response of nitrifying bacterial communities to the increased thiocyanate concentration in pre-denitrification process. Bioresour. Technol. 2011;102:913-922. crossref(new window)

12.
Li H, Han H, Du M, Wang W. Inhibition and recovery of nitrification in treating real coal gasification wastewater with moving bed biofilm reactor. J. Environ. Sci. 2011;23:568-574. crossref(new window)

13.
Kim YM, Park D, Lee DS, Park JM. Inhibitory effects of toxic compounds on nitrification process for cokes wastewater treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008;152:915-921. crossref(new window)

14.
Kaballo HP, Zhao Y, Wilderer PA. Elimination of p-chlorophenol in biofilm reactors- a comparative study of continuous flow and sequenced operation. Water Sci. Technol. 1995;31: 51-60.

15.
Wilderer PA, Roske I, Ueberschar A, David L. Continuous flow and sequenced batch operation of biofilm reactors: A comparative study of shock loading responses. Biofouling 1993;6: 295-304. crossref(new window)

16.
Mendoza-Espinosa LG, Tom S. Organic and hydraulic shock loadings on a biological aerated filter. Environ. Technol. 2001;22:321-330. crossref(new window)

17.
Woolard CR. The advantages of periodically operated biofilm reactors for the treatment of highly variable wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 1997;35:199-206.