Loading…

Comparison of Three Systems for Biological Greywater Treatment

Greywater consists of household wastewater excluding toilet discharges. Three systems were compared for the biological treatment of greywater at a similar hydraulic retention time of approximately 12–13 hours. These systems were aerobic treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, anaerobic treatment in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Water (Basel) 2010-06, Vol.2 (2), p.155-169
Main Authors: Hernandez Leal, L, Temmink, B.G, Zeeman, G, Buisman, C.J.N
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3
container_end_page 169
container_issue 2
container_start_page 155
container_title Water (Basel)
container_volume 2
creator Hernandez Leal, L
Temmink, B.G
Zeeman, G
Buisman, C.J.N
description Greywater consists of household wastewater excluding toilet discharges. Three systems were compared for the biological treatment of greywater at a similar hydraulic retention time of approximately 12–13 hours. These systems were aerobic treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, anaerobic treatment in an up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor and combined anaerobic-aerobic treatment (up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor + sequencing batch reactor). Aerobic conditions resulted in a COD removal of 90%, which was significantly higher than 51% removal by anaerobic treatment. The low removal in the anaerobic reactor may have been caused by high concentration of anionic surfactants in the influent (43.5 mg/L) and a poor removal of the colloidal fraction of the COD in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Combined aerobic-anaerobic treatment accomplished a COD removal of 89%, similar to the aerobic treatment alone. Greywater methanization was 32% for the anaerobic system and 25% for the anaerobic-aerobic system, yielding a small amount of energy. Therefore, anaerobic pre-treatment is not feasible and an aerobic system is preferred for the treatment of greywater.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/w2020155
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wagen</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_wageningen_narcis_oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_392087</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3340903881</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UEtLxDAQDqLgsi74B4SCFy_VPNvEg6CLrsKiB9dzSNN0zdI2NWkp--_NUgVPzmFm4Hsw8wFwjuA1IQLejBhiiBg7AjMMc5JSStHxn_0ULELYwVhUcM7gDNwtXdMpb4NrE1clm09vTPK-D71pQlI5nzxYV7ut1apOVt7sR9Ubn2y8UX1j2v4MnFSqDmbxM-fg4-lxs3xO12-rl-X9OtWE0z5VRYa4gSWjuRIZZphgIzglWCGshIZlUWJGMCU5K5VmGdY0fqJLQXPEMS7IHNxOvqPamta2sclWeW2DdMrK2hZe-b0cBy_b-jC6oQiSCAx5HsWXk7jz7mswoZc7N_g23isRIxxBhqmIrKuJpb0LwZtKdt42B1cE5SFd-ZtupF5M1Eo5qbYxPfm6jlDEKRL4HxxyniHyDXsIfJY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1538105249</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Three Systems for Biological Greywater Treatment</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>IngentaConnect Journals</source><creator>Hernandez Leal, L ; Temmink, B.G ; Zeeman, G ; Buisman, C.J.N</creator><creatorcontrib>Hernandez Leal, L ; Temmink, B.G ; Zeeman, G ; Buisman, C.J.N</creatorcontrib><description>Greywater consists of household wastewater excluding toilet discharges. Three systems were compared for the biological treatment of greywater at a similar hydraulic retention time of approximately 12–13 hours. These systems were aerobic treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, anaerobic treatment in an up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor and combined anaerobic-aerobic treatment (up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor + sequencing batch reactor). Aerobic conditions resulted in a COD removal of 90%, which was significantly higher than 51% removal by anaerobic treatment. The low removal in the anaerobic reactor may have been caused by high concentration of anionic surfactants in the influent (43.5 mg/L) and a poor removal of the colloidal fraction of the COD in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Combined aerobic-anaerobic treatment accomplished a COD removal of 89%, similar to the aerobic treatment alone. Greywater methanization was 32% for the anaerobic system and 25% for the anaerobic-aerobic system, yielding a small amount of energy. Therefore, anaerobic pre-treatment is not feasible and an aerobic system is preferred for the treatment of greywater.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2073-4441</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2073-4441</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/w2020155</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Chemical oxygen demand ; Environmental Technology ; Milieutechnologie ; Particle size ; Reactors ; Sectie Milieutechnologie ; Sludge ; Sub-department of Environmental Technology ; Surfactants ; Toilet facilities ; WIMEK</subject><ispartof>Water (Basel), 2010-06, Vol.2 (2), p.155-169</ispartof><rights>Copyright MDPI AG 2010</rights><rights>Wageningen University &amp; Research</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1538105249/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1538105249?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hernandez Leal, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Temmink, B.G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeeman, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buisman, C.J.N</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Three Systems for Biological Greywater Treatment</title><title>Water (Basel)</title><description>Greywater consists of household wastewater excluding toilet discharges. Three systems were compared for the biological treatment of greywater at a similar hydraulic retention time of approximately 12–13 hours. These systems were aerobic treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, anaerobic treatment in an up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor and combined anaerobic-aerobic treatment (up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor + sequencing batch reactor). Aerobic conditions resulted in a COD removal of 90%, which was significantly higher than 51% removal by anaerobic treatment. The low removal in the anaerobic reactor may have been caused by high concentration of anionic surfactants in the influent (43.5 mg/L) and a poor removal of the colloidal fraction of the COD in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Combined aerobic-anaerobic treatment accomplished a COD removal of 89%, similar to the aerobic treatment alone. Greywater methanization was 32% for the anaerobic system and 25% for the anaerobic-aerobic system, yielding a small amount of energy. Therefore, anaerobic pre-treatment is not feasible and an aerobic system is preferred for the treatment of greywater.</description><subject>Chemical oxygen demand</subject><subject>Environmental Technology</subject><subject>Milieutechnologie</subject><subject>Particle size</subject><subject>Reactors</subject><subject>Sectie Milieutechnologie</subject><subject>Sludge</subject><subject>Sub-department of Environmental Technology</subject><subject>Surfactants</subject><subject>Toilet facilities</subject><subject>WIMEK</subject><issn>2073-4441</issn><issn>2073-4441</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UEtLxDAQDqLgsi74B4SCFy_VPNvEg6CLrsKiB9dzSNN0zdI2NWkp--_NUgVPzmFm4Hsw8wFwjuA1IQLejBhiiBg7AjMMc5JSStHxn_0ULELYwVhUcM7gDNwtXdMpb4NrE1clm09vTPK-D71pQlI5nzxYV7ut1apOVt7sR9Ubn2y8UX1j2v4MnFSqDmbxM-fg4-lxs3xO12-rl-X9OtWE0z5VRYa4gSWjuRIZZphgIzglWCGshIZlUWJGMCU5K5VmGdY0fqJLQXPEMS7IHNxOvqPamta2sclWeW2DdMrK2hZe-b0cBy_b-jC6oQiSCAx5HsWXk7jz7mswoZc7N_g23isRIxxBhqmIrKuJpb0LwZtKdt42B1cE5SFd-ZtupF5M1Eo5qbYxPfm6jlDEKRL4HxxyniHyDXsIfJY</recordid><startdate>20100601</startdate><enddate>20100601</enddate><creator>Hernandez Leal, L</creator><creator>Temmink, B.G</creator><creator>Zeeman, G</creator><creator>Buisman, C.J.N</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>QVL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100601</creationdate><title>Comparison of Three Systems for Biological Greywater Treatment</title><author>Hernandez Leal, L ; Temmink, B.G ; Zeeman, G ; Buisman, C.J.N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Chemical oxygen demand</topic><topic>Environmental Technology</topic><topic>Milieutechnologie</topic><topic>Particle size</topic><topic>Reactors</topic><topic>Sectie Milieutechnologie</topic><topic>Sludge</topic><topic>Sub-department of Environmental Technology</topic><topic>Surfactants</topic><topic>Toilet facilities</topic><topic>WIMEK</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hernandez Leal, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Temmink, B.G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeeman, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buisman, C.J.N</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>NARCIS:Publications</collection><jtitle>Water (Basel)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hernandez Leal, L</au><au>Temmink, B.G</au><au>Zeeman, G</au><au>Buisman, C.J.N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Three Systems for Biological Greywater Treatment</atitle><jtitle>Water (Basel)</jtitle><date>2010-06-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>155</spage><epage>169</epage><pages>155-169</pages><issn>2073-4441</issn><eissn>2073-4441</eissn><abstract>Greywater consists of household wastewater excluding toilet discharges. Three systems were compared for the biological treatment of greywater at a similar hydraulic retention time of approximately 12–13 hours. These systems were aerobic treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, anaerobic treatment in an up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor and combined anaerobic-aerobic treatment (up-flow anaerobic blanket reactor + sequencing batch reactor). Aerobic conditions resulted in a COD removal of 90%, which was significantly higher than 51% removal by anaerobic treatment. The low removal in the anaerobic reactor may have been caused by high concentration of anionic surfactants in the influent (43.5 mg/L) and a poor removal of the colloidal fraction of the COD in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Combined aerobic-anaerobic treatment accomplished a COD removal of 89%, similar to the aerobic treatment alone. Greywater methanization was 32% for the anaerobic system and 25% for the anaerobic-aerobic system, yielding a small amount of energy. Therefore, anaerobic pre-treatment is not feasible and an aerobic system is preferred for the treatment of greywater.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/w2020155</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2073-4441
ispartof Water (Basel), 2010-06, Vol.2 (2), p.155-169
issn 2073-4441
2073-4441
language eng
recordid cdi_wageningen_narcis_oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_392087
source Publicly Available Content Database; IngentaConnect Journals
subjects Chemical oxygen demand
Environmental Technology
Milieutechnologie
Particle size
Reactors
Sectie Milieutechnologie
Sludge
Sub-department of Environmental Technology
Surfactants
Toilet facilities
WIMEK
title Comparison of Three Systems for Biological Greywater Treatment
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T12%3A55%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wagen&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Three%20Systems%20for%20Biological%20Greywater%20Treatment&rft.jtitle=Water%20(Basel)&rft.au=Hernandez%20Leal,%20L&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=155&rft.epage=169&rft.pages=155-169&rft.issn=2073-4441&rft.eissn=2073-4441&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/w2020155&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wagen%3E3340903881%3C/proquest_wagen%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-ab618e0d547a9625232e98432a12a9c0dbd25324375dac562c4202cd9471822b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1538105249&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true