Advertisement

Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 143, Issue 3, pp 257–275 | Cite as

Whey Treatment by AnSBBR with Circulation: Effects of Organic Loading, Shock Loads, and Alkalinity Supplementation

  • Roberto A. BezerraJr.
  • José A. D. RodriguesEmail author
  • Suzana M. Ratusznei
  • Marcelo Zaiat
  • Eugenio Foresti
Article

Abstract

The main objective of this work was to investigate the effect of volumetric loading rate (VLR), shock load, and alkalinity supplementation on the efficiency and stability of an Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor (AnSBBR) containing polyurethane foam cubes. Mixing in the reactor, which was kept at 30 ± 1°C, occurred by recirculating the liquid phase. The reactor treated 2.5 l cheese whey in 8-h cycles, at concentrations of 1, 2, and 4 g COD l−1, which corresponded to VLRs of 3, 6, and 12 g COD l−1 day−1, respectively. Application of single-cycle shock loads of 6, 12, and 24 g COD l−1 day−1 did not impair reactor performance. In addition, for VLRs of 3, 6, and 12 g COD l−1 day−1, alkalinity supplementation to the influent, at the end of each assay, could be reduced to 75, 50, and 50%, respectively, in relation to supplementation at the beginning of the assay. During reactor operation a viscous polymer-like material was formed between the polyurethane foam cubes, which increased at higher VLR. Finally, addition of salts to the influent improved reactor efficiency.

Keywords

AnSBBR Volumetric loading rate Shock load Cheese whey Alkalinity supplementation 

Abbreviations

AnSBBR

anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor

UASB

up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket

COD

chemical oxygen demand

Notation

Symbols

VLR

volumetric loading rate, g COD l−1 day−1

SOL

specific organic load, mg COD g TVS−1 day−1

CST

organic matter concentration in unfiltered effluent samples, mg COD l−1

CSF

organic matter concentration in filtered effluent samples, mg COD l−1

BA

bicarbonate alkalinity, mg CaCO3 l−1

TVA

total volatile acids concentration, mg HAc l−1

TS

total solids concentration, mg l−1

TVS

total volatile solids concentration, mg l−1

TSS

total suspended solids concentration, mg l−1

VSS

volatile suspended solids concentration, mg l−1

VAI

intermediate volatile acids concentration, mg HAc l−1

VCH4

methane production, ml

%CH4

methane percentage in the biogas, %

%CO2

carbon dioxide percentage in the biogas, %

vS

liquid phase recirculation velocity, cm s−1

Q

volumetric flow rate, l h−1

CSI

organic matter concentration in unfiltered influent samples, mg COD l−1

CS

organic matter concentration in unfiltered samples in the reactor along a cycle, mg COD l−1

V

reaction medium volume in the reactor, l

RS

organic matter consumption rate, mg COD l−1 h−1

μS

specific organic matter consumption rate, mg COD g TVS h−1

CX-TVS

total volatile solids concentration relative to the reaction medium, g TVS l reaction medium-1

CX-TS

total solids concentration relative to the reaction medium, g TS l reaction medium−1

CX-TVS

total volatile solids concentration relative to the immobilized biomass, mg TVS g foam−1

CX-TS

total solids concentration relative to the immobilized biomass, mg TS g foam−1

μ

specific biomass growth rate, mg TVS g TVS−1 h−1

YX/S

organic matter–biomass conversion factor, mg TVS mg COD−1

MTVS

mass of total volatile solids in the reactor, g TVS

μmax

Maximum specific biomass growth rate, mg TVS g TVS h−1

kS

Monod’s kinetic constant, mg COD l−1

K

first order apparent kinetic constant, l g TVS−1 h−1

CSR

residual filtered organic matter concentration, mg COD l−1

CSIO

filtered organic matter concentration in the reactor at the beginning of the cycle, mg COD l−1

k1

first order apparent kinetic constant, h−1

T

cycle length, h

ROLF

removed organic load for filtered effluent samples, g COD l−1 day−1

ROLT

removed organic load for unfiltered effluent samples, g COD l−1 day−1

VA

fed volume or renewed volume per cycle, l

tc

cycle length, h

R2

squared correlation coefficient

ɛ

organic matter removal efficiency, %

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo—FAPESP (São Paulo, Brasil), process number 03/09216-4. We also acknowledge Dr. Baltus C. Bonse for the revision of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Omil, F., Garrido, J. M., Arrojo, B., & Méndez, R. (2003). Anaerobic filter reactor performance for the treatment of complex dairy wastewater at industrial scale. Water Research, 37, 4099–4108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martins, S. D., Guyomar, P. P., Ribeiro, E. R., & Xavier, A. M. F. (2000). Tratamento anaeróbio em duas etapas do soro de queijo empregando-se duas configurações de reatores UASB. In Latin–American workshop and seminar on anaerobic digestion (vol. 2, pp. 9–12). Recife: UFPE.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yan, J. Q., Lo, K. V., & Pinder, K. L. (1992). Instability caused by high strength of cheese whey in a UASB reactor. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 41, 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malaspina, F., Stante, L., Cellamare, C. M., & Tilche, A. (1995). Cheese whey and cheese factory wastewater treatment with a biological anaerobic–aerobic process. Water Science and Technology, 32, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ergüder, T. H., Tezel, U., Güven, E., & Demirer, G. N. (2000). Anaerobic biotransformation and methane generation potential of cheese whey in a batch and UASB reactors. Waste Management, 21, 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghaly, A. E., Ramkumar, D. R., Sadaka, S. S., & Rochon, J. D. (2000). Effect of reseeding and pH control on the performance of a two-stage mesophilic anaerobic digester operating on acid cheese whey. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 42, 173–183.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, P., & Mulligan, C. N. (2005). Anaerobic treatment of waste beer. Environmental Progress, 24, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ndegwa, P. M., Hanilton, D. W., Lalman, J. A., Cumba, H. J. (2005). Optimization of anaerobic sequencing batch reactors treating dilute swine slurries. Transactions of the ASAE, 48, 1575–1583.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohan, S. V., Rao, N. C., Prasad, K. K., & Sarma, P. N. (2005). Bioaugmentation of an anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor (AnSBBR) with immobilized sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) for the treatment of sulphate chemical wastewater. Process Biochemistry, 40, 2849–2857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mohan, S. V., Babu, V. L., Bhaskar, Y. V., & Sarma, P. N. (2007). Influence of recirculation on the performance of anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor (AnSBBR) treating hypersaline composite chemical wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 98, 1373–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demirel, B., Yenigun, O., & Onay, T. T. (2005). Anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewaters: A review. Process Biochemistry, 1–13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malaspina, F., Cellamare, C. M., Stante, L., & Tilche, A. (1996). Anaerobic treatment of cheese whey with a downflow–up-flow hybrid reactor. Bioresource Technology, 55, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mockaitis, G., Ratusznei, S. M., Rodrigues, J. A. D., Zaiat, M., & Foresti, E. (2006). Anaerobic whey treatment by a stirred sequencing batch reactor (ASBR): effects of organic loading and supplemented alkalinity. Journal of Environmental Management, 79, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaiat, M., Cabral, A. K. A., & Foresti, E. (1994). Horizontal-flow anaerobic immobilized sludge reactor for wastewater treatment: Conception and performance evaluation. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 11, 33–42.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varesche, M. B., Zaiat, M., Vieira, L. G. T., Vazoller, R. F., & Foresti, E. (1997). Microbial colonization of polyurethane foam matrices in horizontal-flow anaerobic immobilized-sludge reactor. Applied Microbiology Biotechnology, 48, 534–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramos, A. C. T., Ratusznei, S. M., Rodrigues, J. A. D., & Zaiat, M. (2003). Mass transfer improvement of a fixed-bed anaerobic sequencing batch reactor with liquid phase circulation. Journal of Science and Technology of the Americas - Interciencia, 28, 214–219.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1995). APHA, AWAA, WPCF. Washington D.C., American Public Health Association. 19th Edn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto A. BezerraJr.
    • 2
  • José A. D. Rodrigues
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suzana M. Ratusznei
    • 1
  • Marcelo Zaiat
    • 2
  • Eugenio Foresti
    • 2
  1. 1.Escola de Engenharia Mauá, Instituto Mauá de Tecnologia (EEM/IMT)São Caetano do SulBrasil
  2. 2.Departamento de Hidráulica e Saneamento, Escola de Engenharia de São CarlosUniversidade de São Paulo (SHS/EESCUSP)São CarlosBrasil

Personalised recommendations