Effects of Co-Existing Ions on the Phosphorus Potassium Ratio of the Precipitate Formed in the Potassium Phosphate Crystallization Process

  • Harada H
  • Katayama Y
  • Afriliana A
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Livestock wastewater is mainly treated with activated sludge, but ions such as phosphorus, potassium, ammonium, nitrate and sulfate remain in the effluent. In this study, the effects of residual ions on phosphorus recovery using the magnesium potassium phosphate crystallization method were investigated when magnesium was added to increase the pH. If co-existing ions affect the products, the phosphorus to potassium molar ratio (K/P ratio) of the precipitate will deviate from being equimolar. Artificial wastewater test solutions containing 5.6 - 20.3 mM ammonium, 25.6 mM potassium, 6.5 mM phosphorus, 0 - 7.35 mM nitrate, and 0 - 3.06 mM sulfate were used. First, the optimum operating pH and amount of magnesium added to give a high phosphorus removal rate and recovery rate were determined. The experimental setup was a 10 L aerated and stirred reactor, and a 5 L settling tank. The K/P ratio in precipitate was approximately 1 using the optimum conditions. Continuous 2 h treatment allowed a white precipitate containing about 30 g of needle-like crystals to be obtained. Next, the effects of varying the ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate ion concentrations in the artificial effluent were investigated. Ammonium and sulfate ion concentrations of 8 mM or more and 3 mM or more, respectively, caused the K/P ratio to decrease to about 0.7 and 0.5, respectively. Varying the nitrate concentration did not affect the K/P ratio, even at a nitrate concentration of 7.35 mM.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Harada, H., Katayama, Y., Afriliana, A., Inoue, M., Teranaka, R., & Mitoma, Y. (2017). Effects of Co-Existing Ions on the Phosphorus Potassium Ratio of the Precipitate Formed in the Potassium Phosphate Crystallization Process. Journal of Environmental Protection, 08(11), 1424–1434. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2017.811086

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free