Biomass characteristics of two types of submerged membrane bioreactors for nitrogen removal from wastewater

Liang, Zhihua; Das, Atreyee; Beerman, Daniel; Hu, Zhiqiang

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.03.013

Cited by 65 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding organic matter removal, no statistically significant differences were observed between C-MBR and BF-MBR, with average Soluble COD concentrations of 27 ± 9.0 mgO 2 .L -1 and 26 ±1.0 mgO 2 .L -1 and BOD concentrations of 6.0 ± 2.5 mgO 2 .L -1 and 6.2 ± 2.1 mgO 2 .L -1 , respectively. Liu et al (2010) and Khan et al (2012) reported better COD removal in a biofilm MBR, while Liang et al (2010) and found a worse removal rate in a biofilm MBR (Figure 6). However, in all cases differences in organic matter removal were very small, indicating, as cited by Ivanovic et al (2006), that generally there is no difference in the degree of organic removal between an activated sludge MBR and biofilm MBR when operated at similar HRT and SRT.…”

Section: Permeate Qualitymentioning

confidence: 89%

Comparison between a conventional membrane bioreactor (C-MBR) and a biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) for domestic wastewater treatment

Subtil

Mierzwa

Hespanhol

2014

Braz. J. Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-In this paper, the influence of biofilm carriers in a MBR on the performance of organic matter and nitrogen removal and the influence on membrane fouling were evaluated. The configurations studied included a Conventional Membrane Bioreactor (C-MBR) and a Biofilm Membrane Bioreactor (BF-MBR) operated in parallel, both fed with domestic wastewater. Regarding organic matter removal, no statistically significant differences were observed between C-MBR and BF-MBR, producing an effluent with a Soluble COD concentration of 27 ± 9.0 mgO 2 /L and 26 ±1.0 mgO 2 /L and BOD concentration of 6.0 ± 2.5 mgO 2 /L and 6.2 ± 2.1 mgO 2 /L, respectively. On the other hand, the BF-MBR produced a permeate with lower ammonia and total nitrogen concentrations, which resulted in a removal efficiency of 98% and 73%, respectively. It was also observed that the fouling rate was about 35% higher in the C-MBR than that for the BF-MBR, which also presented a reduction of total membrane resistance, about 29%, and increased operational cycle length around 7 days, compared to C-MBR.

show abstract

Section: Permeate Qualitymentioning

confidence: 89%

Comparison between a conventional membrane bioreactor (C-MBR) and a biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) for domestic wastewater treatment

Subtil

Mierzwa

Hespanhol

2014

Braz. J. Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biomass characteristics of membrane bioreactors studied by Liang et al [81] found that the membrane fouling due to bacterial growth was evident in both the reactors. Membrane biofilm reactors (MBfR) utilize membrane fibers for bubble-less transfer of gas by diffusion and provide a surface for biofilm development.…”

Section: Foulingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Liang et al [81] studied nitrogen removal for a submerged membrane bioreactor with mixed liquor recirculation (MLE/MBR) and a membrane bioreactor with integrated fixed biofilm medium (IFMBR). The MLE/MBR exhibited higher nitrifying bacteria diversity and nitrifying activity.…”

Section: Nutrient Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofilm Fixed Film Systems

Gullicks

Hasan

Das

et al. 2011

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The work reviewed here was published between 2008 and 2010 and describes research that involved aerobic and anoxic biofilm treatment of water pollutants. Biofilm denitrification systems are covered when appropriate. References catalogued here are divided on the basis of fundamental research area or reactor types. Fundamental research into biofilms is presented in two sections, Biofilm Measurement and Characterization and Growth and Modeling. The reactor types covered are: trickling filters, rotating biological contactors, fluidized bed bioreactors, submerged bed biofilm reactors, biological granular activated carbon, membrane bioreactors, and immobilized cell reactors. Innovative reactors, not easily classified, are then presented, followed by a section on biofilms on sand, soil and sediment.

show abstract

“…In both cases, the nitrification efficiency seems to be controlled by the prevalent operational and environmental conditions (Manser et al 2005;Bahadoorsingh 2010). In two different MBRs investigated (one was adapted with biofilm support medium), Liang et al (2010) noted that high nitrification rates correlated with the high species richness of nitrifying bacteria. Various authors have reported 96-99 and 92-98 % ammonia-nitrogen and COD removals, respectively, in MBRs investigated Yu et al 2010;Ozdemir et al 2011).…”

Section: Nitrification Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, same like any other PCR-based techniques, the biases related to DNA isolation steps and amplification also can affect the accuracy of this method (Sanz and Köchling 2007). Liang et al (2010) used the T-RFLP technique successfully to investigate the difference in nitrifier population from two different MBR systems.…”

Section: Substrate Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecophysiology of nitrifying communities in membrane bioreactors

Awolusi

Kumari

Bux

2014

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are rapidly becoming the technology of choice over conventional activated sludge treatment systems due to their smaller footprint, reduced sludge production, rapid start-up of biological processes, complete removal of suspended solids and better effluent quality. The retention of sufficient amount of slow-growing nitrifiers makes it feasible for the MBRs to achieve strong tolerance against the shock loads with stable and highly efficient nitrogen removal. Various studies have focused on the ecophysiology of nitrifiers in MBRs as well as their distinctive operational parameters as well as their impact on the selection and activity of nitrifying community. Several techniques have been employed over the years to understand the nitrifying community and their interaction within the MBR system, which led to its modification from the initial design. This review focuses on the identification of optimal operational and environmental conditions for efficient nitrification in MBRs. The advantages and limitations of different techniques employed for investigating the nitrifying communities in MBRs are also emphasized.

show abstract

Biomass characteristics of two types of submerged membrane bioreactors for nitrogen removal from wastewater

Cited by 65 publications

References 31 publications

Comparison between a conventional membrane bioreactor (C-MBR) and a biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) for domestic wastewater treatment

Comparison between a conventional membrane bioreactor (C-MBR) and a biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) for domestic wastewater treatment

Biofilm Fixed Film Systems

Ecophysiology of nitrifying communities in membrane bioreactors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About