Comparison of a sMBR and a CASP system for wastewater reclamation and re-use

dc.contributor.authorHasar, H
dc.contributor.authorKinaci, C
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T17:02:15Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractThe performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor (sMBR) for municipal wastewater reclamation and re-use was compared with that of a current classic activated sludge process (CASP). The average chemical oxygen demand (COO) of CASP effluent was 75 mg/l, while the average COD of sMBR filtrate was 15 mg/l. In general, COD removal was above 98%. However, the best results were obtained at a sludge rentention time (SRT) of 50 days. The total phosphorus (TP) content of the filtrate decreased to a level <1 mg/l under aerobic conditions in which aeration occurred continuously. It was shown that the filtrate TIP and orthoposphate (Orto-P) concentrations increased dramatically during the periods of intermittent aeration because phosphorus is released under anoxic conditions. In the CASP effluent, the average TP and Orto-P were 7.9 mg/l and 7.1 mg/l, respectively. The filtrate was free of suspended solids (SS) and total coliform bacteria. The effluent SS in the CASP was 40 mg/l. The turbidity removal in the sMBR reached almost 99%, i.e. generally less than 1 NTU, while the average turbidity of the CASP effluent was almost 15 NTU. The removal of ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N) in the sMBR was almost 99.8%. In addition, the nitrate concentration in the filtrate decreased to 2.4 mg/l under both aerobic & anoxic conditions. It was shown that both nitrification and denitrification could be successfully reduced through intermittent aeration. Average total Kjeldehl nitrogen (TKN) and NH4+-N in the CASP effluent were 30.2 mg/l and 20 mg/l, respectively, i.e. the nitrification efficiency was 42.9%, and the denitrification value was not available. When these results are compared with those in the CASP it indicated that the sMBR could be successfully used for reclamation and re-use of municipal wastewater.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0015-1882(04)00112-0
dc.identifier.endpage39
dc.identifier.issn0015-1882
dc.identifier.issn1873-7218
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8207-8669
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1775-3466
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-1542317604
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4
dc.identifier.startpage35
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(04)00112-0
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/48086
dc.identifier.volume41
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000189281200005
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMa Healthcare Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofFiltration + Separation
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.subjectActivated-Sludge Process
dc.subjectMembrane Bioreactor
dc.subjectFiltration
dc.subjectSeparation
dc.subjectIndustrial
dc.subjectAeration
dc.titleComparison of a sMBR and a CASP system for wastewater reclamation and re-use
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar