4.7 Article

Log removal values in membrane bioreactors: Correlation of surrogate monitoring and operational parameters

Journal

JOURNAL OF WATER PROCESS ENGINEERING
Volume 41, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102032

Keywords

LRV; MBR; Validation; Protozoa; Virus; Bacteria; Cryptosporidium

Funding

  1. Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, under the Natval grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study highlights important correlations between pathogens removal values in membrane bioreactors, emphasizing suitable monitoring techniques for biological removal and size exclusion as a predominant removal mechanism. Analysis shows variations in LRV under different conditions, providing important guidance for the validation of MBRs producing recycled water.
Log removal values (LRV) for a range of pathogens in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were aggregated for 180 sampling events across 11 municipal scale installations. Important correlations were established between LRV for biological (LRVBio) and physical (LRVMem) inactivation with reactor conditions (pH, temperature, solid and hydraulic retention times (SRT, HRT), and mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)), membrane properties (pore size and flux), operational variables and filtrate quality. LRVBio correlated positively and significantly between all microorganism indicators and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), becoming a suitable monitoring technique for biological removal. LRVMem correlated positively for protozoa indicators and bacteria consistent with size exclusion as a predominant removal mechanism. Strong correlations between LRV for protozoa, virus and bacteria indicators were established at lower flux, TMP and MLSS, higher pH and temperature and longer solids and hydraulic retention time. The implications of this study provide important guidance for the validation of MBRs producing safe and consistent recycled water.

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