Shows improved nitrogen removal in low C/N wastewater, indicating efficient aeration techniques.
This work reports on the application of intermittent aeration (IA) in continuous-flow systems for biological nitrogen removal from low C/N wastewater (3.5 gCOD/gNH 4 -N). In similar scenarios, low organic matter concentrations hamper the denitrification step due to e-donor limitation of ordinary heterotrophic organisms (OHO) (e-donor need: 2.86/(1-Y obs ) gCOD/gNO 3 -N). A 25 L completely stirred bench-scale bioreactor equipped with on-line probes (pH, DO, ORP, NH 4 -N, NO 3 -N) was operated under IA at a moderate sludge retention time (SRT close to 25 ± 5 days) for 160 days of operation. The experimental period was structured in three main steps: continuous aeration (CA) (STEP 1); time-controlled IA (STEP 2); probe-controlled IA (STEP 3). The organic matter removal efficiency was not markedly affected by IA with removal efficiency increasing from 90% (STEP 1) to 98% (STEP 3) after a slight decrease down to 82% (STEP 2), likely due to a transitional phase during microbial adaptation. After the application of the IA process, a decrease in Y obs was observed from 0.43 to 0.26 gCOD biomass /gCOD rem for STEP 1 and STEP 3, respectively. This resulted in about 40% less of sludge production, and disposal costs saving. Because a lower Yobs reduces the e-donor demand during the denitrification step, the biological nitrogen removal efficiency increased from 46.7% (STEP 2,a ) to 78.2% (STEP 3,a ). STEP 3 (probe-controlled IA) proved to be the best optimized operational condition compared to STEP 2 (time-controlled IA), due to the probe-controlled logic that avoids excessive aerated or undesirable anaerobic periods especially in cases of low influent organic and/or nitrogen loads. These remarkable results highlight that the IA process, operated at moderately high SRT and optimized using probe-controlled logic, is an attractive strategy for biological nitrogen removal from low C/N wastewater.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Campo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: