Comparison of sulfonated and other micropollutants removal in membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment
- PMID: 17207834
- DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.11.013
Comparison of sulfonated and other micropollutants removal in membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment
Abstract
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were compared with conventional activated sludge systems (CAS) for micropollutant degradation, in laboratory-scale spiking experiments with synthetic and real domestic wastewater. The target micropollutants were polar in nature and represented a broad range in biodegradability. The experimental data indicated that MBR treatment could significantly enhance removal of the micropollutants 1,6- and 2,7-naphthalene disulfonate (NDSA) and benzothiazole-2-sulfonate. 1,5-NDSA, EDTA and diclofenac were not removed in either the MBR or the CAS. The other compounds were equally well degraded in both systems. For 1,3-naphthalene disulfonate, the existence of a minimum threshold level for degradation could be demonstrated. Although MBRs could not always make a difference in the overall removal efficiencies achieved, they showed reduced lag phases for degradation and a stronger memory effect, which implies that they may respond quicker to variable influent concentrations. Finally, micropollutant removal also turned out to be less sensitive to system operational variables.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates removal in conventional activated sludge systems and membrane bioreactors.Water Sci Technol. 2004;50(5):219-25. Water Sci Technol. 2004. PMID: 15497851
-
Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment.Water Res. 2009 Feb;43(3):831-41. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.043. Epub 2008 Dec 7. Water Res. 2009. PMID: 19091371
-
Removal of a broad range of surfactants from municipal wastewater--comparison between membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge treatment.Chemosphere. 2007 Feb;67(2):335-43. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.056. Epub 2006 Nov 22. Chemosphere. 2007. PMID: 17123581
-
Activated sludge model (ASM) based modelling of membrane bioreactor (MBR) processes: a critical review with special regard to MBR specificities.Water Res. 2010 Aug;44(15):4272-94. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.007. Epub 2010 Jun 11. Water Res. 2010. PMID: 20619870 Review.
-
Review on the fate of organic micropollutants in wastewater treatment and water reuse with membranes.Water Sci Technol. 2012;66(6):1369-76. doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.285. Water Sci Technol. 2012. PMID: 22828319 Review.
Cited by
-
Benzothiazole heterogeneous photodegradation in nano α-Fe2O3/oxalate system under UV light irradiation.R Soc Open Sci. 2018 Jun 27;5(6):180322. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180322. eCollection 2018 Jun. R Soc Open Sci. 2018. PMID: 30110447 Free PMC article.
-
Removal of the 2-mercaptobenotiazole from model wastewater by ozonation.ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 23;2014:173010. doi: 10.1155/2014/173010. eCollection 2014. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014. PMID: 24578619 Free PMC article.
-
Advancement of membrane separation technology for organic pollutant removal.Water Sci Technol. 2024 May;89(9):2290-2310. doi: 10.2166/wst.2024.117. Epub 2024 Apr 10. Water Sci Technol. 2024. PMID: 38747950 Review.
-
Characterization and comparison of bacterial communities selected in conventional activated sludge and membrane bioreactor pilot plants: a focus on Nitrospira and Planctomycetes bacterial phyla.Curr Microbiol. 2013 Jul;67(1):77-90. doi: 10.1007/s00284-013-0333-6. Epub 2013 Feb 19. Curr Microbiol. 2013. PMID: 23420462
-
Biofiltration vs conventional activated sludge plants: what about priority and emerging pollutants removal?Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2014 Apr;21(8):5379-90. doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-2388-0. Epub 2013 Dec 24. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2014. PMID: 24366825
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources