Comparative Study of Treatment of Sago Wastewater using HUASB Reactor in the Presence and Absence of Effective Microorganisms
Open accessAbstract
This study evaluates the performance of HUASB reactors in anaerobic treatment of sago industry wastewater using Effective Microorganism. A laboratory scale Hybrid Up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (HUASB) reactor, having a volume of about 4.7 L was operated and Polypropylene rings were used as packing media. The initial OLR (Organic Loading Rate) range was about 0.75 Kg.COD/m3.day and further increased. Various effluent characteristics like pH, COD, Total Suspended Solids, VFA, Alkalinity and biogas production were studied until the attainment of steady state. The pH of treated effluent during steady state condition was almost neutral for both reactors even though the influent had an acidic pH. The maximum COD and TSS removal efficiencies were as high as 88% and 77% in HUASB reactor in the presence of effective microorganisms with an OLR of 9 kg.COD/m3.day as compared with HUASB reactor in the absence of effective microorganisms of 76% and 68% with an OLR of 9 kg.COD/m3.day during the steady state period. The gas production was increased with increased OLR. The maximum gas production of 2.8 L/d and 2.0 L/d for HUASB reactor in the presence of effective microorganisms and HUASB reactor in the absence of effective microorganisms were obtained.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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 an EM-HUASB reactor treating sago industry wastewater at an organic loading rate of 9 kg COD/m3 day, removal efficiencies were 77% for total suspended substance and 88% for chemical oxygen demand, compared with 68% and 76% in a non-EM HUASB reactor.
“Removal efficiencies of 77% and 88% for TSS and COD were found in an EM-HUASB reactor with an organic loading rate (OLR) of 9 kg COD/m 3 day in comparison with a non-EM HUASB reactor which attained removal efficiencies of 68% and 76% with an OLR of 9 kg COD/m 3 day in the steady-state period.”
From Environmental applications of Effective Microorganisms: a review of current knowledge and recommendations for future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
The EM-HUASB reactor produced 2.8 L/day of gas, while the HUASB reactor without EM produced 2 L/day.
“For the EM-HUASB reactor, 2.8 L/day of gas was produced while for the HUASB reactor without EM, a gas production of 2 L/day was attained [32].”
From Environmental applications of Effective Microorganisms: a review of current knowledge and recommendations for future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1)
Batstone, D. J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, İ., Kalyuzhnyi, S. V., Pavlostathis, S. G., Rozzi, A. G., Sanders, W. T. M., Siegrist, H., & Vavilin, V. A. (2002) · Water Science & Technology · doi:10.2166/wst.2002.0292 · Cited by 2,240 · see citing works
Biological Wastewater Treatment
Grady, C. P. L., Daigger, G. T., Love, N. G., & Filipe, C. D. M. (2011) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b13775 · Cited by 1,766 · see citing works
Comparative process stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic
Kim, M., Ahn, Y., & Speece, R. E. (2002) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/s0043-1354(02)00147-1 · Cited by 502 · see citing works
Beneficial and effective microorganisms in a sustainable agriculture and environment
Higa, T., & Parr, J. F. (1995) · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Biological Wastewater Treatment
López-Vázquez, C., Brdjanović, D., Volcke, E. I. P., et al. (2023) · IWA Publishing eBooks · doi:10.2166/9781789062304 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Marzal, P., Seco, A., Gabaldón, C., & Ferrer, J. (1996) · Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4660(199607)66:3 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Nandy, T., & Kaul, S. N. (2001) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/s0043-1354(00)00263-3 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Bischofsberger, W., Seyfried, C. F., Dichtl, N., Rosenwinkel, K., Bsdok, J., Böhnke, B., & Schröter, T. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/b137857 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
., A. R. (2014) · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Performance of moving bed biofilm reactor using effective microorganisms
Safwat, S. M. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.041 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Safwat, S. M., & Matta, M. E. (2021) · Journal of Engineering and Applied Science · doi:10.1186/s44147-021-00049-1 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
- Authors
- Priya, M., Meenambal, T., Balasubramanian, N., & Perumal, B.
- Affiliations
- Department of Public (IN)
- ORCID
- Balasubramanian, N.
- Venue
- Procedia Earth and Planetary Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 483-490
- ISSN
- 1878-5220 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1439896339
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Procedia Earth and Planetary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Microbial Fuel Cells and Bioremediation
- Keywords
- effective microorganisms, anaerobic wastewater treatment, organic loading rate, COD removal, total suspended solids removal, volatile fatty acids, biogas production
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
