Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors
The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Xue, Yiting [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
8 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Editorial board - 2015, official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association, Barking |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:102 ; year:2015 ; pages:73-80 ; extent:8 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV02915300X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV02915300X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625170524.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2015017000017.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV02915300X | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 570 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 570 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 550 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 690 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 44.65 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Xue, Yiting |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 8 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. | ||
| 520 | |a The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Recirculated membrane bioreactor |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Fresh leachate |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Submerged membrane bioreactor |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Membrane fouling |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhao, Huihui |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ge, Lin |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chen, Zheng |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dang, Yan |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sun, Dezhi |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |t Editorial board |d 2015 |d official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association |g Barking |w (DE-627)ELV018796621 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:102 |g year:2015 |g pages:73-80 |g extent:8 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.65 |j Chirurgie |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 102 |j 2015 |h 73-80 |g 8 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 570 | ||
| author_variant |
y x yx |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
xueyitingzhaohuihuigelinchenzhengdangyan:2015----:oprsnfhpromnefatlahttetetnumreadei |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
44.65 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 doi GBVA2015017000017.pica (DE-627)ELV02915300X (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Xue, Yiting verfasserin aut Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors 2015transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Elsevier Zhao, Huihui oth Ge, Lin oth Chen, Zheng oth Dang, Yan oth Sun, Dezhi oth Enthalten in Elsevier Editorial board 2015 official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association Barking (DE-627)ELV018796621 volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_40 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 102 2015 73-80 8 045F 570 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 doi GBVA2015017000017.pica (DE-627)ELV02915300X (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Xue, Yiting verfasserin aut Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors 2015transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Elsevier Zhao, Huihui oth Ge, Lin oth Chen, Zheng oth Dang, Yan oth Sun, Dezhi oth Enthalten in Elsevier Editorial board 2015 official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association Barking (DE-627)ELV018796621 volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_40 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 102 2015 73-80 8 045F 570 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 doi GBVA2015017000017.pica (DE-627)ELV02915300X (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Xue, Yiting verfasserin aut Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors 2015transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Elsevier Zhao, Huihui oth Ge, Lin oth Chen, Zheng oth Dang, Yan oth Sun, Dezhi oth Enthalten in Elsevier Editorial board 2015 official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association Barking (DE-627)ELV018796621 volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_40 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 102 2015 73-80 8 045F 570 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 doi GBVA2015017000017.pica (DE-627)ELV02915300X (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Xue, Yiting verfasserin aut Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors 2015transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Elsevier Zhao, Huihui oth Ge, Lin oth Chen, Zheng oth Dang, Yan oth Sun, Dezhi oth Enthalten in Elsevier Editorial board 2015 official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association Barking (DE-627)ELV018796621 volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_40 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 102 2015 73-80 8 045F 570 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 doi GBVA2015017000017.pica (DE-627)ELV02915300X (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Xue, Yiting verfasserin aut Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors 2015transfer abstract 8 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Elsevier Zhao, Huihui oth Ge, Lin oth Chen, Zheng oth Dang, Yan oth Sun, Dezhi oth Enthalten in Elsevier Editorial board 2015 official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association Barking (DE-627)ELV018796621 volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_40 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 102 2015 73-80 8 045F 570 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Editorial board Barking volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Editorial board Barking volume:102 year:2015 pages:73-80 extent:8 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Chirurgie |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Recirculated membrane bioreactor Fresh leachate Submerged membrane bioreactor Membrane fouling |
| dewey-raw |
570 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Editorial board |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Xue, Yiting @@aut@@ Zhao, Huihui @@oth@@ Ge, Lin @@oth@@ Chen, Zheng @@oth@@ Dang, Yan @@oth@@ Sun, Dezhi @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV018796621 |
| dewey-sort |
3570 |
| id |
ELV02915300X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV02915300X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625170524.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2015017000017.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV02915300X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">550</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xue, Yiting</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Recirculated membrane bioreactor</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fresh leachate</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Submerged membrane bioreactor</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Membrane fouling</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhao, Huihui</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ge, Lin</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Zheng</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dang, Yan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sun, Dezhi</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="t">Editorial board</subfield><subfield code="d">2015</subfield><subfield code="d">official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association</subfield><subfield code="g">Barking</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV018796621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:102</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:73-80</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="j">Chirurgie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">102</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="h">73-80</subfield><subfield code="g">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Xue, Yiting |
| spellingShingle |
Xue, Yiting ddc 570 ddc 550 ddc 690 ddc 610 bkl 44.65 Elsevier Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| authorStr |
Xue, Yiting |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV018796621 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
570 - Life sciences; biology 550 - Earth sciences 690 - Buildings 610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 570 ddc 550 ddc 690 ddc 610 bkl 44.65 Elsevier Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 570 ddc 550 ddc 690 ddc 610 bkl 44.65 Elsevier Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling |
| topic_browse |
ddc 570 ddc 550 ddc 690 ddc 610 bkl 44.65 Elsevier Recirculated membrane bioreactor Elsevier Fresh leachate Elsevier Submerged membrane bioreactor Elsevier Membrane fouling |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
h z hz l g lg z c zc y d yd d s ds |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Editorial board |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV018796621 |
| dewey-tens |
570 - Life sciences; biology 550 - Earth sciences & geology 690 - Building & construction 610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Editorial board |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV018796621 |
| title |
Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV02915300X (ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5 |
| title_full |
Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| author_sort |
Xue, Yiting |
| journal |
Editorial board |
| journalStr |
Editorial board |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
73 |
| author_browse |
Xue, Yiting |
| container_volume |
102 |
| physical |
8 |
| class |
570 570 DE-600 550 VZ 690 VZ 610 VZ 44.65 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Xue, Yiting |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 |
| dewey-full |
570 550 690 610 |
| title_sort |
comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| title_auth |
Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| abstract |
The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. |
| abstractGer |
The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_40 |
| title_short |
Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Zhao, Huihui Ge, Lin Chen, Zheng Dang, Yan Sun, Dezhi |
| author2Str |
Zhao, Huihui Ge, Lin Chen, Zheng Dang, Yan Sun, Dezhi |
| ppnlink |
ELV018796621 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T20:41:31.228Z |
| _version_ |
1803863710738939904 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV02915300X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625170524.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2015017000017.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV02915300X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0964-8305(15)00016-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">550</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xue, Yiting</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of the performance of waste leachate treatment in submerged and recirculated membrane bioreactors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The performances of a submerged and a recirculated membrane bioreactor (MBR) were compared for processing of fresh leachate, treated by an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)-anoxic/two-stage aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. The submerged membrane bioreactor (S-MBR) was operated at a constant permeate flux and the recirculated membrane bioreactor (R-MBR) at a constant transmembrane pressure (TMP). In both reactors, the removal efficiency of COD reached more than 93% and that of NH 4 + − N more than 97% in 100 days of operation. Long-chain alkanes, sulfur and protein-like substances in the influent could be removed by both the submerged and recirculated reactors. The frequency of cleaning of the R-MBR (5 times) was less than that of the S-MBR (7 times) in 100 days of operation. The fouling rate of the R-MBR was lower than that of the S-MBR. The inference is that the R-MBR is more appropriate for treating large amounts of wastewater than the S-MBR, which is more susceptible to membrane fouling by leachate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Recirculated membrane bioreactor</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fresh leachate</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Submerged membrane bioreactor</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Membrane fouling</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhao, Huihui</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ge, Lin</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Zheng</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dang, Yan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sun, Dezhi</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="t">Editorial board</subfield><subfield code="d">2015</subfield><subfield code="d">official journal of the Biodeterioration Society and groups affiliated to the International Biodeterioration Association</subfield><subfield code="g">Barking</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV018796621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:102</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:73-80</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.01.005</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="j">Chirurgie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">102</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="h">73-80</subfield><subfield code="g">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400069 |