Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 73, 2018
The 3rd International Conference on Energy, Environmental and Information System (ICENIS 2018)
Article Number 05009
Number of page(s) 5
Section Environmental Technology and Pollution Control
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20187305009
Published online 21 December 2018
  1. R. Indonesia. KepMen LH No. 113 Tahun 2003 tentang Baku Mutu Air Limbah bagi Usaha dan atau Kegiatan Pertambangan Batubara. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rudy Sayoga Gautama. Pengelolaan Air Asam Tambang. Bimbingan Teknis, Reklamasi dan Pascatambang pada Kegiatan Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara - DITJEN MINERAL DAN BATUBARA, KESDM. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Najib, Tahereh. 2017. Optimization of Sulfate Removal by Sulfate reducing bacteria using response surface methodology and heavy metal removal in sulfidogenic UASB reactor. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 5: 3256–3265. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sugiyono, 2009, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D, Bandung: Alfabeta. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asip, Faisol. 2015 Pengaruh Adsorben Diatomaceous Earth terhadap Penurunan Kadar Besi dan Ion Sulfat dari Air Asam Tambang. Jurnal Teknik Kimia No. 4, Vol. 21. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tresnadi, H. 2014. Pengelolaan Air Asam Tambang di PIT 1 Bangko Barat, Tanjung Enim Sumatera Selatan. PTSM-TPSA-Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi. hidir.tresnadi@bppt.go.id [Google Scholar]
  7. Fahruddin. 2009.Pengaruh Jenis Sedimen Wetland Dalam Reduksi Sulfat pada Limbah. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nurandani Hardyanti, Suparni Setyowati Rahayu. 2007. Fitoremediasi Phospat dengan Pemanfaatan Enceng Gondok (Eichhornia Crassipes) (Studi Kasus pada Limbah Cair Industri Kecil Laundry). Jurnal Presipitasi 2 (1): 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  9. Takasihaeng, Clara. Pengaruh Sedimen Rawa dalam Menurunkan Kandungan Sulfat dan Pertumbuhan Populasi Mikroba dalam Air Asam Tambang(AAT). Jurnal Teknik Lingkungan, Vol. 10, No. 1,Hal. 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  10. Demirci, Y., Saatci, Y. 2013. Influence of COD/SO42-Ratios on Performance of Anaerobic Hybrid Reactor and Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Bed Reactor. Asian Journal of Chemistry. 25(18): 10529–10534. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Moon, C., Singh, R., Veeravalli, S. S., Shanmugam, S. R., Chaganti, S. R., Lalman, J. A., Heath, D. D. 2015. Effect of COD/SO42-Ratio, HRT and Linoleic Acid Concentration on Mesophilic Sulfate Reduction Reactor Performance and Microbial Population Dynamics. Water. 7: 2275–2292. [Google Scholar]
  12. E. Choi, J.M. Rim. 1991. Competition and inhibition of sulfate reducers and methane producers in anaerobic treatment, Water Sci. Technol. 23: 1259–1264. [Google Scholar]
  13. S. Al Zuhair, S. Al Zuhair, M.H. El-Naas, H. Al Hassani. 2008. Sulfate inhibition effect on sulfate reducing bacteria. J. Biochem. Technol. 1: 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  14. Luptakova, A., Macingova, E. 2012. Alternative Substrates of Bacterial Sulphate Reduction Suitable for The Biological-Chemical Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage. Acta Montanistica Slovaea. 17: 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hojo, T., et al. 2016. Effect of Influent COD/ SO4 Ratios on Biodegradation Behaviors of Strach Wastewater in An Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor. Bioresource Technology. 214: 175–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Velasco, A., Ramirez, M., Sepulveda, T. V., Sanchez, A. G., Revah, S. 2008. Evaluation of Feed COD/Sulfate Ratio as A Control Criterion For The Biological Hydrogen Sulfide Production and Lead Precipitation. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 151: 407–413. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hu, Y., Jing, Z., Sudo, Y., Niu, Q., Du, J., Wu, J., Li, Y. 2015. Effect of Influent COD/ SO4 Ratios on UASB Treatment of A Synthetic Sulfate-Containing Wastewater. Chemosphere. 130: 24–33. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.