English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 17776/20117 (88%)
Visitors : 10940002      Online Users : 146
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.cnu.edu.tw/handle/310902800/10460


    標題: 薄膜生物反應槽程序之技術與經濟評估 - 實際製藥廢水處理案例之研究
    Technical and economic evaluation of membrane bioreactor process – a case study of pharmaceutical wastewater treatment
    作者: 張哲榮
    Che-Jung Chang
    貢獻者: 張家源
    嘉南藥理科技大學:環境工程與科學系碩士班
    關鍵字: 製藥廢水
    經濟性評估
    生物處理程序
    沉浸式好氧薄膜生物反應槽
    Pharmaceutical Wastewater
    Economic Evaluation
    Biological process
    Submerged Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor (SAMBR)
    日期: 2008
    上傳時間: 2009-03-11 11:42:31 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究主要探討廢水在不同處理水量及不同處理程序技術下,其廢水處理建造設備及建構成本,結合各處理單元之經濟效益評估資料,評估廢水處理設備初設費用投資效益,以為相關製藥業廢水廠改建與新設置時之參考依據。
    評估對象共為五種工法,依序為雙好氧延長曝氣程序、厭氧-好氧三階段SBR程序、生物鐵-接觸氧化組合程序、化學處理結合好氧活性污泥程序及沉浸式好氧薄膜生物反應(SAMBR)程序,其中薄膜生物反應系統為本研究針對南部某製藥廢水構建之實廠所得資料,其餘工法則以文獻蒐集取得分析用數據;評估對象選取之基準有二,入流廢水COD濃度在4000 mg/L~6000 mg/L範圍內,處理後放流水COD濃度符合台灣地區工業區的納管標準COD濃度700 mg/L 以下。評估對象中,雙好氧延長曝氣程序,雖入流廢水COD濃度超過4000 mg/L~6000 mg/L範圍,但因其為目前普遍性之工法,故仍加入與其他程序工法做比較。
    研究結果發現,各項工法處理水量越大越能降低單位處理成本;在處理量100CMD下,沉浸式好氧薄膜生物反應程序(SAMBR)之初設費用為新台幣8,100,000元較其他處理工法為低;而在流量為1000CMD時,,SAMBR反應程序之初設費用為新台幣58,930,000元,在5種工法中為最低;廢水量5000CMD之評估結果亦顯示,沉浸式好氧薄膜生物反應程序之初設費用在5種工法中為最低,估算為新台幣247,630,000元。
    研究結果顯示,製藥廢水量在100CMD、1000CMD、5000CMD的前題下,考量兼顧處理效能及成本效益,沉浸式好氧薄膜生物反應程序(SAMBR)為本研究分析之對象中,投資效益評估較佳的處理工法。
    The main goal of this study is to evaluate the treatment equipment and building construction costs of five different processes for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment. Three flow rates were adopted for the assessment to examine and compare the system performance and economic benefit of those systems. The result of this study is expected to be an alternative for the pharmaceutical industry to make their decision of technology employed.
    Five processes were examined in this study which included dual tank extended aeration process, anaerobic-aerobic SBR proces, biological iron-contact oxidation, chemical-aerobic oxidation process and sumberaged aerobic membrane bioreactor process (SAMBR). The data of SAMBR was obtained from a field work installed by our previous study and has operated for 33 months. The others were obtained by literature survey and analysis. Two selection criterias of the processes were adopted in this study. Firstly, the COD influent was in a range of 4000 mg/L~6000 mg/L. For second criteria, the effluent COD should be lower than 700 mg/L to meet the discharge standard of the industrial park in Taiwan aera. The case of dual tank extended aeration process selected in this study could not meet the criterias mentioned above. However, it was selected and examined in this study since it is a common and popolar method for the treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater in Taiwan.
    The results of this study indicated that the unit capitical cost decreased with the increase of flow rate. The results also showed that whatever the flow rate the capitical require of SAMBR was the lowest cost compared to the other process. For flow rate of 100, 1000 and 5000CMD, the costs for capitical of SAMBR assessed by this study were 8,100,000, 58,930,000 and 247,630,000 NT, respectively.
    The results obtained from this study indicated that SAMBR is a high potential technology for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment and could be considered as an alternative of on-site unit for water recycling.
    關聯: 校內一年後公開,校外永不公開
    Appears in Collections:[環境工程與科學系(所)] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML594View/Open


    All items in CNU IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback