Evaluation of anaerobic treatment of selected petrochemical wastes

Schonberg, J.Cressend; Bhattacharya, Sanjoy K.; Madura, Richard L.; Mason, Stephen H.; Conway, Richard A.

doi:10.1016/s0304-3894(96)01869-9

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally it confers a lower electricity consumption of the order 1100 kWh since it removes the need for aeration (Speece, 1983;Svardal and Kroiss, 2011). Despite the progress that has been made in anaerobic digestion, a variety of recalcitrant compounds are still observed under anaerobic conditions (Sierra-Alvarez and Lettinga, 1991;Schonberg et al, 1997;Jonstrup et al, 2011). Anaerobically non-degradable pollutants, even with co-substrates, include o-cresol, benzene, 4-chlorophenol, alkylbenzenesulphonate, di-isopropyl ether (Kindzierski, 1991;Fedorak and Hrudey, 1984;Bali and Sengül, 2003;Johnston et al, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wet air oxidation of resorcinol as a model treatment for refractory organics in wastewaters from the wood processing industry

Weber

Carrillo-Chávez

Mejía

et al. 2015

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wet air oxidation of resorcinol as a model treatment for refractory organics in wastewaters from the wood processing industry

Weber

Carrillo-Chávez

Mejía

et al. 2015

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the first case, some sources simply recommend the use of acidified water (e.g. (BS 2004;EA 2005)), where others suggest adding salinity (Kida et al 2001), and still others a combination of both acidity and salinity (Yang and Speece 1986;Soto et al 1993;Schonberg et al 1997;Sponza 2003;BS 2005). In the second case, alkaline solutions have been used to absorb carbon dioxide where quantification of methane only is required (Soto et al 1993;Sponza 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential errors in the quantitative evaluation of biogas production in anaerobic digestion processes

Walker

Zhang

Heaven

et al. 2009

Bioresource Technology

237

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Errors that are commonly made in the quantification of biogas from anaerobic digestion experiments were investigated.For liquid displacement gasometers where a barrier solution separates the biogas and the atmosphere, inaccuracy due to gas diffusion was examined experimentally. Acidified saturated saline solution was the most suitable barrier solution, as biogas characteristics changed least with time. Using acidified or tap water caused considerable biogas losses and should therefore be avoided where biogas is stored before measurement.Errors associated with volume calculation from three common liquid displacement gasometer types were investigated theoretically. Corrections that must be made to obtain gas volumes at standard temperature and pressure when using this equipment are discussed. Regarding experimental errors, gasometer designs where displaced liquid is weighed to determine the volume are the most versatile since errors depend mainly upon balance sensitivity. Using liquid heights to calculate volume requires appropriate sizing of the gasometer relative to the volume of gas measured.The calibration of a low flow gas meter was investigated and an approximately linear variation with flow rate was found; hence in-situ calibration is advised for this type of instrument. Correction for atmospheric conditions should be performed in real time to reduce errors. Subscripts refer to condition 1, condition 2, standard temperature and pressure, atmospheric, barrier solution, trough and column respectively.

show abstract

Methods of assessing microbial activity and inhibition under anaerobic conditions: a literature review

Rozzi

Remigi

2004

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work reviews the existing methodologies for assessing microbial activity and inhibition under anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic digestion process consists of several metabolic steps: the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) has attempted to describe these steps in the form of a mathematical model with the intention of providing a reference base for all further efforts in the modelling of anaerobic processes. The existence of a reference point for modelling has highlighted the fact that there is a lack of coherence between the many different methodologies for experimentally assessing anaerobic activity and inhibition.A working group of the International Water Association was recently founded to harmonise the existing methodologies with the ultimate intention of developing a unified reference procedure: a primary objective of the group will be the establishment of a standard terminology in the field of anaerobic digestion, activity and inhibition assessment. Secondly, it will compare the existing methodologies and develop standard protocols for assessing the kinetic parameters (e.g. maximum uptake rate, half-saturation constant) of anaerobic processes that may be entered directly into ADM1 and its successors. This paper revises and enlarges a contribution presented by the authors at the workshop ''Harmonisation of anaerobic biodegradation, activity and inhibition assays'' (Ligthart & Nieman 2002, Proc. workshop held in Orta (Italy) June 7-8, 2002) and aims to promote a clear understanding of the currently established methodology.Numerous methods have been developed over the past 30 years, since Van den Berg et al. (1974, Biotechnol Bioeng 16(11): 1459-1469) measured methanogenic activity, by using a manometric device equipped with a photoelectric sensor to quantify the gas production. Methanogenesis is often the rate limiting step of the entire process and since the quantification of gas flowrate is relatively easy to perform, most of the methods reported in literature monitor the production of biogas. These methods can be termed volumetric or manometric methods, as the volume of biogas produced or the pressure increase due to gas production inside a close vessel are assessed, respectively. However, this same concept can be employed to assess activity or inhibition of individual metabolic steps preceding the methanogenic one, providing that they are rate limiting for the whole process. The reliability of activity assessment through gas measurement has been proven to be strongly dependent on the equilibrium between liquid and gas phase in a closed vessel. This can be influenced by many factors, e.g. the amount and characteristics of the test substrate; the concentration of the biomass; the gas-to-liquid ratio: all these aspects will need to be addressed in the standard procedure. Other direct or indirect methods, targeting physico-chemical or microbiological parameter exist and have been investigated by many authors. Besides the interest for research purposes, the definition of reference methods to assess ...

show abstract

Evaluation of anaerobic treatment of selected petrochemical wastes

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Wet air oxidation of resorcinol as a model treatment for refractory organics in wastewaters from the wood processing industry

Wet air oxidation of resorcinol as a model treatment for refractory organics in wastewaters from the wood processing industry

Potential errors in the quantitative evaluation of biogas production in anaerobic digestion processes

Methods of assessing microbial activity and inhibition under anaerobic conditions: a literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About