expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactors were operated at 18 and 25 °C, respectively, for the treatment of synthetic wastewater composed of ethanol and 1-methoxy-2-propanol (M2P) in a mass ratio of 4:1. Reactors were operated first with continuous wastewater supply and after with discontinuous substrate supply (5 days a week, 16 h a day) to simulate shift working conditions. Under continuous wastewater supply chemical oxygen demand (COD), removal efficiency higher than 95 % was achieved at the end of the trial applying organic loading rates (OLR) of 29 and 43 kg COD m−3 day−1 at 18 and 25 °C; thus, corresponding to M2P OLR of 6.4 and 9.3 kg COD m−3 day−1, respectively. During intermittent supply of substrate, good performance was recorded at both temperatures with an OLR of 30 kg COD m−3 day−1 (M2P OLR of 6.6 kg COD m−3 day−1). After 56 h without substrate supply, a decline in methane yield of 15–30 % was observed due to the deactivation of the biomass. Specific methanogenic activity (SMA) assays were carried out at the end of the experiments. SMA values using 1-methoxy-2-propanol as substrate were 24.3 and 7.8 ml CH4 gVSS−1 day−1 at 25 °C and at 18 °C, respectively. This is the first attempt to investigate the removal of 1-methoxy-2-propanol by EGSB reactors.
1-Methoxy-2-propanol EGSB Packaging wastewater Ambient temperature
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 284949. Financial support from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Project CTM2014-54517) and Generalitat Valenciana (PROMETEO/2013/053), Spain, is also acknowledged. C. Lafita has a FPI grant from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain.
Aydin AF, Ersahin ME, Dereli RK, Sarikaya HZ, Ozturk I (2010) Long-term anaerobic treatability studies on opium alkaloids industry effluents. J Environ Sci Health Part A-Toxic/Hazard Subst Environ Eng 45:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commision (2006) European Union Risk Assessment ReportGoogle Scholar
Enright A, McHugh S, Collins G, O’Flaherty V (2005) Low-temperature anaerobic biological treatment of solvent-containing pharmaceutical wastewater. Water Res 39:4587–4596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scully C, Collins G, O’Flaherty V (2006) Anaerobic biological treatment of phenol at 9.5–15 °C in an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-based bioreactor. Water Res 40:3737–3744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enright A, Collins G, O’Flaherty V (2007) Low-temperature anaerobic biological treatment of toluene-containing wastewater. Water Res 41:1465–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lier JB (2008) High-rate anaerobic wastewater treatment: diversifying from end-of-the-pipe treatment to resource-oriented conversion techniques. Water Sci Technol 57:1137–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Pozo R, Diez V, Salazar G (2002) Start-up of a pilot-scale anaerobic fixed film reactor at low temperature treating slaughterhouse wastewater. Water Sci Technol 46:215–221Google Scholar
Siggins A, Enright A, O’Flaherty V (2011) Temperature dependent (37–15 °C) anaerobic digestion of a trichloroethylene-contaminated wastewater. Bioresour Technol 102:7645–7656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajeshwari KV, Balakrishnan M, Kansal A, Lata K, Kishore VVN (2000) State-of-the-art of anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 4:135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lettinga G, Rebac S, Zeeman G (2001) Challenge of psychrophilic anaerobic wastewater treatment. Trends Biotechnol 19:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashyap DR, Dadhich KS, Sharma SK (2003) Biomethanation under psychrophilic conditions: a review. Bioresour Technol 87:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (1997) The effect of low temperature (5–29 °C) and adaptation on the methanogenic activity of biomass. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 48:570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoutberg GR, deBeen P (1997) The Biobed(R) EGSB (expanded granular sludge bed) system covers shortcomings of the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor in the chemical industry. Water Sci Technol 35:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seghezzo L, Zeeman G, van Lier JB, Hamelers HVM, Lettinga G (1998) A review: the anaerobic treatment of sewage in UASB and EGSB reactors. Bioresour Technol 65:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitao RC, van Haandel AC, Zeeman G, Lettinga G (2006) The effects of operational and environmental variations on anaerobic wastewater treatment systems: a review. Bioresour Technol 97:1105–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho NM, Rodrigues AA, Arroja LM, Capela IF (2007) Effect of non-feeding period length on the intermittent operation of UASB reactors treating dairy effluents. Biotechnol Bioeng 96:244–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Franson MAH, American Public Health Association (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
Kato M, Field J, Versteeg P, Lettinga G (1994) Feasibility of expanded granular sludge bed reactors for the anaerobic treatment of low-strength soluble wastewaters. Biotechnol Bioeng 44:469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speranza G, Mueller B, Orlandi M, Morelli C, Manitto P, Schink B (2002) Mechanism of anaerobic ether cleavage—Conversion of 2-phenoxyethanol to phenol and acetaldehyde by Acetobacterium sp. J Biol Chem 277:11684–11690CrossRefGoogle Scholar