2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3802-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Membrane fouling and performance of anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor treating phenol- and quinoline-containing wastewater: granular activated carbon vs polyaluminum chloride

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Higher removal rates were obtained by Santos et al [ 58 ] when treating vinasse with AnBRM: about 97% at an organic load of 6 gCOD/L/d and an SRT of 280 days. Several authors have reported COD removal rates above 95% using different bioreactor configurations and several effluents [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. During the acclimatization period, the slow evolution of the removal rate is attributed to low biological activity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Higher removal rates were obtained by Santos et al [ 58 ] when treating vinasse with AnBRM: about 97% at an organic load of 6 gCOD/L/d and an SRT of 280 days. Several authors have reported COD removal rates above 95% using different bioreactor configurations and several effluents [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. During the acclimatization period, the slow evolution of the removal rate is attributed to low biological activity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although several authors reported a positive effect of coagulant dosing [28][29][30], research on coagulant application in AnMBRs is limited. It was found that dosing polyaluminum chloride was more effective than dosing granular activated carbon for membrane fouling control in an AnMBR [31].Thus far, results show permeate fluxes between 10 and 20 L/m 2 h [32,33], which already indicates that similar permeate fluxes might be achieved in an AnMBR compared to an aerobic MBR. Nonetheless, the applicability of AnMBR will drastically improve if fluxes over 30 L/m 2 h can be achieved [34], which requires a further technology advancement.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…AnMBR with combination of anaerobic digestion and membrane separation endows some advantages, such as high sludge concentration, low sludge yield, and excellent removal capacity [ 7 , 8 ]. Therefore, the AnMBR can be used to treat the high-strength phenol wastewater, because sufficient amount of biomass remained in the reactor which could overcome the slow hydrolysis rate of phenol [ 9 ]. However, membrane fouling is one of the biggest obstacles which limited the application of AnMBR in wastewater treatment [ 10 , 11 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%