Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28580013›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2017

A comparative study of anaerobic fixed film baffled reactor and up-flow anaerobic fixed film fixed bed reactor for biological removal of diethyl phthalate from wastewater: a performance, kinetic, biogas, and metabolic pathway study.

Samira Yousefzadeh, Ehsan Ahmadi, Mitra Gholami, Hamid Reza Ghaffari, Ali Azari, Mohsen Ansari, Mohammad Miri, Kiomars Sharafi, Soheila Rezaei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A novel stochastic wastewater quality modeling based on fuzzy techniques.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Samira Yousefzadeh *Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Aradan School of Public Health and Paramedical, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
Ehsan Ahmadi *Students' Scientific Research Center (SSRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mitra GholamiOccupational Health Research Center (OHRC), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid Reza GhaffariDepartment of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Ali AzariDepartment of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
Mohsen AnsariEnvironmental Science and Technology Research Center, Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Mohammad MiriDepartment of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran.
Kiomars SharafiResearch Center for Environmental Determinants of Health (RCEDH), Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Soheila RezaeiSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhthalic acid esters, including diethyl phthalate (DEP), which are considered as top-priority and hazardous pollutants, have received significant attention over the last decades. It is vital for industries to select the best treatment technology, especially when the DEP concentration in wastewater is high. Meanwhile, anaerobic biofilm-based reactors are considered as a promising option. Therefore, in the present study, for the biological removal of DEP from synthetic wastewater, two different anaerobic biofilm-based reactors, including anaerobic fixed film baffled reactor (AnFFBR) and up-flow anaerobic fixed film fixed bed reactor (UAnFFFBR), were compared from kinetic and performance standpoints. As in the previous studies, only the kinetic coefficients have been calculated and the relationship between kinetic coefficients and their interpretation has not been evaluated, the other aim of the present study was to fill this research gap.

resultsIn optimum conditions, 90.31 and 86.91% of COD as well as 91.11 and 88.72% of DEP removal were achieved for the AnFFBR and UAnFFFBR, respectively. According to kinetic coefficients (except biomass yield), the AnFFBR had better performance as it provided a more favorable condition for microbial growth. The Grau model was selected as the best mathematical model for designing and predicting the bioreactors' performance due to its high coefficients of determination (0.97 <

conclusionsBoth the bioreactors were capable of treating low-to-high strength DEP wastewater; however, according to the experimental results and obtained kinetic coefficients, the AnFFBR indicated higher performance. Although the AnFFBR can be considered as a safer treatment option than the UAnFFFBR due to its lower DEP concentrations in sludge, the UAnFFFBR had lower VSS/TSS ratio and sludge yield, which could make it more practical for digestion. Finally, both the bioreactors showed considerable methane yield; however, compared to the UAnFFFBR, the AnFFBR had more potential for bioenergy production. Although both the selected bioreactors achieved nearly 90% of DEP removal, they can only be considered as pre-treatment methods according to the standard regulations and should be coupled with further technology.

Indexed as

Anaerobic treatmentBiodegradationBiofilmDiethyl phthalateHydraulic loading rateOrganic loading ratePhthalic acid estersWastewater

Identifiers

PMID28580013
PMCPMC5452402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.