| Literature DB >> 25997399 |
Ya-Zhou Wang1, Yun-Kun Wang1, Chuan-Shu He1, Hou-Yun Yang1, Guo-Ping Sheng1, Jin-You Shen2, Yang Mu3, Han-Qing Yu1.
Abstract
An electrochemical membrane bioreactor (EMBR) has recently been developed for energy recovery and wastewater treatment. The hydrodynamics of the EMBR would significantly affect the mass transfers and reaction kinetics, exerting a pronounced effect on reactor performance. However, only scarce information is available to date. In this study, the hydrodynamic characteristics of the EMBR were investigated through various approaches. Tracer tests were adopted to generate residence time distribution curves at various hydraulic residence times, and three hydraulic models were developed to simulate the results of tracer studies. In addition, the detailed flow patterns of the EMBR were acquired from a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. Compared to the tank-in-series and axial dispersion ones, the Martin model could describe hydraulic performance of the EBMR better. CFD simulation results clearly indicated the existence of a preferential or circuitous flow in the EMBR. Moreover, the possible locations of dead zones in the EMBR were visualized through the CFD simulation. Based on these results, the relationship between the reactor performance and the hydrodynamics of EMBR was further elucidated relative to the current generation. The results of this study would benefit the design, operation and optimization of the EMBR for simultaneous energy recovery and wastewater treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25997399 PMCID: PMC4441134 DOI: 10.1038/srep10387
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1RTD curve and simulation results with the three models at various HRTs.
Estimated values of the different parameters for the three models at various HRTs.
| 3.12 | 5.1 | 9.15 | 0.3 | 37.5 | 3.9 | 0.56 | 113.9 | 4.2 | 0.14 | 55.3 | 55 | 14.48 | 13.51 |
| 7.02 | 5 | 8.84 | 0.6 | 77.8 | 3.9 | 0.22 | 68.9 | 7.6 | 0.18 | 67.5 | 58 | 11.37 | 12.09 |
| 10.13 | 2.5 | 3.62 | 0.76 | 92.1 | 4.7 | 0.2 | 62.6 | 5 | 0.04 | 53.6 | 4.8 | 15.60 | 16.25 |
| 17.73 | 4.7 | 8.34 | 0.38 | 21.4 | 4 | 0.43 | 60.9 | 7.5 | 0.19 | 87.9 | 3.8 | 29.70 | 31.53 |
Figure 2Transient model prediction for the EMBR at HRT = 3.12 h: (a) liquid velocity magnitude contour at 0.1, 1, 10, 20, 40 and 70 s; (b) liquid velocity vector field at 40 s; (c) approximate position of the dead zone in the EMBR (colorful zones).
Figure 3Variations in the current density relative to the (a) effective volume of the EMBR, (b) average DO concentration in the cathode, and (c) effective volume of the EMBR*average DO concentration in the cathode.
Figure 4Block diagram of the (a) TIS, (b) AD and (c) Martin models: Q is the volume flow rate; for the Martin model, f represents volume flow rate fraction of each strand, and the dead volume (V) = total volume (V) - 1st strand region (V) - 2nd strand region (V) - … - sth strand region (V).