Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Comparison of different treatment methods for protein solubilisation from waste activated sludge
Authors: Xiao, Keke
Chen, Yun
Jiang, Xie
Seow, Wan Yi
He, Chao
Yin, Yao
Zhou, Yan
Keywords: Treatments
Protein Solubilisation
Issue Date: 2017
Source: Xiao, K., Chen, Y., Jiang, X., Seow, W. Y., He, C., Yin, Y., et al. (2017). Comparison of different treatment methods for protein solubilisation from waste activated sludge. Water Research, 122, 492-502.
Series/Report no.: Water Research
Abstract: Biomaterials recovery from wasted activated sludge has become an increasing interesting research topic. The purpose of this study was to systemically evaluate different sludge disintegration methods (ultrasonic, alkaline, and thermal treatments) for protein solubilisation from waste activated sludge (WAS). Compared to control without treatment, the soluble protein concentration increased by 11, 23 and 12 times under the optimal treatment conditions (ultrasonic treatment of 1 W mL−1, alkaline treatment of pH 12 and thermal treatment at 80 °C). The increased soluble protein were significantly correlated with the release of total organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and total organic nitrogen (TON) in soluble EPS, and the degradation of above parameters in tightly bound EPS. For all sludge samples treated by various methods, tyrosine-like protein with molecular weight less than 20 kDa predominated, and alkaline treatment at pH 12 showed the highest protein dominance. Further surface analysis of sludge by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy indicated this might be related with the significant protein-N conversion occurred at pH 12. The economic analysis indicated alkaline treatment at pH 12 was economically feasible with a net saving of 25.57 USD per ton wet sludge compared to conventional sludge treatment and disposal method.
ISSN: 0043-1354
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.06.024
Rights: © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. This is the author created version of a work that has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by Water Research, Elsevier Ltd. It incorporates referee’s comments but changes resulting from the publishing process, such as copyediting, structural formatting, may not be reflected in this document. The published version is available at: [].
Fulltext Permission: open
Fulltext Availability: With Fulltext
Appears in Collections:CEE Journal Articles
NEWRI Journal Articles
SCBE Journal Articles


checked on Sep 4, 2020


checked on Oct 20, 2020

Page view(s)

checked on Oct 21, 2020


checked on Oct 21, 2020

Google ScholarTM




Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.