The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Integrated treatment scheme for rubber thread wastewater: Sulfide precipitation and biological processes
Abstract
In this study, acidic latex wastewater containing high average zinc and acetic contents of 816mgL(-1) and 20,862mgCODL(-1), respectively, was treated successfully by a series of chemical and biological processes without any addition of acid or base for pH adjustment. Total dissolved solids of the treated effluent increased by only 1.1-fold on average for sulfide precipitation as compared to 2.8-fold for the hydroxide strategy. The oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) value of 0mV was used successfully as an indicator for optimum sulfide addition which consistently provided an appreciable reduction in effluent concentrations to less than 1 and 2mgL(-1) for zinc and residual sulfide, respectively. The anaerobic filter was very stable in handling the chemically treated wastewater up to the organic loading rate of 11.8gCODL(-1)day(-1) with an average efficiency of 92%. Methane production and biomass yield were 0.32L(gCOD(removed))(-1) and 0.014gVSS (gCOD(removed))(-1), respectively. For the activated sludge process, the optimum sludge age and hydraulic retention time were 30 and 0.8 days, respectively, which are equivalent to the organic loading rates of 2.50gCODL(-1)day(-1) or 2.13gBODL(-1)day(-1). Under these optimum conditions, average removal efficiencies for COD and BOD were 96.6 and 99.4%. Average soluble COD, BOD and suspended solids in the effluent were 71, 11 and 38mgL(-1), respectively. This integrated treatment scheme was proven to be an effective approach for highly polluted and toxic rubber thread wastewater.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For these reasons, the sulfide precipitation is recommended to be executed at a neutral pH 81 .”
From Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater: a comprehensive and critical review (2021) · cites this paper as [81]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Anotai, J., Tontisirin, P., & Churod, P.
- Affiliations
- King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (TH)
- Corresponding author
- Anotai, Jin
- Venue
- Journal of Hazardous Materials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-03-06
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 0304-3894 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055698309
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Hazardous Materials (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Thailand Research Fund
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
- Keywords
- sulfide precipitation, zinc removal, acetic acid removal, redox potential, anaerobic filter, activated sludge, integrated wastewater treatment, COD and BOD removal, sludge retention time, hydraulic retention time, organic loading rate, methane production
- MeSH terms
- Biodegradation, Environmental, Industrial Waste, Oxidation-Reduction, Chemical Precipitation, Rubber, Sulfides, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Pollutants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review