Evaluation of Gasoline‐Denatured Ethanol as a Carbon Source for Denitrification. (1st June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kazasi, Anna; Boardman, Gregory D.; Bott, Charles B.
• Is Part Of: Water environment research. Volume 85:Number 6(2013)
• Page Start: 549
• Page End: 557
• Publication Date: 2013-06-01
• Subjects: denitrification -- alternative carbon source -- denatured ethanol -- ethanol -- methanol -- nitrification -- sequencing batch reactor; Water quality management -- Periodicals; Water -- Purification -- Periodicals; Water -- Pollution -- Periodicals; Water -- Pollution; Water -- Purification; Water quality management; Sewage; Water Pollution; Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 628.16
• DOI: 10.2175/106143012X13560205144777
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1061-4303

Abstract

Abstract : In this study concerning denitrification, the performance of three carbon sources, methanol (MeOH), ethanol (EtOH) and gasoline‐denatured ethanol (dEtOH), was compared and evaluated on the basis of treatment efficiency, inhibition potential and cost. The gasoline denaturant considered here contained mostly aliphatic compounds and little of the components that typically boost the octane rating, such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Results were obtained using three lab‐scale SBRs operated at SRT of 12.0±0.9 days. After biomass was acclimated, denitrification rates with dEtOH were similar to those of EtOH (201±50 and 197±28 NO3 ‐N/g MLVSS·d, respectively), and higher than those of MeOH (165±49 mg NO3 ‐N/g MLVSS·d). The denaturant did not affect biomass production, nitrification or denitrification. Effluent soluble COD concentrations were always less than the analytical detection limit. Although the cost of dEtOH ($2.00/kg nitrate removed) was somewhat higher than that of methanol ($1.63/kg nitrate removed), the use of dEtOH is very promising and utilities will have to decide if it is worth paying a little extra to take advantage of its benefits.