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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Water research (Oxford) 2012-09, Vol.46 (13), p.4164-4178 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
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 >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 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 & 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</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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26049547$$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 >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 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 & purification</subject><subject>Adenovirus</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation & 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 & purification</subject><subject>Disinfection</subject><subject>Disinfection - methods</subject><subject>effluents</subject><subject>Enterovirus</subject><subject>Enterovirus - genetics</subject><subject>Enterovirus - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Escherichia coli - isolation & 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 & purification</topic><topic>Adenovirus</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation & 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 & purification</topic><topic>Disinfection</topic><topic>Disinfection - methods</topic><topic>effluents</topic><topic>Enterovirus</topic><topic>Enterovirus - genetics</topic><topic>Enterovirus - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Escherichia coli - isolation & 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 >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 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 |