4.7 Review

A review of the current in-situ fouling control strategies in MBR Biological versus physicochemical

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiec.2021.03.042

Keywords

MBR; Fouling control; Biological; Physicochemical; Wastewater reclamation

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2019YFC0408202]
  2. Shanghai Pujiang Program [19PJ1404000]
  3. Suzhou Science and Technology Project [SS202015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides a detailed review of in-situ biological and physicochemical methods for fouling control in membrane bioreactors, comparing their performance, mechanisms, and practicality, and recommending future development of more sustainable and widely applicable fouling control strategies.
Fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBR) is a bottleneck problem limiting their application. In-situ fouling control strategies have been continuously developed for decades, and can be mainly categorized as biological and physicochemical approaches. However, the mechanisms and performance of these methods as well as their application prospects have not been thoroughly discussed and compared in a systematic manner. This study was aimed at providing a detailed review on the various in-situ biological and physicochemical methods in terms of fouling control performance, fouling reduction mechanisms and practicability. This involves a comparison of the popular biological control strategies including quorum quenching (QQ)) and physicochemical approaches such as NaClO backflushing, hybrid electrochemical MBR and anti-biofouling membrane development, with the analysis of their potential, existing issues and practicality in full-scale applications. Future work is also recommended for developing more sustainable and more widely applicable MBR fouling control strategies. (C) 2021 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available