| Literature DB >> 34067161 |
Keisy Torres1, Francisco Javier Álvarez-Hornos1, Carmen Gabaldón1, Paula Marzal1.
Abstract
QuEntities:
Keywords: anaerobic reactors; chitosan; granulation; high-throughput sequencing; intermittent feeding; solvents
Year: 2021 PMID: 34067161 PMCID: PMC8125441 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Scheme of the experimental setup.
Operational schedule of the anaerobic sludge bed reactors.
| Stage I | Stage II | Stage III | Stage IV | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operational day | 0–41 | 42–69 | 70–97 | 98–106 | ||||
| Reactor | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 |
| Operational mode | Intermittent load 16 h d−1 a | Continuous load | ||||||
| OLR (kg COD m−3 d−1) a | 2.1–4.3 | 1.4–2.9 | 6.8–8.0 | 4.6–8.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 10.0 | 13.0 |
| Influent COD (g L−1) | 4.3 | 2.9–2.6 | 4.3–5.1 | 3.6–5.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 6.4 | 8.3 |
| Up-flow velocity, UL (m h−1) | 0.05–0.10 | 3.00 | 0.12–0.15 | 3.00 | 0.15 | 3.00 | 0.15 | 3.00 |
a—instantaneous organic loading rate applied during 16 h per day.
Figure 2Performance of the anaerobic sludge bed reactors. (a) Organic load applied (―) and soluble COD removal efficiency (♦, ), (b) VFA concentration in the effluent of the reactors (♦, ), (c) methane production (♦, ). R1 operated at UL ≤ 0.15 m h−1 and R2 operated at UL = 3.0 m h−1.
Figure 3E2P organic load (―) and E2P removal efficiency (♦, ). R1 operated at UL ≤ 0.15 m h−1 and R2 operated at UL = 3.0 m h−1.
Biochemical methane potential and specific methanogenic activity of the granular sludge of each reactor at the end of the study.
|
| ||||
| Reactor | Ethanol | Ethyl Acetate | E2P a | Mixture |
| R1 | 299 ± 5 | 292 ± 5 | 341 ± 9 | 300 ± 5 |
| R2 | 303 ± 4 | 308 ± 10 | 321 ± 5 | 314 ± 13 |
|
| ||||
| Reactor | Ethanol | Ethyl Acetate | E2P a | Mixture |
| R1 | 574 ± 20 | 520 ± 13 | 110 ± 1 | 510 ± 6 |
| R2 | 536 ± 6 | 518 ± 19 | 142 ± 11 | 500 ± 6 |
a—E2P, 1-ethoxy-2-propanol.
Evolution of the granule content and the particle size (quantified in terms of De Brouckere mean diameter) of the sludge samples in each reactor.
| Granules (%) | Mean Diameter (µm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | |
| Stage I | 0 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 85 | 85 |
| 20 | 62.6 | 51.9 | 475 | 354 | |
| 41 | 21.8 | 31.6 | 187 | 238 | |
| Stage II | 61 | 72.4 | 46.3 | 465 | 307 |
| Stage III | 82 | 41.4 | 29.5 | 312 | 224 |
| Stage IV | 106 | 71.1 | 52.2 | 562 | 386 |
Figure 4Evolution of the particle size distribution. (a) R1, operated at UL ≤ 0.15 m h−1, (b) R2, operated at UL = 3.0 m h−1.
Characteristics of developed granules at the end of the study.
| Granular Strength | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reactor | Mean Diameter (µm) | Settling Velocity (m h−1) | IC2 (%) a | IC3 (%) a | IC5 (%) a |
| R1 | 562 | 19.9 | 13 | 18 | 38 |
| R2 | 386 | 22.4 | 24 | 33 | 43 |
a—ICt, integrity coefficient percentage ratio evaluated after t minutes of agitation.
Figure 5SEM images of morphology of the granules at the end of the study. (a,b) Granule from the sludge bed of R2, (c,d) floating granule from the sedimentation zone of R2.
Figure 6Microbial community structures in the inoculum and in the granular sludge in both reactors at the end of the study: (a) at phylum level, (b) at genus level.