Issue

Vol. 26 No. 1 (2014): Vol 26 Issue 1

Copyright (c) 2014 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Enhancing Nitrogen Removal in Coking Wastewater Treatment by Activated Sludge Process: Comparison of Sodium Acetate, Methanol and Phenol as External Carbon Source for Denitrification

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.15543
Xuewen Jin
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P.R. China; Shanghai Baosteel Chemical Co. Ltd., Shanghai 201901, P.R. China
Enchao Li
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P.R. China; Shanghai Baosteel Chemical Co. Ltd., Shanghai 201901, P.R. China
Shuguang Lu
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P.R. China
Zhaofu Qiu
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P.R. China
Qian Sui
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P.R. China
Yanbo Zhou
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P.R. China

Corresponding Author(s) : Zhaofu Qiu

zfqiu@ecust.edu.cn; xuminhui@outlook.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 26 No. 1 (2014): Vol 26 Issue 1

Abstract

A lab-scale test for the treatment of coking wastewater mainly generated in coal carbonization and gas purification in Shanghai Baosteel Chemical Co. Ltd. was carried out by modification of its former anoxic-oxic (A/O) process into anoxic-oxic-anoxic-oxic (A/O/A/O). Three external carbon sources, namely sodium acetate, methanol and phenol, were investigated aiming for enhancement of denitrification purpose. The experimental results showed that total nitrogen could be lowered to 14.5 or 17.6 mg/L when adding sodium acetate (1875 mg/L) or methanol (880 mg/L) to the secondary modified anoxic zone and in both cases organic nitrogen contributed most to the residual total nitrogen in effluent. In contrast, phenol could not decrease total nitrogen in effluent effectively to less than 35 mg/L in its tested phenol dosage range (370-1200 mg/L) due to less efficiency in denitrification and therefore resulted in higher NO2,3–-N residue in effluent. In conclusion the results strongly suggested that the modified A/O/A/O process with sodium acetate or methanol as external carbon source could successfully achieve the goal for total nitrogen removal based on the issued Shanghai Discharge Standard (DB31/199-2009).

Keywords

Coking wastewater treatment A/O/A/O process Total nitrogen removal Denitrification External carbon source
Jin, X., Li, E., Lu, S., Qiu, Z., Sui, Q., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enhancing Nitrogen Removal in Coking Wastewater Treatment by Activated Sludge Process: Comparison of Sodium Acetate, Methanol and Phenol as External Carbon Source for Denitrification. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 26(1), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2014.15543
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Y.M. Kim, D.H. Park, C.O. Jeon, D.S. Lee and J.M. Park, Bioresour. Technol., 99, 8824 (2008); doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.04.050.
  2. H.Q. Li, H.J. Han, M.A. Du and W. Wang, Bioresour. Technol., 102, 4667 (2011); doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.029.
  3. M. Minhalma and M.N. de Pinho, J. Membr. Sci., 242, 87 (2004); doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2003.06.003.
  4. P. Lai, H.Z. Zhao, Z.F. Ye and J.R. Ni, Process Biochem., 43, 229 (2008); doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2007.11.012.
  5. W.T. Zhao, X. Huang and D.J. Lee, Separ. Purif. Tech., 66, 279 (2009); doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2008.12.028.
  6. W.T. Zhao, X. Huang, D.J. Lee, X.H. Wang and Y.X. Shen, J. Membr. Sci., 330, 57 (2009); doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2008.12.072.
  7. Y.E. Ba and Z. Li, Adv. Mater. Res., 383, 3729 (2012).
  8. H. Li, H. Cao, Y. Li, Y. Zhang and H. Liu, Environ. Eng. Sci., 27, 313 (2010); doi:10.1089/ees.2009.0281.
  9. E. Maranon, I. Vazquez, J. Rodriguez, L. Castrillon, Y. Fernandez and H. Lopez, Bioresour. Technol., 99, 4192 (2008); doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.081.
  10. Y.M. Li, G.W. Gu, J.F. Zhao, H.Q. Yu, Y.L. Qiu and Y.Z. Peng, Chemosphere, 52, 997 (2003); doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00287-X.
  11. APHA, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, edn 18 (1992).
  12. Z. Wang, G. Le, Y. Shi and G. Wegrzyn, Process Biochem., 38, 199 (2002); doi:10.1016/S0032-9592(02)00072-9.
  13. Y. Wang, Y. Lv, M. Shan and D. Pan, Appl. Mech. Mater., 108, 257 (2011); doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.108.257.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0