4.7 Article

Comparison of a deterministic and a data driven model to describe MBR crossMark fouling

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 260, 期 -, 页码 300-308

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.09.003

关键词

Wastewater; MBR; Fouling; Modelling; Deterministic model; Data-driven model

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CTM201238314-0O2-01, PCIN-2013-074, BES-2010033288]
  2. People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7 [289193]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are a combination of activated sludge bioreactors and membrane filtration, enabling high quality effluent with a small footprint. However, they can be beset by fouling, which causes an increase in transmembrane pressure (TMP). Modelling and simulation of changes in TMP could be useful to describe fouling through the identification of the most relevant operating conditions. Using experimental data from a MBR pilot plant operated for 462 days, two different models were developed: a deterministic model using activated sludge model no 2d (ASM2d) for the biological component and a resistance in-series model for the filtration component as well as a data-driven model based on multivariable regressions. Once validated, these models were used to describe membrane fouling (as changes in TMP over time) under different operating conditions. The deterministic model performed better at higher temperatures (>20 degrees C), constant operating conditions (DO set-point, membrane air-flow, pH and ORP), and high mixed liquor suspended solids (>6.9 g L-1) and flux changes. At low pH (<7) or periods with higher pH changes, the data-driven model was more accurate. Changes in the DO set-point of the aerobic reactor that affected the TMP were also better described by the data-driven model. By combining the use of both models, a better description of fouling can be achieved under different operating conditions. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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