2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2009.09.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The study of pathogenic microbial communities in graywater using membrane bioreactor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, due to the variability in parameter information provided in the studies reviewed, an overall analysis of these parameters was not performed in this review. An additional study of an AAO MBR reported LRVs of indicator bacteria in the range of 0.1 to 0.7 [114], however these results represent a significant outlier as compared to the rest of existing literature. With the exception of the aforementioned, all of the MBR systems studied using culture-based methods have shown improved microbial indicator removal rates as compared to conventional WWTP processes [115][116][117].…”
Section: Pathogen-associated Risk Reduction By Membrane Bioreactorscontrasting
confidence: 42%
“…However, due to the variability in parameter information provided in the studies reviewed, an overall analysis of these parameters was not performed in this review. An additional study of an AAO MBR reported LRVs of indicator bacteria in the range of 0.1 to 0.7 [114], however these results represent a significant outlier as compared to the rest of existing literature. With the exception of the aforementioned, all of the MBR systems studied using culture-based methods have shown improved microbial indicator removal rates as compared to conventional WWTP processes [115][116][117].…”
Section: Pathogen-associated Risk Reduction By Membrane Bioreactorscontrasting
confidence: 42%
“…Nitrate (mg/L)5–98%26–8280%52–63%24 to 58%T. Phosp (mg/L)Up to 100%Up to 71%Up to 19%10 to 39%FC (CFU)88.5–99.9%Up to 99% E. coli (CFU)Up to 100%88.5–99.9%Ca (mg/L)Up to 100%Mg (mg/L)Up to 100%Na (mg/L)47% a Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino (2010); Dalahmeh et al (2012); Finley et al (2009); Gross (2008); Parjane and Sane (2011); Zuma et al (2009) b Gross (2008); Gross et al (2007); Travis et al (2010) c Hernandez Leal et al (2010); Krishnan et al (2008); Lamine et al (2007); Scheumann and Kraume (2009) d Friedler et al (2011); Gilboa and Friedler (2008); Pathan et al (2011) e Atanasova et al (2017); Huelgas and Funamizu (2010); Jong et al (2010); Merz et al (2007) f Abdel-Shafy et al (2015); Elmitwalli et al (2007); Hernandez Leal et al (2010)…”
Section: Filtrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Huelgas and Funamizu (2010) studied the treatment of greywater using a laboratory scale MBR under varying pressure. Jong et al (2010) also used anaerobic-anoxic-oxic MBR to treat greywater in Korea with microfilter of pore size 0.45 μm. These systems could achieve very good effluent which meets regulatory standards for reuse.…”
Section: Membrane Bioreactormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although effluent turbidity (0.23-1.90 NTU) in the present study satisfied wastewater reclamation standards (NTU ≤ 5, GB/T 25499-2010, China), Giardia may leak from the MBR system at a relatively high concentration. Turbidities of 1.5 ± 0.4 and 0-6 (average 1.63) NTU in effluents have also been reported for MBR effluents with pore size < 0.4 and 0.45 μm, respectively (Jong et al, 2010;Rodríguez-Hernández et al, 2013), suggesting that leakage of particles may be a frequently occurring problem in actual application. This is understandable since membranes are under stress (e.g., high shear stress, existence of sharp particles) in an MBR system.…”
Section: Occurrence Of Giardia In Reclaimed Water Samplesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The combination of biological wastewater treatment and membrane separation, known as the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process, has attracted particular interest because of its advantages in achieving nutrient removal and disinfection in only one step (Jefferson et al, 2000). However, Jong et al (2010) reported that microfiltration membranes (pore size 0.45 μm) in MBR did not perfectly remove microorganisms such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella sp., Staphylococcus aureus and Coliform. This could cause particular concerns over the release of pathogens when membrane integrity failure occurs, as pathogens may be concentrated in activated sludge in an MBR system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%