These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

600 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22828319)

  • 41. Reverse osmosis membrane rejection for ersatz space mission wastewaters.
    Yoon Y; Lueptow RM
    Water Res; 2005 Sep; 39(14):3298-308. PubMed ID: 16005043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Effects of ozone and ozone/peroxide on trace organic contaminants and NDMA in drinking water and water reuse applications.
    Pisarenko AN; Stanford BD; Yan D; Gerrity D; Snyder SA
    Water Res; 2012 Feb; 46(2):316-26. PubMed ID: 22137292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The role of MBR technology for the improvement of environmental footprint of wastewater treatment.
    Lazarova V; Martin Ruel S; Barillon B; Dauthuille P
    Water Sci Technol; 2012; 66(10):2056-64. PubMed ID: 22949234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment.
    Radjenović J; Petrović M; Barceló D
    Water Res; 2009 Feb; 43(3):831-41. PubMed ID: 19091371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Removal of trace organic chemicals and performance of a novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactor.
    Holloway RW; Regnery J; Nghiem LD; Cath TY
    Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Sep; 48(18):10859-68. PubMed ID: 25113310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Biodegradation kinetic constants and sorption coefficients of micropollutants in membrane bioreactors.
    Fernandez-Fontaina E; Pinho I; Carballa M; Omil F; Lema JM
    Biodegradation; 2013 Apr; 24(2):165-77. PubMed ID: 22773131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Evaluation of MBR effluent characteristics for reuse purposes.
    Oota S; Murakami T; Takemura K; Noto K
    Water Sci Technol; 2005; 51(6-7):441-6. PubMed ID: 16004006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Combined membrane bioreactor (MBR) and reverse osmosis (RO) system for thin-film transistor-liquid crystal display TFT-LCD, industrial wastewater recycling.
    Chen TK; Chen JN
    Water Sci Technol; 2004; 50(2):99-106. PubMed ID: 15344779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Removal of micropollutants and reduction of biological activity in a full scale reclamation plant using ozonation and activated carbon filtration.
    Reungoat J; Macova M; Escher BI; Carswell S; Mueller JF; Keller J
    Water Res; 2010 Jan; 44(2):625-37. PubMed ID: 19863988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The potential of the innovative SeMPAC process for enhancing the removal of recalcitrant organic micropollutants.
    Alvarino T; Komesli O; Suarez S; Lema JM; Omil F
    J Hazard Mater; 2016 May; 308():29-36. PubMed ID: 26808240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Studies on the effect of humic acids and phenol on adsorption-ultrafiltration process performance.
    Mozia S; Tomaszewska M; Morawski AW
    Water Res; 2005; 39(2-3):501-9. PubMed ID: 15644259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Removal mechanisms of 17β-estradiol and 17α-ethinylestradiol in membrane bioreactors.
    Yang W; Zhou H; Cicek N
    Water Sci Technol; 2012; 66(6):1263-9. PubMed ID: 22828304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Efficiency and energy requirements for the transformation of organic micropollutants by ozone, O3/H2O2 and UV/H2O2.
    Katsoyiannis IA; Canonica S; von Gunten U
    Water Res; 2011 Jul; 45(13):3811-22. PubMed ID: 21645916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Treatment of hospital wastewater effluent by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis.
    Beier S; Köster S; Veltmann K; Schröder H; Pinnekamp J
    Water Sci Technol; 2010; 61(7):1691-8. PubMed ID: 20371926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Development of an integrated membrane process for water reclamation.
    Lew CH; Hu JY; Song LF; Lee LY; Ong SL; Ng WJ; Seah H
    Water Sci Technol; 2005; 51(6-7):455-63. PubMed ID: 16004008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Comparison of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates removal in conventional activated sludge systems and membrane bioreactors.
    De Wever H; Van Roy S; Dotremont C; Miller J; Knepper T
    Water Sci Technol; 2004; 50(5):219-25. PubMed ID: 15497851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The fate of selected micropollutants in a single-house MBR.
    Abegglen C; Joss A; McArdell CS; Fink G; Schlüsener MP; Ternes TA; Siegrist H
    Water Res; 2009 Apr; 43(7):2036-46. PubMed ID: 19269669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Autopsy of high-pressure membranes to compare effectiveness of MF and UF pretreatment in water reclamation.
    Kim J; DiGiano FA; Reardon RD
    Water Res; 2008 Feb; 42(3):697-706. PubMed ID: 17961627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Reuse of carwash wastewater with hollow fiber membrane aided by enhanced coagulation and activated carbon treatments.
    Li T; Xue-jun T; Fu-yi C; Qi Z; Jun Y
    Water Sci Technol; 2007; 56(12):111-8. PubMed ID: 18075186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes by dairy industry effluents.
    Turan M; Ates A; Inanc B
    Water Sci Technol; 2002; 45(12):355-60. PubMed ID: 12201123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 30.