2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.07.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is biological treatment a viable alternative for micropollutant removal in drinking water treatment processes?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
181
0
7

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 301 publications
(192 citation statements)
references
References 131 publications
4
181
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…It is seldom used in drinking water treatment, however, due to lower nutrient influent, backwash, and undefined microbial roles in the treatment system. Benner et al (2013) once proposed in a review that bioaugmentation is "a potential targeted, cost-effective, and sustainable alternative to existing treatment processes". Christian et al (2015) and Haig et al (2016) used bioaugmentation in sand filters to successfully improve the removal of 2,6-dichlorobenzamide and estrogens, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is seldom used in drinking water treatment, however, due to lower nutrient influent, backwash, and undefined microbial roles in the treatment system. Benner et al (2013) once proposed in a review that bioaugmentation is "a potential targeted, cost-effective, and sustainable alternative to existing treatment processes". Christian et al (2015) and Haig et al (2016) used bioaugmentation in sand filters to successfully improve the removal of 2,6-dichlorobenzamide and estrogens, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An appropriate hydraulic retention time (HRT) is also essential. On the one hand, a longer HRT may increase reaction time, and thus improve the treatment effect; on the other hand, a shorter HRT may increase substrate support and diminish the diffusive boundary layer surrounding each filter particle leading to more efficient degradation (Benner et al, 2013). Therefore, optimizing the HRT for pollutant removal should be done prior to the operation of a sand filter.…”
Section: Bioaugmentation Treatment Of Groundwater Containing High Mn(mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Polluted groundwater aquifers used for drinking water are often remediated by use of the pump-and-treat technology, where the water is pumped up and treated at the site, typically by adsorption of the contaminants onto activated carbon (10), though phenoxypropionate herbicides are not sequestered very well by activated carbon due to their chemical characteristics. As an alternative, pesticide-contaminated water may be remediated by passing the water through a sand filter with degrading bacteria.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BPA can also partially accumulate by passing through soil and river sediments. [15] 60-600 [43] 360-1620 [18] 378-890 [9] 416-2050 [23] 1800 [40] 2-44 [43] 30-1100 [15] 35-86 [23] 110-300 [18] 700 [40] 1.2-1900 [1] 2.1-87 [13] 2.2-4230 [21] 6-34 [23] 6-68 [11] 6-500 [26] 6-881 [22] 7.5-334 [12] 55-162 [27] 192-215 [15] 460-4800 [25] b.l.q.-494 [17] b.l.q.-7000 [19] b.l.q.-9300 [28] 1-1136 [20] 1-11 [4] 79-2550 [15] 600-11000 [14] 0.17-1.25 [2] 0.58-36700 [8] 1.1-43 [42] 4.3-130 [25] 10-530 [23] 53-196 [43] 0.32 [6] Fu and Kawamura [5] showed that bisphenol A is also present in air samples. In the agricultural areas of China, its concentration in the air does not exceed 240 pg/m3, but the air samples in urban areas are more contaminated (20-2.340 pg/m 3 ).…”
Section: Occurrence In the Environmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are known cases of bisphenol A detection in drinking water in China between 15-63 ng/l and 38.9-55.8 ng/l [8]; in Canada, 100 ng/l; in the USA, up to 24 ng/l [15]; also in other countries at concentrations not exceeding 100 ng/l (0.5-99 ng/l) [1].…”
Section: Bpa In Other Matrixesmentioning
confidence: 99%