Study on the flocs poly-β-hydroxybutyrate production and process optimization in the bio-flocs technology system.
ABSTRACT The bio-flocs technology (BFT) was applied in the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) to treat aquaculture wastewater for flocs poly-β-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) accumulation with alternant anaerobic and aerobic conditions. The statistical modeling approach was used to evaluate system performance and to optimize the flocs PHB yield at batch mode. The results show that all variables have significant impact on the response objective, as well as the interactions of the C/N ratio with the flocs biomass concentration (VSS) and anaerobic time, respectively. By process optimization, approximately 150-200 PHB/VSS (mg·g) of flocs PHB yield was achieved in the range of 4-7g/l of flocs biomass concentration, 15-18 of the C/N ratio and 50-85min of anaerobic time in the BFT systems. The results demonstrated that a suitable flocs PHB yield can be obtained via optimizing the ex-situ operating strategy, which have potential prebiotic value and practical implication for the sustainable aquaculture.
- SourceAvailable from: Li Li[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Aquacultural solid waste from a recirculation aquaculture system was used as a substrate to produce heterotrophic bacteria in suspended growth reactors. The efficiency of nitrogen recycling under intermittent aeration (IA, 0.5-h aeration/0.5-h non aeration) and continuous aeration (CA) strategy was investigated. The nitrogen dynamics, biochemical composition of biofloc and efficiency of nitrification/denitrificaiton/ammonium assimilation of biofloc were determined. No significant differences were observed in the nitrogen recycling rate, crude protein and polysaccharides contents of biofloc between the IA and CA reactors. The energy used for intermittent aeration was almost one half of that for continuous aeration. IA strategy (0.5-h aeration/0.5-h non aeration) appears to be more effective to produce biofloc in aquaculture solid waste in reactors than CA strategy.Aquacultural Engineering 03/2014; 59. DOI:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2014.02.001 · 1.23 Impact Factor