Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bruce E Rittmann and Perry L McCarty Homework Problem Solutions Environmental Biotechnology Principles and Applications PDF

    Uploaded by

    AnggieMarcela RevuelTa
    1K views212 pages

    Original Title

    351725806-Bruce-E-Rittmann-and-Perry-L-McCarty-Homework-Problem-Solutions-Environmental-Biotechnology-Principles-and-Applications.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views212 pages

    Bruce E Rittmann and Perry L McCarty Homework Problem Solutions Environmental Biotechnology Principles and Applications PDF

    Uploaded by

    AnggieMarcela RevuelTa

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 212
    Environmental Biotechnology — Principles and Applications Bruce E, Rittmann and Perry L. McCarty HOMEWORK PROBLEM SOLUTIONS Problem Solutions Listed by Chapter Forward This manual provides the worked solutions to all the problems in Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications. The solutions are presented in order by chapter. At the beginning of each chapter is a listing of the problems according to the major subject explored by each question. In some cases, a problem falls into more than one major subject. At the beginning of Chapters 3, 4, and 7 are summaries of "tools," which are the key equations used regularly to solve the problems. Due to the scope of the project, it is inevitable that some errors and inconsistencies are present in the solutions. The authors will make every effort to correct these problems over the years. If you find an error, please send that information to Dr. Rittmann (address below). In addition, we welcome new problems and solutions from the book's users. If you have a good problem + solution, please send it to Dr. Rittman, as well, Bruce E. Rittmann Perry L. McCarty Evanston, Illinois Stanford, California Dr. Bruce E, Rittmann Northwestern University Dept. of Civil Engineering 2145 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208-3109 b-rittmann@northwestern.edu Chapter 1 Basics of Microbiology Problems According to Major Subject Addressed Morphology and Taxonomy 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 34 Enzymes 1, 17, 38 Metabolism 2, 8, 9, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 Genetics 4,5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 23, 24 Ecology 3, 18, 37 11 » &) 1. Compet tise 2. Mam Comperitiv'e 3. Non~ specsPie (bd 1, Eeotegieis ~ popelation dyson = SHOT 1m predonsntnce 2. Enzyme (ndesres 3. Genetic Change (2) Constiteitice 2. Inducible 1.2 a eleauor Ke MG? ‘ste: [Esse [electron Donor] gepto NG Tie ee A 7 (metaronenssy| YES ORE AAS 5 B. | Aceiate Tres = -/0lF (Reduction to Yes = 243-284 Fea*) 2s sar . (reduction tot) | No Chas d_| Glucose HY as = Le (reduction to Ha) | ‘TES ay - --¢ | carbon dioxide ges Fangs BS = (methanogenesis) ~ Tip nia 22 399 = U2. (denitrification to SS ad 5 ROS = (fa 2-9 (oxidized to itrificat - 922 ee (Gentitcation to] (a b.| CH : a5 2 3F ‘ (edification | TES -922-* No) 7 NH S042 2055 + 14,8 (oxidation to (reduction to HS} NO 26) 20 NOx) +HS> 13 ) CO, rediution To mefhune occors only with Hy pele — Here, 25-2 85% oF Hy comes Fron Coy redectron C28% Cypicsl of semaye slodye) 1.4 Peonyrt besa R. bese Hoek Pee Hoops base res i, Laeney, we a 15 RNA osaallg single strandeS PUB - v3aaly hebe stranded) 16 DNA Rr Bea Au Cea & Cee 17 Dwh. + Ta formatein storage & replreatin EWA. » Productos 4 protems - Indsyvratec —preesivia, agparatis , ab 1s lof Both potentially butt donac réle i's obsorud) O, Accepher CO, Bccoplor Ae Dener Seg ecepor- bo; Bott: dere EMO. , accaphr A Me Nox fecepter me Doar Hy Dene Fe ~ Acceptor 19 Couple BRE: Eaa- Fan pth Kok BJA 676- C-0,42)* bIS ae D 4S/Oo, 0.92 ~ (-ezeyx 10 tees 4 Gy Nox On Ph ~ (0138) 212 3 how toye - (042) 12h ( 7b, 82> 0-H 00! 6 eRe (5 /{ NO. 0,44 - ¢0,20) + 0% s 1.10 111 Th DUP polymernar Y Peis a nenegg— tre phphats Ard om S snd, oa ote Hole Mein on araclalle 3! tarton—6Hf ns HG LAAT cae 3 Peed he azoclekls Bate fF DUE polypereer . La mest ows, Ket ral be to uripack of Pe ROP prlyperee. slated om tare man ee aig oe elvry ego Aiarrtata at wall veer 4 & nal a med AUS ttle fat nee A fo ha 1.12 - For_eoeci folume> ae Par rods fra > yor volume > Lx V8 2 pi ork PPR ee em renga 3 YT ard zt Hsrr Bitz « aeened e 2 4 diambe 7 2 1.13 1.14 L 4 d ee 10 2 0, SuxK Cen) Cos Coens, Kod —— Volume 0.5208 sagan Osa Aye 4, tun” dun ashy 4 peofec fee oe aba 7H De mertrane 13s p. Lepib) bei- Ladraphebis wlorin ae oa ties Dro karyodre onel Evkargdotc DHA. L Bofk ane storage sf S f genetic inporinat tay 2, Use Ke same pases AT, 6 €© , Shue super uted 4. Conta , PD Sherences L Probamptoe obo net Late a rmerctirens, enclosed nacteas, while qokargohes db, 2. Ceeargete DANN ao drounch by destinas, whl prchargh DAA as 20% 3, Gutcaryst Dui-e nemeyprescsel jtron rayon - 11S Bhacherophagee avin Fat mie a ese SS fate z, e Ka feCree epudace. 1.16 Organic mass of om cell: ov (22) *orfeaurit 3m (om) cas *( 7) = awe "y oa “el 4 pion ame ET Lg ey BY Pao Gurk (0.1940 3) wn el? ——— 9% Joon, _# , Jed pe pyj0 tll Le Jeong 21F _ —_— 1.17 Cozn24ps 6 (fm Aa grew. A coergyme 8 a nem - pritum grmlcote Teh porta nite (a cofeclivownel net py fyb, Arend (pro Bhelic prop) Fe apeorgyymss pret vtthed Ke athctid yooupe. 148 Pacteu gaun 1.19 Bn ee Op Nm dmv. CUYh phetinn hia glee On, aw acuptn gn aortic Neopet, J Coll Volume = Aner? 2 $22 (0,4um)?~ 0,265.40" lWib Wdaight ~ 0, 268m! x WAL 1p’ Bly = 26k DoE 0 aet 4 Dig Orgpaie Wright = 4 bbb oe 0,28 Fa 09 BE =4 52x10 “ne arg. olny ast cel] Camccen nenolors eae ER yng 1930 IH Ds bchin ZS net - 6432 actite 1.20 a) Chloreplylt — Yo, Algucan 7 Sum sormally 8) Ascony cet — Yor, Fonye me 75am nom 0) Winses —h Pll viruses ane 40.34 a) backerta — Dobby 4 FA same oho L Anlaa pr2 < O45 4M, °) archada. ~Vretetly yo. MW = 1axS 4 eH /ORR + Od tal £3) = Mel 9 fnole ge mile clk _ [eo malh Vp pretecd yl th mainmle= SGI0 jmmale cel 7 mipale B mg tt — DI nudel= &G)nio ae * [ormole TES I yoke H = /2/ mahW/L Ppuedul < Gblype'™ 01% 3) = aera 123 4) Rephentisn occurs onty rag Aefoe hl hiprcor- Trmscuplisa peewra yhomorer fhe elt ratte 4) a VranaheLeine prrrlncsee He wergl - otarded Jiborucliplele | ee 124 MAMA ge transcribed grote cocle wel to ditch putin ayrHheers th Tk ago War pests Lon mie) nx oe 125 04 Regulates traunserphen Loammen) 2. Structured namber- J Hegel (tommon) 3, Sour po Commer) 4, PAS ealluall om s, Pu J OCW loyprucelialar copset) b, Suctocd bongia/ gt A5ame factivine FP Pere on onl prembiene g CC) breton, wi thitoren mm g. cor pr ppiueee 10. Pod J gee areca tr come dscyeh protege te: UN po dbo, Jee sh ~ oes Sn bv AdP + R. A forms atti aAcnr pa cee arcuate. (iM td we vi, pe #regy— Qo butane , 1 oes “epee Ape Arcos é) B= oxidation @ dehylr Ayploys CH, Ch ch cher 7 onc oh the nin @) MADR amore) — Eno, ta BofreTee 3 J Tor i | CO RTP equivalent of serobi repdatin , Substucte leuli 22 TCR TB Cfo actin tim QO reer WAM — az 2 a7 Fad = Bxa=_&_ BS ATP 4 / mote baton R 1.29 GAO, — faa 6 artorg fF OFY>24 eer @\ Lmslee EACDOP fate 40 4 2xPe/be— Need Loe Cf Fmme; The Alor forthe lesttwo C. Se, ot need Ws to yse Sa lr Ver, ©) ammee Lx L mele Prrperet (ACAI) pan SCs avel Feb4 T= fer“, lag nef oe 4 Ser Os CMe pha — pepth fo ore met Chy 133 OnZ #z 6 alae, 134 trey 135 Gena Bfecton Darn, Flach Mme C-Soure M.Varecocus Ae Cb low Wstrrsolobus Way Ow COL Pseedom ones Che 2, We No- Cho Deslibononss yt 54,39,3° Chg Bic bacilli ne On co 1.36 Aetivetzan CH, CH, Coon 7 YT Cl, CH CoS prertesh — pmprke +@ tlho FAD dehydrogenase hydroxy btein oHC CH COSCA y Ch CH COS Gah / Hor not bao cLohydrepona Lams % lerwaqe- CH,COSGA wre weod? ‘+ CO, egele DLO, + 6A ver + pre. . awpocrys Direct bore TH -2 FADE " VADB EL TE +\ het: —1 ead v4 axB=b 2x3 °F 11 1G pale prpinate © 122, 137 | Alarphrrtcon theckarecina Cpanite (nose! Clee I, Selecstiie EnrecAmat a Echo pie Beg 1 Se pen 7 ner: a peony Colla, LN, eee 2, Exckorape — perhaps pornble wth 4p etinse os pb, utbok Ui Fines, pul fetid Zr) uy 0 *fliome gh and dorde. X Heep n- tit Chapter 2 Stoichiometry and Energetics Problems According to Major Subject Addressed Basic Half-Reactions 67 Energy Reactions 1,3,4 £2 from Energetics 2,5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Stoichiometry of Overall Reactions 8, 14, 15, 16, 17 Ww 2.2 Basar AG, leer Yes SAG 2 37 Yes P43 29.9 No BFF -2AGHLS tes aig - gre A tes ras 372th (denitrification ; Ny) aad Yes 90.2. B9P = M2 . ‘NOx (oxidized to i (denitrit (gent fication to Yes FL 2—-UL BAUS NOx (denituificati s ication to des ~ 92,2. -BESe - OF Nag S04? (oxidation to. _| (reduction to HS Nox) ons: fon to Hp! M gS -2O8S 2th Gt Dene Aecephr fa seure Mer Mbp AGre) s a Abe Ady AFre) A) S thanek On Wh” — -j09,9 3,7 IKE a5?| 0.64 a Nes j09,9 3.9 134 0.94) 0/70 CC Ahand SOP” wie Shey 29 18.8 6 | OS d Ethmt S840 Wt Pos 32 ite ©) @ ce — Propiordi (Oe Whi +A BS 188 198 00S & s , - oe hos wht -U4 38 It | fo | 2,20 Ne, i - : + * rn. MAY ase 134 168 \G0 | ad | 23 (QN6EG= GM yee +4 More 5 Obi. - tM ef Neca, - hg, des =4 (-35203 ) +3 (-5%,8) +f (-340) “$(-36841) ~ b (346.02) -0 - © = -8816 — 14,71 — 5930 + U47/ +H, 51 -O-0 2 AIS k joule Je ~2g DG ~EbG5, & - Oe. - 65- 40) -0 ~0 =o byak/oneg ep sb 1295-0 12.45 K/e eg. (b) ph>F. Rafe = ~ 37.87 G/mule now. So, Nef > -1195-(- 987)2 +26 Khes AGL = O-(-31.57)> 37.87 kjfeeg AG, = te2b.52)- (39.62 - 12.95" kj Le pe eae CN Ate Ran: Lettoo” + 4 to, +H, = CACH Loe” « b Hea + ithe yey te) AG -ng54 5,310? ach, Lael a Kral * Cre?) [03) ror)" Bordo” ale Sb 2ag04 oad 2 Pda JO 212,954 24304,532 2 Glee. 21247 + 3434, All DE values mmx negate, amet besten Sheald gan cargy 2.4 AGe EChanel Eon te Chy = 2383-2182 765k) + sot 2085-22902 -6,.55R) EThsbo! ee City gives more cell preaunteon JorvalenT becouse more energy 1% released, 2.5 A AGs RAG, AGs? AGe-AGy= 53.7% — 27 34% 26.58 BI ley. BGr® AGa- DG4 = 20.85 - 27.34% ~6.97 Bley, - —2tSe a (0.6) * 647) 138 a - ep. cells Fs* jra* 1+0.30° 0.08! ey dome ene, cede .Polusdga. 5 PY Ys 0.08! endowe (12 yam nvncmais O11 9 benoste 2.6 One e9. latote # one e7, 2? BI Oz Fez I~Fs = 1-04 = Ob C frac, order) Je Ox requires Fe (8)2 06(8) 7 4-8 go a on 27 (a) PyCCHCH CHM coe” + FHC —> a tet, > Dy Mint # Zy Hey tta.s Bat ren on 4 a Dy CHyei Cir CHM Be Com” + fie => a ty mate de keop theo. tutte” a = Ota +the > Tay rH te 2.8 $ CHgoH* ... — tern Fem 0.3(tp Met 2-367 > 0.3 (2e)CgHyaue.n. 0.2 (EMes) +. we"? 7b) Mee 2 O0rMrt. £ cuyow + fo.stdeyrorc3]¢% (32) ease? (4) SB3Bg Clo 2 Mes-Y CHyo# mewn = 33 (a1) = 212 mg/l 5 i ; 29 Lr Ole ag => Ae oes exept og cells Az Balle rbbek DS, batt © bSIee Cito seurce) Mpg = 35107 — Petes 229 (Bretetra ( seme) 265 hry matt! a Mbpre Db = 5355 (eee) - a3¢ (ac) ~ - 90,95 kS/e Gus: - FbI/k 4 18,5/k . 268 J k(-¥095) yeas k ft2 0.06 ke 025 la Au whe) 2.10 Zn generD, NG,746,-AG less) NG, + 2509-06, (WIE eey fp le,) Mbe HE pode, MAS for Woe, 1 df ly, $18 5 fan? Az Kee /k” - DGn/e - khé, $0 FBT Gn tele denar) y. £ creel Wael, Fe tone gus) ~ o aornecelh % 3800, Gen. 120 pit, $ fotos, 6 JrNG ant 3 fa M. Dene Aecephr C-Sourcee NSme po sG Moe AL Y Acetebe On Acekte VK toe 4% RE 069 959 O42. ge 24y — (-#892) NG,=239) yO, BI ass 064 O33 1e-25) W0,- IAS 058063 0.54 Me Wd 0650.6) 0,34 241 (Same pvttern ae 2,10) Benen fecepbor b-Sonne MSome Abr Mp Me A Se # glvesse. Or Glucose. Hy $120 3 088 272, O57 fib33) (78) gglhagd — Nos~ 13,4 O24 08° | | | wor 1457 82 0.98 2 Nz Hed 933 OFF a% 2.12 For 00, ae C-source Cnorm) AG, ~ FA-III) = ~43,6 They Ae,= 3507 -L Java) > 13.8 kL Mbps > 18,8 Kherg fa WIStbt LOE 5 yee tente — O6(-446) ad oe ann ol Colt IS 45 ~demer eek 113 5cel darn OM ERD | 3 ycely | Fe" Po OU Taw” Gontcelt Agia ~ For Acckh, pA Kary io AG, = 3S O9— 247> FF Weg pa Riese ibhlok , g vieemenate Tele) LL eof 6 So ae * OP Te U3 12 3iuh Yeo 237- Gr goth, Q, a¢ BEV 4A) Aba paferial adivrthgel 2.13 NG y = 329 Tey, CA) Mg 2 - FF fr 0, on +2085 fa SAP 113, 8 CawAednply) bop Noes 1h ¥ 113,8/0.6 +1566 — 2,6 MG) ~ Ye, 2-8, 6 MS fee for Oxae accaphr, Nb, -09+6-747) Ax 3H ox 39,920.85) ~ [Ror kieep 7 Pav Sty? 22 acco, 4 A-43 Thor Lo = 0.24 fr Oz = O05 fa Sa yf LE, ven My mn 8 £8BS LIL Go On 2 2,28 seelh [gh fo Se Acebte os Ms 4 2.14 fie 0,333, $2 2 667, —> o1sbK4o + 0,065 CO, 0, 067M, £0,125 Helos” F CMsloo 0145? + 0,14SMl, 10.019 CD 2S Cy 5)/ Of W.fuly » Krecse, haemey copenhy —» 20°F r 0,4992ho+ 4 Qyls) #290, + Hw & a 0. Ce lh O,M He, 0018/0s + 9007200, 216 Wh) /01 10. juh, eect , f.-@a957 boy0,7 0.170 Nh’ + 0.0030 Ws + 0, 0/220, __» 0, $10 Hed p 0, 6 PWBY LO. 2300s, 0,33347 K 0, 0030 aN 2.47 Cb Cle/b5,/ SEY yy A= 03) Sozaep — 0,2S°CK, + 8.15510 + ©. 0/55 0h” OSH" + 0.01 Chow $0, 17250, bo. Ctssiftd,~ 7 10, 1%6lb, 7 QSC/~ Chapter 3 Microbial Kinetics Problems According to Major Subject Addressed Delimiting Parameters 1 Influent Characteristics 10, 15, 16 Basic Chemostat Analysis 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 Comprehensive Chemostat Analysis 3,4, 8, ns 2,3,4,8,9 Input Active Biomass 5,7 Acceptor Utilization 14, 23 Inhibition 17, 20, 21, 22, 24 X, =X? +(1-fq)-b-Xq-6x K+s? +(¥-G-b)-K-b 1 Yoqab b Gaal = him Smin =K- Y-G-b design ogee Ce ee (08 him y.38 SXa . At at 1+b-0x 0 Axi _ AX} AX, AXE A tg): b-0y Xa at ay Efe) BOK ¥-(s° -s) Xv=[i+(-ta)-6-0x} oe (2) @) (4) 6) (6) @ 8) @ (10) 3.1 Note that 6,"", [0,""Jim and Sai, are all independent of f,, so there is only one set of answers. nn, K+S° s"(v-b)-Kb Substituting the given values in the above formula, we get 0," = 0.42 days = 10.3 hrs Similarly, (0,°"}jq= << And, Sqin = K. 3.2 0 = 0, =2 hrs = 0.083 days a) First, calculate 0," for every 8°, to check for washout. After substituting the given data, we get the following: 8" (hrs) |S" (mg/h) 1.0 10,000 Ll 1,000 an | When S$" = 100 mg/l, 8,"" > 6,; therefore, we have washout. In that case, 00 mg/l. For S? = 1,000 and 10,000, the steady-state concentration S doesn’t depend on the influent concentration S°; therefore, $ is the same, and is computed as follows: ___1+b8, OXY4-b) After substitution, we get [S= 102.5 mgil b) As shown in part (a), for S’ = 100 mg/l, we have washout, and therefore no accumulation of active biomass, i.e. X,=0. S=K For the other two initial concentrations $", X, is computed as follows: Substituting in the above formula, the following values are obtained: X, (mg VSS) |S” (mg/l) 08.0 10,000 FST 1,000 0 100 c) SMP=UAP+BAP First, compute ry as follows: s°-s tN Substituting in the above formula, we get the following: Tu (mg/i-d) |S" (mg/l) “119,246 | 10,000 “10,8133 | 1,000 0 700 ‘The UAP and BAP constants are the following (Noguera et al., 1991): Guar =1.8mg COD, / mg VSS-d doar = 0.1 mgCOD, / mg VSS-d K yap =100 mgCOD, /1 K gap =85 mgCOD, /1 k, =0.12 g COD, /g COD, k, = 0.09 g COD, /g VSS-d The equations for the calculations of UAP and BAP are the following: ape ~duseX.0-} Kune + t8)+ [Guns 04 Kune hid) — aR yarn papa {haar + Gaar ~K)X.8)* V(Rane + Gar Fa )X0) 4 4K pk X0 3.3 Substituting in the above equations, we get the following values for SMP: S"Gmgi) UAP (mg/l) BAP (mg/l) SMP (mgil) 70,000 365 269 392 7,000 785 3.19 817 100 0 0 0 4) The minimum detention time below which wash-out would occur is 0,"" and was calculated in part (b). The limiting value of this wash-out detention time is [0,""Jim and is computed as follows: (0. = <>, oF 10,2 4Iyq = 0.042 day = 1.0 br Yg-b Perform parallel calculations to demonstrate the differences between the old and new bacteria. OLD Ww 0.185 day 0.182 day 5.56 days 5.4 days s-K — 1+ be. _ 0.73 0.44 mg/l oe ¥g0, —(1+ b8,) mpl ae bs _ | L+(1-fy)b0, 0.203 mg VSS/mg COD | 0.279 mg VSS/mg 14 b0, | COD re =S)Q 60.8Q 83.6Q 20; AX, 142 ee 2 gVSS_At 213Q | 181Q — 626mg CODI | 4.03mg COD/ 19.9 mg COD/L 29.4 mg COD/L 26.1 mg CODII 33.4mg CODA 26.7 mg COD/I 33.8mgCODA__| By comparing sludge production, we see that “oz =1.37; therefore, we would produce 37% more cell mass with the new cells. Most will end up in waste sludge. In terms of 3.4 oxygen requirement, we can see that the new cells would require 85% of the oxygen required by the old cells. In summary, because the new cells do not decay very fast, we build up greater active mass (X,V). Since the f, is lower, we have less X,V. In total, X,V is greater with the new cells. With similar ®, values, the production rate of cells is greater for the new bacteria, but less O, is required, since more electron (COD) equivalents end up as cells. The new cells are more efficient in that they give a slightly lower $ value and require 15% less oxygen. However, 37% more sludge is produced, higher SMP is produced, and finally a higher effluent COD, Using the following relevant equations, we get the values that are tabulated below: 0-0 1+b6, Yq, —(1+b8,) y(S°-S) 1+b0, 2 + X,(1-£)b0, = Goss ,0+ K yan + kit) + VGuanX.0 + K yap t kity0)? 4K upon 0 ua. zi pape 7 (ann + (Guar —k2)%,0)-+ VK pan + Gage —ka)X0) + 4K papkoX,0 2 ° where, r= - 5 =8 @ P=UAP +BAP [ @, (days) S (mg X, (mg ]X, (mg P (mg S+P (mg conn) VSS.) vss/) copy) | cop” T 3a 172.5 35.2 23.9 29.2 5 a) m4 67.1 ~ 39.2 40.1 10 06 9 74 AT 3 30 05 363 327 37.6 38 3.5 For the first chemostat, 6 = @,= 10 days. 1+ bé, $=K——_ —=] 1 D/I Yao, (1+ b9,) 11 ™eCO _ ¥(8°-s) = 559 mg V: 1+b0, mg VSS,/L X\ =X! + X,(1-£)b0, = 54 mg VSS/I, since X,’ = X,° = 40 mg. X, =X, + X\= 613 mg VSS. The second stage is handled by incorporating X,° = 559 mg/l. Other input values are: 14 mg/l S?= 1.1 mg/l XV x % = to = =10d: ence QK GOK RxD PK, 559mg/1 subject still to $= K —_1+ > 10. 1+025-0, ¥q0,-(+b0,) 0.7-18-0, -(1+025-0,) ° and x, -92{ ¥S°-8)]__9,_[0.701.1-5) *e| 1+be, | 10days|1+025-0, Solving iteratively on these three equations yields: .008 days 00038 mg/l X,= 160 mg/l os Note that 160<<559, so we have a cell decay with 1=1/ 0, Then, X, =X,’ + X,(1-f,)b0, = \ really 6 = 54 + (1-0.9)(0.25)(10)(160) 94 mg/l X, =X, +X, = 254 mg/l Effluent Quality Soluble BOD = COD .0004 mg/l Total BOD, = 1.42 f, X, = (1.42)(0.9(160) = 204.5 mg BOD, /I Total COD = 1.42 X, = 360 mg/l a N&P Required IS stage LAN _y (x, -X!) = 0.124 ee (613-40) =71mgN/I mg Qa’ oat = EN required)= 7 7 = 14.2 mg PAL yn (X —X°) = 0.124 mex (254-573) <0. So weneedno new input of mg V' Nor P inreactor2, Cellsdecay,not grow. 3.6 Substrate mass balance for a chemostat, using the Eckenfelder relation: v8 9-6" -3)-k'x,sv de Active biomass mass balance: ve =0=Q-X,)-k'X,SV¥-bX,V fe TogetS, dividetheabove equationthroughby V : X, 6 Solvingfor $ (0, = 6): 1 at? 1+b0, 2 — Jors KY K'Y®, Tofind X, , use substratemass balanceand dividethroughby volume *4k"X,SY—bX, so eo -K’X,S,and (s?-s) kos ¥(S’-S) 1+b0, . PluggingS fromabove inthe denominata, we get : 3.7 The first CSTR is simply a chemostat that can be analyzed in the conventional manner. - Vv 0=0, =~ =2days Q tb, 188 me copa Yd, -(1+b0, y(s?-s)] | =3.4 mg VSsVI. [ 1+b9, | 4m VSS X= X! +X,(1-£)b0, = 30.27 me VSS/1 STR is different because it has input of X,. In other words, X,° = 3.4 mg », X;’ = 30.27 mg VSS;/l and $’ = 188 mg COD/L, To solve for S, X,, and X; with input of X,°, we can define 0," as: —*.V____X,0_ i “OREN XX wy Since® = 2 days,and X? =3.4 mg/l, — 2% 34 . x ay So, we can solve for S with 0,°, 1+b9. S=K =. = 350 — a Q) Yg0,—(1+b0,) > 30, -(1+0.20,) 9. [¥s° “ol 1+be, | 2 8 To find S, 0,’, X, and X,, iteratively solve (1”), (2) and (3) by guessing @,’, solving for $ (from (2)), solving for X, (from (3)), and solving for 8,’ (from (1')). If the initial 0,” and final 0,’ agree, your solution is correct. Let’s iterate: 3.8 S = 145.6 mg CODA X,= 14.6 mg VSS/1 X,= 30.27 + 0.2 x 0.2 x 2.56 x 14.6 = 31.7 mg VSS/1 0 days S,mg COD/_|_X,, mg VSS,I_|_X, me VSS/I_] CSTRI 2.0 188 34 303 CSTR2 258 15.6 146 318 Note that for a chemostat, 8,=0. s=kK— 11, 8 me cop) G0, —(1+b8,) og x, =|2E=9) = 453.3 mg VSS,/I. 1+b0, X,=X/+X,(1-£)b0, = 9.1 mg VSS/I X=X+X, = 462.4 mg VSS/I UAP= papa a(R nar + Gane ~Ka)X,0)+ V(Kgar + Gar where, ty. =~ vi 8 lex onk. 2k. pv wae = (GuneX,0 + Kune + Bi fu0)+ V(@uarX.0 + K usp + kn, 0)? — 4K yagkir0 2 2 2)X,0)° +4K pack: Substituting in the above equations, we get the following results: UAP = 14.8 mg/l BAP = 29.2 mg/l And, SMP = UAP + BAP = 44.0 mg/l COD ays). = SMP + S = 46.8 mg/l COD oui = COD aisse + 1.42 X, = 703.3 mg/l Removal (COD 4.) = (S°= CODjau)/S"= 29.7% BOD, = COD ine + 1.424X, = 562 mg/l Removal (BOD,) = (S’- BOD,)/S"= 43.8% 8 3.9 __K+s?__ Kb+S(¥g-b) + or 8," = 2.25 day "" * S.F. = 22.5 days V =0, Q=2.25 x 10! m’, Lebo, Ye, -(+bo,) 732! ¥(S°-s)] _ « [ T+b0, | 13.3 mg VSS,/L. X\=X! + X(1-£)b0, = 3 mg VSS//I X, =X, +X, = 16.3 mg VSS/1 Rateysspoa = XQ = 16.3 kg/day. = (GuarX.0 + K van + ki F8) + VGuarX.0 + K yap + kyr0) 4K yank tye r (K sap + (Guar ~k2)X,0)+ (Kuan + Guar ~ka)X,0)° + 4K park 2X0 2 UAP= BAP: 0 0 Substituting in the above equations, we get the following results: where, r= - UAP = 15.8 mg/l BAP = 49.1 mg/l And, SMP = UAP + BAP = 65 mg/l BOD, MP + S = 67.3 mg/l cb BOD gui = BODysusse + 1.42 Xf, = 82.4 mg/l BODaauaie + 1.42 X, = 90.4 mg/l SMP+1.42(X,-X,)]. 4) COD, Since each gram of §(s) produced consumes 1.5 grams of oxygen demand, y= 1/1.5 = 0.67g Sig COD. Also, X,'=0. Substituting in the above equation, we get: Tatessg = 273 kg S(s)/day. 3.10 S72 BoD, (or) t BVrcpers = SSF? = 75 mH B00, fe = -22): my Xi 20- Fes) 2°" 2e(! #): B.6 my/) 3.A1 Nee tf #2 te —> 1r20-S¢— G-EKrd ig iz —> 7k+lgo 2% qkr igo = 20(LK+ 4) -Pk =-00 k= 443 aagfl q? ee 154 mg/day om geells 3. . cy thE ey tal) ; = asm 14 0.203) ge. ~C14y®.) % go8-e(4)-Ci+0.21'2) Ler IEF - (a7) 1 2F mg COD/Y AV} 255 Xe YS 0,65: (20% - 4.24) : #8 mg y53/ C1 be LOE Kip = Ka (It C-A)SB) + Ki = Joe (jro.2-02 4) +20 %02 me VSS Ki Karke my Nyt XK + W2- FFB* 124 re VSL KX Kegrrg = 7 oF now . + = for mg le Ss ¥ = \ 8 is oH > Ss 7 3130 nee PS B=P Oe St Pe BKHISR SF set 7ssssZ acktz = SKAIS= 1S (acnrs) Ks 75 md oa Gx OL(2S)+3 hs O75) = 830d = 75/d a —~- —An_ 314. Op fete = Fe@(s™s*)z Fe@ses Sv00 Ly id (Oxe4 (sme S*€0.015°) Fogo Feag bosszo4r @se: 2 a ES Lta.2 bx + 40% Ba Fae Fs 1+ box 4 Fete 2uslirecs). 9, 5 ue 140.260.0814) Foca) = onsg {#22le-08)00) 9, 59 1+ 0.0866) Feo) = J- 0.372 a6! Op Production = 0,6) (9,010) = 5540 id (B28) — 315° ge evel b4o m/e a Xr= gas see exes guorgsr ae” . B00, ese: ° xirs (1 See) ky 167 74/! 0S U5? - a(p~ elie ans = EE ezeo 3.16 St 620+ 360 = 780 my Sor. /) Q= @ = 150,000 m4} Xe= x . 350 mg/I ° BD, sods) 2 (p— Seb esehds) yy Xi f CoD (sets) MK 620-360 : A e(I- $20-38° to ua my Vorioss Formelas can be ved bere, ore of 317 in Fellow ¢ : Le -b 2 ya. BY b Se Thes, ve cebu: Hatelne Topeesty t=yfFs Ox ees E WF (OVS _ 2 StF 4g 2 oS lels , 22 25 74s 25 7s Cress multiplying leads Po . a pordnte epustion 05 Lollows From which, astrbsteso sa btvita Sz 1Ebry/e From whe $= 1.26 10) “HL CMe mses Lg di Fberece } H2omy/t 1s vole of Interrsr (lol mglt 9 an UF bend Ben Whiek Le C5 Mhedezrys ) nF, cos ae Yh _,: YR" XeS_ 318 o a s? (apr) (S225) = O44 mg/l ozs (4)™ —> - 3.19 Operating Characteritics 6 Sludge Oxygen Variable J Production | Consumption (aays) (kg/d) (kg/d) y - a - g@ - + + se = + + b + - ~ x? = + ~ 2 Ss 3.20) % 2 seat y 5 (For competitive mhsbetion ) Th vs: Seth —S—,, = corer vg 7 steCF) o.3 InTully: = oe @ - _s . se After Badd = Se) © se 175 @® EqusTing Aad B, and Soleing Fee S ques $2 _0.53 mal! ' +b) 3.21 see SRA «sng (A) Sime mo interaction, SEs bY mg/l! (bY EFfectwe KCK ope) = Cir bed Gideon . 2% Spt CHET ES 2 1 Gtleny? Re Zteed OeGgay-1 ©) EFfetn F (en) £ z e Lio) Siler, fer OT (NF-b)~) ° © aasg-07 Oe fag-b)-1 Appors we need more imPormstion here- Siwe derobic Sergime, [eT assome Ty puce! cochfieren ts Pe feb: o(o4S(z2)-02)-1 Zeb 8(0(3E)-0r)-y) 37 (Sa Dneveon 2 2014) = 2 tae G) Has no cbt? unless SubsTesh B is. Tome To erp Bo IE meh The See yay! th iT ts, The we cameemdeTiv ame chlece wate Fema a varlables S322 Since te vate olecrenses attigher 5 we haw substiate inh biton. Use Haldane. Kinetics. Xx UE ze = GXS dé Nat st kr 3.23 @ [ein =e 2.2 doys 3 Oy = 5.7 Joplns ioe.) + 22 dae i BD, 2B(1+0.1Ct))s b gg, Ket) oe Be os n : * BY a1” axfoomuo-oft oan EH, = 10-2)» IG2Z 140.2b6e jre.z (orX2e)) | Fes Oe 2 o.07e/ ee = O,0324 a: (Fa 1rboe Tre. (2y Fe =I-o.032¥2 0.16% Ra: Fe™ are ren 24 Re! 0.00648 Cort O.00162 HO” . ieee enecse ae erence fe oe seestctt errata o,00 . 0.0324 e 09636 Re: o.eurortomnste = 0.4838 Hee 9676 C~ Fe’ +0,2419 0, tock MAY = Fe ecole Cob s Fo.colr meas + HT + ONY Ho 0.00648 Cor, di. 2241030) + sue ON gO /y Fe’ @, eerer(iy) | O.eoe4t 9 MATH /g Fett SH LE 7 S +k {1 2a) Tee EF ode) ae [Dey dé G4 rise Ys) © dSs_ ostes)(ree)_ L TE Epa scnh) ~ mylly Chapter 4 Biofilm Kinetics Problems According to Major Subject Addressed Basic Steady-State-Biofilm Analysis/Design 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 28 Reactors in Series with Normalized Loading 7,8,9 Nonsteady-State Biofilm and Deep Biofilm Analysis/Design 10, 11, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 Steady-State-Biofilm Model Analysis and Design 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 Comprehensive Steady-State-Biofilm Analysis/Design 19, 20 TOOLS FOR SOLVING BIOFILM PROBLEMS. ‘The equations shown here are those referenced in the solutions that follow. ‘+ Definition of non-dimensional parameters Shin = —C— = b+ Per ) mn Y-G-0 ¥-G-(b+baa) s = @ xv -2 K @) L Y¥4-X¢-Dp * Steps for using the steady-state-biofilm model @. Calculate S'mn, S', and K’ from equations 1, 2, and 3, respectively. b. Compute a =1,5557-0.4117-tanh(log}0 Sin) Q B = 0,5035 - 0.0257 tanh(log10 Srin) ® 6 Solver S's (implicit equation) gt — -1) i } {2 [8-00 =) ® 4 Calaiate y= K*.(s* 83) we e. Calculate y = IK-G- Xp Dp @) “J a © f£ Caleulat aleulate bean 9. Calculate (10) 1) * Snip b+ baer s se o mK Y-G=(b+ baa) D K ® L VaXp Dp K Jp’: use the value of Swi,’ to determine it from the Cannon curve Jp =JR:K-4- Xp Dp (12) + Miscelaneous B= b+baed13) Steady-state mass balance: Q-(S°-$)=J-(a-V) (14) + Steps for using the nonsteady-state-biofilm model a. Compute «_$ K-Dy L «Ly «_ Dy See 1/8 L eee pp= Pt K (2) a Xp (16) ra (17) t Fa (18) f D (19) b. Estimate a starter value for the effectiveness factor n. Ifthe biofilm is very shallow n approaches to 1. For deep biofilms Eq. 20 can be used. Rittman and McCarty (1981) suggested Eq. 21 Dy-(K+2-Sg) _ 142-8" tanh(U7) n= = oy al 1) f Le rH * ean 7 pe Compute §-05( Slab “Lp Den) + (s -1-L-Lt Dy-n) +4.8 ] (22) 4. Compute J* = 14 -Df-n-S8, (23) 1485 e. Compute Sg'= S"-J"- (24) f. Compute (25) 9. Forest, compute wor 8) (8) co) fs For $2 1, compute ot) ( i = 27) > Le (tanh($) h. Hf nis close enough to n go to step i. Otherwise, use n! as the estimator of n, and go to step c. i Caleulate J* = L¢-DF-n- SS (28) 1485 «KD k. Calculate J=J - [ (29) 4.1. Key in this problem is that the influent (200 mg/) and the effluent concentrations (5% of 200 mg/f= 10mg/) are given. Therefore, known the flowrate, we can use the CMBR mass balance (Eq. 14) to find a relationship between the steady state substrate flux (J), and the required surface area (aV), (av) 1 mg 1,000. 200 - 10) = aay C= 1Op On the other hand, the effluent concentration and the kinetic parameters determine J, which is estimated from the normalized loading curves. Using Eqs. 11, 1 and 3, we obtain the value of the normalized loading curves Parameters: Spn=0.191 MgBODyI, Smin =0.0191, K'=0.913, Jp'=0.053, and Jn=0.058 mg/em? day. Using the set of Curves for Smn =0.01 and Spin =0.025. K* =0913, and for Shyin = 0.01 interpolating for Sin J 8-7 mg ——— -(0.01-0019) = 7.4 > 3 = 0.430. ose PS * Do1-0ms ya 24 om? -day em? day Finally, using the value of J on the mass balance, we obtain: 1 1007em? 1000 (200-10) = 0430 @v) 2 =>aV = Reg. surf. area = 44.2 m? lf we consider a typical value of a of 100 m”, this biofilm process needs less than 1 m® of reactor volume to decrease the substrate concentration from 200 to 10 mg/, with a flow of 1,000 Uday. 4.2 We follow the same strategy of Problem 4.1, but calculating J with the steady-state biofilm model. The influent (200 mg/l) and effluent concentrations (1% of 200mg/=2mag/) are given. Using Eqs. 1 to 3 we compute 0256, $=0.2, and K'=1.0541. Following the steps of the steady-state bioflm model (Eqs. 4 to 8), we get 9359, 8=0.5272, Ss'=0.1044, J'=0.1008, and J=0.0956 mg/em® day. Finally, using the value of J on the mass balance (Eq. 14), we obtain: ' o 6 gy) Wem gy eq sunt, area = 207-4 m? 1 mg 1,000. (200 -2) 8 = 0.0956. Gay COO- 27 ‘em? -day This means that we require 4.7 times more surface area to reduce the effluent concentration from 10 to 2 mg/l. 4.3 The relationship between the steady-state effluent coricentration can be easily visualized with the appropriate normalized loading curve. In this case, the parameters are Spic=0.111 mg/l (EQ. 11), Syin'=0.111 (Eq. 1), (Eq. 3), Jz =0.3 (Cannon curve), and Jp=3.0 mg/om*day (Eq. 12). Analyzing the curve for Spin'=0.1, and K'=10, we find stable S/Smn approximately for J/Jn<0.2. This means that for J<0.2*350.6 mg/cm*day the steady-state effluent concentration is insensible to loading changes. 4.4 The parameters for the turbulent biofilm system are Smin=25 mg/l (EQ. 11), Smr'=0.25 (Eq.1), K’=1 (Eq. 3), Jx=0.6075 (Cannon curve), and Ja=6.1 mg/em’day (Eq. 12). The parameters for the immobilized system are Smn=11.1 mg/l, Snin =0.11, K'=10, Jp'=0.29, and Jn=0.29 mg/cm*day. Both systems cannot achieve the 10 mg effluent concentration since Snin values are greater than 10 mg/l. However, immobilization has an advantage because it has a closer Smin. Using the appropriate normalized curves, it can be found that for effluent concentrations of 1.000 mg/l, J=31.6 mg/cm*day for the turbulent biofilm, and J=3.8 mg/em*day for the immobilized bed. Therefore, for 1,000 mg/l the turbulent system is advantageous due to its higher J as a consequence of X; and D;being higher. 45 2 __Smins Snin afd dg depend only on kinetic parameters, which are given. Using Eqs. 11 and 1 we find that Snin®0.119, and Spin =0.238 mgN/. Je can be computed with Jn and Eq. 12. We find that Jp'=0,583 using the Value of Spin and the Cannon curve. Alternatively, Je'=0.616 can be computed from Jq'=[2(Sq-in(1+S_)}°°, finding Sq =0.749 from f=0,99=tanh{ai(Sa/Smq-1)"], with a=1.784 and B=0.518 (Eqs. 4 and 5). Considering Jn =0.616, we compute Jn=4.77x107 mgN/(em*day) from Eq. 12. b. Having Smr=0.238 mgN/ and calculating K'=1.49 (Eq. 3), we anticipate that the desired curve should be roughly similar to the normalized curve corresponding to Spin =0.25 and K'=1. To get a better approximation, we interpolate using the values of the four curves corresponding to the combination of Spie'=0.1, 0.26 and K'=1, 10. Alternatively, we use the steady-state biofilm model (Eqs. 4 to 8) to calculate J from different values of S, and therefore, generate pairs Jip VS. S/Spin to construct the curve. Both curves are shown in the following graph. 10 0p 2 a 2 Normatznd eating cuves| 7 -#~-Steady.stato bof Slim 102 te4 1040 tert In c. The steady-state mass balance is (Eq.14): 'S [mgN/em’]=0.03 [mgN/em’] - J [mgN/(cm*day)] * 1 [em] * 6 [day] d. —_ Superimposing any curve from part b and the plots of the mass balance for each 0 (plots of the steady- state mass balance normalized dividing by Jz Snir), We find the intersections representing the points that satisfy both kinetics and the mass balances. This is represented in the following graph. The values found for S are shown in parte. | 4, 10) Slim te-2 te4 tes tee tex oh . @,f The plot of S vs. @ derived from the last graph is the following. The same plot shows of S° vs 0, and its linearization (on the secondary axis). The first-order degradation rate obtained by this method is 2.9, with a correlation of 0.996, which suggest linearity. It should be noted that for 0=0 h, S'/S=1 30y 90 257 - 1 52° ————— | 60 z o i e ow 28%) - 6 R=0.998 | 55 am ° ° 4 8 12 16 20 24 o@ 'S (mg) So/S— Linear (Se Alternatively, the points derived from the application of the steady-state biofilm model (part b) can be used directly to generate the same type of plot. The first-order degradation rate obtained by this alternative method is, 3.5, as shown in the next figure. 4 oy S (mgNi) ° 4 8 12 16 20 24 ee “8 (mgW/I}° So/S— Linear (S These results show that S°/S vs 0 follow an apparent first-order relationship, with an intercept different to zero. 46 The effluent from each module must satisfy the mass balance (Eq. 14). The flux within the mass balance depends implicitly on the effluent concentration; this relationship is given by the steady-state biofilm model. To solve this problem we iterate. First we guess S, the effluent concentration, then calculate J with the steady-state biofilm model (Eqs. 4 to 10), and compute a checking $ with the mass balance (Eq. 14). The following table summarizes the iterations made to find $=128.8 mg/l. eration 7 2 3 a 3 6 7 Some (al) 5 50 700 i) 125 730 85 Seas (MM) wat | 257 [Wai | 900 | 1044 | tara | 1293 4.7 The effiuent from each module must satisfy the mass balance (Eq. 14). The flux within the mass balancé depends implicitly on the effluent concentration; this relationship is given by the loading curve. To solve this problem we can iterate or use a graphical method (superimposing the loading curve with the mass balance for each reactor). We must add new modules until we calculate an effluent concentration of 1 mg//or less. The normalized curve parameters are Sqis=0.3825 mgN/I (Eq. 11), Smn'=0.3826 (Eq. 1), Je =0.8874 (Cannon curve), and Jg=0.3069 mg/em’day (Eq. 12). We don't have L to calculate K’, but L is so small that K" is large; for practical purposes we can use the normalized curves for K'=100. Using the curves for Smin'#0.25 and Spin'#0.5 to interpolate for Snin=0.38, and concentrating in the range of 1 to 100 for S/Smun (since S should be less than 50 mg/l), we get the curve shown below (plotted for convenience in J vs. S axes). This figure also shows the mass balances (Eq. 14) for the first and second module. The effluent concentration for the second module meets the effluent requirement (S=0.5 mg/< 1 mg/l), while the effiuent concentration of the first module is 5.5 mg/l. Therefore, two modules are needed. tet: ve Lil “CEE lil 1e-3 1e-2 fe-1 1e+0 te+t J (mg! Cray) Loading curve: MB. module 2-—— MB. module 4.8 The three concentrations wanted must satisfy simultaneously three mass balances, one mass balance per reactor. The flux within each mass balance depends implicitly on the effluent concentration through the steady- state biofilm model. Therefore, the equations must be solved by trial and error. The following procedure can be used to find the desired concentrations: ove sth | (@)Caleulate JS.) (5) CaleulateS, Ifthe caloulted S, is cles to cfflunt fiom the steady. fiom the muss | 400 mg then stop. eoncentition of state biofilm model balance for the Otherwise goto seo (1 y a a = ee (©) Calenlate JS.) (© Cateuate 18,1 | (Caleulste, fiom the steady- | fiom the mass fiom the steady) from the mass sae biotin mode! | | _balaee forthe state biofilm model balance for the frst ‘The next table show the iterations performed to find that Sy= 96.02 mg/l, $2=19.37 mg/, and Ss .72 mg/l. 709 Tas 45 0205 7.19 ae Ta 150 0088 771 OATS wae zi024 | 18578 250 0788 7308 O75 3590 3375 78078 370 O24 927 7148 e658 £580 390.19 4.9 The process and its main variables are represented by the following diagram. $5000 met 8 Say) Somat Teron wancTons |_$:_[azxcrons L$! aanorona |S 1009 _ Area A Fin Ama A Fh) Arca A Fh As A Fie ‘The required area must satisfy simultaneously four mass balances. one for each reactor. The flux within each mass balance is given by the loading curve. This gives a total of 4 equations and 4 unknowns (A, S1, S2, Ss). Since the kinetic parameters are the same for all four reactors, the same loading curve (J vs. S),is applicable for K all of them. To find the appropriate loading curve we must find first Sjy,=8.333 mg/ (Eq. 11), Spin =0.0417 (Eq. 1), .667 (Eq. 3), Jn'=0.1142 (Cannon curve), and Ja=0.4568 mg/(cm* day) (Eq. 12). It is also worth to note that we are interested just in the range of S between 100 and 5,000 mg/l, or S/Smix between 10 and 600, approximately. Interpolating between the normalized curves for Snin'=0.025 and Sin and converting S/Snin VS. Jidr to S vs. J, we obtain the following curve. tee 1e+0 J (mgs *dey) (05, with K’ and K'=10, tea From Eq. 14, the mass balance equations are: Q-(S-S)= 35) (1) Q(S2-8)=fS]A Qi -S2)= 2} Q-(Ss-S4)=YSa}-A (4) Where Sp=5,000 mg/l, S4=100 mg/l, and J[S,J=1 mg/cm’ day) (from the loading curve). It is clear from the structure of (1) to (4) that the best option is to guess S;. With Ss, J[Ss] can be readily computed, which allow us to calculate Sz from (3) and (4). Similarly, S: can be computed from J[S2], (2), and (3). With S;, a checking value for ‘So can be computed from J[S, (1), and (2). If the calculated value for So is near to 5,000 mg/l, then S:, Sz, and S3 are correct, and A can be easily calculated (e.g. adding (1) to (4), and solving for A). Otherwise, a better Ss is Needed. The following table summarizes the iterations required to find A=76,000 m*. This means that we need approximately 304,000 m’ (four times A) to achieve the treatment goal. & | J | & | Ja | & | wa | & | A mgt mgfem* day mg mg/em'day mgf mg/em*day mgt at 600 6 3100 8 72100 : E : 200 z 400 36 760 65 | 140 = 400 36 1480 04 wi | 28 T1410 E 300 27 340 75 2340 15 5340 E To verify the result we can apply the same trial and error strategy, but using the steady-state biofilm model instead of the loading curve. This approach gives a total area near 290,000 m* 4.10 The nonsteady-state substrate concentration S must satisfy the mass balance and the nonsteady-state biofilm kinetics. This suggest a trial and error procedure. Since the influent concentration was reduced from 200 to 20 mg/l, we can start with S=0.1°2=0.2 mg/l. We also assume that Li=0.0318 cm (calculated from Eqs. 9 and 10) remains constant. With this information we use the nonsteady-state biofilm model to find J=0.00973 mg/(cm’ day). (n -0.25043. $s*=0,01027, J*=0.00769, Ss""=0.01027, $=3.9904, n'=0.25043), Plugging J into the mass balance (Eq.14), and solving for S, we obtain 000973 lterating we find that S=0.1965 mg/, with J=0.00956 mg/(cm* day). 4.41. Starting with S=0.4 mg/l, and applying the same strategy as in problem 4.10 we find that $=0,3830 mg/, with J=0.01912 mg/(om® day). 4.12 Using the nonsteady-state model (Eqs. 19 to 29), we obtain the following results. 7 F 7 |mglem*de 7000 | 0012 | 0018 0900 | 0116 | o.17e 0745 | 0.352 | 0527 008s [0.355 [0502 4.13 Having the methanol effluent concentration and the kinetic parameters we use the steady-state biofiim model to find that J=0.0733 mg/(cm’ day), with a=1.9167, B=0.5260, Ss =0.0727, J'=0.0642. Knowing the flux, we can find the required surface area using the steady-state mass balance (Eq. 14). However, we need to find first the influent concentration. The influent concentration should be enough to provide the required electrons to denitrify the 30 mgNOs-NI. This relationship is given by the stoichiometry of the process. 1d 1 - Rg: 2+2120-+200) +Ht +e a Gt gHa0 > FC02 ty 3 eee N21 +3420 NO; + SH +. To 25 SNR SH te L u 1 Nor 4 5.0, 42H ee" fe! 2 CsH70.N+1H,0 > No; +200, +28 +e iad al 2? 23 38 2 “38 and 12 [Etta b-0y The overall reaction is given by: R=Re-f.R--fRe, where f+ [86 +b a typical value. We also need to convert ¥ to f° by: We assume f=0.8, #2 =0.27BVSS__32gCHjOH 28 4y gy yccg gp . ECH,OH Ge, ‘113 gVSS The overall reaction is: 0.05 day"! soe. 1 (1=0.8)-0.05 day“!.33 day 140,05 day *-33 day 0.1791 R 0.1667 CHjOH_ +0.1706 NO} + 0.1706 H* + 0.0064 CsH702N + 0.3963 130 +0.1347 COp + 0.0821 Np ‘Therefore, to remove 30 mgNO3-N/I we must consume: 30 MENOF=N _LmmoINOF_ 0.1667 mmolCHjOH _32mgCH,OH__ ,,mgCH,OH 1 "T4imgNO3—-N 0.1706 mmolNO; 1 mmolCH30H T Finally, from Eq. 14: my em? 1000 Er BECHLOH gory BEPC Gy) Pe? ag grt ara = 81.4? 3 ory OO 4.14 Using the same procedure of Problem 4.10 and the results from Problem 4.139, we find Lj=0.01237 cm. Starting with $=2°1=2 mgCH.OH/I, after some iterations we get S=1.99 mgCH,OH/I, with n 0.66642, ‘$s*=0.14539, J*=0.10111, Ss"=0.14539, =1.31509, n'=0.66642, and J=0.1444 mgCH,OH/(om*day). 4.15 a. Using the steady-state biofilm model (Eqs. 4 to 8) we find that kg/m? day (Spin =0.102, K'=1.007, and $'=0.4). 5573 mg/cm’ day, or b. The influent COD concentration must provide enough electrons to reduce the effluent concentration of sulfate to 1 mgS/. The fraction of electrons going to the electron acceptor is: 1 1 (-08)-004 day"? (0 EAU) 8-0e gg 18008) 004 tt rg f= 1+b-0x 140.04 day"! da a 0005 The influent COD should be equal to the consumed COD during the process plus the effluent COD: 3 ge - 8? =4+(00-1-B8S 8:10 esutfae _lscamte _32 mgCOD__, 5 _ agg mgCOD 1 32mgS 0.977 exuttate 4-10 7 c Using the mass balance (Eq. 14), we get: 3 2 em? Es 1 mg mg ot ay 100% em 2 1,000,000 (206 ~ 4) E = 0.5573 22.100 m“!-v = V= Reg. volume = 362.5 m day 00S 005-7 Sa day nm : ‘The hydraulic retention time is =V/Q=0.36 days. a. Using Eq. 9, we get the total biofilm accumulation X*L~=0.6997 mgVSS,/cm’. Considering that this biomass distributed in reactor volume we get: 3 xy ELEY tae 067 ESS 00 won 00058 = enn HEE The effiuent concentration of active biomass. mgVSS, 3 ena ° eS ee eer bs, = = a 1,000 day f. We use the normalized curve for Spin =0.1 (Eq. 1), K'=1, and S/Spic#4, to realize that J/Jg is not in the low load region, and therefore, the process Is affected by transport resistance. Quantitatively, we can calculate 1=48 um (Eq.16), L1=1.63 (deep, Eq. 17), and L'=0.92 (not <<1, Eq. 18). Therefore, Ly shows internal mass transport resistance, while L’ shows external mass transport resistance. 4.16 To solve this model either by the normalized loading curves or the steady-state-biofilm model, we need to calculate the non-dimensional parameters. We have all the required kinetic parameters, except bye. To estimate ‘ae in a fluidized-bed reactor, we can use the equation relating bye and the shear stress «, which can be estimated from the fluidization process. 2 8 om (op - Pw) 1-e)-@_ 25D 5 1-046) 980 yng Tyo tm SS A 3.2401, em m 1000m Hf we assume that L‘<30 jum, then beet can be estimated as (note that this formula requires « to be expressed in dynefem’): bbyg = 84207 Yr = 0.5383 day”! Therefore, b'=b+Dsa=0.08+0.5383=0.6183 day”. This gives Snn=5.2 mg/l (Eq. 11). Considering that the effluent substrate concentration is 1.0 mg/, itis then clear that this system cannot sustain biomass in steady state (S

    You might also like