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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27973366)

  • 1. Operating costs and energy demand of wastewater treatment plants in Austria: benchmarking results of the last 10 years.
    Haslinger J; Lindtner S; Krampe J
    Water Sci Technol; 2016 Dec; 74(11):2620-2626. PubMed ID: 27973366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Benchmarking of large municipal wastewater treatment plants treating over 100,000 PE in Austria.
    Lindtner S; Schaar H; Kroiss H
    Water Sci Technol; 2008; 57(10):1487-93. PubMed ID: 18520003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Benchmarking of municipal waste water treatment plants (an Austrian project).
    Lindtner S; Kroiss H; Nowak O
    Water Sci Technol; 2004; 50(7):265-71. PubMed ID: 15553485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sludge digestion instead of aerobic stabilisation - a cost benefit analysis based on experiences in Germany.
    Gretzschel O; Schmitt TG; Hansen J; Siekmann K; Jakob J
    Water Sci Technol; 2014; 69(2):430-7. PubMed ID: 24473316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Benchmarking of energy consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants - a survey of over 200 plants in Italy.
    Vaccari M; Foladori P; Nembrini S; Vitali F
    Water Sci Technol; 2018 May; 77(9-10):2242-2252. PubMed ID: 29757176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Benchmarks for the energy demand of nutrient removal plants.
    Nowak O
    Water Sci Technol; 2003; 47(12):125-32. PubMed ID: 12926679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimizing the use of sludge treatment facilities at municipal WWTPs.
    Nowak O
    J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng; 2006; 41(9):1807-17. PubMed ID: 16849127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Energy audit in small wastewater treatment plants: methodology, energy consumption indicators, and lessons learned.
    Foladori P; Vaccari M; Vitali F
    Water Sci Technol; 2015; 72(6):1007-15. PubMed ID: 26360762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Anaerobic co-digestion of sludge with other organic wastes in small wastewater treatment plants: an economic considerations evaluation.
    Pavan P; Bolzonella D; Battistoni E; Cecchi F
    Water Sci Technol; 2007; 56(10):45-53. PubMed ID: 18048976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants in Japan.
    Mizuta K; Shimada M
    Water Sci Technol; 2010; 62(10):2256-62. PubMed ID: 21076210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Examples of energy self-sufficient municipal nutrient removal plants.
    Nowak O; Keil S; Fimml C
    Water Sci Technol; 2011; 64(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 22053450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Potentials and limits of anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge: energy self-sufficient municipal wastewater treatment plant?
    Jenicek P; Bartacek J; Kutil J; Zabranska J; Dohanyos M
    Water Sci Technol; 2012; 66(6):1277-81. PubMed ID: 22828306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Performance of 14 full-scale sewage treatment plants: comparison between four aerobic technologies regarding effluent quality, sludge production and energy consumption.
    Vera I; Sáez K; Vidal G
    Environ Technol; 2013; 34(13-16):2267-75. PubMed ID: 24350481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Multi-criteria analysis of strategies towards sustainable recycling of phosphorus from sewage sludge in Austria.
    Long A; Weber N; Krampe J; Peer S; Rechberger H; Zessner M; Zoboli O
    J Environ Manage; 2024 Jun; 362():121339. PubMed ID: 38824897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Energy benchmarking of South Australian WWTPs.
    Krampe J
    Water Sci Technol; 2013; 67(9):2059-66. PubMed ID: 23656950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Minimization of excess sludge production for biological wastewater treatment.
    Wei Y; Van Houten RT; Borger AR; Eikelboom DH; Fan Y
    Water Res; 2003 Nov; 37(18):4453-67. PubMed ID: 14511716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Benchmarking of BAF plants: operational experience on 40 full-scale installations in Germany.
    Barjenbruch M
    Water Sci Technol; 2007; 55(8-9):91-8. PubMed ID: 17546974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of aeration energy saving in two modified activated sludge processes.
    Lee I; Lim H; Jung B; Colosimo MF; Kim H
    Chemosphere; 2015 Dec; 140():72-8. PubMed ID: 24784771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Phosphorus recycling in sewage treatment plants with biological phosphorus removal.
    Heinzmann B
    Water Sci Technol; 2005; 52(10-11):543-8. PubMed ID: 16459832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cost comparison of wastewater treatment in Danubian countries.
    Zessner M; Lampert C; Kroiss H; Lindtner S
    Water Sci Technol; 2010; 62(2):223-30. PubMed ID: 20651425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.