4.8 Article

Impact of colloidal and soluble organic material on membrane performance in membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 710-720

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.11.028

关键词

membrane bioreactor; fouling; organic substances; solutes; SEC; polysaccharides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two parallel membrane bioreactors (2 m(3) each) were operated over a period of 2 years. Both pilots were optimised for nitrification, denitrification, and enhanced biological phosphorous elimination, treating identical municipal wastewater under comparable operating conditions. The only constructional difference between the pilots was the position of the denitrification zone (pre-denitrification in pilot 1 and post-denitrification in pilot 2). Despite identical modules and conditions, the two MBRs showed different permeabilities and fouling rates. The differences were not related to the denitrification scheme. In order to find an explanation for the different membrane performances, a one-year investigation was initiated and the membrane performance as well as the operating regime and characteristics of the activated sludge were closely studied. MLSS concentrations, solid retention time, loading rates, and filtration flux were found not to be responsible for the different performance of the submerged modules. These parameters were kept identical in the two pilot plants. Instead, the non-settable fraction of the sludges (soluble and colloidal material, i.e. polysaccharides, proteins and organic colloids) was found to impact fouling and to cause the difference in membrane performance between the two MBR. This fraction was analysed by spectrophotometric and size exclusion chromatography (SEC) methods. In a second step, the origin of these substances was investigated. The results point to microbiologically produced substances such as extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) or soluble microbial products (SMP). (c) 2005 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