A systematic review of moving bed biofilm reactor, membrane bioreactor, and moving bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment: Comparison of research trends, removal mechanisms, and performance

被引:58
|
作者
Saidulu, Duduku [1 ]
Majumder, Abhradeep [2 ]
Gupta, Ashok Kumar [1 ]
机构
[1] Indian Inst Technol Kharagpur, Dept Civil Engn, Environm Engn Div, Kharagpur 721302, W Bengal, India
[2] Indian Inst Technol Kharagpur, Sch Environm Sci & Engn, Kharagpur 721302, W Bengal, India
来源
关键词
Bibliometric mapping; Biological treatment; Life cycle assessment; Membrane fouling; Network visualization; Treatment mechanism; SOLUBLE MICROBIAL PRODUCTS; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; ENGINEERING APPLICATION; PARTIAL NITRITATION; GREYWATER TREATMENT; FOULING MITIGATION; ACTIVATED-SLUDGE; NUTRIENT REMOVAL; REVERSE-OSMOSIS; ORGANIC-MATTER;
D O I
10.1016/j.jece.2021.106112
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The various detrimental effects of wastewater generated from different anthropogenic activities are among the biggest challenges to sustainable development. Among various technologies developed to tackle wastewater, biological treatment methods, such as moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR), have been extensively used in the past few decades due to their cost-effectiveness, wide applications, technical feasibility, etc. However, certain limitations of MBR and MBBR have led to the hybridization of these two technologies. In this context, a thorough bibliometric assay of MBBR, MBR, and hybrid moving bed membrane bioreactor (MBMBR) has been performed to analyze the current trends in publication, contributing authors and countries, major research hotspots, etc. It was observed that for both MBBR and MBR, China had the maximum contribution, i.e., 30.4% and 30.5%, respectively, in terms of the number of publications. The future trend of the selected treatment methods was assessed with the help of S-curve simulation. In both cases, greater than 70% of research articles were published in the last decade, which may be due to the increasingly stringent regulations on effluent quality. Subsequently, this study investigated the performance and responsible mechanisms for these systems. MBMBR was found to be more effective than MBR in terms of pollutant removal, followed by MBBR. The nutrient removal efficiency of MBMBR systems was significantly higher (73.5%) as compared to MBBR (50%) and MBR (62.5%). Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been discussed for the selected treatment methods to evaluate sustainability aspects.
引用
下载
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison between a moving bed bioreactor and a fixed bed bioreactor for biological phosphate removal and denitrification
    Choi, H. J.
    Lee, A. H.
    Lee, S. M.
    WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2012, 65 (10) : 1834 - 1838
  • [32] Membrane fouling between a membrane bioreactor and a moving bed membrane bioreactor: Effects of solids retention time
    Fu, Chen
    Yue, Xiaodi
    Shi, Xueqing
    Ng, Kok Kwang
    Ng, How Yong
    CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, 2017, 309 : 397 - 408
  • [33] Membrane fouling of a hybrid moving bed membrane bioreactor plant to treat real urban wastewater
    Martin-Pascual, Jaime
    Reboleiro-Rivas, Patricia
    Munio, Maria M.
    Gonzalez-Lopez, Jesus
    Poyatose, Jose M.
    CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING-PROCESS INTENSIFICATION, 2016, 104 : 112 - 119
  • [34] Nitrogen removal in a moving bed membrane bioreactor for municipal sewage treatment: Community differentiation in attached biofilm and suspended biomass
    20152000841621
    Reboleiro-Rivas, P. (preboleiro@ugr.es), 1600, Elsevier B.V., Netherlands (277):
  • [35] Nitrogen removal in a moving bed membrane bioreactor for municipal sewage treatment: Community differentiation in attached biofilm and suspended biomass
    Reboleiro-Rivas, P.
    Martin-Pascual, J.
    Juarez-Jimenez, B.
    Poyatos, J. M.
    Vilchez-Vargas, R.
    Vlaeminck, S. E.
    Rodelas, B.
    Gonzalez-Lopez, J.
    CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, 2015, 277 : 209 - 218
  • [36] Integrated attached and suspended biomass moving bed membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment: performance and biokinetic study
    Tari, Kamran
    Samarghandi, Mohammad Reza
    Shokoohi, Reza
    Asgari, Ghorban
    Poorasgari, Eskandar
    Afshar, Saeid
    Karami, Pezhman
    BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY, 2023, 15 (2) : 3137 - 3149
  • [37] Comparison between moving bed-membrane bioreactor and conventional membrane bioreactor systems. Part I: membrane fouling
    Liang Duan
    Shan Li
    Lu Han
    Yonghui Song
    Beihai Zhou
    Jing Zhang
    Environmental Earth Sciences, 2015, 73 : 4881 - 4890
  • [38] Responses of biofilm communities in a hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor system to sulfadiazine antibiotic exposure
    Zhang, Xinbo
    Zuo, Sicong
    Li, Songya
    Shang, Yutong
    Du, Qing
    Wang, Huizhong
    Guo, Wenshan
    Ngo, Huu Hao
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2023, 382
  • [39] Essential factors of an integrated moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor: Adhesion characteristics and microbial community of the biofilm
    Tang, Bing
    Yu, Chunfei
    Bin, Liying
    Zhao, Yiliang
    Feng, Xianfeng
    Huang, Shaosong
    Fu, Fenglian
    Ding, Jiewei
    Chen, Cuiqun
    Li, Ping
    Chen, Qianyu
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 211 : 574 - 583
  • [40] Comparison between moving bed-membrane bioreactor (MB-MBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems: Influence of wastewater salinity variation
    Di Trapani, Daniele
    Di Bella, Gaetano
    Mannina, Giorgio
    Torregrossa, Michele
    Viviani, Gaspare
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 162 : 60 - 69