000 02830ntm a2200265 a 4500
001 vtls000084592
003 KUKTEM
005 20251117113246.0
008 141222t2014 my a f m 000 0 eng d
020 _aTHE0004661(Local)
039 9 _a201905131249
_bsmfh
_c201712061005
_dhuda
_y201412221005
_zfawwaz
040 _aUMP
090 _aTP359.B46 R34 2014 r Bc.
100 0 _aRagini Mahendran
245 1 0 _aStudy the effect of using ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system (umas) in treating sugarcane waste and methane gas production /
_cRagini Mahendran
260 _aKuantan, Pahang :
_bUMP,
_c2014
300 _aa xvii, 100 p. :
_bill. ;
_c30 cm. +
_e1 CD-ROM
500 _aFaculty of Chemical & Natural Resources Engineering
502 _aProject paper (Bachelor of Chemical Engineering) -- Universiti Malaysia Pahang – 2014
504 _aBibliography : p. 75-85
520 3 _aSugarcane industry is one of the most important industries in many developing countries. However, sugarcane industry produces significant amount of wastes mainly in the form of liquid wastes. In present study, biological treatment with membrane technology and ultrasound effect was carried out to treat sugarcane wastewater. The main objective of this study is to make an overall comparison between membrane anaerobic system (MAS) and ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system (UMAS) in treating sugarcane waste. Raw sugarcane wastewater was operated in a membrane anaerobic reactor for 5 hours for 7 continuous days. After 5 hours of operation, the permeate (filtrate) from the reactor was collected and tested for BOD, COD, TSS and VSS. The gas produced was collected using designated syringe. The experiment was repeated with 10 kHz of ultrasound frequency devise attached to the membrane to investigate the effect of ultrasonic wave towards the process. From this study, for COD and BOD, MAS has achieved 86% removal efficiency and UMAS achieved 96% removal. For TSS, MAS obtained 81% removal efficiency but UMAS attained 100% removal which shows UMAS has removed all the detectable suspended solids from the wastewater. The same trend goes for VSS removal efficiency. MAS produced 1400mL of permeate and UMAS produced 2346mL of permeate. This huge difference in volume was due to the fouling which blocks the membrane pores. For biogas production, 68% and 77% of methane gas have been produced during MAS and UMAS treatments respectively. From these results, it proves that UMAS has prevented fouling and it is more proficient than MAS as it produced permeate which meet the discharge limit fixed by Malaysia Department of Environmental (DOE)
650 0 _aMethanol
856 4 0 _uhttp://ecollib.ump.edu.my/9705/
_zAccess in library only
999 _aVIRTUA40
_c5627
_d5633
999 _aVTLSSORT0080*0200*0400*0900*1000*2450*2600*3000*5000*5020*5040*5200*6500*8560*9992