4.8 Article

Correlation of EPS content in activated sludge at different sludge retention times with membrane fouling phenomena

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 6-7, 页码 1475-1488

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.10.026

关键词

membrane bioreactor; fouling; extracellular polymeric substances; activated sludge; sludge retention time

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, activated sludge characteristics were studied with regard to membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) for two pilot plants and one full-scale plant treating municipal wastewater. For the full-scale MBR, concentrations of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) bound to sludge floes were shown to have seasonal variations from as low as 17 mg g(-1) dry matter (DM) in summer up to 51 mg (g DM)(-1) in winter, which correlated with an increased occurrence of filamentous bacteria in the colder season. Therefore, it was investigated at pilot-scale MBRs with different sludge retention times (SRTs) whether different EPS contents and corresponding sludge properties influence membrane fouling. Activated sludge from the pilot MBR with low SRT (23 d) was found to have worse filterability, settleability and dewaterability Photometric analysis of EPS extracts as well as LC-OCD measurements showed that it contained significantly higher concentrations of floc-bound EPS than sludge at higher SRT (40 d) The formation of fouling layers on the membranes, characterised by SEM-EDX as well as photometric analysis of EPS extracts, was more distinct at lower SRT where concentrations of deposited EPS were 40-fold higher for proteins and 5-fold higher for carbohydrates compared with the membrane at higher SRT. Floc-bound EPS and metals were suggested to play a role in the fouling process at the full-scale MBR and this was confirmed by the pilot-scale study. However, despite the different sludge properties, the permeability of membranes was found to be similar. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据