BWT Practical Result and

Discussion

Juan Sebastian ALVAREZ

Can ERSOY

Substrate Conversion Efficiency

COD removal efficiencies of UASB 1 vs UASB 2
97.49%

95.88%

82.38%

Removal Efficieny (%)

0.8

Washout at UASB1 25th Feb

Inoculum Black water
pH values

71.85%

0.6

UASB1

46.47%

UASB2

0.4
0.2
0

0
0

10

-0.2

15

20

25

30

Time (Days)

CODremovalefficienciesofMFCs
0.6

50.37%

RemovalEfficieny(%)

0.5

49.66%

43.89%
36.82%
32.32%
27.91%
24.61%

0.4
0.3

39.07%

38.91%

MFC3

27.44%

24.27%

MFC4

18.54%

0.2

MFC2

16.61%

13.17%

MFC1

13.29%

0.1
0

3.20%

0
0

10

15

20

Time(Days)

25

30

35

Potential decrease with

increasing removal efficiency
pH values
Limitation of proton transfer to
cathode chamber
Fermentative bacteria groups
for MFC3 and MFC4

Energy conversion efficiency

Energy comparison of MFCs and UASBs
300
267.6801736

Energy production (kJ)

250

200

150

100

50

38.84233758
13.157

7.327

0
UASB 1

UASB 2

MFC 1-2 OA

MFC 3-4 AG

Why is there difference between OA and AG for energy

conversion?
Is washout of UASB1 the only reason for low energy
production?

Conclusions
Real wastewater applications for MFCs are still developing
UASBs are well-studied and feasible processes for both syntethic
wastewater and real wastewater
During experiment, mistaken operational conditions gave non-sense
datas, specially for MFCs
For all comparison, UASBs are favorable.

Thank you!