4.5 Article

Comparison of two treatments for the removal of selected organic micropollutants and bulk organic matter: conventional activated sludge followed by ultrafiltration versus membrane bioreactor

期刊

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 733-740

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2011.300

关键词

antibiotics; BPA; organic micropollutants; membrane bioreactor; municipal wastewater; ultrafiltration

资金

  1. Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)
  2. German Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential of membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems to remove organic micropollutants was investigated at different scales, operational conditions, and locations. The effluent quality of the MBR system was compared with that of a plant combining conventional activated sludge (CAS) followed by ultrafiltration (UF). The MBR and CAS-UF systems were operated and tested in parallel. An MBR pilot plant in Israel was operated for over a year at a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) range of 2.8-10.6 g/L. The MBR achieved removal rates comparable to those of a CAS-UF plant at the Tel-Aviv wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for macrolide antibiotics such as roxythromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin and slightly higher removal rates than the CAS-UF for sulfonamides. A laboratory scale MBR unit in Berlin - at an MLSS of 6-9 g/L - showed better removal rates for macrolide antibiotics, trimethoprim, and 5-tolyitriazole compared to the CAS process of the Ruhleben sewage treatment plant (STP) in Berlin when both were fed with identical quality raw wastewater. The Berlin CAS exhibited significantly better benzotriazole removal and slightly better sulfamethoxazole and 4-tolyltriazole removal than its MBR counterpart. Pilot MBR tests (MLSS of 12 g/L) in Aachen, Germany, showed that operating flux significantly affected the resulting membrane fouling rate, but the removal rates of dissolved organic matter and of bisphenol A were not affected.

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

4.5
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