Decompostion of pharmaceuticals (sulfamethazine and sulfathiazole) using oxygen-based membrane biofilm reactor

Kim, Joonkyu; Song, In Han; Lee, Sang-Joon; Kim, Pyoungsan; Oh, Hyunje; Park, Joonhong; Choung, Youn-Kyoo

doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.035

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yeh and Jenkins ( 1978 ) called this process aerated media trickling fi lter (AMTF). The terms permeable support biofi lm (PSB) reactor (Timberlake et al ., 1988 ), oxygen-based MBfR (Kim et al ., 2010 ), redox stratifi ed MBfR (Wang et al ., 2011 ) and membrane-aerated biofi lm reactor (MABR) (Syron and Casey, 2008a ) have also been used. Recently, the last term has become most prevalent in the published literature.…”

Section: Oxygen-based Mbfrsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A Pseudomonas fl uorescens culture removed fl uoroacetate with removal effi ciencies ranging from 61.0% to 91.5% in 72-h tests (Heffernan et al ., 2009 ). The pharmaceuticals sulfamethazine and sulfathiazole were removed with effi ciencies of 77 ± 2% and 87 ± 2%, respectively, at a hydraulic retention time of 3 h in a MBfR fed with pure oxygen (Kim et al ., 2010 ).…”

Section: Oxygen-based Mbfrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biocatalytic membrane reactors for the removal of recalcitrant and emerging pollutants from wastewater

Hai

Nghiem

Modin

2013

Handbook of Membrane Reactors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Oxygen-based Mbfrsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Oxygen-based Mbfrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocatalytic membrane reactors for the removal of recalcitrant and emerging pollutants from wastewater

Hai

Nghiem

Modin

2013

Handbook of Membrane Reactors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kim et al . observed that by increasing HRT from 3 to 4 h, nitrification efficiency was increased from 75% to 82% . Brosseau et al .…”

Section: Operating Conditions In Biofilm Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…128 Kim et al observed that by increasing HRT from 3 to 4 h, nitrification efficiency was increased from 75% to 82%. 129 Brosseau et al studied the performance of bioreactors at 10 and 20 ∘ C and reported that decreasing the temperature from 20 to 10 ∘ C caused a significant reduction of 15-41% of COD removal efficiency. 130 Li et al reported that supplying sufficient DO (5 mg L −1 ) and avoiding the negative effect of the aeration shear stress help to form a biofilm with sufficient thickness.…”

Section: Operating Conditions In Biofilm Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on the advances in nitrifying biofilm reactors and their removal rates in wastewater treatment

Chaali

Naghdi

Brar

et al. 2018

J of Chemical Tech & Biotech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing demand for efficient wastewater treatment systems is spurring on the development of new technologies. Biofilm‐based reactors can be used for the treatment of a variety of wastewaters and these reactors are resistant to toxic environments. Bioreactors, such as sequencing batch biofilm and moving bed biofilm are advanced techniques to treat various types of wastewaters with diverse operating conditions. Ammonium oxidizing bacteria, nitrite oxidizing bacteria and Anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidation) bacteria are reported to be responsible for nutrient removal. In recent decades, the performance of these systems has been studied widely and compared for a number of wastewater treatment applications. In general, they are particularly suitable for high‐rate nitrification and nitrogen removal. The efficiency of these reactors has been confirmed in the laboratory and large‐scale plants. Their efficiency depends on the surface area of the biocarrier, the filling percentage volume of biofilm carriers, organic loading and diffused aeration supply. Chemical oxygen demand removal of 50–98% was reported for <12 h hydraulic retention time, 0.2 to 6.5 mg L−1 dissolved oxygen concentration and temperature range 15–35 °C. Also, the ratio of nitrate to ammonium conversion was from 0.2 to 90 and N2 conversion was from 0 to 8.5 mg. This review studied each of these bioreactors in the removal of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and oxygen) from different wastewaters and compared them to conventional treatment. The review also includes the relevant studies on laboratory and pilot‐scale bioreactors to enhance their performance and reduce their costs. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

“…In these cases, the pollutant to be removed is respired by the microbial community, which grows on the membrane surface, and electron donor is supplied via the membrane lumen. MbfRs have also been tested for the treatment of diverse organic contaminants including BTEX and chlorinated solvents (Syron and Casey, 2008) and pharmaceuticals (Kim et al, 2010). While the MbfR allows for very small footprint reactors, where exact dosing control of electron donors can lead to cost-efficient biotreatment technologies with engineered biofilms (Nerenberg, 2016), it remains to be examined whether the increased operational complexity (supply of gasses) and investment costs (membranes) provides a sufficient advantage over traditional biofiltration solutions that would depend on soluble electron donor additions (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial biotechnologies for potable water production

Fowler

Smets

2017

Microbial Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable Development Goal 6 requires the provision of safe drinking water to the world. We propose that increased exploitation of biological processes is fundamental to achieving this goal due to their low economic and energetic costs. Biological processes exist for the removal of most common contaminants, and biofiltration processes can establish a biologically stable product that retains high quality in distribution networks, minimizing opportunities for pathogen invasion.

show abstract

Decompostion of pharmaceuticals (sulfamethazine and sulfathiazole) using oxygen-based membrane biofilm reactor

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Biocatalytic membrane reactors for the removal of recalcitrant and emerging pollutants from wastewater

Biocatalytic membrane reactors for the removal of recalcitrant and emerging pollutants from wastewater

A review on the advances in nitrifying biofilm reactors and their removal rates in wastewater treatment

Microbial biotechnologies for potable water production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About