This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in ﬁxed bed reactors
Rangaraj Ganesh • Rajagopal Rajinikanth • Joseph V. Thanikal • Ramamoorty Alwar Ramanujam Michel Torrijos
Received: 28 May 2009 / Accepted: 8 October 2009 / Published online: 30 October 2009 Ó Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract The treatment of winery wastewater in three upﬂow anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors (S9, S30 and S40) with low density ﬂoating supports of varying size and speciﬁc surface area was investigated. A maximum OLR of 42 g/l day with 80 ± 0.5% removal efﬁciency was attained in S9, which had supports with the highest speciﬁc surface area. It was found that the efﬁciency of the reactors increased with decrease in size and increase in speciﬁc surface area of the support media. Total biomass accumulation in the reactors was also found to vary as a function of speciﬁc surface area and size of the support medium. The Stover–Kincannon kinetic model predicted satisfactorily the performance of the reactors. The maximum removal rate constant (Umax) was 161.3, 99.0 and 77.5 g/l day and the saturation value constant (KB) was
162.0, 99.5 and 78.0 g/l day for S9, S30 and S40, respectively. Due to their higher biomass retention potential, the supports used in this study offer great promise as media in anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactors. Anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors with these supports can be applied as high-rate systems for the treatment of large volumes of wastewaters typically containing readily biodegradable organics, such as the winery wastewater. Keywords Anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactor Á Floating supports Á Speciﬁc surface area Á Winery wastewater Á Biomass attachment Á Kinetic model
Introduction Anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater has become a viable technique thanks to the development of a range of high-rate reactors based on such technology as anaerobic ﬁlters, UASB, ﬂuidized or expanded beds . High-rate anaerobic reactors offer the advantage of high-load systems requiring much less volume and space. Such advantages are of interest to those industries which produce large amounts of highly concentrated wastewater, notably the food, paper, and pulp industries . High-performance anaerobic treatment in ﬁxed-bed reactors has been applied very successfully to wastewater from agribusiness industries that use agricultural products containing typically high concentrations of organic substrates that are readily degraded by anaerobic bacteria [3, 4]. Winery wastewater is a classic example of such agribased waste. Wine production is one of the foremost agriindustries in Mediterranean countries, and it has also acquired importance in a large number of countries in other parts of the world (e.g. Australia, Chile, United States,
R. Ganesh Á R. Rajinikanth Á M. Torrijos (&) Laboratoire de Biotechnologie de l’Environnement, INRA, UR50, Avenue des Etangs, 11100 Narbonne, France e-mail: email@example.com R. Ganesh e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org R. Ganesh Á R. A. Ramanujam Department of Environmental Technology, Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), Chennai 600020, India R. A. Ramanujam e-mail: email@example.com R. Rajinikanth Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, India e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org J. V. Thanikal Department of Civil Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore 641006, India e-mail: email@example.com
The inﬂuence of the size and speciﬁc surface area of the supports on biomass retention and reactor performance was investigated. along with the seasonal nature of wine production. surface energy and chemical composition. The high amount of efﬂuent produced. anaerobic digestion offers advantages over aerobic treatment. surface area.000 mm height 9 125 mm diameter) were used for the study. Temperature and pH were measured online with the help of probes inserted through the top of the reactor. The aim of the work presented here was to study the treatment of winery wastewater using anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors with small ﬂoating supports. involving efﬂuent with high COD but low nitrogen and phosphorus content. Several treatment alternatives for winery wastewater have been proposed by many authors based on both aerobic and anaerobic processes. The main characteristics of the supports are shown in Table 1. with increasing impact on the economy of these countries. reduction of bulking problems. porosity. Based on anaerobic systems are anaerobic ﬁlters . 22]. Along with these. shock loadings or changes in pH and temperature . which passed through a U-tube for separation of gas. UASB [18. The reactors were made of Plexiglas with an effective volume of 10 l.8 and 0. ﬁbers. The wastewater can be treated as it is produced or can be stored for treatment over several months. for collection of efﬂuent. ﬁxed bed bioﬁlm reactors (FBBR)  and membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems . Characteristics of support media Three small polyethylene ﬂoating carriers (S9. including periods of inactivity [5. surface charge. S30 and S40) were used as media for biomass immobilization and retention. The major factors inﬂuencing bacterial attachment include roughness. jet-loop reactors [6. with a liquid upﬂow velocity between 0. The feed wastewater was pumped into the bottom of the reactor by means of a peristaltic pump. Wineries have seasonal activity producing wastewater mainly during harvesting and at the time of winemaking. hydrophily. Aerobic bioﬁlm systems such as FBBR are an alternative to the conventional activated sludge plants as these systems offer advantages such as low reactor volume requirements. Materials and methods Reactor details Three upﬂow anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors of similar dimensions (1. 11]. Each reactor was ﬁlled with randomly distributed supports to 80% of reactor volume. The different types of support material studied in ﬁxed-bed reactors include Raschig rings. resulting in an efﬂuent with a high solids concentration and turbidity . These relate to the volume and composition of the wastewater produced and consequently treatment plants must be versatile in relation to the loading regime and at the same time be able to cope with a succession of start-ups and closedowns. plastic cylinders. hybrid reactors  and anaerobic SBR . The use of conventional activated sludge systems is sometimes problematic due to bad settling properties of the sludge caused by the development of ﬁlamentous bacteria or the formation of dispersed ﬂocs. ridges and degree of smoothness of the support material [27–30]. aerobic bioﬁlm systems such as RBC  and more recently advanced treatment systems such as moving bed bioﬁlm reactors . Compared to aerobic processes. Kinetic model application was carried out for the prediction of the performance of the reactors. the absence of return ﬂow and backwashing due to the high void ratio of the ﬁlling media and an easier management with respect to the conventional activated sludge plants . Thus. Because of the retained biomass associated with the packings the process is stable with respect to high organic loadings. The characteristics of the support material used determine biomass retention and. 1. string-shaped plastic media saddles. the efﬁciency of the treatment system .9 m/h throughout the experiment. anaerobic process do not require oxygen and therefore are less energy intensive and sludge production is much less making the process simpler and cheaper [16. 123 . A perforated plate was placed at the bottom to obtain uniform ﬂow of feed across the reactor. at the top and above the support medium level. The reactor liquid was recirculated from the top to the bottom by means of a recirculation pump at a rate of 10 l/h. The reactors were equipped with hot water jackets to maintain a mesophilic temperature of 35 °C. macro. The supports were cylindrical in shape and bafﬂed with compartments. hence. pall rings. 23–26].620 Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 South Africa and China). Anaerobic digesters have the advantage of re-starting rapidly after a shutdown . clay blocks [17. 19]. 12]. Provision was made in the reactor. These supports are suitable thermoplastic materials as biological carriers and are inexpensive. in winery wastewater treatment. many other features also inﬂuence biomass retention capability: microcrystals. nontoxic and non-reactive in most biological applications. SBR systems [10. 6]. The schematic diagram of the reactor is shown in Fig. raises speciﬁc problems for the treatment process. Based on aerobic systems are conventional activated sludge systems [8. Anaerobic upﬂow reactor is a packed-bed reactor where biomass can be retained or attached to packings.and micro-pores. 9].
0 ml 10 N NaOH/l feed). 123 . The carrier gas was nitrogen (25 kPa).25–1 g/l by dilution of the standard solution. 0.92 0.000 17. The volume of sample injected was 1 ll. The temperature increased from 80 to 120 °C in 3 min. 23 and 11 numbers. diluted wine with a COD concentration of around 20 g/l was used as feed for the experiments. the supports were placed in aluminum foil and oven dried for 24 h. The column used was a semi-capillar Econocap FFAP (Alltech) column with 15 m length. 16. The calibration range was 0.140 Analytical methods Efﬂuent samples were analyzed for alkalinity.200–20. Quantiﬁcation of attached/entrapped solids At the end of the experiment. the reactors were emptied to quantify the amount of volatile solids inside the reactors. Sludge from a large-scale anaerobic reactor treating distillery vinasse was used as inoculum for the reactors. 31] to maintain a minimum COD:Tot N:P ratio of 400:7:1. Fisons instruments) equipped with a ﬂame ionization detector and an automatic sampler (AS 800.500 mg/l vials. 1 Schematic diagram of the anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactor Table 1 Characteristics of supports Media S9 S30 S40 Dimension (D) 9 H (mm) 997 30/35 9 29 40/45 9 35 Surface area (m2/m3) 800 320 305 Density (kg/m3) 0. Fig. The internal standard method (1 g of ethyl-2-butyric acid in 1 l of water acidiﬁed with 50 ml of H3PO4) was used to measure total VFA concentration by mixing 1/1 volume of the internal standard solution and the sample or the standard solution. Fisons instruments). propionic (C3).5–1.Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Table 2 Characteristics of feed winery wastewater Parameter pH Total suspended solids (mg/l) Volatile suspended solids (mg/l) Total COD (mg/l) Soluble COD (mg/l) TOC (mg/l) Value 8–11 621 150–200 100–130 18. To estimate the volatile solid content. S30 and S40) starting from the top (near the outlet) to the bottom (above the sludge bed). respectively. valeric (C5) and iso-valeric (iC5) acids at 1 g/l each.000 4. Due to the low nutrient content present in winery wastewater. thus providing an initial VSS concentration of 4 g/l in the reactors. The margin for error of this measurement was between 2 and 5% with a quantiﬁcation threshold of 0. oven-dried solid samples were scrapped from the supports and ignited at 550 °C for 2 h.94 0. isobutyric (iC4). One liter of concentrated sludge with a volatile solids (VS) content of 40 g/l was used to inoculate each reactor. the addition of nitrogen and phosphate sources is recommended for cellular growth in the biological treatment process [14.95 Feed characteristics and reactor inoculum To simulate winery wastewater. Supports were removed by batches of 1 L (645. To estimate total solids. Volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration was measured using a gas chromatograph (GC-8000. for S9.53 cm diameter and Phase ECTM 1000 ﬁlm 1. butyric (C4).1 g/l. The temperature of the spitless injector was 250 °C. The feed was made alkaline with the addition of NaOH (0. TSS and VSS according to the procedures given in Standard Methods .2 lm.000–21. The calibration was made from a mixture of 6 acids (standard solution): acetic (C2). the temperature of the detector was 275 °C. The main characteristics of the feed are given in Table 2.400–5. and was supplemented with nutrients corresponding to a COD/N/P ratio of 400/7/1 . Total and Soluble COD was measured by colorimetric method using Hach 0–1.
however.4% shows that winery wastewater is highly biodegradable. the non VFA-COD at outlet (Fig.060 77. At low OLR (below 6 g/l day).3 162. The main results for the three reactors with the different supports are summarized in Table 3. The OLR was gradually increased by 10–20% once a week. Initially. 2 shows the example of the reactor ﬁlled with S9. An 80% removal efﬁciency was considered as the threshold level. with refractory soluble COD representing less than 1. In cases where the COD remained high after an OLR increase. g Speciﬁc biomass activity. This period of 2 weeks. considered as the acclimation phase. g COD/l day Saturation value constant (KB). the aim was to attain the maximum loading rate while maintaining 80% removal efﬁciency.7 to 0. The inﬂuent COD was maintained constant and OLR was gradually increased over time by decreasing the hydraulic retention time (HRT). corresponding to a removal efﬁciency of 98%.4 g/l day.0 99.5 S40 22 225 162 63 0. the efﬂuent COD remained quite high. The soluble COD removal rate of 98.6% of Table 3 Comparison of reactor performance with the different supports used Parameters Maximum OLR attained. the OLR was temporarily decreased by 10–20% to ensure lower COD at outlet with corresponding removal efﬁciency higher than 80%. is the primary constituent of winery wastewater). provided that COD removal efﬁciency remained above 80%. g VSS/g CODdes Maximum removal rate constant (Umax). can be considered as the non-biodegradable COD fraction of winery wastewater. g COD/l day (for 80% COD removal efﬁciency) Total reactor volatile solids. respectively. was.93 0. the variations with OLR for non VFA-COD and VFA-COD in the efﬂuent at the reactor outlet. g Suspended volatile solids.4 g/l. which was at fairly constant and very low values. g COD/l day S9 42 354 302 52 1. quite rapid given the type of wastewater employed (ethanol. 3).053 99.19 0. both for safe operation and from an economical point of view. the reactor with S9 was operated at a low OLR of around 0. Biodegradability of winery efﬂuent Results and discussion Operation of the reactors The same operational strategy was employed for all the three reactors and Fig.98 0.5 78. The average non-biodegradable COD in the treated efﬂuent was 320 mg/L. example of reactor with S9 Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Experimental design The experimental protocol was designed to examine the effect of increasing organic loading rates (OLR) on COD removal efﬁciency in the three upﬂow anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors ﬁlled with the different polyethylene ﬂoating carriers.056 161. Figures 2 and 3 show. 2 Typical operating strategy of the reactors. g COD/g VSS day Biomass yield.622 Fig.3–0. which is readily biodegradable. g Attached/entrapped volatile solids.0 123 . During the ﬁrst 2 weeks of operation at this loading rate. then decreased gradually from 2.0 S30 27 291 225 66 0.
27 and 22 g/l day for S9. thus.67. removal efﬁciency was always higher and. 4). respectively. This shows that above 15 g/l day. Between 6 and 15 g/l day. corresponding to the maximum OLR of 42. Reactor performance Figure 5. better than the reactor with S40. 33]. Fig.42 and 1. non-VFA-COD increased very little (Fig. VFA was always in the range of 2–3 g COD/l and increase in COD at outlet were mainly linked to a gradual increase in the non VFA-COD. were 1. which presents the changes in COD removal efﬁciency related to the OLR. S30 and S40. Acetic acid was the major VFA component in all the reactors but there was a slight build-up in propionic. soluble COD at outlet always lower for reactor S9 compared to S30 and.04 g/l. For OLR above 15 g/l day. 21. The maximum OLRs attained while maintaining above 80% removal efﬁciency were 42. indicating the presence of other anaerobic intermediates or of non-acidiﬁed organic matter. 3) and any increase in COD at outlet was mainly linked to VFA accumulation (Fig. 1. 5 indicates that. butyric and valeric acid concentrations remained less than 0. gives an overview of the behavior of the three reactors. These results show that quite a high OLR could be applied to the reactors ﬁlled with the ﬂoating supports and that the reactor with S9 performed better than that with S30 which was. This 123 . in turn. 4 Variation of VFA-COD at outlet with OLR initial soluble COD. Furthermore. 3 Variation of Non VFACOD at outlet with OLR 623 Fig. The acetic acid concentration in S9. butyric and valeric acid concentrations as the OLR increased. 27 and 22 g/l day. S30 and S40. The residual COD concentrations measured were close to those reported earlier [10. Propionic. similarly. for reactors S9 and S30 compared to S40. respectively.5 g/l at these OLRs. the acidiﬁcation of the organic matter started to deteriorate and this phenomenon was more pronounced when the size of the support was bigger.Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Fig. for a given loading rate.
7 kg/m3 day with 82% COD removal efﬁciency. the reactor volume required is signiﬁcantly reduced thus contributing to substantial savings in land area and economics. 5 Soluble COD removal efﬁciency with respect to OLR Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Table 4 Different anaerobic reactor conﬁgurations studied for winery wastewater References This study This study This study Yu et al.624 Fig. 19].  Reactor type Anaerobic ﬁxed bed Anaerobic ﬁxed bed Anaerobic ﬁxed bed Anaerobic ﬁlter UASB UASB Anaerobic hybrid (UASB ? ﬁlter) Anaerobic SBR Media S9 S30 S40 String shaped plastic media Activated microbial pellets Granular sludge Granular sludge ? Enterobacter Flocor R Anaerobic sludge OLR (kg/m3 day) 42 27 22 37.6 % COD removal 80 ± 0. For the conventional activated sludge systems [8.1 6. FBBR  and MBR systems . The comparison of the results of this study with the data from the literature clearly shows that the supports have high capability of biomass retention which facilitated the operation of the reactors at high OLRs. a hybrid system consisting of a UASB and an anaerobic ﬁlter  and an anaerobic SBR .3 82 84. Andreottola et al. with 93% COD removal. It can be seen that anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors offer enhanced performance in the treatment of winery wastewater in terms of high OLR and COD removal efﬁciency. Table 4 shows a general comparison of the performances of the anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors used in this study with various other reactor conﬁgurations used for the treatment of winery wastewater. These conﬁgurations studied were anaerobic ﬁlters .  Andreottola et al. Comparison with aerobic treatment systems A general comparison of the performance of different aerobic systems for the treatment of winery wastewater is shown in Table 5.  for biomass immobilization in an anaerobic ﬁlter reactor and the results reported were similar to those in the present study. moving bed bioﬁlm reactors .  Ruiz et al. The average COD loading rate attained was 10 kg/m3 day.7 10 5. COD removal efﬁciency of above 90% was achieved. String-shaped plastic media were used by Yu et al.2 80 ± 0.  Muller  Keyser et al. with a maximum loading rate of 37.4 86 90 93 98 indicates that the performance of reactor was enhanced by a decrease in size and an increase in the speciﬁc surface area of the supports used.  used a PVC-type ﬁlling material (Flocor R) with a speciﬁc surface area of 230 m2/m3 in the hybrid system (a single reactor with a combination of UASB and anaerobic ﬁlter).5 80 ± 0. The performances of the other reactor conﬁgurations were much lower. UASB [18. These systems are also capable of achieving COD removal efﬁciency above 90%. but at 123 . Higher OLR implies that for a constant volume of efﬂuent to be treated.3 10 8. Recently several advanced aerobic treatment systems were developed such as jet-loop reactors . 9] and SBR systems  operated with an OLR less than 1 kg COD/m3 day.
kg COD/m3 day 0.09 ± 0. 23 and 28% of total VS in the reactors.9 8. These values are quite high as a speciﬁc load between 1 and 1.93 and 0. respectively.  where values reported by the authors were 0.  1. 225 and 162 g.2 97 Flexible and stable to high seasonal loads Problems with membrane modules lifetime and maintenance relatively higher loading rates. This speciﬁc activity is close to 0.  Reactor type Long term-activated sludge Activated sludge Aerobic SBR Jet-loop activated sludge High rate aerobic Aerobic sequencing batch bioﬁlm Aerobic ﬁxed bed bioﬁlm (two-stage) OLR. The speciﬁc mass loading rates or speciﬁc biomass activity. though no signiﬁcant difference between the reactors was recorded. The VS yields for the three reactors were quite close with 0. Finally. S30 and S40. The average attached/entrapped volatile solids per support were 0.8 8. were. no backwashing required. 0. Quantiﬁcation of suspended and attached/entrapped solids At the end of the experiment.2 86–99 Salient features 625 Efﬁcient than conventional activated sludge process Very high retention time required High solids retention time (48 days) resulted in low excess sludge production Highly ﬂexible to seasonal loads Suitable for small wineries Sludge settling problems Reduction in reactor space requirement High organic load removal Online control of biodegradation process possible No sludge recycle required Andreottola et al. The average efﬂuent TSS for the entire study period was 839 ± 425 mg/l for S9.33 g VS/support for S9. S30 and S40. Anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactor with the ﬂoating supports used in the present study allows operation at high OLRs (22–42 kg COD/m3 day) with a removal efﬁciency of 80%.  Torrijos and Moletta.57 91 Simple management. an aerobic post-treatment is required to make the efﬂuent ﬁt for ﬁnal disposal.  for the anaerobic ﬂocculent sludge used in their study.0585 g VS/g COD removed.Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Table 5 Comparison with aerobic reactor conﬁgurations studied for the treatment of winery wastewater References Fumi et al.700 mg/l. Rapid start-up of reactor requires previously colonized ﬁlling media.  Brucculeri et al. S9 [ S30 [ S40 (301. for S9. respectively. 1. respectively. S30 and S40. 123 . Table 3 shows that the total quantity of attached/entrapped solids in the reactors was. The VS yield value obtained is in good agreement with those of Borja et al. S30 and S40 were. thanks to the supports. for S9. Suspended solids at outlet Efﬂuent total suspended solids (TSS) ﬂuctuated with changes in the OLR and ranged between 600 and 1.28 and 1. respectively) which indicates that biomass attachment increased with a decrease in the size of the supports coupled with an increase in the speciﬁc surface area.024.  Petruccioli et al.14–0. 355. 15. respectively. in decreasing order.052 ± 0. good settling sludge without bulking problems. Artiga et al. that is to say the organic load in terms of g COD/day divided by the quantity of volatile solids in the reactor.8 0. S30 and S40.90 g COD/g VSS day reported by Mosquera-Corral et al. respectively. the supports were removed from the reactors in batches of 1 L and the volatile solid concentration was measured in the sludge bed and in each of the 1 L support fraction.19.7 5. Anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactors are advantageous than conventional aerobic systems as they are less energy intensive and produces less excess sludge.5 g COD/g VSS day is generally considered to be the upper limit for the stable operation of an anaerobic reactor .  Andreottola et al. 1. thus contributing to lower reactor volume and land area requirements. 0.8 % COD removal 98 90 93 90 92. for S9.  Membrane bioreactor (MBR) 2. respectively. The supports used were able to retain a considerable quantity of solids. respectively.053 and 0. the total quantity of volatile solids retained in each reactor increased signiﬁcantly in comparison to conventional CSTRs: values for the 10 l reactors S9. However.  and Tatara et al. The quantity of volatile solids in suspension in the liquid phase (Table 3) was fairly similar in the three reactors (52–66 g of VS) and represented. 290 and 225 g of volatile solids.06 and 0.  Petruccioli et al.056.4 kg BOD/m3 day 0. 859 ± 337 for S30 and 958 ± 438 for S40.98 g COD/g VSS day.060 g VS/g COD destroyed.65 ± 0.
KB. Similar observations were made by Henze and Harremoes . It was found that most of the solids were easily removed and very little remained attached to the surface of the supports.Se)] yields a straight line. inﬂuent substrate concentration (g/l). attached volatile solids were distributed almost identically throughout the reactor height. S30. volume of the reactor. and Se. Indeed. Weiland  and Alkalay et al. Umax.8 ± 1. with 1/Umax as the intercept and Fig. ﬂow rate (l/d). Thus. as follows: ðdS=dtÞÀ1 ¼ V=QðSi À Se Þ ¼ ðKB V=Umax Q Si Þ þ ð1=Umax Þ ð1Þ where dS/dt. V. Si. the substrate utilization rate is expressed as a function of the OLR by monomolecular kinetics.4 ± 4. indicating that there was no solids gradient.2 g VS/l. They concluded that bioﬁlm thickness is of limited signiﬁcance in ﬁxed-bed reactors since it makes up only a small part of the total percentage of biomass whereas the biomass suspended/entrapped in the gaps is of major importance: biomass builds up as particles suspended in the spaces. In the modiﬁed Stover–Kincannon model. Kinetic model application The most widely-used kinetic models for anaerobic ﬁlters include the Monod model  and the Stover–Kincannon model . forming the largest part and thus contributing considerably to overall activity. efﬂuent substrate concentration(g/l).3. S40) Fig. Two to three biocovered supports were subjected to a normal tap water pressure jet to evaluate the level of ﬁxation of solids on the supports. 6 Photographs of the biocovered supports (S9. Q. it was found that solids retention in all the three types of support was based on entrapment rather than on actual bioﬁlm formation. maximum utilization rate constant (g/l day). In all three reactors. 26. 6.2 ± 2. and 21. The plot between the inverse of the OLR V/(Q Si) and the inverse of the organic removal rate V/[Q(Si . In the present study. 7 Stover–Kincannon model application to the reactors 123 .9. saturation value constant (g/l day). Photographs of the biocovered supports at the end of the experiments are shown in Fig. the average volatile solids were 43.  using other supports. The major difference between these two models is the use of the total loading rate concept in the Stover–Kincannon model . substrate removal rate (g/l day).626 Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 The higher OLR of 42 g/l day attained in S9 can thus be attributed to the greater volatile solids present in the reactor as well as to its higher biomass activity. the Stover–Kincannon model was applied to the reactors for the evaluation of kinetic constants and for predicting the performance of the reactors.
37 g/l day .0 and 77. Anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors with small ﬂoating supports offer great promise as high-rate systems for the treatment of high COD wastewater which typically contains readily biodegradable organics. For example.0 g/l day (Table 3). Conclusion In this study. 7). 3. The high correlation coefﬁcient of 0.3 and 85. Anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors with these supports can be applied as high-rate systems for the treatment of large volumes of wastewaters typically containing readily biodegradable organics. S30 and S40. is used to predict the efﬂuent substrate concentration. 7. 4. The Eq.23 g/l day . The supports favored solids entrapment with very little or no bioﬁlm formation. and for textile wastewater 31.5 g/l day and the saturation value constant (KB) 162. the values of Umax and KB. respectively. 83. speciﬁc biomass activity and the maximum OLR were found to increase as support size decreased and its speciﬁc surface area increased. such as winery wastewater. For S9.0.Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Fig. Se ¼ Si À ½Umax Si =ðKB þ ðQ Si =V Þ ð2Þ 2. Volatile solid retention. Due to their higher biomass retention potential.3 and 186. were: for soybean wastewater. 99. the potential for the use of upﬂow anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors with low-density ﬂoating carriers as media for the treatment of winery wastewater was investigated and the following conclusions were drawn: 1. 99.99 obtained indicates that the modiﬁed Stover–Kincannon model can be satisfactorily used for the design of anaerobic ﬁxed-reactors treating winery wastewaters. 6.3. 8 Experimental and predicted efﬂuent COD for the reactors 627 KB/Umax as the slope (Fig. 123 . an aerobic post-treatment is required to make the efﬂuent ﬁt for ﬁnal disposal. respectively. such as the winery wastewater. 2 shown below. Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their gratitude to the French Embassy in India for funding and supporting the program. 5. 83. The modiﬁed Stover–Kincannon model gave accurate predictions about reactor performance and thus should be of effective use when applied to the design of anaerobic ﬁxed-bed reactors treating winery wastewater. The modiﬁed Stover–Kincannon model was applied to ﬁxed-bed reactors treating different substrates.5 g/l day . the supports used in this study offer great promise as media in anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactors. the maximum removal rate constant (Umax) was 161. 8 shows the experimental Se values and the predicted values using Eq. 2 for the three reactors. Anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactors are advantageous than conventional aerobic systems as they are less energy intensive and produces less excess sludge.5 and 78.69 and 45. However. 1 together with the values of Umax and KB obtained from Fig. A maximum OLR of 42 g/l day at 80% removal efﬁciency was attained in the reactor with the supports of smallest size and highest speciﬁc surface area. Fig. thus contributing to lower reactor volume and land area requirements. which is the reorganized form of Eq. Anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactor with the ﬂoating supports used in the present study allows operation at high OLRs (22–42 kg COD/m3 day) with a removal efﬁciency of 80%. Kinetic models were applied to the reactors to evaluate removal rate constants. for synthetic wastewater.
In: 21. Gladchenko M. Sossa K. Biores Technol 98:3080– 3083 Harendranath CS. Chem Eng J 122:87–92 References ´ 1. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 31:535–540 Borja R. In: Proceedings 2nd congress international sur le traitment des efﬂuents vinicoles. Martin A. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:29–34 7. J Wat Poll Cont Fed 48:9–16 Stover EL. In: Proceedings of the ﬁrst conference on ﬁxed-ﬁlm biological processes. Bioprocess Eng 16:311–314 Agamuthu P (1999) Speciﬁc biogas production and role of packing medium in the treatment of rubber thread manufacturing industry wastewater. Washington. Moletta R (1998) Application du procede SBR aux efﬂuentes viticoles: resultats de trois anne‘e de suivi. 25. Guerrero L. Federici F (2002) Aerobic treatment of winery wastewater using a jet-loop activated sludge reactor. Andreottola G. Balakrishnan M. Process Biochem 37:821–829 13. Lebrato-Martinez J. France Ruiz C. Di Berardino S. Schiappacasse M (1997) Microbial adherence studies for anaerobic ﬁlters. Bordeaux France 19. Bordeaux. Kings Island. Torrijos M. Lageiro M. Bioprocess Eng 16:65–70 ´ ´ 5. Mendez R (2007) Treatment of winery wastewaters in a membrane submerged bioreactor. Witthuhn RC. OH Yu HQ. Ragazzi M. Nardelli P. 35. Viljoen-Bloom M (2003) Microbiology of a biological contactor for winery wastewater treatment. Carballa M. Valcarcel MJ. Kincannon DF (1982) Rotating biological contactor scale-up and design. Nardelli P. Vidal G (2008) Anaerobic treatment of low-strength synthetic TCF efﬂuents and biomass adhesion in ﬁxed-bed systems. Kansal A. 39. In: 2nd international specialized conference on winery wastewater. Malandra L. Martinez de la Ossa E (1987) Activated sludge treatment of wine-distillery wastewaters. Weinheim 3. Sode K (2005) High-rate thermophilic methane fermentation on shortchain fatty acids in a down-ﬂow anaerobic packed-bed reactor. Chung HK (1989) Start-up and operation of anaerobic bioﬁlters with packing alternatives. Muller D (1998) Treatment of winery wastewater using UASB approaches: capability and efﬁciency. 19th edn. Moletta R (1997) Winery wastewater depollution by sequencing batch reactor. Lata K. Parodi G. Buchholz K (2005) High-rate anaerobic waste ¨ water treatment. Bordeaux. Villa R (2002) Treatment of winery wastewater in a sequencing batch bioﬁlm reactor. Cardoso Duarte JC (2004) Microbial characterization of activated sludge in jet-loop bioreactors treating winery wastewaters. Wolfaardt G. Andreottola G. Wat Sci Technol 33:7–15 Bouallagui H. 38. Urrutia H. 36. 34. Renew Sust Energ Rev 4:135–156 Choi YS. 26. Foladori P. Perez L. Britz TJ (2003) Treatment of winery efﬂuent with upﬂow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)–granular sludges enriched with Enterobacter sakazakii. Foladori P. WEF (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Artiga P. Satish K. Process Biochem 40:989–995 Alkalay D. Bioprocess Eng 21:151–155 Kalyuzhnyi S. KGaA. Sales D (1999) Anaerobic thermophilic ﬂuidized bed treatment of industrial wastewater: effect of F:M relationship. Harremoes P (1983) Anaerobic treatment of wastewater in ﬁxed ﬁlm reactors: a literature review. Parodi E. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. Andreottola G. In: Jordening HJ. Tang Y (2006) Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater using laboratory-scale multi. Perez M. 37. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 27:105–113 Williamson K. Borghei M. Kizimenko Y. Filibeli A (2002) Determination of kinetic constants of an anaerobic hybrid reactor. Wat Sci Technol 45:347–354 15. Bioresour Technol 52:45–51 9. Process Biochem 38:73–79 Sandhya S. Nardin F (1998) Demonstration plant experience of winery anaerobic treatment in a hybrid reactor. Biotechnol Lett 25:1893–1898 20. Singh A. Moletta R. Wat Sci Technol 15:1–101 Young JC. Bioprocess Eng 4:275–281 Henze M. Racault Y (1998) Aerobic biological treatment of winery efﬂuent using tanks in series. Bordeaux. Wat Sci Technol 35:249–257 11. 32. Wat Sci Technol 45:219–224 Rajeshwari KV. American Public Health Association. Marchetti R (1995) Optimization of long-term activated sludge treatment of winery wastewater. 41. Sales D. Weiland P.and single-fed ﬁlters at ambient temperatures. Hamdi M (2005) Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. 30. Decap J. Petruccioli M. Chang HN. Wulfert K (1986) Anaerobic treatment of stillage using different pilot scale ﬁxed bed reactors.628 Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 Proceedings of the Second International conference on wineries wastewater treatment. Federici F. Yamazawa A. Anuja K. Wat Sci Technol 51:89–98 10. Tay JH (1998) Kinetic analysis of anaerobic ﬁlter treating soybean waste. 23. Kishores VVN (2000) State of the art of anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. Sklyar V. Umrania VU (2007) Treatment of beet sugar wastewater by UAFB bioprocess. 5–7 May 12. Wilson F. Wat Res 32:3341–3352 ¨ ¨ Buyukkamaci N. Jimenez AM (1996) Kinetic behaviour of waste tyre rubber as microorganism support in an anaerobic digester treating cane molasses distillery slops. Cardoso J. Winter J (eds) Environmental Biotechnology: concepts and applications. Wat Res 37:4125–4134 14. Garrido JM. Battistoni P. 22. Delgenes JP (2002) Treatment of winery wastewater by anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Houbron E. Denicolo A (2005) Treatment of winery wastewater in a full scale ﬁxed bed bioﬁlm reactor. Romero LI. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on wineries wastewater treatment. Torrijos M. 28. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 40:85–99 ´ 6. Bolzonella D. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:800–809 4. Brucculeri M. AWWA. Chemosphere 38:3443–3461 ¨ 2. Sanchez E. 33. Wat Sci Technol 51:137–144 8. Ronquest LC. Silva A. Sousbie P. Petruccioli M. Fukui H. Wat Sci Technol 15:369–383 Farhadian M. 40. Zhao QB. Ben Cheikh R. Touhami Y. Bioprocess Eng 16:17–23 Tatara M. Wat Sci Technol 56:63–69 17. Eusebio A. Cecchi F (2005) Treatment of mixed municipal and winery wastewaters in a conventional activated sludge process: a case study. Dahab MF (1983) Effect of media design n the performance of ﬁxed-bed reactors. Belmar A. DC Canler JP. Jordening HJ. Perret JM. 29. France Mosquera-Corral A. Moletta R (2005) Winery and distillery wastewater treatment by anaerobic digestion. Swaminathan K (2006) Kinetic analysis of treatment of textile wastewater in hybrid column upﬂow anaerobic ﬁxed bed reactor. Chamy R. Gunaseelan A. Alary G. 31. Zietsman A. Keyser M. Rovatti M (1997) Startingup an anaerobic hybrid ﬁlter for the fermentation of wastewater from food industry. Process Biochem 41:2477–2481 18. Torrijos M. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 90:107–123 APHA. Goto M. Ueno Y. Wat Sci Technol 51:71–79 16. 27. Eusebio A. Lala K (1996) Immobilization in ﬁxed ﬁlm reactors: an ultrastructural approach. 123 . Shcherbakov S (2001) One and two stage upﬂow anaerobic sludge bed reactor pre-treatment of winery wastewater. McCarty PL (1976) A model of substrate utilization by bacterial ﬁlms. Converti A. Yu HQ. Bersi R. Shin EB. 24. Fumi MD.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.