2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.07.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Heavy metal removal in an UASB-CW system treating municipal wastewater

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Accordingly, it may be necessary and recommended to remove heavy metals from sludge samples before agricultural application. Our recommendation is supported by the work of [32] who investigated the long-term removal of heavy metals in a combined up-flow anaerobic sludge bed system treating municipal wastewater and revealed that high removal efficiencies were found for some metals in the following order: Sn > Cr > Cu > Pb > Zn > Fe (63% -94%) and medium removal efficiencies for Ni (49%), Hg (42%), and Ag (40%), and finally Mn and As showed negative percentage removals. Further support come from the results of [33] who studied the retention of heavy metals at two pilot-scale treatment wetlands, consisting of two vertical flow beds followed by a horizontal flow bed and revealed that a major removal pathway was sedimentation and adsorption onto soil substrate as well as precipitation and co-precipitation.…”
Section: Concentration Of Heavy Metalsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Accordingly, it may be necessary and recommended to remove heavy metals from sludge samples before agricultural application. Our recommendation is supported by the work of [32] who investigated the long-term removal of heavy metals in a combined up-flow anaerobic sludge bed system treating municipal wastewater and revealed that high removal efficiencies were found for some metals in the following order: Sn > Cr > Cu > Pb > Zn > Fe (63% -94%) and medium removal efficiencies for Ni (49%), Hg (42%), and Ag (40%), and finally Mn and As showed negative percentage removals. Further support come from the results of [33] who studied the retention of heavy metals at two pilot-scale treatment wetlands, consisting of two vertical flow beds followed by a horizontal flow bed and revealed that a major removal pathway was sedimentation and adsorption onto soil substrate as well as precipitation and co-precipitation.…”
Section: Concentration Of Heavy Metalsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The use of NWPF as a bio-bed in the UASB enhanced the biomass entrapment, increased the surface area and reduced the sludge washout [9]. These results are better than that obtained by De la Varga et al [12], where the percentage removal of COD was 51.7 %, BOD 5 43.04 % and TSS 77.5 %. Also, the results revealed that residual ammonia concentration increased in the effluent of H-UASB.…”
Section: Performance Of the Treatment System Without Cr (Vi) Additionmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…The results indicated removals of the metals in the following order: Sn > Cr > Cu > Pb > Zn > Fe (63-94%) [25]. Furthermore, according to the authors, medium removal efficiencies were achieved for Ni (49%) and Hg (42%).…”
Section: Systematization Of Phenological Aspects For Implementation Omentioning
confidence: 86%
“…A research performed by de la Varga et al [25] investigated the removal of heavy metals from municipal wastewater by using the integration of UASB + SFCW + SSFCW. The results indicated removals of the metals in the following order: Sn > Cr > Cu > Pb > Zn > Fe (63-94%) [25].…”
Section: Systematization Of Phenological Aspects For Implementation Omentioning
confidence: 99%