| Literature DB >> 35498598 |
Rukang Liu1,2,3,4, Qin Wang1,2,3,4, Mei Li1,2,3,4, Jun Liu1,2,3,4, Wei Zhang1,2,3,4, Meichao Lan1,2,3,4, Chunyu Du1,2,3,4, Zhiye Sun1,2,3,4, Dong Zhao1,2,3,4, Baoan Li1,2,3,4.
Abstract
The issue of reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) has attracted significant attention due to its complex and toxic constituents under high salinity conditions. In this work, a three-stage membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) system was constructed to treat such wastewater without an external carbon source. The effects of operating conditions including aeration pressure, reflux ratio, temperature and hydraulic retention time on the removal performance of the integrated system were evaluated and optimized. Under the optimal operating parameters, the removal efficiencies of COD, NH4 +-N, NO3 --N, and TN reached 69.36%, 80.95%, 54.55%, and 54.36%, respectively. Three-dimensional fluorescence analysis indicated that humic acid was mostly removed from raw water. Moreover, microbial diversity analysis indicated that the microbial community structure of each reactor could be individually modulated to exert different functions and enhance the system performance. The integrated MABR system exhibits great feasibility and potential for the advanced treatment of coal chemical ROC. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35498598 PMCID: PMC9050234 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra10574c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Process flow chart of coal chemical wastewater treatment.
Characteristics of ROC
| Parameter | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| COD | mg L−1 | 280–320 |
| TN | mg L−1 | 147–165 |
| NH4+–N | mg L−1 | 2.1–2.9 |
| NO3−–N | mg L−1 | 23.6–32.5 |
| BOD5 | mg L−1 | 69.3 |
| Salinity | % | 0.67 |
| TP | mg L−1 | 1.18 |
| pH | — | 7.78 |
| TDS | g L−1 | 6.11 |
| EC | mS cm−1 | 12.22 |
Fig. 2The flow chart of the experimental set-up for the MABR system.
Fig. 3(a) Variation of COD during the acclimation period. (b) Variation of TN during the acclimation period.
Fig. 4Effects of aeration pressure on contaminant removal: (a) MABR #1, (b) MABR #2, and (c) MABR #3.
Fig. 5Effects of temperature on contaminant removal: (a) COD, (b) NH4+−N, (c) NO3−–N, and (d) TN.
Fig. 6Effects of HRT on contaminant removal.
Fig. 7Impact of reflux ratio on systemic contaminant removal.
Fig. 8The 3D-EEM spectrum of each reactor effluent: (a) raw water, (b) effluent of MABR #1, (c) effluent of MABR #2, and (d) effluent of MABR #3.
Alpha diversity index statistics
| Sample ID | Goods_coverage | Chao1 | Observed_species | Shannon |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | 0.99551 | 1755.33 | 1454.2 | 7.007 |
| R2 | 0.99558 | 1852.21 | 1513.3 | 7.536 |
| R3 | 0.99568 | 1997.83 | 1705.5 | 7.812 |
| R4 | 0.99570 | 1735.45 | 1453.8 | 7.373 |
| HLWN | 0.99641 | 1829.81 | 1583.9 | 8.262 |
Fig. 9(a) UniFrac-based heatmap and (b) PCA analysis based on OTU level.
Fig. 10Structural composition of microbial communities: (a) phylum and (b) class.