Thermophilic aerobic wastewater treatment,process performance,biomass characteristics,and effluent quality

Thermophilic aerobic wastewater treatment is reviewed. Thermophilic processes have been studied in laboratory and pilot-scale while full-scale applications are rare. The paper focuses on the microbiology of aerobic thermophiles, performance of the aerobic wastewater treatments, sludge yield, and alternatives to enhance performance of thethermophilic process. Thermophilic processes have been shown to operate under markedly high loading rates (30–180 kg COD m⁻³d⁻¹).Reported sludge production values under thermophilic conditions vary between 0.05 and0.3 kg SS kg COD_removed, which are about the same or lower than generally obtained in mesophilic processes. Compared to analogous mesophilic treatment, thermophilic treatment commonly suffers from poorer effluent quality, measured by lower total COD and filtrated (GF-A) COD removals. However, in the removal of soluble (bacterial membrane filtered) COD both mesophilic and thermophilic treatments have produced similar results. Sludge settle ability in thermophilic processes have been reported to be better or poorer than in analogous mesophilic processes, although cases with better settling properties are rare. Combining thermophilic with mesophilic treatment or ultrafiltration may in some cases markedly improve effluent quality. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Comparison of laboratory-scale thermophilic biofilm and activated sludge processes integrated with a mesophilic activated sludge process

A combined thermophilic-mesophilic wastewater treatment was studied using a laboratory-scale thermophilic activated sludge process (ASP) followed by mesophilic ASP or a thermophilic suspended carrier biofilm process (SCBP) followed by mesophilic ASP, both systems treating diluted molasses (dilution factor 1:500 corresponding GF/A-filtered COD (COD(filt)) of 1900+/-190 mgl(-1)). With hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of 12-18 h the thermophilic ASP and thermophilic SCBP removed 60+/-13% and 62+/-7% of COD(filt), respectively, with HRT of 8 h the removals were 48+/-1% and 69+/-4%. The sludge volume index (SVI) was notably lower in the thermophilic SCBP (measured from suspended sludge) than in the thermophilic ASP. Under the lowest HRT the mesophilic ASP gave better performance (as SVI, COD(filt), and COD(tot) removals) after the thermophilic SCBP than after the thermophilic ASP. Measured sludge yields were low (less than 0.1 kg suspended solids (SS) kg COD(filt removed)(-1)) in all processes. Both thermophilic treatments removed 80-85% of soluble COD (COD(sol)) whereas suspended COD (COD(susp)) and colloidal COD (COD(col)) were increased. Both mesophilic post-treatments removed all COD(col) and most of the COD(susp) from the thermophilic effluents. In conclusion, combined thermophilic-mesophilic treatment appeared to be easily operable and produced high effluent quality.