Critical Review May 3, 2013

Critical Peer Review

Tittle: Simulation of Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) for the Treatment of Anaerobically Digested Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). Author: Hii Shin Zhi (007122) The approach used while performing a critical review on this write up was to highlight the strengths and weakness in each main section of the report and whether it met the requirements of that section. Constructive criticism is practiced throughout this write up.

Abstract
The purpose of an abstract is to provide the reader an insight of the main highlights in the report and what is to be expected when reading it. Based on the abstract read, the writer was not too clear on the effects of POME to the environment and why treatment is required. A clearer picture of the environmental effects should be stated if POME is not treated to provide readers a brief description of the sole purpose of the research and how it could benefit the environment. The objective of the study to use a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) after anaerobic treatment and its benchmark for performance is well justified with the Organic Loading Rate given and the trend of removal efficiency that changes with it. However the objective of being in accordance with discharge standards by the Department of Environment (DOE) was not mentioned either it was successful met or not. A short and simple description on the kinetic modeling was sufficient and well understood.

Introduction
An introduction serves the purpose to intrigue ones perspective on the topic by providing background information pertinent to the study. A literature review is also essential to complete a readers knowledge on the progress of the technology. The introduction was started with the background of the Palm Oil Mill and where POME is generated which is short, concise and informative. Then the other treatment methods which were favored and its majority were stated with a good reasoning. The author had a good understanding on where the SBR should be situated in a POME treatment plant but failed to justify how its prior digestion makes it more suitable to be placed after anaerobic treatment instead of other treatments. The statement on cost is also not elaborated to show the economic strength of a SBR reactor comparatively to others. The author provided healthy source of related studies but the statement operated and maintained properly for the reactor from other related studies is vague and should be elaborated for a better understanding. The purpose of kinetic study was once again well defined by the author. The statement of the study and the approach towards completing the study was well justified with all the necessary information included.

Material and Methods

This section was well explained with good arrangement of sub topics to provide a good flow of information. Once again, the kinetic modeling is well described with presentation of the differential equations that models biological oxidation and how it can be linearized to be used as a judging factor for the treatment of POME. A 4/5 is given for this section.

Results and Discussion

The startup to this section was well written with the acclimatizing phase being emphasized. At the section of reactors performance, a misinterpretation of parameters used in kinetic modeling whereby the author stated that Organic Loading Rate is used to generate the kinetic coefficients instead parameters required for most models were

Balinderjit Singh (006465)

Critical Review May 3, 2013

only substrate removal, Solid Retention Time (SRT) and Hydraulic Retention time (HRT). The process efficiency was well mentioned with good correlation between manipulated variables and its effect to performance except the part for F/M ratio which is the ratio of substrate loading to the microorganisms present in the activated sludge. In this section results were presented well but the justification was not too clear. The author mentioned that the F/M ratio is stable at a certain OLR which is not the importance of monitoring it, whereas the F/M ratio should be always be monitored to determine the proper number of microorganisms for your system and to monitor the degree of starvation of microorganisms. A high F/M ratio would require a higher DO concentration to aid in removal of substrate and also cause filamentous growth leading to bulking. If F/M ratio is decreased then it may lead to nitrification caused by increase in Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS). One way to control this ratio is to use Biocides which are anti-microbial agents (Meniscus, 2012). Based on the plot in the figure given for the estimation of Monod Model Coefficients, it is seen that the endogenous decay rate obtained is negative. Endogenous decay rate is given as the rate of biomass death due to auto digestion, which occurs when there is limited amount of substrate concentration in the reactor and the microorganisms digest their own protoplasm (Karia & Christian, 2006) (Lenntech, 2012). Negative decay rate would symbolize that biomass does not decrease from auto digestion but increases instead throughout the experiment which contradicts the results for biomass concentration (MLVSS) obtained in the experiment. Other than that, the second plot to obtain max and Ks was not shown. Based on equation (13) provided in the write up, it would be impossible to plot a graph that could provide values of max and Ks because the y-axis values will be constant because in the study HRT was constant. It can be concluded that the results obtained from this experiment does not correlate with Monod Model. The other model investigated which was the First order Substrate removal was interpreted in a wrong manner as the writer did not plot a graph that represented the kinetics that was discussed earlier whereby, The graph plotted is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1.0: Graph to obtain coefficient for 1st order substrate removal model.

If an intercept of (0,0) was set in the graph above, the regression obtained would be much less making the model unappropriate for representing the results obtained from the experiment. The Stover Kincannon model was executed well with a good explanation on the procedure to obtain the coefficients. A comparison is also done together with other studies for the kinetic coefficients obtained which is a good method to justify results obtained. As the purpose of this section is to state results obtained and also to answer the questions posed in the introduction, there were a few things that were not mentioned such as effects of MLVSS and Dissolved Oxygen (Aeration) to the performance of the SBR.

Conclusion
The initial part of the conclusion is well written where results are outlaid with a good flow towards kinetic modeling. However the question posed by the author in the abstract and conclusion to obtain effluent that met discharged limit is not mentioned to be successful or not.

Balinderjit Singh (006465)

Critical Review May 3, 2013

References
Karia, G. & Christian, R., 2006. Wastewater Treatment: Concepts And Design Approach. Easter Economy ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hill. Lenntech, 2012. Endogenous decay coefficient (kd). [Online] Available at: http://www.lenntech.com/wwtp/coefficient-kd.htm [Accessed 1 May 2013]. Meniscus, 2012. Bulking In The Activated Sludge Process. [Online] Available at: http://www.meniscus.co.uk/pagedisplay.aspx?article=110& [Accessed 2 May 2013].

Balinderjit Singh (006465)