Nitrate Removal from Wastewater through Biological Denitrification with OGA 24 in a Batch Reactor

Rossi, Federico; Motta, Oriana; Matrella, Simona; Proto, Antonio; Vigliottá, Giovanni

doi:10.3390/w7010051

Cited by 54 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The weak fits between the predicted and observed removal rates were not surprising. Based on the assumption for the zero order model, removal rates are not affected by changes in initial NO 3 -N concentrations, which tend to be observed only when NO 3 -N concentrations are high (>200 mg L −1 ) [36,64]. However, these models were evaluated due to little, if any literature, has evaluated these models for pulse flow systems.…”

Section: Prediction Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems

Messer

Burchell

Bírgand

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The objective of the study was to determine the kinetic model that best fit observed nitrate removal rates at the mesocosm scale in order to determine ideal loading rates for two future wetland restorations slated to receive pulse flow agricultural drainage water. Four nitrate removal models were investigated: zero order, first order decay, efficiency loss, and Monod. Wetland mesocosms were constructed using the primary soil type (in triplicate) at each of the future wetland restoration sites. Eighteen mesocosm experiments were conducted over two years across seasons. Simulated drainage water was loaded into wetlands as batches, with target nitrate-N levels typically observed in agricultural drainage water (between 2.5 and 10 mg L −1 ). Nitrate-N removal observed during the experiments provided the basis for calibration and validation of the models. When the predictive strength of each of the four models was assessed, results indicated that the efficiency loss and first order decay models provided the strongest agreement between predicted and measured NO 3 -N removal rates, and the fit between the two models were comparable. Since the predictive power of these two models were similar, the less complicated first order decay model appeared to be the best choice in predicting appropriate loading rates for the future full-scale wetland restorations.

show abstract

Section: Prediction Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems

Messer

Burchell

Bírgand

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for denitrifying the bacteria population, six genera were detected in all samples including Azospira [35], Geobacillus [36], Hyphomicrobium [37], Pseudomonas [38], Thauera [39] and Zoogloea [34]. As is shown in Fig 5, the highest level of abundance of denitrifying bacteria was found in the sponge biomass sample of the BF-A/O-MBR system, accounting for 30.10%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results show that the correlation coefficient values (r p ) between Azospira and polyphosphates, and total phosphates were found to be 0.96 and 0.98, respectively, which indicated that the impact of genus Azospira has a strong positive correlation with poly-phosphate and total phosphate levels. Although several reports have identified the genus Azospira as a denitrifying bacterium in wastewater treatment plants [35,44], some species belonging to the genus of Azospira were recently identified and are also considered to be potential PAOs [45]. Since both systems operate under complete SRT, the microorganisms that have the ability to accumulate phosphates did not withdraw from the reactor and most of them were recirculated within the reactor until the end of the experiment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple way to Improve a Conventional A/O-MBR for High Simultaneous Carbon and Nutrients Removal from Synthetic Municipal Wastewater

Adoonsook¹,

ChiaYuan

Wongrueng³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

29In this study, two anoxic-oxic-MBR systems (conventional and biofilm) were operated in 30 parallel under complete SRT to compare system performance and microbial community 31 composition. Moreover, with the microbial communities, comparisons were made between adhesive 32 stage and suspended stage. High average removal of COD, NH 4 + -N and TN was achieved in both 33 systems. However, TP removal efficiency was remarkably higher in BF-A/O-MBR when compared 34 with C-A/O-MBR. TP mass balance analysis suggested that under complete SRT, sponges play a 35 key role in both phosphorus release and accumulation. The qPCR analysis showed that sponge 36 biomass could maintain higher abundance of total bacteria than suspended sludge. Meanwhile, 37AOB and denitrifiers were enriched in the suspended sludge rather than the sponge biomass. 38Results of pyrosequencing reveal that the compacted sponge in BF-A/O-MBR could promote the 39 growth of bacteria involved in nutrient removal and reduce the filamentous and bacterial related to 40 membrane fouling in the suspended sludge. 41 43 44 3 53processes that can enhance the efficiency of biological nutrient removal to safe levels. These 54 processes are referred to as biological nutrient removal (BNR). 55Since autotrophic nitrifying bacteria, namely phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs), and 56 heterotrophic bacteria compete with each other for habitat and growth under the same operational 57 conditions, the BNR processes normally become unpromising with regard to simultaneously high 58 organic carbon and nutrient removal [1]. Therefore, it has become extremely important to develop 59 reliable technologies that can simultaneously treat organic carbon and nutrients in municipal 60 wastewater. Several research studies have attempted to combine the advantages of attracting growth 61 biofilm and the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process in order to achieve some of the boundaries of 62 traditional MBR that have been based on the activated sludge process. The application of attracting 63 biofilm in MBR could be achieved by the addition of media (e.g., biofilm carriers) in moving or 64 fixed bed configurations, or by the addition of aerated membranes in the bioreactor as a form of 65 support (i.e., substratum) for biofilm growth. 66 The use of media in the aerobic MBR, called biofilm MBR, could be a better alternative to 67 conventional aerobic MBR which may increase the treatment performance by high biomass 68 concentrations and reduce membrane fouling [2]. Additionally, total nitrogen removal is reported to 69 be higher in the biofilm aerobic MBR systems when compared to conventional aerobic MBR 70 systems according to the authors of several published studies [2,3]. Higher total nitrogen (TN) 71 removal rates have been mostly attributed to simultaneous nitrification/denitrification (SND) that 72 takes place in deeper layers of the biofilm component where anoxic conditions have occurred. The 73sponge carriers seem to provide good SND conditions since they provide anoxic conditions insid...

show abstract

“…Biological denitrification is mostly advised for the removal of relatively low concentration of N components. Furthermore, NO 3ˉ are efficiently removed when an external organic carbon source, generally methanol, ethanol, or acetic acid, is added [48]. The rate of denitrification also depends on the type and concentration of carbon as well as carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio.…”

Section: Nitrate Removal Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollution of Water Sources from Agricultural and Industrial Effluents: Special Attention to NO₃ˉ, Cr(VI), and Cu(II)

Breida¹,

Younssi²,

Ouammou³

et al. 2020

Water Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most important challenges facing humanity today is to conserve and sustain water resources (either surface water or groundwater). This challenge became more pronounced with the increase of urban, agricultural, and industrial activities that discharge a considerable amount of wastewater. Therefore, the preservation of water sources from pollutants is a major concern, shared by all, public, industrial, scientific, researchers, and decision-makers. This chapter analyzes in more detail the pollution and pollutants caused by agricultural and industrial activities. Particular attention is given to pollution via nitrogen and heavy metals (NO 3 − , Cr(VI), and Cu(II)) in either international or national level. The effect of these pollutants on human health and environment, their standards/regulations, and the different current methods used for their detection and treatment are all discussed in the chapter.

show abstract

Nitrate Removal from Wastewater through Biological Denitrification with OGA 24 in a Batch Reactor

Cited by 54 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems

Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems

A Simple way to Improve a Conventional A/O-MBR for High Simultaneous Carbon and Nutrients Removal from Synthetic Municipal Wastewater

Pollution of Water Sources from Agricultural and Industrial Effluents: Special Attention to NO₃ˉ, Cr(VI), and Cu(II)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Nitrate Removal from Wastewater through Biological Denitrification with OGA 24 in a Batch Reactor

Cited by 54 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems

Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems

A Simple way to Improve a Conventional A/O-MBR for High Simultaneous Carbon and Nutrients Removal from Synthetic Municipal Wastewater

Pollution of Water Sources from Agricultural and Industrial Effluents: Special Attention to NO3ˉ, Cr(VI), and Cu(II)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Pollution of Water Sources from Agricultural and Industrial Effluents: Special Attention to NO₃ˉ, Cr(VI), and Cu(II)