Phosphate and ammonium removal from water through electrochemical and chemical precipitation of struvite
Rajaniemi, Kyösti; Hu, Tao; Nurmesniemi, Emma-Tuulia; Tuomikoski, Sari; Lassi, Ulla (2021-01-14)
Rajaniemi, K.; Hu, T.; Nurmesniemi, E.-T.; Tuomikoski, S.; Lassi, U. Phosphate and Ammonium Removal from Water through Electrochemical and Chemical Precipitation of Struvite. Processes 2021, 9, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9010150
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe202101252555
Tiivistelmä
Abstract
Batch electrocoagulation (BEC), continuous electrocoagulation (CEC), and chemical precipitation (CP) were compared in struvite (MgNH₄PO₄·6H₂O) precipitation from synthetic and authentic water. In synthetic water treatment (SWT), struvite yield was in BEC 1.72, CEC 0.61, and CP 1.54 kg/m³. Corresponding values in authentic water treatment (AWT) were 2.55, 3.04, and 2.47 kg/m³. In SWT, 1 kg struvite costs in BEC, CEC, and CP were 0.55, 0.55, and 0.11 €, respectively, for AWT 0.35, 0.22 and 0.07 €. Phosphate removal in SWT was 93.6, 74.5, and 71.6% in BEC, CEC, and CP, respectively, the corresponding rates in AWT were 89.7, 77.8, and 74.4%. Ammonium removal for SWT in BEC, CEC, and CP were 79.4, 51.5, and 62.5%, respectively, rates in AWT 56.1, 64.1, and 60.9%. Efficiency in CEC and BEC are equal in nutrient recovery in SWT, although energy efficiency was better in CEC. CP is cheaper than BEC and CEC.
Kokoelmat
- Avoin saatavuus [31941]