화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol.32, No.7, 1340-1353, July, 2015
DOI10.1007/s11814-014-0365-z  Export Citation
Process modeling and optimization of biological removal of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus from hospital wastewater in a continuous feeding & intermittent discharge (CFID) bioreactor
Meghdad Pirsaheb1, †, Mitra Mohamadi2, Amir Mohammad Mansouri1, 3, †, Ali Akbar Lorestani Zinatizadeh4, Sethupathi Sumathi5, and Kiomars Sharafi6, 7
  • 1Research Center for Environmental Determination of Health (RCEDH), Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 2Student Research Committee, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 3Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 4Water and Wastewater Research Center (WWRC), Department of Applied Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 5Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Green Technology, UniversitiTunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
  • 6Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
  • 7Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
E-mail:,
We evaluated the feasibility and treatment performance of a continuous feeding and intermittent discharge (CFID) bioreactor treating real hospital wastewater with the emphasis on simultaneous carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus (CNP) removal. The experiments were based on a central composite design (CCD) and analyzed by response surface methodology (RSM). To analyze the process, three significant variables, aeration time (2-4 h), mixing time without aeration (30-90 min) and MLSS concentration (2,000-6,000mg/l), were studied. Results show that an increase in aeration time increased the nitrogen and phosphorous removal efficiency. However, when the aeration time was more than 3 h, the efficiency of phosphorous removal was decreased due to insufficient acidification. A similar scenario was observed when mixing time was increased for phosphorus and nitrogen removal efficiency. MLSS had a positive effect on all the responses. Under optimal conditions, the concentrations of quality parameter in the influent in average were recorded as 586 mg COD/l, 296mg BOD5/l, 97mgTN/l and 16.47mg TP/l, which yields the following removal efficiencies, 95.6%, 98.3%, 88.0% and 92.0%, respectively.
Keywords:Hospital Wastewater;Simultaneous Nutrient Removal;RSM
  1. Emmanuel E, Perrodin Y, Keck G, Blanchard JM, Vermande P, J. Hazard. Mater., 117(1), 1 (2005)
  2. Carballa M, Omil F, Lema JM, Lompart M, Garcia-Jares C, Rodriguez I, Gomez M, Ternes T, Water Res., 38, 2918 (2004)
  3. Boillot C, Sci. Total Environ., 403, 113 (2008)
  4. Kummerer K, Helmers E, Sci. Total Environ., 193, 179 (2006)
  5. Lenz C, Koellensperger G, Hann S, Weissenbacher N, Mahnik SN, Fuerhacker M, Chemosphere, 69, 1756 (2007)
  6. Verlicchi P, Galletti A, Petrovic M, Barcelo D, J. Hydrol., 389, 416 (2010)
  7. Akhbari A, Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohammadi P, Irandoust M, Mansouri Y, Chem. Eng. J., 168(1), 269 (2011)
  8. Metcalf, Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, fourth Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA (2003).
  9. Tartakovsky B, Manuel MF, Guiot SR, Biochem. Eng. J., 26, 72 (2005)
  10. Wen X, Ding H, Huang X, Ruopeng L, Process Biochem., 39, 1427 (2004)
  11. Liu QL, Zhou YF, Chen LY, Zheng X, Desalination, 250(2), 605 (2010)
  12. Sousa JT, Foresti E, Water. Sci. Technol., 33(3), 73 (1996)
  13. Greentech, Co. Ltd., Treatment of Hospital Wastewater Using Activated Sludge Combined With Biological Contactor, International Sciences, 1(4), 259 (2005).
  14. Ghorbani F, Younesi H, Ghasempouri SM, Zinatizadeh AA, Amini M, Daneshi A, Chem. Eng. J., 145(2), 267 (2008)
  15. von Sperling M, Freire VH, Chernicharo CAL, Water. Sci. Technol., 43(11), 323 (2001)
  16. Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL, Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments, eighth applications to engineering and science, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York (2003).
  17. Shahrezaei F, Mansouri Y, Zinatizadeh AAL, Akhbari A, Powder Technol., 221, 203 (2012)
  18. Khuri AI, Cornell JA, Response surfaces: design and analyses, Marcel Dekker, New York (1996).
  19. Ahmad AL, Bhatia S, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39(8), 2828 (2005)
  20. Majlesi NM, Yazdanbakhsh A, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A-Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng., 5(3), 211 (2008)
  21. Dincern AR, Karakaya N, Gunes E, Gunes Y, Global Nest., 10(1), 31 (2008)
  22. Azar AM, Jelogir AG, NabiBidhendi G, Mehrdadi N, Zaredar N, Poshtegal MK, J. Agric. Food Chem., 8(2), 1199 (2010)
  23. Mansouri AM, Zinatizadeh AA, Irandoust M, Akhbari A, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 31(1), 88 (2014)
  24. Abdulgader M, Yu QJ, Zinatizadeh AA, Williams P, Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng., 4, 698 (2009)
  25. Zinatizadeh AAL, Mansouri Y, Akhbari A, Pashaei S, Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q., 17(4), 485 (2011)
  26. Kargi F, Konya I, J. Environ. Manag., 84, 20 (2007)
  27. Meng F, Chae SR, Drews A, Kraume M, Shin HS, Yang F, Water Res., 43, 1489 (2009)
  28. Fu Z, Yang F, An Y, Xue Y, Biochem. Eng. J., 43, 191 (2009)
  29. Pehlivanoglu-Mantas E, Sedlak DL, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 261 (2006)
  30. Choi C, Lee J, Lee K, Kim M, Bioresour. Technol., 99(13), 5397 (2008)
  31. Khan AA, Gaur RZ, Diamantis V, Lew B, Mehrotra I, Kazmi AA, Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng., 36, 627 (2013)
  32. Wang YL, Yu SL, Shi WX, Bao RL, Zhao Q, Zuo XT, Bioresour. Technol., 100(17), 3877 (2009)
  33. Zafarzadeh A, Bina B, Nikaeen M, Attar HM, Khiadani MH, Iran J. Biotechnol., 9, 157 (2011)
  34. Janczukowicz W, Szewczyk M, Krzemieniewski M, Pesta J, J. Polym. Environ. Sutd., 10, 15 (2001)