4.8 Article

Membrane coagulation bioreactor (MCBR) for drinking water treatment

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 14, 页码 3910-3920

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.05.025

关键词

membrane coagulation bioreactor (MCBR); membrane bioreactor (MBR); drinking water treatment; coagulation; organic matter; fouling layer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a novel submerged ultrafiltration (UF) membrane coagulation bioreactor (MCBR) process was evaluated for drinking water treatment at a hydraulic retention time (HAT) as short as 0.5 h. The MCBR performed well not only in the elimination of particulates and microorganisms, but also in almost complete nitrification and phosphate removal. As compared to membrane bioreactor (MBA), MCBR achieved much higher removal efficiencies of organic matter in terms of total organic carbon (TOC), permanganate index (CODMn), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and UV absorbance at 254 nm (UV254), as well as corresponding trihalomethanes formation potential (THMFP) and haloacetic acids formation potential (HAAFP), due to polyaluminium chloride (PACT) coagulation in the bioreactor. However, the reduction of biodegradable dissolved organic carbon (BDOC) and assimilable organic carbon (AOC) by MCBR was only 8.2% and 10.1% higher than that by MBR, indicating that: biodegradable organic matter (BOM) was mainly removed through biodegradation. On the other hand, the trans-membrane pressure (TMP) of MCBR developed much lower than that of MBR, which implies that coagulation in the bioreactor could mitigate membrane fouling. It was also identified that the removal of organic matter was accomplished through the combination of three unit effects: rejection by UF, biodegradation by microorganism and coagulation by PACT. During filtration operation, a fouling layer was formed on the membranes surface of both MCBR and MBR, which functioned as a second membrane for further separating organic matter. (C) 2008 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