Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters

Log removals of bacterial indicators, coliphage, and enteric viruses were studied in three membrane bioreactor (MBR) activated-sludge and two conventional secondary activated-sludge municipal wastewater treatment plants during three recreational seasons (May–Oct.) when disinfection of effluents is r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water research (Oxford) 2012-09, Vol.46 (13), p.4164-4178
Hauptverfasser: Francy, Donna S., Stelzer, Erin A., Bushon, Rebecca N., Brady, Amie M.G., Williston, Ashley G., Riddell, Kimberly R., Borchardt, Mark A., Spencer, Susan K., Gellner, Terry M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 4178
container_issue 13
container_start_page 4164
container_title Water research (Oxford)
container_volume 46
creator Francy, Donna S.
Stelzer, Erin A.
Bushon, Rebecca N.
Brady, Amie M.G.
Williston, Ashley G.
Riddell, Kimberly R.
Borchardt, Mark A.
Spencer, Susan K.
Gellner, Terry M.
description Log removals of bacterial indicators, coliphage, and enteric viruses were studied in three membrane bioreactor (MBR) activated-sludge and two conventional secondary activated-sludge municipal wastewater treatment plants during three recreational seasons (May–Oct.) when disinfection of effluents is required. In total, 73 regular samples were collected from key locations throughout treatment processes: post-preliminary, post-MBR, post-secondary, post-tertiary, and post-disinfection (UV or chlorine). Out of 19 post-preliminary samples, adenovirus by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was detected in all 19, enterovirus by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was detected in 15, and norovirus GI by qRT-PCR was detected in 11. Norovirus GII and Hepatitis A virus were not detected in any samples, and rotavirus was detected in one sample but could not be quantified. Although culturable viruses were found in 12 out of 19 post-preliminary samples, they were not detected in any post-secondary, post-MBR, post-ultraviolet, or post-chlorine samples. Median log removals for all organisms were higher for MBR secondary treatment (3.02 to >6.73) than for conventional secondary (1.53–4.19) treatment. Ultraviolet disinfection after MBR treatment provided little additional log removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage (>2.18), whereas ultraviolet or chlorine disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided significant log removals (above the analytical variability) of all bacterial indicators (1.18–3.89) and somatic and F-specific coliphage (0.71 and >2.98). Median log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional secondary plants (no removal detected and 0.24), and few removals of individual samples were near or above the analytical variability of 1.2 log genomic copies per liter. Based on qualitative examinations of plots showing reductions of organisms throughout treatment processes, somatic coliphage may best represent the removal of viruses across secondary treatment in both MBR and conventional secondary plants. F-specific coliphage and Escherichia coli may best represent the removal of viruses across the disinfection process in MBR facilities, but none of the indicators represented the removal of viruses across disinfection in conventional secondary plants. [Display omitted] ► We studied log removals of microorganisms in MBR and conventional wastewater treatment plant
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.044
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1446286079</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0043135412003065</els_id><sourcerecordid>1446286079</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-3279d567e700749bdd85f0823633e9ea817c08f96812768e01c24cb624a24fcd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc2KFDEQxxtR3HX1DURzETzsjJV0OklfBBn8ggUPOl5DJl1ZM3Q6Y9Kzi4_kW1rjjHpToUKqyK8-Uv-mecxhyYGrF9vlrZsL1qUALpYgyeSd5pwb3S-ElOZucw4g2wVvO3nWPKh1CwBCtP395kwIZQ7nvPm-ymnnipvjDTIMAf3Bm7BWlgNLmDbFTcg2MRd0fs6lXjKfJ0LmmCc3sooUDq58YzSMmxM9XDI3Dcx_GXOJlHsI1p_ZEGucftbPE5szK5gy9UzRl5zLtZtiTZWFkhNL-yn6uKPqt67OSP_EUh8294IbKz463RfN-s3rT6t3i6sPb9-vXl0tfCfNvGiF7odOadQAWvabYTBdACNa1bbYozNcezChV4YLrQwC90L6jRLSCRn80F40z491dyV_3WOdbYrV4zjSHvK-Wi6lEkaB7v-NgpBKCc27_0FF1xnVCULlEaXF1Fow2F2JiTZMkD1Ib7f2KL09SG9BkklKe3LqsN8kHH4n_dKagGcnwFXvxkDC-lj_cApk30lN3NMjF1y27roQs_5InSQA170BIOLlkUDS4SZisdVHnDwOsZDAdsjx77P-ANTP2v0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1022558652</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Francy, Donna S. ; Stelzer, Erin A. ; Bushon, Rebecca N. ; Brady, Amie M.G. ; Williston, Ashley G. ; Riddell, Kimberly R. ; Borchardt, Mark A. ; Spencer, Susan K. ; Gellner, Terry M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Francy, Donna S. ; Stelzer, Erin A. ; Bushon, Rebecca N. ; Brady, Amie M.G. ; Williston, Ashley G. ; Riddell, Kimberly R. ; Borchardt, Mark A. ; Spencer, Susan K. ; Gellner, Terry M.</creatorcontrib><description>Log removals of bacterial indicators, coliphage, and enteric viruses were studied in three membrane bioreactor (MBR) activated-sludge and two conventional secondary activated-sludge municipal wastewater treatment plants during three recreational seasons (May–Oct.) when disinfection of effluents is required. In total, 73 regular samples were collected from key locations throughout treatment processes: post-preliminary, post-MBR, post-secondary, post-tertiary, and post-disinfection (UV or chlorine). Out of 19 post-preliminary samples, adenovirus by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was detected in all 19, enterovirus by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was detected in 15, and norovirus GI by qRT-PCR was detected in 11. Norovirus GII and Hepatitis A virus were not detected in any samples, and rotavirus was detected in one sample but could not be quantified. Although culturable viruses were found in 12 out of 19 post-preliminary samples, they were not detected in any post-secondary, post-MBR, post-ultraviolet, or post-chlorine samples. Median log removals for all organisms were higher for MBR secondary treatment (3.02 to &gt;6.73) than for conventional secondary (1.53–4.19) treatment. Ultraviolet disinfection after MBR treatment provided little additional log removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage (&gt;2.18), whereas ultraviolet or chlorine disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided significant log removals (above the analytical variability) of all bacterial indicators (1.18–3.89) and somatic and F-specific coliphage (0.71 and &gt;2.98). Median log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional secondary plants (no removal detected and 0.24), and few removals of individual samples were near or above the analytical variability of 1.2 log genomic copies per liter. Based on qualitative examinations of plots showing reductions of organisms throughout treatment processes, somatic coliphage may best represent the removal of viruses across secondary treatment in both MBR and conventional secondary plants. F-specific coliphage and Escherichia coli may best represent the removal of viruses across the disinfection process in MBR facilities, but none of the indicators represented the removal of viruses across disinfection in conventional secondary plants. [Display omitted] ► We studied log removals of microorganisms in MBR and conventional wastewater treatment plants. ► Log removals for indicators and viruses were higher for MBR than conventional secondary treatment. ► UV after MBR provided little additional removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage. ► Disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided added log removals of indicators. ► Log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional plants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1354</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2448</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.044</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22682268</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WATRAG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adenoviridae - genetics ; Adenoviridae - isolation &amp; purification ; Adenovirus ; Animals ; Applied sciences ; Bacteria ; Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification ; Bioreactors ; Bioreactors - microbiology ; Bioreactors - virology ; Chlorine ; Chlorine - chemistry ; Cities ; Coliphages - genetics ; Coliphages - isolation &amp; purification ; Disinfection ; Disinfection - methods ; effluents ; Enterovirus ; Enterovirus - genetics ; Enterovirus - isolation &amp; purification ; Escherichia coli ; Escherichia coli - isolation &amp; purification ; Exact sciences and technology ; Feces - microbiology ; Feces - virology ; Hepatitis A virus ; Hepatovirus A ; Humans ; indicator species ; Indicators ; Mathematical analysis ; Membrane bioreactors ; Membranes, Artificial ; Microorganism removal ; microorganisms ; Norovirus ; Organisms ; Pollution ; Quantitative PCR ; Reproducibility of Results ; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Rotavirus ; Sewage - chemistry ; Sewage - microbiology ; Ultraviolet ; ultraviolet radiation ; Ultraviolet Rays ; Virus removal ; Viruses ; Waste Disposal, Fluid - methods ; wastewater treatment ; Water Microbiology ; Water Purification - instrumentation ; Water Purification - methods ; Water treatment and pollution</subject><ispartof>Water research (Oxford), 2012-09, Vol.46 (13), p.4164-4178</ispartof><rights>2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-3279d567e700749bdd85f0823633e9ea817c08f96812768e01c24cb624a24fcd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-3279d567e700749bdd85f0823633e9ea817c08f96812768e01c24cb624a24fcd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135412003065$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26049547$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22682268$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Francy, Donna S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stelzer, Erin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bushon, Rebecca N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brady, Amie M.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williston, Ashley G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riddell, Kimberly R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borchardt, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Susan K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gellner, Terry M.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters</title><title>Water research (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Water Res</addtitle><description>Log removals of bacterial indicators, coliphage, and enteric viruses were studied in three membrane bioreactor (MBR) activated-sludge and two conventional secondary activated-sludge municipal wastewater treatment plants during three recreational seasons (May–Oct.) when disinfection of effluents is required. In total, 73 regular samples were collected from key locations throughout treatment processes: post-preliminary, post-MBR, post-secondary, post-tertiary, and post-disinfection (UV or chlorine). Out of 19 post-preliminary samples, adenovirus by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was detected in all 19, enterovirus by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was detected in 15, and norovirus GI by qRT-PCR was detected in 11. Norovirus GII and Hepatitis A virus were not detected in any samples, and rotavirus was detected in one sample but could not be quantified. Although culturable viruses were found in 12 out of 19 post-preliminary samples, they were not detected in any post-secondary, post-MBR, post-ultraviolet, or post-chlorine samples. Median log removals for all organisms were higher for MBR secondary treatment (3.02 to &gt;6.73) than for conventional secondary (1.53–4.19) treatment. Ultraviolet disinfection after MBR treatment provided little additional log removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage (&gt;2.18), whereas ultraviolet or chlorine disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided significant log removals (above the analytical variability) of all bacterial indicators (1.18–3.89) and somatic and F-specific coliphage (0.71 and &gt;2.98). Median log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional secondary plants (no removal detected and 0.24), and few removals of individual samples were near or above the analytical variability of 1.2 log genomic copies per liter. Based on qualitative examinations of plots showing reductions of organisms throughout treatment processes, somatic coliphage may best represent the removal of viruses across secondary treatment in both MBR and conventional secondary plants. F-specific coliphage and Escherichia coli may best represent the removal of viruses across the disinfection process in MBR facilities, but none of the indicators represented the removal of viruses across disinfection in conventional secondary plants. [Display omitted] ► We studied log removals of microorganisms in MBR and conventional wastewater treatment plants. ► Log removals for indicators and viruses were higher for MBR than conventional secondary treatment. ► UV after MBR provided little additional removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage. ► Disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided added log removals of indicators. ► Log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional plants.</description><subject>Adenoviridae - genetics</subject><subject>Adenoviridae - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Adenovirus</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Bioreactors</subject><subject>Bioreactors - microbiology</subject><subject>Bioreactors - virology</subject><subject>Chlorine</subject><subject>Chlorine - chemistry</subject><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Coliphages - genetics</subject><subject>Coliphages - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Disinfection</subject><subject>Disinfection - methods</subject><subject>effluents</subject><subject>Enterovirus</subject><subject>Enterovirus - genetics</subject><subject>Enterovirus - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Escherichia coli - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Feces - virology</subject><subject>Hepatitis A virus</subject><subject>Hepatovirus A</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>indicator species</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Membrane bioreactors</subject><subject>Membranes, Artificial</subject><subject>Microorganism removal</subject><subject>microorganisms</subject><subject>Norovirus</subject><subject>Organisms</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Quantitative PCR</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction</subject><subject>Rotavirus</subject><subject>Sewage - chemistry</subject><subject>Sewage - microbiology</subject><subject>Ultraviolet</subject><subject>ultraviolet radiation</subject><subject>Ultraviolet Rays</subject><subject>Virus removal</subject><subject>Viruses</subject><subject>Waste Disposal, Fluid - methods</subject><subject>wastewater treatment</subject><subject>Water Microbiology</subject><subject>Water Purification - instrumentation</subject><subject>Water Purification - methods</subject><subject>Water treatment and pollution</subject><issn>0043-1354</issn><issn>1879-2448</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc2KFDEQxxtR3HX1DURzETzsjJV0OklfBBn8ggUPOl5DJl1ZM3Q6Y9Kzi4_kW1rjjHpToUKqyK8-Uv-mecxhyYGrF9vlrZsL1qUALpYgyeSd5pwb3S-ElOZucw4g2wVvO3nWPKh1CwBCtP395kwIZQ7nvPm-ymnnipvjDTIMAf3Bm7BWlgNLmDbFTcg2MRd0fs6lXjKfJ0LmmCc3sooUDq58YzSMmxM9XDI3Dcx_GXOJlHsI1p_ZEGucftbPE5szK5gy9UzRl5zLtZtiTZWFkhNL-yn6uKPqt67OSP_EUh8294IbKz463RfN-s3rT6t3i6sPb9-vXl0tfCfNvGiF7odOadQAWvabYTBdACNa1bbYozNcezChV4YLrQwC90L6jRLSCRn80F40z491dyV_3WOdbYrV4zjSHvK-Wi6lEkaB7v-NgpBKCc27_0FF1xnVCULlEaXF1Fow2F2JiTZMkD1Ib7f2KL09SG9BkklKe3LqsN8kHH4n_dKagGcnwFXvxkDC-lj_cApk30lN3NMjF1y27roQs_5InSQA170BIOLlkUDS4SZisdVHnDwOsZDAdsjx77P-ANTP2v0</recordid><startdate>20120901</startdate><enddate>20120901</enddate><creator>Francy, Donna S.</creator><creator>Stelzer, Erin A.</creator><creator>Bushon, Rebecca N.</creator><creator>Brady, Amie M.G.</creator><creator>Williston, Ashley G.</creator><creator>Riddell, Kimberly R.</creator><creator>Borchardt, Mark A.</creator><creator>Spencer, Susan K.</creator><creator>Gellner, Terry M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120901</creationdate><title>Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters</title><author>Francy, Donna S. ; Stelzer, Erin A. ; Bushon, Rebecca N. ; Brady, Amie M.G. ; Williston, Ashley G. ; Riddell, Kimberly R. ; Borchardt, Mark A. ; Spencer, Susan K. ; Gellner, Terry M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c548t-3279d567e700749bdd85f0823633e9ea817c08f96812768e01c24cb624a24fcd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adenoviridae - genetics</topic><topic>Adenoviridae - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Adenovirus</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Bioreactors</topic><topic>Bioreactors - microbiology</topic><topic>Bioreactors - virology</topic><topic>Chlorine</topic><topic>Chlorine - chemistry</topic><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Coliphages - genetics</topic><topic>Coliphages - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Disinfection</topic><topic>Disinfection - methods</topic><topic>effluents</topic><topic>Enterovirus</topic><topic>Enterovirus - genetics</topic><topic>Enterovirus - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Escherichia coli - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Feces - virology</topic><topic>Hepatitis A virus</topic><topic>Hepatovirus A</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>indicator species</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Membrane bioreactors</topic><topic>Membranes, Artificial</topic><topic>Microorganism removal</topic><topic>microorganisms</topic><topic>Norovirus</topic><topic>Organisms</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Quantitative PCR</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction</topic><topic>Rotavirus</topic><topic>Sewage - chemistry</topic><topic>Sewage - microbiology</topic><topic>Ultraviolet</topic><topic>ultraviolet radiation</topic><topic>Ultraviolet Rays</topic><topic>Virus removal</topic><topic>Viruses</topic><topic>Waste Disposal, Fluid - methods</topic><topic>wastewater treatment</topic><topic>Water Microbiology</topic><topic>Water Purification - instrumentation</topic><topic>Water Purification - methods</topic><topic>Water treatment and pollution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Francy, Donna S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stelzer, Erin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bushon, Rebecca N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brady, Amie M.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williston, Ashley G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riddell, Kimberly R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borchardt, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Susan K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gellner, Terry M.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Water research (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Francy, Donna S.</au><au>Stelzer, Erin A.</au><au>Bushon, Rebecca N.</au><au>Brady, Amie M.G.</au><au>Williston, Ashley G.</au><au>Riddell, Kimberly R.</au><au>Borchardt, Mark A.</au><au>Spencer, Susan K.</au><au>Gellner, Terry M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters</atitle><jtitle>Water research (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Water Res</addtitle><date>2012-09-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>13</issue><spage>4164</spage><epage>4178</epage><pages>4164-4178</pages><issn>0043-1354</issn><eissn>1879-2448</eissn><coden>WATRAG</coden><abstract>Log removals of bacterial indicators, coliphage, and enteric viruses were studied in three membrane bioreactor (MBR) activated-sludge and two conventional secondary activated-sludge municipal wastewater treatment plants during three recreational seasons (May–Oct.) when disinfection of effluents is required. In total, 73 regular samples were collected from key locations throughout treatment processes: post-preliminary, post-MBR, post-secondary, post-tertiary, and post-disinfection (UV or chlorine). Out of 19 post-preliminary samples, adenovirus by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was detected in all 19, enterovirus by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was detected in 15, and norovirus GI by qRT-PCR was detected in 11. Norovirus GII and Hepatitis A virus were not detected in any samples, and rotavirus was detected in one sample but could not be quantified. Although culturable viruses were found in 12 out of 19 post-preliminary samples, they were not detected in any post-secondary, post-MBR, post-ultraviolet, or post-chlorine samples. Median log removals for all organisms were higher for MBR secondary treatment (3.02 to &gt;6.73) than for conventional secondary (1.53–4.19) treatment. Ultraviolet disinfection after MBR treatment provided little additional log removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage (&gt;2.18), whereas ultraviolet or chlorine disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided significant log removals (above the analytical variability) of all bacterial indicators (1.18–3.89) and somatic and F-specific coliphage (0.71 and &gt;2.98). Median log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional secondary plants (no removal detected and 0.24), and few removals of individual samples were near or above the analytical variability of 1.2 log genomic copies per liter. Based on qualitative examinations of plots showing reductions of organisms throughout treatment processes, somatic coliphage may best represent the removal of viruses across secondary treatment in both MBR and conventional secondary plants. F-specific coliphage and Escherichia coli may best represent the removal of viruses across the disinfection process in MBR facilities, but none of the indicators represented the removal of viruses across disinfection in conventional secondary plants. [Display omitted] ► We studied log removals of microorganisms in MBR and conventional wastewater treatment plants. ► Log removals for indicators and viruses were higher for MBR than conventional secondary treatment. ► UV after MBR provided little additional removal of any organism except for somatic coliphage. ► Disinfection after conventional secondary treatment provided added log removals of indicators. ► Log removals of adenovirus across disinfection were low in both MBR and conventional plants.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>22682268</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.044</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1354
ispartof Water research (Oxford), 2012-09, Vol.46 (13), p.4164-4178
issn 0043-1354
1879-2448
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1446286079
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adenoviridae - genetics
Adenoviridae - isolation & purification
Adenovirus
Animals
Applied sciences
Bacteria
Bacteria - isolation & purification
Bioreactors
Bioreactors - microbiology
Bioreactors - virology
Chlorine
Chlorine - chemistry
Cities
Coliphages - genetics
Coliphages - isolation & purification
Disinfection
Disinfection - methods
effluents
Enterovirus
Enterovirus - genetics
Enterovirus - isolation & purification
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli - isolation & purification
Exact sciences and technology
Feces - microbiology
Feces - virology
Hepatitis A virus
Hepatovirus A
Humans
indicator species
Indicators
Mathematical analysis
Membrane bioreactors
Membranes, Artificial
Microorganism removal
microorganisms
Norovirus
Organisms
Pollution
Quantitative PCR
Reproducibility of Results
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
Rotavirus
Sewage - chemistry
Sewage - microbiology
Ultraviolet
ultraviolet radiation
Ultraviolet Rays
Virus removal
Viruses
Waste Disposal, Fluid - methods
wastewater treatment
Water Microbiology
Water Purification - instrumentation
Water Purification - methods
Water treatment and pollution
title Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T15%3A36%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20effectiveness%20of%20membrane%20bioreactors,%20conventional%20secondary%20treatment,%20and%20chlorine%20and%20UV%20disinfection%20to%20remove%20microorganisms%20from%20municipal%20wastewaters&rft.jtitle=Water%20research%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Francy,%20Donna%20S.&rft.date=2012-09-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=13&rft.spage=4164&rft.epage=4178&rft.pages=4164-4178&rft.issn=0043-1354&rft.eissn=1879-2448&rft.coden=WATRAG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.044&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1446286079%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1022558652&rft_id=info:pmid/22682268&rft_els_id=S0043135412003065&rfr_iscdi=true