Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Biological ...

Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering

ISSN: 1093-4529 (Print) 1532-4117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lesa20

Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Biological Nitrogen Removal from High Strength Wastewaters Nazik Artan , Nevin Ozgur Yagci , S. Reha Artan & Derin Orhon To cite this article: Nazik Artan , Nevin Ozgur Yagci , S. Reha Artan & Derin Orhon (2003) Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Biological Nitrogen Removal from High Strength Wastewaters, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 38:10, 2125-2134, DOI: 10.1081/ESE-120023340 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120023340

Published online: 06 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 62

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lesa20 Download by: [Istanbul Technical University]

Date: 20 January 2016, At: 23:38

MARCEL DEKKER, INC. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK, NY 10016 ©2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker, Inc.

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH Part A—Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering Vol. A38, No. 10, pp. 2125–2134, 2003

SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS

Downloaded by [Istanbul Technical University] at 23:38 20 January 2016

Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Biological Nitrogen Removal from High Strength Wastewaters Nazik Artan,1,* Nevin Ozgur Yagci,1 S. Reha Artan,2 and Derin Orhon1 1

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Department of Environmental Engineering, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey 2 MASS Aritma Sis. San. A.S., Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey

ABSTRACT This paper covers an evaluation of more than twenty full-scale industrial wastewater treatment plants employing sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process mainly for carbon removal and a pilot-scale SBR designed for carbon and nitrogen removal from tannery effluent. The study highlights the major features of the SBR technology and proposes a rational dimensioning approach for carbon and nitrogen removal SBRs treating high strength industrial wastewaters based on scientific information on process stoichiometry and modeling, also emphasizing practical constraints in design and operation. Key Words: Activated sludge; Industrial wastewater; Nitrogen removal; Sequencing batch reactor; Strong wastewater; Tannery wastewater.

*Correspondence: Nazik Artan, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Department of Environmental Engineering, Maslak 34469, Istanbul, Turkey; E-mail: nartan @ins.itu.edu.tr. 2125 DOI: 10.1081/ESE-120023340 Copyright & 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.

1093-4529 (Print); 1532-4117 (Online) www.dekker.com


2126

Artan et al.


INTRODUCTION Accumulated experience with the treatment of wastewater from various industrial categories indicates that SBR is a viable alternative in the treatment of industrial wastewaters.[1–8] Factors like greater flexibility, less space requirements, elimination of settling tank and related equipment and greater amenability to automation furnish substantial competitive potential to the SBR against the continuous-flow systems.[9,10] Despite the growing popularity, however, a unified design basis is still lacking; a situation regarded by many as the major obstacle hindering broader practical application of the SBR. Principles of a systematic approach to the design of the SBR can be formulated similar to those for the continuous-flow systems.[11,12] Though the possible design and operation choices seem to be abundant, steady state SBR design applies the same mass balances. However, periodically operated single tank activated sludge process, the key feature of the SBR, has inherent constraints besides some advantages and requires different design considerations. This paper covers an evaluation of more than twenty full-scale industrial wastewater treatment plants employing SBR process mainly for carbon removal built in Turkey since 1985 and a pilot-scale SBR designed for carbon and nitrogen removal. The objective of this study is to highlight the major features of the SBR technology and to propose a rational dimensioning approach based on process stoichiometry and modeling, for carbon and nitrogen removal SBRs treating high strength industrial wastewaters, also emphasizing practical constraints in design and operation.

CONCEPTUAL APPROACH FOR DESIGN Process Description SBR and its variants refer to the use of variable volume reactor as well as cyclically operated single tank activated sludge plants whereas continuous-flow systems employ separate aeration and settling tanks. The total reactor volume includes a stationary volume, V0 holding settled biomass and a fill volume, VF filled and discharged in each cycle. The V0/VF ratio has the same function as the total recycle ratio in continuous-flow systems. The SBR cycle is characterized by five process phases. In the fill phase, TF, wastewater is fed into the reactor on the settled biomass remaining from the previous cycle. After fill, additional time may be given for the biological reactions to further progress during the react phase, TR. Biomass is left to settle in the settle phase, TR. The treated wastewater volume is discharged in the draw phase; TD and the reactor may be left idle in the idle phase, TI. The total cycle time, TC, is basically the sum of these phases. Biological processes are assumed to take place only during the process phase; TP corresponding to the sum of fill and react phases. In nitrogen removal SBR systems the process phase includes a mixed phase, TM for denitrification and an aerated phase, TA for nitrification. A nominal hydraulic retention time (V/Q) can be defined for comparing SBR systems with each other and with continuous flow systems. In an SBR system with


SBRs for Biological Nitrogen Removal

2127

one reactor carrying out m cycles per day, the daily flow rate, Q, will be: Q ¼ mVF. When the total volume of reactors is VT and substituting TC ¼ 1/m, the hydraulic retention time (h) can be expressed as: VT V0 ¼ 1þ ð1Þ T h ¼ T C VF VF C


Since biological conversion only occurs during the process phase, biomass is not active throughout the entire cycle. In this context, an effective sludge age, XE should be introduced to account for the effective periods, TE, which is the sum of aerobic and anoxic periods. XE ¼ X

TE T TSþDþI ¼ X C TC TC

ð2Þ

COD Mass Balances and Tank Volume In continuous-flow systems calculation of reaction tank volume is based on selection of MLSS, which optimizes settling, and reaction tanks costs since the selected MLSS concentration also determines the solids loading rate, a significant parameter considered in the design of the settling tank. The achievable concentration in the recycle flow is determined as a function of SVI and the thickening characteristics of the settling tank. The recommended range for the MLSS concentration is 2500–4500 mg/L, which yields sludge recycle ratios of less than 1 in common operating practice. In single tank operation, however, sludge recycle ratio can be increased without any cost since recycle ratio simply corresponds to V0/VF. For a given SVI value, increasing the sludge recycle ratio results in an increase in MLSS which means total volume requirements may decrease. Since initial settling velocity is a function of MLSS, settling time may increase with increasing recycle ratio. This fact should be considered in the selection of the settle phase. Provided that an appropriate sludge concentration at V0, XTSS,0 is selected as to allow enough clear water zone over the settled sludge zone based on SVI, V0/VF must satisfy Eq. (3): V0 mYnet CT1 X VF XTSS, 0

ð3Þ

Ynet ¼ Net sludge yield, g TSS/g COD; CT1 ¼ Influent COD concentration, g COD/m3. Inserting Eq. (2) and substitution of TC ¼ 24/m in Eq. (3) gives: V0 Ynet XE :24 C ¼ VF XTSS, 0 ðTC TSþDþI Þ T1

ð4Þ

As can be seen from the above equation, V0/VF is a function of the cycle time to be selected as well as wastewater strength and desired effective SRT. An example is given in Fig. 1(a) to show the variation of recycle ratio with selected cycle time for three different strength wastewater. In this example, XE ¼ 20 d, TS þ D þ I ¼ 2 h,


2128

Artan et al.


(b) 300

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

250 CT1=2000 mg/l CT1=5000 mg/l CT1=10000 mg/l

200

θh (h)

Vo/VF

(a) 10

CT1=10000 mg/l 150 100

CT1=5000 mg/l

50

CT1=2000 mg/l

0 0

24

48 72 TC (h)

96

120

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Vo/VF

Figure 1. Variations of V0/VF ratio with TC (a) and h values with V0/VF ratio (b) for three different strength wastewater.

Ynet ¼ 0.25 g TSS/g COD and XTSS,0 ¼ 10,000 g TSS/m3 were selected. Hydraulic retention time is calculated from Eq. (1) for each selected cycle time and corresponding V0/VF. The relationship between h, wastewater strength and recycle ratio is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). Figure 1(a) shows that selecting higher TC will result in lower V0/VF ratio to a certain level corresponding sludge recycle ratios of less than 1 in common operating practice of continuous-flow systems. On the other hand, Fig. 1(b) clearly indicates that recycle ratios of higher than 1 yield minimum h values depending on wastewater strength. For instance, selected cycle time of 24 h yields V0/VF ratio of 3 for moderate wastewater strength. As can be seen from Fig. 1(b) selected cycle time and corresponding recycle ratio is justifiable, because h decreases to a minimum at this point. For this example, lower TC which will yield higher recycle ratio can be selected if needed for nitrate supply since h is nearly constant for higher recycle ratios. However, for weak wastewaters too high recycle ratio may lead to increased h. Thus, V0/VF can and should be selected higher than sludge recycle ratio of continuous-flow systems to obtain minimal hydraulic retention times especially in the case of high strength wastewater treatment. Considering that this ratio also corresponds to nitrate recycle ratio, TC may be determined by required recycle ratio for predenitrification.

Nitrogen Mass Balances for Predenitrification Nitrogen removal in SBRs, as in all biological systems, depends upon a delicate balance between nitrification capacity, NOX, denitrification potential, NDP, and available nitrate NA, corresponding to the nitrate concentration introduced into the mixed period. Under the assumption that complete nitrification is achieved, NOX is calculated from the mass balance for TKN: NOX ¼ CTKN1 STKN NX

ð5Þ



2129


where STKN is effluent soluble inert organic nitrogen and NX can be calculated from the following equation using nitrogen content of sludge, iNTSS: NX ¼ iNTSS YN CT1 ð6Þ The total denitrification capacity of the system is the nitrate nitrogen equivalent of the electron acceptor demand associated with growth and endogenous respiration exerted in the mixed (unaerated) period, so that it depends strongly on filling pattern. If filling occurs only during mixed period (predenitrification) it can be assumed that readily biodegradable substrate from influent will be totally consumed in the mixed period whereas only a fraction of slowly biodegradable substrate, XS, from influent, is hydrolyzed and a portion of endogenous respiration is exerted in the mixed period. Denitrification potential due to endogenous respiration depends linearly on the mixed period fraction, TM/TP, since the endogenous respiration rate is approximately constant. However, concentration of available substrate originating from hydrolysis of XS decreases during the process time and XS gradient should be taken into account by a factor, fpre. C T C NDP ¼ ð1 YH ÞfSS T1 þ fpre M ð1 YH ÞfXS T1 2:86 TP 2:86 ð7Þ T YH C fCS T1 þ M ð1 fXE ÞbH XE TP 1 þ bH XE 2:86 Denitrification efficiency, E, will be determined by NDP provided that enough nitrate is supplied during the mixed period. E ¼ NDP =NOX if NA NDP ð8Þ Considering Eqs. (5), (7), and (8), E is a function of TM/TP ratio and depends strongly on COD/TKN ratio of influent. For a given wastewater the TM/TP ratio (therefore effective SRT) is adjusted according to the required denitrification efficiency. If NDP is not limited, denitrification efficiency will be determined by the available nitrate, NA. It is not possible to separate nitrate recycle from sludge recycle as in the continuous-flow systems. However, sludge recycle ratio can be increased as high as the total recycle ratio of continuous-flow predenitrification systems without any cost as discussed in the above section. For operation with a single mix period, NA and hence the effluent nitrate is determined by V0/VF. NOX SNOe ¼ ð9Þ 1 þ V0 =VF Selection of smaller cycle time, which yields higher V0/VF, provides higher nitrogen removal for predenitrification process scheme. RESULTS AND EVALUATIONS Evaluation of Existing Full-Scale Plants An overview of the full-scale treatment plants employing the SBR process designed and built by a specialized company established in Turkey for a variety of industries is given in Table 1.


2130

Artan et al. Table 1.

COD

No. and vol. of reactors (m3)

h (h)

Cycle time (h)

Recycle ratio

Influent (mg/L)

Effluent (mg/L)

Food processing A-1 500 A-2 450 A-3 100 A-4 100 A-5 100 A-6 25 A-7 1200 A-8 1000 A-9 4800

1 1250 2 1300 1 200 1 300 1 300 2 60 2 1800 1 2100 2 2400

60 140 48 72 72 115 72 50 24

24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 8

1.5 4.8 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.8 2.0 1.1 2.0

1500 10,000 2300 2000 1300 1900 2000 1500 1500

100 150 150 120 100 100 100 80 50

Pharmaceutical B-1 12 B-2 30 B-3 550 B-4 80

5 20 1 90 2 680 1 60

200 72 60 18

168 24 24 6

0.2 2.0 1.5 2.0

12,000 3000 700 600

2000 150 70 50

1000 600 2000 2000 1000

2 625 1 750 2 1250 1 1000 2 540

30 30 30 12 26

12 12 12 6 12

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.2

1200 1000 1200 1200 1100

150 150 100 250 250

Miscellaneous D-1 300 D-2 280 D-3 220 D-4 200

2 420 2 420 2 250 1 360

67 72 55 43

24 24 24 24

1.8 2.0 1.3 0.8

1200 1000 1200 1300

100 100 200 150

Plant


Wastewater treatment plants employing the SBR process.

Textile C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5

Flow (m3/d)

Wastewaters from the industries often exhibit high concentration of organics and diurnal or longer-term variations in flow and organic load. The SBRs receive at least fine-screened wastewater at a concentration ranging from 1000 to 12,000 mg COD/L. In all plants, the SBR effluent COD is typically lower than 150 mg/L. The plants are single or twin-reactor systems except Plant B-1 which has five reactors each receiving a day’s toxic chemical synthesis effluent once a week, and effecting detoxification as well as COD roughing before joint treatment with neutralized formulation effluent in a subsequent biological treatment step. Plants A-3–A-7 belong to small slaughterhouses and meat processors operating 1–2 shifts per day. SBRs have been designed as low-rate carbon oxidation systems and sized to carry out one cycle per day throughout the whole range of waste flows, and have proven efficient and simple to operate and maintain. The SBRs receive the daily wastewater during the first one or two shifts and the react, settle, and decant phases are carried out during the third shift when the wastewater generation is




2131

ceased or greatly reduced. Typically, the SBRs receive no operator attendance during the third shift. Since wastewater generation is practically ceased during the third shift, a single reactor is used. In plant A-2, the wastewater originates from citrus concentration and packing in Northern Cyprus. This plant treating considerably high strength wastewater also deserves to be mentioned. Twin SBRs operate with approximately 11,000 mg/L MLSS resulting from high (4.8) recycle ratio. This represents a significant saving in land use and construction cost, as compared to an alternative continuous-flow system. In plant B-1, influent COD is comparable with plant A-2. However, as a result of a very long cycle time (TC ¼ 7d) and a low recycle ratio (V0/VF ¼ 0.2) SBRs operate with lower MLSS and hence h is high. Major benefits associated with SBR process, as experienced in these applications can be briefed as follows: The greatest advantage of the SBR is the elimination of the settling tank, and of the associated equipment. This almost always implies an appreciable reduction in the overall investment cost, despite the decanting equipment and the relatively larger capacity aeration equipment installed in the SBR. Absence of settling tank and the related equipment means less maintenance, less downtime or upsets due to mechanical or hydraulic problems, and less reliance on operator attendance and skills. Practical experience also shows that SBR effluents contain less suspended solids. This may be due to a combination of factors like practically perfect hydraulic quiescence during settling, and better settling properties of the sludge owing to more transient loading conditions. Another important advantage of the SBR over the continuous-flow systems stems from its inherent flexibility. Through appropriate selection of the number of reactors, reactor volume, fill volume, cycle time, duration of phases and periods within a phase, it is possible to optimize the SBR for virtually any combination of wastewater quality, waste flow pattern, and the variations thereof. The advantage becomes more pronounced when there are large diurnal and longer-term fluctuations in the waste flow or the pollutant loads. Greater amenability to automation constitutes another advantage of the SBR. In general, the SBR is less demanding in operator skills than the continuous-flow systems. Automation strengthens this advantage by virtually eliminating the need for operator intervention to the process. On the other hand, it is also concluded that the SBR might not be as beneficial in cases where an SBR receiving low strength wastewater is preceded or followed by continuous-flow primary or tertiary treatment. Since enough data like SRT, COD and nitrogen fractions, treatability, and sludge settleability characteristics are absent, further evaluation for the nitrogen removal potential of full-scale plants could not be made.

Evaluation for Nitrogen Removal A pilot-scale SBR fed with the plain-settled tannery effluent with an average COD concentration of 2200 mg/L was installed on site to evaluate the organic carbon and nitrogen removal performance of the SBRs. The SBR operation was designed for one cycle a day at first, where 2 h was devoted to the settle, draw and


2132

Artan et al.

35

SNOx and SNH4 (mgl/l)

(b) 40

35

SNOx and SNH4 (mgl/l)

(a) 40 30 25 20 15 10


20

SNOX S NO

15

SNH4 S NH

10 5

0

0

Figure 2.

2

4

6

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Time (h)

SNO S 3NOexp,

25

5 0

SNH S 4NHexp,

30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 Time (h)

9 10 11 12

NH3-N and NOX-N profiles during a cycle for (a) TC ¼ 24 h, and (b) TC ¼ 12 h.

idle phases (TS þ D þ I ¼ 2 h). The mixed period, TM was selected as 3 h with filling (TM ¼ TF) and the reactor was aerated for 19 h during the remaining portion of the process phase. A total sludge age of 15 days was set to ensure complete nitrification. Under these operating conditions, V0/VF was set to 2, hence the nominal hydraulic retention time was 3 days. At steady state, an average MLSS concentration of 4000 mg/L was maintained in the reactor and COD removal efficiency was about 90%. In terms of nitrogen components, SBR operation with the selected predenitrification mode produced an effluent with a NOX-N concentration of 25 mg/L and NH3-N concentration of 0.6 mg/L at 23 C. The performance of the SBR was further investigated by measuring the concentration profiles of nitrogen components within a selected cycle during the steady state operation. Model evaluation of the experimental data was also performed using the appropriate kinetic and stoichiometric coefficients and the influent characterization experimentally determined for the tannery wastewaters. The details were reported elsewhere.[13] Interpretation of the observed concentration profiles was used to indicate the required adjustments for optimizing system operation. As can be seen from Fig. 2(a), NOX-N is rapidly consumed to depletion before the end of the mixed period, as NDP is markedly higher than NA provided by the applied recycle ratio. The NH3-N profile shows that selected aerobic sludge age is enough for full nitrification. Review of the NH3-N and NOX-N profiles indicates that the N removal performance of the system may be improved simply by increasing NA to a level comparable with NDP. A new operation scheme was then designed, with two cycles a day (TC ¼ 12 h). Since the same h is appropriate, this operation strategy yields higher recycle ratio (V0/VF ¼ 5), thus higher NOX-N removal (Fig. 2(b)).

CONCLUSION Satisfying results obtained in full-scale treatment plants built for a variety of industries indicate that SBR is a viable alternative in the treatment of industrial wastewaters. From experience with the SBR treatment of industrial wastewaters, it




2133

can be concluded that the SBR proved to be definitely more competitive than its alternatives in investment and operation costs and in operational reliability. Only in the relatively marginal cases where low strength wastewaters require additional primary or especially tertiary treatment would the continuous flow systems be as competitive. The pilot-plant study provides experimental proof for the potential of the SBR technology in achieving effective nitrogen removal from a strong wastewater in terms of its high COD and nitrogen contents. This study also confirms that SBR offers the flexibility of adjusting the degree of nitrogen removal. The selection of TC, hence V0/VF, is proved to be an essential parameter in manipulating the operation to achieve the desired denitrification efficiency as well as for optimizing the hydraulic retention time.

REFERENCES 1. Bortone, G.; Gemelli, S.; Rambaldi, A.; Tilche, A. Nitrification, Denitrification and biological phosphate removal in sequencing batch reactors treating piggery wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 1992, 26 (5–6), 977–985. 2. Artan, N.; Akkaya, M.; Artan, S.R. Experiences with the SBR treatment of industrial wastewaters, Proceedings of the First IAWQ Specialized Conference on SBR Technology, Munich, 1996; 197–204. 3. Nyhuis, G.; Kolarski, R. The use of the sequencing batch reactor technology for the treatment of the food processing wastewater, Proceedings of the 1st IAWQ Specialized Conference on Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology, Munich, Germany, March 18–20, 1996; 205–215. 4. Carucci, A.; Chiavola, A.; Majone, M.; Rolle, E. Treatment of tannery wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40 (1), 253–261. 5. Garrido, J.M.; Omil, F.; Arrojo, B.; Mendez, R.; Lema, J.M. Carbon and nitrogen removal from a wastewater of an industrial dairy laboratory with a coupled anaerobic filter-sequencing batch reactor system. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43 (3), 249–256. 6. Flapper, T.G.; Ashbolt, N.J.; Lee, A.T.; O’Neill, M. From the lab to full-scale SBR operation: treating high strength and variable industrial wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43 (3), 347–354. 7. Tilche, A.; Bortone, G.; Malaspina, F.; Piccinini, S.; Stante, L. Biological nutrient removal in a full-scale SBR treating piggery wastewater: results and modelling. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43 (3), 363–371. 8. Torrijos, M.; Vuitton, V.; Moletta, R. The SBR Process: An efficient and economic solution for the treatment of wastewater at small cheesemaking dairies in the jura mountains. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43 (3), 373–380. 9. Orhon, D.; Artan, N. Modelling of Activated Sludge Systems, Technomic Publishing Co.: Lancaster, USA, 1994, 589 pp. 10. Wilderer, P.A.; Irvine, R.L.; Goronszy, C.; Artan, N.; Demoulin, G.; Keller, J.; Morgenroth, E.; Nyhuis, G.; Tanaka, K.; Torrijos, M. Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology, Scientific and Technical Report No.10, IWA Publishing, Portland Customer Service, 2001.


2134

Artan et al.


11. Tasli, R.; Orhon D.; Artan N. The effect of substrate composition on the nutrient removal potential of sequencing batch reactors, Water SA 1999, 25 (3), 337–344. 12. Artan, N.; Wilderer, P.; Orhon, D.; Morgenroth, E.; Ozgur, N. Application of sequencing batch reactor systems for nutrient removal–the state of the art. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43 (3), 53–61. 13. Murat S.; Ates Genceli, E.; Tasli, R.; Artan, N.; Orhon, D. Sequencing batch reactor treatment of tannery wastewater for carbon and nitrogen removal. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 46 (9), 219–227.

Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Biological ...

Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Biological ...

Suggest Documents

Sequencing Batch Biological Reactors: An Overview

Sequencing Batch Reactors: Principles, Design/Operation ... - eolss

Intelligent Control of Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs) for Biological ...

model-based optimum design of sequencing batch reactors for cod ...

Partial Nitrification in Sequencing Batch Reactors ... - IngentaConnect

Plasmid-mediated bioaugmentation of sequencing batch reactors for ...

Optimal Time Control Of Sequencing Batch Reactors For ... - IEEE Xplore

optimization of anaerobic sequencing batch reactors treating dilute ...

Performance of sequencing batch biofilm reactors with different control ...

Biological denitrification in a sequencing batch reactor

Autotrophic nitrogen removal in granular sequencing batch reactors

Aerobic granulation in sequencing batch reactors fed ...

Sequencing Batch Reactor Design and Operational ... - NEIWPCC

First cost analysis of sequencing batch biological ...

membrane biological reactors - UOW

membrane biological reactors - UoW

Evaluation & Optimization of Design/Operation of Sequencing Batch ...

Design of Multiphase Reactors

Bioelectrochemical sulphate reduction on batch reactors

Batch Suspension Polymerization Reactors - ACS Publications

MINIMAL TIME SEQUENTIAL BATCH REACTORS ...

BATCH-GE: Batch analysis of Next- Generation Sequencing ... - Core

BATCH-GE: Batch analysis of Next- Generation Sequencing ... - Core

Geometric Effect for Biological Reactors and Biological Fluids - MDPI