| Literature DB >> 28216654 |
Ehsan Ahmadi1,2,3, Samira Yousefzadeh1,4, Mohsen Ansari5,6, Hamid Reza Ghaffari7, Ali Azari1, Mohammad Miri8, Alireza Mesdaghinia9, Ramin Nabizadeh1, Babak Kakavandi10,11, Peyman Ahmadi12, Mojtaba Yegane Badi13, Mitra Gholami13, Kiomars Sharafi14, Mostafa Karimaei4, Mahboobeh Ghoochani1, Masoud Binesh Brahmand15, Seyed Mohsen Mohseni16, Maryam Sarkhosh17, Soheila Rezaei18, Hosseinali Asgharnia19, Emad Dehghanifard20, Behdad Jafari21, Alireza Mortezapour22, Vahid Kazemi Moghaddam23, Mohammad Molla Mahmoudi24, Nader Taghipour25.
Abstract
Emerging and hazardous envEntities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28216654 PMCID: PMC5316953 DOI: 10.1038/srep41020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
AnFFFBR’s performance in removing DAP and DMP.
| Substrate | DAP | DMP | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study step | A | B | ||||||||
| Study run | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Influent phthalate concentration (mg/L) | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
| Hydraulic retention time (h) | 12 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 36 | 12 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 36 |
| Lorg1(gCOD/m2.d) | 4.275 | 2.85 | 2.137 | 1.71 | 1.425 | 3.825 | 2.55 | 1.912 | 1.53 | 1.275 |
| Attached biofilm mass (TS (mg)) | 5430 | 3870 | 3770 | 3470 | 3340 | 4660 | 3510 | 3450 | 3230 | 3190 |
| Attached biofilm mass (VS (mg)) | 3660 | 2580 | 2400 | 2160 | 1980 | 3540 | 2520 | 2340 | 2100 | 1980 |
| VS/TS ratio | 0.674 | 0.666 | 0.636 | 0.622 | 0.592 | 0.759 | 0.718 | 0.678 | 0.65 | 0.62 |
| TSS2 concentration in effluent (mg/day) | 298.8 | 207.2 | 174.6 | 153 | 129.7 | 247.8 | 192 | 137.3 | 115.4 | 86.2 |
| Effluent volatile suspended solids (mg/day) | 123.6 | 83.2 | 68.4 | 61 | 49.2 | 153.6 | 117.6 | 66 | 53.76 | 36 |
| SRT3 (day) | 18.17 | 18.67 | 21.59 | 22.68 | 25.75 | 18.8 | 18.28 | 25.12 | 27.98 | 37.01 |
| Phthalate concentration in effluent TSS (mg/g) | 11.9 | 10.7 | 8.4 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 6.1 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 4.1 | 3.4 |
| Effluent phthalate concentration (mg/L) | 121.7 | 104.3 | 88.4 | 73.1 | 49.5 | 86.2 | 71.1 | 61.3 | 40.3 | 22.5 |
| Methane production rate (L CH4/g CODrem) ± SD4 | 0.16 ± 0.016 | 0.21 ± 0.012 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.016 | 0.35 ± 0.022 | 0.24 ± 0.012 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.013 | 0.37 ± 0.012 | 0.46 ± 0.009 |
| CH4 percentage in biogas (%) | 37.6 | 40.3 | 51.1 | 57.3 | 62.2 | 42.3 | 45.3 | 54 | 58.9 | 64.2 |
| Effluent COD concentration (mg/L) | 274.4 | 256.5 | 188.7 | 150.3 | 119.3 | 205.6 | 189.4 | 121.3 | 100.1 | 79.5 |
| Phthalate removal% ± SD | 59.43 ± 2.23 | 65.23 ± 2.12 | 70.53 ± 2.27 | 75.63 ± 1.7 | 83.5 ± 1.16 | 71.26 ± 1.04 | 76.3 ± 1.89 | 79.56 ± 1.91 | 86.56 ± 1.2 | 92.5 ± 1.44 |
| COD removal % ± SD | 51.86 ± 1.97 | 55 ± 1.71 | 66.89 ± 1.81 | 73.63 ± 1.43 | 79.07 ± 1.25 | 59.68 ± 1.91 | 62.86 ± 1.54 | 76.21 ± 1.52 | 80.37 ± 1.11 | 84.41 ± 1.32 |
| TOC removal% ± SD | 39.74 ± 1.38 | 49.53 ± 1.15 | 58.41 ± 1.45 | 65.84 ± 1.33 | 72.46 ± 1.35 | 46.5 ± 1.66 | 55.84 ± 1.73 | 65.44 ± 1.99 | 74.15 ± 1.58 | 80.39 ± 1.35 |
1- Organic loading rate. 2- Total suspended solids. 3-Solids retention time. 4- Standard deviation.
AnFFFBR’s performance in removing DEP and PA.
| Substrate | DEP | PA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study step | C | D | ||||||||
| Study run | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Influent phthalate concentration (mg/L) | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
| Hydraulic retention time (h) | 12 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 36 | 12 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 36 |
| Lorg (gCOD/m2.d) | 4.162 | 2.775 | 2.081 | 1.665 | 1.387 | 3.195 | 2.13 | 1.597 | 1.278 | 1.065 |
| Attached biofilm mass (TS (mg)) | 5840 | 4370 | 4110 | 3880 | 3720 | 4070 | 3030 | 3020 | 2870 | 2840 |
| Attached biofilm mass (VS (mg)) | 4080 | 2940 | 2700 | 2460 | 2280 | 3000 | 2220 | 2100 | 1920 | 1740 |
| VS/TS ratio | 0.698 | 0.672 | 0.657 | 0.634 | 0.612 | 0.737 | 0.732 | 0.695 | 0.669 | 0.612 |
| TSS concentration in effluent (mg/day) | 326.8 | 227.3 | 169.3 | 129.6 | 112.2 | 232 | 162 | 146 | 108 | 93 |
| Effluent volatile suspended solids (mg/day) | 164.4 | 102.4 | 74.4 | 55.6 | 48 | 148.8 | 100 | 83.4 | 53.3 | 46 |
| SRT (day) | 17.87 | 19.22 | 24.27 | 29.94 | 33.15 | 17.54 | 18.7 | 20.68 | 26.57 | 30.53 |
| Phthalate concentration in effluent TSS (mg/g) | 9.7 | 9.3 | 8.6 | 8.1 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 1.8 |
| Effluent phthalate concentration (mg/L) | 96.3 | 82.5 | 70.6 | 57.1 | 36.4 | 80.7 | 73.5 | 62.6 | 46.8 | 25.2 |
| Methane production rate (L CH4/g CODrem) ± SD | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.013 | 0.28 ± 0.008 | 0.34 ± 0.012 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.015 | 0.2 ± 0.013 | 0.26 ± 0.013 | 0.37 ± 0.011 | 0.4 ± 0.01 |
| CH4 percentage in biogas (%) | 41.1 | 42.3 | 52.8 | 56.1 | 61.5 | 43.7 | 47.7 | 53.3 | 58.4 | 60.3 |
| Effluent COD concentration (mg/L) | 233.6 | 217.2 | 156.2 | 117.7 | 91.3 | 176.5 | 163.6 | 111.3 | 90.1 | 67.3 |
| Phthalate removal% ± SD | 67.9 ± 1.32 | 72.5 ± 1.23 | 76.46 ± 1.13 | 80.96 ± 1.15 | 87.86 ± 1.43 | 73.1 ± 1.87 | 75.5 ± 1.18 | 79.13 ± 1.25 | 84.4 ± 1.4 | 91.6 ± 1.22 |
| COD removal % ± SD | 57.91 ± 1.62 | 60.86 ± 0.87 | 71.85 ± 1.04 | 78.79 ± 1.15 | 83.55 ± 1.23 | 58.56 ± 1.59 | 61.6 ± 1.45 | 73.87 ± 1.33 | 78.85 ± 0.83 | 84.2 ± 1.92 |
| TOC removal% ± SD | 45.32 ± 1.62 | 53.97 ± 1.16 | 62.58 ± 1.31 | 70.05 ± 1.41 | 78.33 ± 1.12 | 48.12 ± 1.69 | 56.49 ± 1.34 | 65.49 ± 1.33 | 74.79 ± 1.47 | 81.75 ± 1.29 |
Figure 1The proposed bio-degradation pathways of selected phthalates.
Figure 2First order model for removing (A) DAP and DMP; and (B) DEP and PA in AnFFFBR.
Figure 3Stover-Kincannon model for removing (A) DAP and DMP; and (B) DEP and PA in AnFFFBR.
Figure 4Grau (second order) model for removing (A) DAP and DMP; and (B) DEP and PA in AnFFFBR.
Second order (Grau) model coefficient (KG).
| Study run | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAP | 1.548 | 2.196 | 2.361 | 2.623 | 2.861 |
| DMP | 1.970 | 2.767 | 2.980 | 3.321 | 3.522 |
| DEP | 1.677 | 2.327 | 2.534 | 2.782 | 3.001 |
| PA | 1.804 | 2.438 | 2.577 | 2.819 | 3.111 |
Figure 5Graphical analysis for the determination of half saturation constant and overall reaction rate for (A) DAP and DMP; and (B) DEP and PA.
Figure 6Graphical analysis for the determination of yield coefficient and biomass decay rate for (A) DAP and DMP; and (B) DEP and PA.
Maximum specific growth rate estimated for AnFFFBR.
| Substrate | μm (d−1) |
|---|---|
| DAP | 0.143 |
| DMP | 0.193 |
| DEP | 0.156 |
| PA | 0.170 |