A comparative study of anaerobic fixed film baffled reactor and up-flow anaerobic fixed film fixed bed reactor for biological removal of diethyl phthalate from wastewater: a performance, kinetic, biogas, and metabolic pathway study

Samira Yousefzadeh,Kiomars Sharafi,Mohammad Miri,Mohsen Ansari,Mitra Gholami,Hamid Reza Ghaffari,Ehsan Ahmadi,Soheila Rezaei,Ali Azari

doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0826-9

Abstract

BackgroundPhthalic acid esters, including diethyl phthalate (DEP), which are considered as top-priority and hazardous pollutants, have received significant attention over the last decades. It is vital for industries to select the best treatment technology, especially when the DEP concentration in wastewater is high. Meanwhile, anaerobic biofilm-based reactors are considered as a promising option. Therefore, in the present study, for the biological removal of DEP from synthetic wastewater, two different anaerobic biofilm-based reactors, including anaerobic fixed film baffled reactor (AnFFBR) and up-flow anaerobic fixed film fixed bed reactor (UAnFFFBR), were compared from kinetic and performance standpoints. As in the previous studies, only the kinetic coefficients have been calculated and the relationship between kinetic coefficients and their interpretation has not been evaluated, the other aim of the present study was to fill this research gap.ResultsIn optimum conditions, 90.31 and 86.91% of COD as well as 91.11 and 88.72% of DEP removal were achieved for the AnFFBR and UAnFFFBR, respectively. According to kinetic coefficients (except biomass yield), the AnFFBR had better performance as it provided a more favorable condition for microbial growth. The Grau model was selected as the best mathematical model for designing and predicting the bioreactors’ performance due to its high coefficients of determination (0.97 < R2). With regard to the insignificant variations of the calculated Grau kinetic coefficients (KG) when the organic loading rate (with constant HRT) increased, it can be concluded that both of the bioreactors can tolerate high organic loading rate and their performance is not affected by the applied DEP concentrations.ConclusionsBoth the bioreactors were capable of treating low-to-high strength DEP wastewater; however, according to the experimental results and obtained kinetic coefficients, the AnFFBR indicated higher performance. Although the AnFFBR can be considered as a safer treatment option than the UAnFFFBR due to its lower DEP concentrations in sludge, the UAnFFFBR had lower VSS/TSS ratio and sludge yield, which could make it more practical for digestion. Finally, both the bioreactors showed considerable methane yield; however, compared to the UAnFFFBR, the AnFFBR had more potential for bioenergy production. Although both the selected bioreactors achieved nearly 90% of DEP removal, they can only be considered as pre-treatment methods according to the standard regulations and should be coupled with further technology.

Highlights

Phthalic acid esters, including diethyl phthalate (DEP), which are considered as top-priority and hazardous pollutants, have received significant attention over the last decades
Evaluating performance of bioreactors Experimental results for the anaerobic fixed film baffled reactor (AnFFBR) and UAnFFFBR performance in terms of removing diethyl phthalate under different operation conditions including different hydraulic retention time (HRT) and influent DEP concentrations are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively
Both the bioreactors were capable of treating low-to-high strength DEP wastewater; the AnFFBR was preferred, since it could achieve 90.31% chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal at 36 h of HRT

Summary

Introduction

Phthalic acid esters, including diethyl phthalate (DEP), which are considered as top-priority and hazardous pollutants, have received significant attention over the last decades. Emerging synthetic chemicals have entered into the environment through industrial activities [6, 7] One of these emerging synthetic compounds is phthalic acid esters (PAEs), commonly named phthalates [8], which are widely used as plasticizers [9, 10] and globally applied in large quantities to make products such as plastics, pesticides, adhesives, paints, and cosmetics [11,12,13]. PAEs have been considered as hazardous environmental pollutants [8] They can have carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic potential impacts due to their ability to disrupt endocrine function [15,16,17]. They can cause adverse health problems in humans’ reproductive and developmental systems [18,19,20,21] and have been associated with type 2 diabetes [22]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion