4.5 Article

Membrane Fouling Controlled by Adjustment of Biological Treatment Parameters in Step-Aerating MBR

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes11080553

关键词

wastewater treatment; filamentous microorganisms; membrane bioreactor; membrane fouling; operating conditions

资金

  1. European Union
  2. Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation under the call RESEARCH-CREATE-INNOVATE [T1EDK-04370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adjusting operating parameters effectively controlled filamentous bacteria, improved membrane performance, reduced membrane fouling, and enhanced MBR efficiency.
A promising solution for membrane fouling reduction in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) could be the adjustment of operating parameters of the MBR, such as hydraulic retention time (HRT), food/microorganisms (F/M) loading and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, aiming to modify the sludge morphology to the direction of improvement of the membrane filtration. In this work, these parameters were investigated in a step-aerating pilot MBR that treated municipal wastewater, in order to control the filamentous population. When F/M loading in the first aeration tank (AT(1)) was <= 0.65 +/- 0.2 g COD/g MLSS/d at 20 +/- 3 degrees C, DO = 2.5 +/- 0.1 mg/L and HRT = 1.6 h, the filamentous bacteria were controlled effectively at a moderate filament index of 1.5-3. The moderate population of filamentous bacteria improved the membrane performance, leading to low transmembrane pressure (TMP) at values <= 2 kPa for a great period, while at the control MBR the TMP gradually increased reaching 14 kPa. Soluble microbial products (SMP), were also maintained at low concentrations, contributing additionally to the reduction of tau MP. Finally, the step-aerating MBR process and the selected imposed operating conditions of HRT, F/M and DO improved the MBR performance in terms of fouling control, facilitating its future wider application.

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