Ultrasonic treatment and thermal treatment at low temperature were employed together to analyze and compare the effect of temperature on ultrasonic sludge hydrolysis. Waste activated sludge was more susceptible to ultrasound than anaerobic sludge and primary sludge. In ultrasonic treatment of waste activated sludge for 1 hour, ΔSCOD/ (-ΔVSS) ratio decreased from 2.40 to 0.44, indicating that high COD components were solubilized faster than the low COD components. Ultrasonic treatment increased the temperature significantly and the heat effect on sludge hydrolysis was not negligible. Primary sludge was more susceptible to heat than waste activated sludge. A sequential treatment of heat and ultrasound of primary sludge showed that hydrolysis efficiency was more affected by the ultrasonic power than the temperature and the time duration. In case of waste activated sludge, the overall hydrolysis efficiency increased with the temperature up to 50 ℃, and it remained almost constant at higher temperature. From the results_x000D_ the contribution of shear force by cavitation bubbles decreased at higher temperature. The effects of shear and heat in ultrasonic sludge treatment need to be analyzed separately for the optimum sludge pretreatment.

Pretreatment Sludge Hydrolysis Solubilization Thermal Treatment Ultrasonic Treatment

Gossett JM, Belser RL, J. Env. Eng., 108, 1101 (1982)
Gunaseelan VN, Biomass Bioenerg., 13(1-2), 83 (1997)
Weemaes MPJ, Verstraete WH, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 73(2), 83 (1998)
Bougrier C, Albasi C, Delgenes JP, Carrere H, Chem. Eng. Process., 45(8), 711 (2006)
Eskicioglu C, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL, Water Res., 40, 3725 (2006)
Eskicioglu C, Terzian N, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL, Water Res., 41, 2457 (2007)
Valo A, Carrere H, Delgenes JP, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 79(11), 1197 (2004)
Kopp J, Muller J, Dicht N, Schwedes J, Water Sci. Technol., 36(11), 129 (1997)
Bougrier C, Albasi C, Delgenes JP, Carrere H, Chem. Eng. Process., 45(8), 711 (2006)
Baier U, Schmidheiny P, Water Sci. Technol., 36, 137 (1997)
Vlyssides AG, Karlis PK, Bioresour. Technol., 91(2), 201 (2004)
Kim SB, Park IH, Choi MJ, Lee SB, Lee KW, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 13(5), 435 (1996)
Ferrer I, Ponsa S, Vazquez F, Font X, Biochem. Eng. J., 42, 186 (2008)
Tiehm A, Nickel K, Neis U, Water Sci. Technol., 36(11), 121 (1997)
Chiu YC, Chang CN, Lin JG, Huang SJ, Water Sci. Technol., 36(11), 155 (1997)
Chu CP, Chang B, Liao GS, Jean DS, Lee DJ, Water Res., 35, 1038 (2001)
Chu CP, Lee DJ, Chang B, You CS, Tay JH, Water Res., 36, 2681 (2002)
Gronroos A, Kyllonen H, Korpijarvi K, Pirkonen P, Paavola T, Jokela J, Rintala J, Ultrason. Sonochem., 12, 115 (2005)
Wang F, Lu S, Ji M, Ultrason. Sonochem., 13, 334 (2006)
Khanal SM, Grewell D, Sung S, van Leeuwen J, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 37, 277 (2007)
Earnshaw RG, Appleyard J, Hurst RM
Vacquez GE, Putterman SJ, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 3037 (2000)
Taylor KJ, Jarman PD, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 1, 653 (1968)
APHA, AWWA, WEF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st Ed., Washington DC (2005)
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ, J. Biol. Chem., 193, 265 (1951)
Bitton G, Wastewater microbiology 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J. (2005)
Didenko YT, Nastich DN, Pugach SP, Polovinka YA, Kvochka VI, Ultrason., 32, 71 (1994)
Barber BP, Wu CC, Lofsted R, Roberts PH, Putterman SJ, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 1380 (1994)
Kirpalani DM, McQuinn KJ, Ultrason. Sonochem., 13, 1 (2006)
Entezari MH, Kruus P, Ultrason. Sonochem., 3, 19 (1996)