Cited by 30Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionWastewater Treatment and ReuseWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal

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

Anotai, Jin, Tontisirin, Pasuta, Churod, Piyarat·2007·Journal of Hazardous Materials

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.11.029

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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