Figures index

From

Azo Dye Reduction by Methanogenic Granular Sludge Exposed to Oxygen

Maulin P Shah

International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation & Biodegradation. 2014, 2(1), 18-24 doi:10.12691/ijebb-2-1-4
  • Figure 1. Time courses of MO1 (O) and oxygen (■) at 10 IHOP with ethanol (A), or acetate (B) as co-substrate, and no co-substrate (C) and granular sludge-I biomass source
  • Figure 2. Reduction rates of MO1 in the presence of oxygen with granular sludge-I as biomass source with acetate (□) or ethanol (■) as co-substrate, or no co-substrate (○)
  • Figure 3. Reduction rates of MO1 in the presence of oxygen with granular sludge-II as biomass source with ethanol (■) as co-substrate, or no co-substrate (○)
  • Figure 4. Methane (▲) production and oxygen (■) consumption in the presence of 0 and 10 IHOP, and with or without MO1(○), with granular sludge-I plus ethanol as co-substrate (IHOP = initial headspace oxygen percentage)
  • Figure 5. COD mass balance as a function of the IHOP for granular sludge-I plus ethanol as co-substrate after two days (COD expressed as g O2 l-1 liquid; oxygen uptake (■), methane production (▲), sum methane production + oxygen uptake (△), ethanol supplied (§§§) and oxygen supplied (----), methane values used were calculated from measurements after eight days)
  • Figure 6. Correlation between oxygen consumption rate and azo dye-reduction rate at 10 IHOP (1 = Granular sludge-I with no co-substrate; 4 = Granular sludge-II with ethanol as co-substrate; 5 = Nedalco granular sludge with ethanol as co-substrate)