simulation of wastewater treatment processes with
TRANSCRIPT
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=geac20
International Journal of Environmental AnalyticalChemistry
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geac20
Simulation of wastewater treatment processeswith Bioreactor Membrane Reactor (MBR)treatment versus conventional the adsorbentlayer-based filtration system (LAFS)
Jamal Mabrouki , Maria Benbouzid , Driss Dhiba & Souad El Hajjaji
To cite this article: Jamal Mabrouki , Maria Benbouzid , Driss Dhiba & Souad El Hajjaji (2020):Simulation of wastewater treatment processes with Bioreactor Membrane Reactor (MBR) treatmentversus conventional the adsorbent layer-based filtration system (LAFS), International Journal ofEnvironmental Analytical Chemistry, DOI: 10.1080/03067319.2020.1828394
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1828394
Published online: 28 Sep 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ARTICLE
Simulation of wastewater treatment processes with Bioreactor Membrane Reactor (MBR) treatment versus conventional the adsorbent layer-based filtration system (LAFS)Jamal Mabrouki a, Maria Benbouzida, Driss Dhibab and Souad El Hajjaji a
aFaculty of Science, Laboratoryof Spectroscopy, Molecular Modelling, Materials, Nanomaterial’s, Water and Environment, CERNE2D, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Rabat, Morocco; bInternational Water Research Institute IWRI, University Mohammed VI Polytechnic (UM6P), Benguerir, Morocco
ABSTRACTThe membrane for wastewater decontamination is an interesting alternative to conventional layered adsorbent filtration systems. Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) remove the residual biomass on the surface of the membranes irrespective of the settling properties of the sediment. Therefore, a high waste concentration as well as a low nutrient/microorganism ratio is required. In addition, the develop-ment process of a characteristic Layer Adsorption Filtration System (LAFS) community is favoured by the special properties of MBRs. This study will study the operating and treatment performance of MBR and infiltration processes and compare them with each other. The calculation was made using GPS-X software. The quality of the efflu-ent received by the MBR system was better or equivalent to that obtained by adsorbent layer filtration (ALF). The main significant difference was the removal of total suspended solids (TSS), which reached up to 96% and also, organic matter in the MBR.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 9 August 2020 Accepted 14 September 2020
KEYWORDS Modelling; simulation; wastewater treatment; Bioreactor Membrane Reactor (MBR); adsorbent layer-based filtration (ALF)
1. Introduction
Water is vital to all socio-economic processes, regardless of the level of development of society. The increase in agro-industrial activities and urbanism is putting increasing pressure on the planet’s freshwater reserves. Indeed, these activities generate a wide variety of chemicals that flow into the water cycle, threatening the fragile natural balance that has allowed life to develop on earth [1]. Thus, Environmental protection has become a major economic and political issue. All countries in the world are concerned by the protection of freshwater resources, either because they lack water or because they pollute it [2].
Municipal wastewater treatment facilities are generally well adapted to the treatment of domestic discharges. However, the processes and capacity of the treatment plant and the collection system may not be compatible with some industrial effluents. This poses a risk to operating personnel and equipment. In addition, several toxic substances may pass through the treatment cycles and will be released into the natural environment [3].
CONTACT Jamal Mabrouki [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1828394
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
The field of municipal wastewater treatment is evolving in order to serve a growing population. Sewage treatment operators are constantly facing constraints related to the tightening of discharge standards and the need to modernise their ageing infrastructure [4]. City wastewater is generally rewarded with a procedure that incorporates essential sedimen-tation and an activated seepage technique depending on a treatment frame containing a circulating air tank (bioreactor) dragged by an optional clarifier. The procedure’s reliability critically depends on the condition of the activated sludge and the proper operation of the voluntary clarifier [5].
Wastewater processing plants of the ALF type or forever face challenges in maintaining the necessary age of the seepage, which manages a reduction in nitrification capacity, sludge expansion, sludge buoyancy, decreased productivity of thickening and dewatering of the wastewater seepage. Similarly, an additional amount of wastewater and Fiona’s inconsistencies in the evolution of travel industry systems and the extension of the sewerage network may lead to overloading of treatment plants [6].
In addition, with the adoption of increased effluent pressure regulations for waste flows to consumers, Adsorbent Layer Filtration (ALF) is a new low-cost technology developed in Japan (ALF) with its limitations is often insufficient to remove some contaminants, hence the need to upgrade or expand the system. On the second part, effective wastewater treatment without the problems mentioned above occurring in conventional systems is possible by using membrane bioreactors. (MBR). In MBR technology, these systems combine biological degradation with separation by ultra or microfiltration membranes: microorganisms’oxidase and/or assimilate the incoming organic (or even nitrogenous) pollution and are completely separated from the treated water by the membrane. MBRs achieve excellent treated water quality and separation of solids is achieved without the need for secondary sedimentation [7,8]. Being very often compact and robust,Hydraulic residence time and sludge age are completely decoupled and therefore offer MBRs a high degree of operating flexibility. Due to the effective membrane pore size of less than 0.1 µm, which is considerably smaller than that of pathogenic viruses, bacteria and protozoa, MBRs produce a high standard clarified and extensively disinfected permeate with COD, BOD and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal of 95%, 98% and 99%, respectively [9].
Adsorbent Layer Filtration (ALF) is a new technology that has been improved, structured and adjusted to have a much longer life than soil [10] and standard sand filters [11]. In its original version, this system is used for wastewater treatment in small communities, so this technique has been applied for the treatment of polluted rivers [12], livestock wastewater [13], dairy farm wastewater [14] and wastewater. The plant water treatment technique by filtration is an aerobic treatment; its mode of operation is based on percolation by infiltration using the soil as a means of purification. Infiltration and biodegradation are the main processes that take place in the filter. A profound understanding and further refinement of the MBR, which is a relatively complex system, is difficult and time consuming. An alternative is statistical modelling [15]. Using modelling, the basis of the designed processes can be developed further and the system can be scaled up from the laboratory scale to a large-scale system. In addition, it can be used to analyses the performance and efficiency of the process under different operating conditions, thereby shortening the process and cost reduction [16]. The MBR model is a tool for teaching, design assistance, process engineering, research, process efficiency and problem solving in large-scale treatment plants. The integrated design models can be used to predict the system reaction to the generation of perturbation and to display the impacts of
2 J. MABROUKI ET AL.
changes in setup on system performance with minimal actual disturbance to the system. Today, the computer based modelling of the MBR is viewed as ant part of the design and management process of real objects [17]. MBR environment if a particular model needs changes in O2 transport and absorption, while a different composition of the sample requires precise calibration of the exact stoichiometric and kinometric values due to a different molecular composition. The degradation of major fouling agents in MBR, including soluble microbial compounds (SMPs) and polymer Extra Cellular Substances (PCS), was explored using Activated Sludge Model (ASM) methods [18].
Membrane Biological Reactors (MBRs) are less sensitive to various solid-liquid separation problems and may be an interesting alternative solution for small municipalities. In addition to organic models that simulate biodegradation, another basic research focus of RBM is the physical models that simulate biological degradation, which deals mainly with variations in membrane strength due to fouling.Because of the difficulty of the fouling phenomenon, the lack of agreement on a specific fouling factor, and the impact of environmental degradation processes, it is important to consider the following factors there is an increase the difficulty of modelling the filtration process [19]. Today, many modelling problems are solved by computer programs that perform engineering tasks. To this end, industry-specific support software, including special program simulation software, called dedicated simulators, are increasingly being used [20]. GPS-X, one of the simulation software in the field of wastewater treatment, was developed by Hydromantis Environmental Solutions Software of Canada. The program allows the modelling of advanced technological schemes and by performing simulations in both steady-state and motion. The MBR model used in GPS-X measures the disposal of solids by way of a membrane based on a mass budget [21]. Several studies have compared the MBR method using a mass equilibrium mass budget [21].With that of the influent wastewater. The application of a comprehensive assessment procedure to compare the engineering, environ-mental, social and socio-economic impacts of the MBR and ALF projects. Recognising the differences between MBR and ALF systems, various modernisation techniques can be applied. Further modelling studies for alternate MBR schemes have identified important relationships and can provide input to the normalisation policy directives for the derivation of BRMs [22]. The objective of this paper was to examine and compare the function and performance of the MBR and ALF treatment processes. Computer simulations were executed using a software package called GPS-X.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Wastewater characterisation
The COD/BOD5 ratio makes it possible to deduce whether the wastewater discharged directly into the receiving environment has the characteristics of domestic wastewater (COD/BOD5 ratio less than 3). The results of this ratio are an indication of the importance of pollutants with little or no biodegradability [23]. Wastewater with a COD/BOD5 ratio of 2 is in line with urban domestic wastewater with a COD/BOD5 ratio below 3. Therefore, it can be concluded that even if the wastewater from these municipal wastes has a high organic load, it is readily biodegradable [24].
As for the wastewater from the municipal slaughterhouse, the BOD5/CODratio is relatively low (0.5), which confirms that the wastewater drained by this collector is low in organic matter. This result is confirmed by the suspended solids, which are of the order of 285 g m-3 with an
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 3
average TSS/BOD5 ratio of 0.4 (Table 1). Moreover, the BOD5/COD value is low, which means that the organic matter in the wastewater from this collector is readily biodegradable [10].
2.2. Processing method
Two separate approaches were applied in this effort: a membrane Bioreactor (MBR) and two stage traditional two-stage Adsorbent Layer Filtration (ALF). A circuit diagram of the studied devices is given in Figure 1.
Parameter values for the system’s physical and working properties have been evalu-ated to optimise the system’s operation and performance. Both external and internal recirculation flows showed similar process values for such operations. Figure 1(b) shows the experimental set-up of the treatment system under study. The layered filtration system consists of permeable layers alternating with layers of soil mixture arranged in one layer: The water-permeable layers consist of 3 to 5 mm gravel. The layers are filled with a soil mixture: 70% soil, 15% charcoal, 15% sawdust or eucalyptus or fibre or cactus waste. The layers are laid horizontally on 5 floors and covered with a layer of gravel 3 to 5 mm thick. These gravel layers are permeable areas to reduce the risk of clogging by retaining a large part of the suspended matter on the surface. The wastewater filtration system is an aerobic purification process consisting of water permeable layers and layers of soil mixture that are arranged in layers of low permeability:
- Water permeable layer (WPL) consisting of gravel, pumice, perlite or zeolite with as fine and uniform a diameter as possible from 1 to 5 mm, in order to improve water distribution and reduce the risk of clogging.
- Soil mixing layer (SMC) and other materials.When wastewater is discharged into the Nested Filter System, the organic matter in the
wastewater is first physically and chemically adsorbed/absorbed onto the soil and the specific surface of the zeolite (permeable layers) and then bacteriologically decomposed by microorganisms [22]. The organic load (BOD5 and COD) has a significant effect on the purification performance of Nested filters [25].
The MBR framework included 5 reactors in arrangement, not exactly in the ALF, and a solid splitting channel located in the last reactor. Layered bioreactors (MBRs) are used in wastewater treatment frameworks to improve the natural impression, gush quality and sludge thickening. This frame also includes two internal distribution channels (250% and
Table 1. The composition of the incoming waste water ALF and MBR systems.Settings Unit Value
COD) gO2 m−3 1235Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) gO2 m−3 621BOD5/CODultimate ratio - 0.5Total suspended solids (TSS) g m−3 285Volatile/total suspended solids ratio (VSS/TSS) - 0.8COD/volatile suspended solids ratio (XCOD/VSS) - 1.5TSS/BOD5 - 0.4TN gN m−3 56NH4-N gN m−3 48NOx-N gN m−3 0.8TP gP m−3 14.8PO4-P gP m−3 10.4Alkalinity gCaCO3 m−3 402
4 J. MABROUKI ET AL.
150%, individually), which have been isolated to improve phosphorus expulsion and assist in the uniform delivery of the mixed alcohol. The MBR model in the GPS-X programming included the water, natural and film filtration model and used the lowered layer design. In the last office of the MBR, additional airflow was given due to the emphasis on suspen-sion. A strategy was chosen to familiarise the air opposite the film surface (cross airflow). In vigorous areas, the fixation of decomposed oxygen was maintained at about 2 mg dm- 3. The representation of the influent was performed using the internal instrument program dependent on the COD parts. Equivalent estimates of the limitations of effect were used as information for both display frameworks. The selected evaluation framework operational states of the frameworks studied are presented in Table 2. The essential wastewater influent limits in the framework, as well as some qualities of the stoichiometric coefficients, are recorded in Table 2.
2.3. Modelling and simulation software
In order to perform the simulation and because of the ease of obtaining and interpreting the information, two different types of wastewater systems having distinct design layouts have been created using GPS-X software (v7.0.1, Hydromantis Environmental Software
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Analysed Systems: (a) membrane bioreactor (MBR), (b) adsorbent layer-based filtration (ALF) process.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 5
Solutions, Inc., Hamilton, ON, Canada) (Figure 2). The advantages of GPS-X (Global Purpose System) software are that it is very powerful and easy to use, provided that the user is familiar with the various possibilities of its operation. However, it is in constant evolution according to the needs of the market. Moreover, its efficiency is linked to the use of a large amount of data. The predefined processes implemented in the software have been used to build individual models. The ALF system comprised a tank sedimenta-tion tank with circular secondary stage filtration. In addition, in models, influent and wastewater effluent objects were used to characterise the input and to obtain the output data, respectively. Prior to constructing the models, individual processes were linked to the use of proper point of connection and flows have been uniquely identified.
3. Results and discussion
The consequences of coherent reconstitutions of the state have been integrated, accept-ing the permanence of information limitations after a certain period of time. MBR activity has been reorganised, for example the boundaries identified with the physical parts of filtration, e.g. transmembrane weight or channel opposition, have been rejected. In the model, three distinct metabolic groups of microorganisms were recognised: heterotrophs,
Table 2. Selected MBR system operating conditions.Parameter Unit MBR
Relationship between food and microorganisms (F/M) gBOD gMLVSS−1d−1 0.16Residence time of solids (SRT) d 10.4Mixed liquids in suspension (MLSS) gMLSS m−3 9800
Figure 2. GPS-X sub-software MBR schema.
6 J. MABROUKI ET AL.
autotrophs and polyphosphate collecting creatures (PCOs). Biomass centralisation in both cases fluctuated from reactor to reactor, but the RBM procedure resulted in superior qualities.
The information below examines profiles of four selected boundaries estimated in individual pits of the two frames. Thus, the foci and boundary expulsion efficiencies are introduced in Table 3. The results obtained for the ALF, as for the MBR framework, are the accompanying, generally acceptable results. In any case, the emancipatory nature of the MBR framework was either better or similar to the profluent nature of the WWTP. The degree of expulsion of suspended solids was 98%, which is the most remarkable contrast. However, for dissolvable substancesno significant contrast was observed. Comparable remunerative impacts, e.g. a 96% expulsion of TSS, were obtained in authentic articles, regardless of whether negative conditions occurred (e.g. low temperature) [26,27]. The effectiveness of MBR in expelling TSS and microorganisms that can somehow accumulate between grains depends largely on the type of film used and the size of its pores. In real WWTPs, such high removal productivity can be achieved for COD (>92%), NH4-N (>99%) [28] and BOD5 (>99,5%) [29]. On the other the higher removability of COD in MBR than in ALF may be the combined result of TSS retrieval and storage of supernatant content of polysaccharides and polypeptides [28].
Thinking about the competence of the removal of all phosphate, it is important to point out that the procedure was a little more flexible under the MBR scheme.produc-tive than in the ALF process. The expulsion productivity achieved was 98% in the ALF process and 95% in the MBR process. The study of the fixation of orthophosphates in the different chambers towards the start of the reactors showed a noticeable distinction between MBR and ALF. In the ALF, the centralisation of PO4-P in the main reactor occurred several times due to the implementation of an alternative framework. The reuse outside flow with the nitrate was associated with the next turbine, so none of the denitrification occurred in the main reactor and the orthophosphate could be removed. This procedure is facilitated by the proximity of unpredictable unsaturated fats, which are consumed by the PAOs and packaged as polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). In the ALF, in the first reactor, the orthophosphate containing streams are admixed with reuse Domestic Reuse II but without the proximity of PO4-P. In addition, since nitrate is coordinated by the reuse stream, a denitrification with volatile and unsaturated fats will occur, and the orthophosphate input is minimal. Therefore, under O2-consuming environments, as orthophosphate fixation by ODPs results, the PO4-P moiety gradually
Table 3. Performance of effluent vari-ables in the model predictions for the different model systems.
Settings(%)
of ALF(%)
of MBR
TSS 86 98BOD5 90.1 99.1COD 76.3 90TN 71.5 78.3TKN 89.2 95NH4-N 68.9 97TP 86.5 95.2PO4-P 85.2 93.7
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 7
reduces. Overall, in the RBM procedure, due to the absence of an accessory clarifier in the scope, leading to different qualities of recycle flow and range of recycle waste products, it is challenging to create a normal organic phosphorus removal zone.All the time, in genuine frameworks, concoction precipitation is additionally regularly utilised for the expulsion of phosphorus deposits after evacuation of bio-P. The presentation of exchanging high-impact and anoxic conditions by irregular air circulation techniques permits better control of the upkeep of the conditions This is to support natural expulsion of P. Daigger et al. Ref?? inferred that escalated blending at the passage to the anaerobic and anoxic zones and controlling distribution to keep up The dissemina-tion of MLSS was significant for compelling organic dephosphatation. Looking at the removal capacity of the two managers for nitrogen gas in both nitrification and demitrification processes, in the ALF of the TN expulsion productivity was 71.5%, while in the ALF of the MBR it was 78.3%. The distinctions are essentially a consequence of the convergence of nitrate in the MBR profluent, while the smelling salts was totally oxidised in the two frameworks. As is notable, the volumetric propor-tion of anoxic and high-impact zones and the inner reusing rate fundamentally influ-ences the nitrification and denitrification forms in MBRs [30].
The disposal of NT would be increased by an increased domestic rate of return, and the best solution for the removal of NT was an domestic conversion rate of 40% [31]. In the above mentioned paper, the originators further stated that MBR may have a better abatement effectiveness for NH4-N and TN when the specific anoxic and an aerobic volume mixing ratio is around 1. Good conditions for the nitrification can be ensured also by ensuring an optimal supply of air flow onto the adjacent nitrification zone. In the MBR, direct aeration was performed (no forced aeration) and the correct air supply was selected by means of an appropriate test using GPS-X software, as shown in Figure 3,This process consists of combining biological wastewater treatment with membrane filtration.
Figure 3. Role of the volume of air supplied to the MBR system nitrification channels on the orthophosphate and ammonia output flow quantity.
8 J. MABROUKI ET AL.
It significantly reduces the amount of undesirable matter, such as suspended solids, organics, nutrients and microorganisms in the aqueous medium.
The expansion in the determination of the supply of oxygen in the tank will improve the nitrification reaction, reducing the ammoniacal group in the thrust. At the same industry time, since the oxygen consumer zone is close to the facultative digester, the nitrate and nitrite values are accumulated, increasing thusly influences the proficiency of phosphorus evacuation because of the utilisation of a lot of inner distribution. The aggregate sum of air provided to the MBR framework intended to address natural issues. As correlation proficiency the air circula-tion process creates critical working expenses and if just this boundary is thought of, the MBR innovation may seem good. In any case, when different applications are incorporated, for example, cross-stream air circulation, the circumstance is totally different. As a rule, the MBR framework is known to be more vitality devouring than the ALF [32,33].
Then again, while considering the vitality utilisation of the entire WWTP, the thing that matters isn’t unreasonably noteworthy. Likewise, so as to ensure a profluent quality practically identical to that of MBR, extra procedures, for example, filtration and other explicit treatment must be given, which expands the general expenses of the plant. Oxygen dissemination relies upon the conditions winning in the MBR. With expanding wind stream, a higher grouping of oxygen was created, bringing about blending force and inciting floc breakage, so particles of different sizes were framed. What’s more, oxygen move diminished exponentially with expanding focus in solids.
4. Conclusion
Computer simulations greatly facilitate the definition of optimised ranges of performance settings for effective effluent control. The development of the operation of two different biological systems wastewater treatment systems has shown a number of discrepancies in treatment efficiency. The use of the different materials in the adsorption test for the treatment of wastewater gave good performances in terms of decrease of the electrical conductivity, the total dissolved solids as well as in terms of neutralisation of the pH. Based on the results obtained in this study, it can be concluded that the four materials ensure water depollution, but sawdust remains the most effective, as it is very efficient in reducing electrical conductivity and total solids and thus dissolve and neutralise the pH of vegetable water. As part of the MBR, it is possible, although highly effective contaminant elimination can be realised by using smaller reaction zones with a higher concentration of solids.
The findings were also strongly influenced by the lack or presence of a secondary colon and thus external recirculation. As expected, the biggest difference was in the removal of suspended solids, where TSS in the MBR were removed at the very high figure of 98%. The type of membrane module applied also significantly impacted the organic matter fraction removal, resulting in improved elimination of total COD and BOD5. With regard to trace nutrients, in the ALF of both systems, virtually completed and almost complete nitrifica-tion was carried out in the ALF of both nitrogen and organic matter. Showing good removal. With regard to phosphorus, despite a different configuration of the system, the obtained results for phosphorus in the effluent indicate that the dephosphatation took place with great efficiency in both ALF and MBR; nevertheless, here again, a slight advantage in favour of MBR was obtained.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 9
ORCID
Jamal Mabrouki http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3841-7755Souad El Hajjaji http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-704X
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
[1] S.M. Bouzzine, S. Bouzakraoui, M. Bouachrine and M. Hamidi, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM. 726, 271 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2005.04.023.
[2] S.D. Lambert, N.J.D. Graham, C.J. Sollars and G.D. Fowler, Water Sci. Technol. 36, 173 (1997). doi:10.2166/wst.1997.0512.
[3] M. Cheryan and N. Rajagopalan, J. Membrane Sci. 151 (1), 13 (1998).[4] Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques(OCDE). Panorama de l’en-
vironnement 2013: Les indicateurs de l’OCDE (Éditions OCDE, Paris, France, 2013). doi:10.1787/ 9789264221802-fr.
[5] C.A. Koko, B.K. Kouamé, D. MasséDiomandé, C.E.A. Boko, F. Adjé, E.N. Assidjo and G.N. G. Amani, Euro. Sci. J. 14 (33), 282 (2018).
[6] G. De Luca, R. Sachetti, E. Leoni and F. Zanetti, Bioresour. Technol. 129, 526 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.113.
[7] C.H. Xing, E. Tardieu, Y. Qiang and Y.H. Wen, J. Memb. Sci. 177, 73 (2000). doi:10.1016/S0376- 7388(00)00452-X.
[8] A.N.L. Ng and A.S. Kim, Desalination 212, 261 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.desal.2006.10.013.[9] P.D. Jenssen, T. Mæhlum, T. Krogstad and L. Vråle, J. Environ. Sci. Health. 40, 1343 (2005).
doi:10.1081/ESE-200055846.[10] Z. Chen, W. Ma and M. Han, J. Hazard. Mater. 155, 327 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2007.11.064.[11] M. Tsugiyuki, S. Kuniaki, M. Junichi, S. Matsusige, K. Hiromoto and W. Toshiyuki, Soil Sci. Plant.
Nutr. 53, 215 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00128.x.[12] Y. Chen, R. Sharma-Shivappa, R. Keshwani and D.C. C, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 142,
276–290 (2007). doi:10.1007/s12010-007-0026-3.[13] M. Benbiba: Une nouvelle stratégie nationale de l’eau pour une meilleure adaptation aux
changements climatiques. In: Proceedings of the International conference on water scarcity and drought, 18 February 2010, Madrid, Spain.
[14] W. Naessens, T. Maere and I. Nopens, Bioresour. Technol. 122, 95 (2012). doi:10.1016/j. biortech.2012.05.070.
[15] -H.-H. Tsai, V. Ravindran and M. Pirbazari, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 5620 (2005). doi:10.1016/j. ces.2005.04.080.
[16] J. Drewnowski, J. M ˛akinia, A. Szaja, G. Łagód, Ł. Kope´c and J.A. Aguilar, Water. 11, 485 (2019). doi:10.3390/w11030485.
[17] B. Verrecht, T. Maere, L. Benedetti, I. Nopens and S. Judd, Water Res. 44, 4047 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.05.015.
[18] J. Busch, A. Cruse and W. Marquardt, J. Membr. Sci. 288, 94 (2007).[19] J. Drewnowski, Zesz. NaukoweWydz. Elektrotech. iAutom. PG 48, 17 (2016).[20] Hydromantis ESS, Inc. GPS-X Technical Reference (Hydromantis ESS, Inc., Hamilton, ON,
Canada, 2017).[21] G. Bertanza, M. Canato, G. Laera, M. Vaccari, M. Svanström and S. Heimersson, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res 24, 17383 (2017). doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9409-3.[22] B. Kayeye, R.C. Int. J Innov. Sci. Res. 12, 491 (2014).[23] T. Masunaga, K. Sato and T. Wakatsuki, Environ. Technol. 31 (12), 39 (2002).
10 J. MABROUKI ET AL.
[24] N. Boughou, I. Majdy, E. Cherkaoui, M. Khamar and A. Nounah, J. Eng. App. Sci. 3, 3718 (2018).[25] Similar beneficial effects, i.e. a 96% removal of TSS, have been obtained in real objects, even if
unfavourable conditions occurred (e.g. low temperature).[26] J. Arévalo, L.M. Ruiz, J. Pérez and M.A. Gómez, Biochem. Eng. J. 88, 42 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.
bej.2014.03.006.[27] K. Gurung, M.C. Ncibi and M. Sillanpää, Total Environ. 579, 1289 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.11.122.[28] Z. Ahmed, B.-R. Lim, J. Cho and K.-H. Ahn, Bioprocess Biosystems Eng. 30, 61 (2006).
doi:10.1007/s00449-006-0098-4.[29] I.S. Chang and C.H. Lee. Desalination 120, 221–223 (1998).[30] A. Ding, F. Qu, H. Liang, J. Ma, Z. Han, H. Yu, S. Guo and G. Li, Chem. Eng. J. 223, 908 (2013).
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2013.01.096.[31] C. Couhert, S. Salvador and J.M. Commandre, Fuel 88, 2286 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.
fuel.2009.05.003.[32] J. Mabrouki, A. Moufti, I. Bencheikh, K. Azoulay, Y. El Hamdouni and S. El Hajjaji Lec. Notes
Electr. Eng. 624, 200–212 (2020). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-36475-5_19.[33] A. Fenu, J. Roels, T. Wambecq, K. De Gussem, C. Thoeye, G. De Gueldre and B. Van de Steene,
Desalination 262, 121 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.05.057.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 11