Thesis-Presentation-Mashiur (1).chemical.pptx

about chemical Engineering

1. Effect of in-situ Methane (CH 4 ) Production on Nitrogen (N 2 ) Removal in a Granular Sludge Reactor SUPERVISOR Department of Chemical Engineering and Polymer Science SHAHJALAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SYLHET. Dr. Md. Salatul Islam Mozumder Professor & Rahatun Akter Assistant Professor Author MD. Mashiur Rahman Tusar Reg. No- 2016332027

2. Introduction Usual Treating Technologies Air stripping Ion exchange Breakpoint chlorination Biological nitrification-denitrification Ammonium ( ) in water   Municipal, industrial, and agricultural activities H armful to aquatic ecosystem N utrient levels and algae growth E utrophication Chosen Technology Biological nitrification-denitrification O ccurs via bacteria already present in the water Conversion of Ammonia and other substrate to promote necessary reactions Preliminary Analysis Depends on process conditions B ulk oxygen concentration Influent carbon concentration Thickness of the granule Hydraulic retention time and so on Time consuming bacteria Culture [1] [2,3] [4, 5] [6] [7, 8] [9]

3. Background of the study Conventional Nitrification-Dentrification Process     Autotrophic Organisms & )   Aerobic Heterotroph   Anoxic Heterotrophs   [10, 11, 12, 13, 14] [15, 16, 17]

4. Background of the study New Considerations Methanogens ( ): anaerobic respiration that uses molecular hydrogen to produce methane   Denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidizing (DAMO) archaea and bacteria   Three intermediates in denitrification: nitrite ( ), nitric oxide (NO), and nitrous oxide ( O )   O   A powerful greenhouse gas A radiative force 300 times that of carbon dioxide A key ozone-depleting material in the twenty-first century [18] [19, 20, 21] [22] [23, 24]

5. Research Objectives Objective #1 To find out the optimum process condition Objective #2 To extend the activated sludge model-2 for nitrification and denitrification including nitrifier denitrification process and methanogenesis process Objective #3 To evaluate the effect of bulk oxygen concentration on substrate and biomass fraction Objective #4 To determine the effect of influent organic carbon and Hydraulic Retention Time ( HRT ) on this extended model

6. Model Development E xtending the ASM-2 for nitrification and denitrification process by including nitrifier denitrification ( ND ) process and methanogenesis process MATLAB was used to evaluate the influence A mathematical model is set up and t he constructed model was implemented in AQUASIM Software  

7. Model Development - Stoichiometry

8. Model Development - Stoichiometry

9. Model Development – Kinetics Equation

10. Model Development Process Conditions Ammonium concentration was 100 gN /m 3 Reactor volume was 400 m 3 Granule radius 75 mm Flow rate was taken 2500 m 3 /d -1 Bulk oxygen concentration was maintained from 0.05-1.5 gO 2 /m 3 Organic carbon concentration was varied from 100 -700 gCOD /m 3 Involved bacteria Autotrophic bacteria 1 Aerobic heterotrophs 2 M ethanogens 4 Anoxic heterotrophs 3 A mmonium oxidizing bacteria N itrite oxidizing bacteria     DAMO B acteria A rchaea   On On   Competitors Compete for To produce Dissolved Oxygen ( ) ; & respectively Nitrate ( ) Nitrite ( ) Nitrite ( ) ; & respectively ; Dissolved organic substances respectively respectively Competitors Compete for To produce Dissolved organic substances Competition among active biomass

11. Model Development Wastewater is fed to the reactor through Line-1 by a DC Water Pump. A DC speed controller and a rotameter fall on the line to control and measure the flow rate respectively. Oxygen is supplied by an air pump continuously. The stream is recycled continuously via Line-2 and Line-4. Line-3 is to check as the concentration of NH 3 reaches at its optimum level. When it does, the treated liquid will be withdrawn through the same line. Meanwhile, the necessary reactions will happen inside the reactor. Working principle Schematic set-up of Granular Sludge Reactor

12. Results and Discussions Effect of oxygen concentration on substrate and biomass fraction on nitrogen removal HRT=6h; [ ] = 100 : S _in = 300 .   M aximum nitrogen removal (98%) at 0.55 Methanogenesis at a low concentration (< 0.45 ) L ower promotes and higher to   Increasing concentration advantages firstly to AOB & then to NOB above 0.8 , ammonium was almost fully converted to Max was at 0.65 hence the max (88%)  

13. Results and Discussions Effect of concentration on biomass distribution in the granules   HRT=6h; [ ] = 100 : S _in = 300 .   located outside; maximum at the surface of the granules AOB and NOB just below the I nert materials were in the center of the granules M ost of the bacteria are located near to the surface.  

14. Results and Discussions Effect of influent organic carbon on substrate and biomass fraction in this model HRT=6h; [ ] = 100 : S_ = 0.55   Max and total production at 200 and 300 respectively removal was increased 100 to 300 increased while both and got impeded   was increased sufficiently after 200 got advantages; limited growth of NOB Higher carbon enhanced , limitation to AOB maximum production was found at 300 .  

15. Results and Discussions Effect of Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) on nitrogen removal S_ = 0.55 ; [ ] = 100 S _in = 300   Max ( 97.86 ) was at the HRT 6 h due to balance activity among AOB, and maximal was found at 8h HRT L ower promotes and higher to   Lower HRT shows accumulation due to lack of sufficient time to grow AOB ; highest AOB at 8h HRT Maximum was found maximum at the lowest HRT Increasing HRT increased accumulation  

16. Results and Discussions Combined effect of HRT and bulk oxygen for maximum removal and CH 4 production   [ ] = 100 S _in = 300   Concentration [𝑔𝑁/𝑚3] Concentration [𝑔O2/𝑚3]   HRT=2.67h HRT = 4h HRT = 6h HRT = 8h HRT = 12h HRT = 24h Substrate Name Maximal Amount Process Conditions HRT Bulk Oxygen CH4 260.3075 2.67 h 0.10 N2_CH4 98.4874 12 h 0.25 N2_NO2 94.6369 8 h 0.50 N2_Total 98.4874 12 h 0.25 N2O 101.3705 24 h 0.50 Common Condition [ ] = 100 and Influent Organic Carbon = 300 Substrate Name Maximal Amount Process Conditions HRT Bulk Oxygen CH4 2.67 h N2_CH4 12 h N2_NO2 8 h N2_Total 12 h N2O 24 h Common Condition

17. Conclusions Low HRT promote High HRT promote hence lower pH Moderate HRT   Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) Low promote High increase X_H and production Moderate   Bulk Oxygen Concentration Organic Carbon Higher carbon enhances , X_H and decrease of AOB & NOB Lower carbon reduces DAMO and _ Moderate influent carbon   N2O-Process Condition [ ] = 100 O rganic carbon = 300 ; HRT = 24 h and S_ = 0.50 T his process condition must be avoided   [ ] = 100 O rganic carbon = 300 ; HRT = 6 h and S_ = 0.55   Optimum Process Condition

18. Recommendation and Future Work A granular sludge bioreactor is designed to treat ammonia-rich waste water Main concern is to convert ammonia to nitrogen gas Polypropylene or stainless steel bead will be used as a granule to maintain the growth of bacteria in a granular shape Aerobic bacteria will grow in the oxygen-rich outer layer of the granule and anaerobic microbial activities will be observed in the inner side of the granule Experimental set-up of Granular Sludge Reactor

19. References Du, Q.; Liu, S.; Cao, Z.; Wang, Y. Ammonium removal from aqueous solution using natural Chinese clinoptilolite. Sep. Purif . Technol. 2005, 44, 223–234. Peyravi , M.; Jahanshahi , M.; Alimoradi , M.; Ganjian , E. Old landfill leachate treatment through multistage process: Membrane adsorption bioreactor and nanofitration . Bioprocess Biosyst . Eng. 2016, 39, 1803–1816 Omar, H.; Rohani , S. Treatment of landfill waste, leachate and landfill gas: A review. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2015, 9, 15–32 Limoli , A.; Langone, M.; Andreottola , G. Ammonia removal from raw manure digestate by means of a turbulent mixing stripping process. J. Environ. Manag . 2016, 176, 1–10 Liu, L.; Pang, C.; Wu, S.; Dong, R. Optimization and evaluation of an air-recirculated stripping for ammonia removal from the anaerobic digestate of pig manure. Process Saf . Environ. Prot. 2014, 94, 350–357. Jorgensen, T.C.; Weatherley , L.R. Ammonia removal from wastewater by ion exchange in the presence of organic contaminants. Water Res. 2003, 37, 1723–1728. Rahmani , A.R.; Mahvi , A.H.; Mesdaghinia , A.R.; Nasseri , S. Investigation of ammonia removal from polluted waters by Clinoptilolite zeolite. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 1, 125–133. Zaghouane-Boudiaf , H.; Boutahala , M. Kinetic analysis of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol adsorption onto acid-activated montmorillonite from aqueous solution. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2011, 100, 72–78. Seruga , Przemysław et al. 2019. “Removal of Ammonia from the Municipal Waste Treatment Effuents Using Natural Minerals.” Molecules 24(20). Koch, G, K Egli , J R Van der Meer, and HJWST Siegrist. 2000. “Mathematical Modeling of Autotrophic Denitrification in a Nitrifying Biofilm of a Rotating Biological Contactor.” Water Science and Technology 41(4–5): 191–98. Matsumoto, Shinya et al. 2010. “Microbial Community Structure in Autotrophic Nitrifying Granules Characterized by Experimental and Simulation Analyses.” Environmental Microbiology 12(1): 192–206. Okabe, Satoshi, Tomonori Kindaichi , and Tsukasa Ito. 2005. “Fate of 14C-Labeled Microbial Products Derived from Nitrifying Bacteria in Autotrophic Nitrifying Biofilms.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71(7): 3987–94. Kindaichi , Tomonori, Tsukasa Ito, and Satoshi Okabe. 2004. “ Ecophysiological Interaction between Nitrifying Bacteria and Heterotrophic Bacteria in Autotrophic Nitrifying Biofilms as Determined by Microautoradiography -Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70(3): 1641–50.

20. References Lackner, Susanne, Akihiko Terada, and Barth F Smets . 2008. “Heterotrophic Activity Compromises Autotrophic Nitrogen Removal in Membrane-Aerated Biofilms: Results of a Modeling Study.” Water research 42(4–5): 1102–12. Koops , Hans-Peter, and Andreas Pommerening-Röser . 2001. “Distribution and Ecophysiology of the Nitrifying Bacteria Emphasizing Cultured Species.” FEMS Microbiology ecology 37(1): 1–9. De Clippeleir , Haydée et al. 2013. “One-Stage Partial Nitritation/Anammox at 15 C on Pretreated Sewage: Feasibility Demonstration at Lab-Scale.” Applied microbiology and biotechnology 97(23): 10199–210. Bock, E, and M Wagner. 2001. “Oxidation of Inorganic Nitrogen Compounds as an Energy Source. In ‘The Prokaryotes: An Evolving Electronic Resource for the Microbiological Community.’” link. springer- ny . com/link/service/books/10125l (Springer, NewYork ). Zeikus , J. G. 1977. “The Biology of Methanogenic Bacteria.” Bacteriological Reviews 41(2): 514–41. Ettwig , Katharina F et al. 2010. “Nitrite-Driven Anaerobic Methane Oxidation by Oxygenic Bacteria.” Nature 464(7288): 543–48. Haroon, Mohamed F et al. 2013. “Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane Coupled to Nitrate Reduction in a Novel Archaeal Lineage.” Nature 500(7464): 567–70. Raghoebarsing , Ashna A et al. 2006. “A Microbial Consortium Couples Anaerobic Methane Oxidation to Denitrification.” Nature 440(7086): 918 Zumft , Walter G. 1997. “Cell Biology and Molecular Basis of Denitrification.” Microbiology and molecular biology reviews 61(4): 533–616. Solomon, Susan, Martin Manning, Melinda Marquis, and Dahe Qin. 2007. 4 Climate Change 2007-the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge university press. Ravishankara , A R, John S Daniel, and Robert W Portmann . 2009. “Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century.” science 326(5949): 123–25

21. Acknowledgement To begin with, I sincerely appreciate the almighty Allah for His graces, strength, sustenance and above all, His faithfulness and love from the beginning of this research to the end. My unalloyed appreciation goes to my supervisors Professor Dr. Md. Salatul Islam Mozumder sir and Assistant Professor Rahatun Akter ma’am for their voluminous and invaluable contributions, supports and instructions throughout my studies. Your belief on me in this research have provided me with the degree of freedom to the fullest. The esoteric process of research would not have been possible if you were not there. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under your guidance. I would like to give special thanks to all respected teachers of Chemical Engineering and Polymer Science department for their kind cooperation and encouragement. I am grateful to all the officers, lab attendant and staffs of our department for their utmost support all the time. Last but not the least, I am extremely grateful to my family and friends for their constant source of inspirations.