154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31761624)
1. A plant-wide modelling comparison between membrane bioreactors and conventional activated sludge.
Mannina G; Cosenza A; Rebouças TF
Bioresour Technol; 2020 Feb; 297():122401. PubMed ID: 31761624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from a wastewater treatment plant using membrane bioreactor technology.
Chen YC
Water Environ Res; 2019 Feb; 91(2):111-118. PubMed ID: 30735301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Minimizing membrane bioreactor environmental footprint by multiple objective optimization.
Mannina G; Ni BJ; Ferreira Rebouças T; Cosenza A; Olsson G
Bioresour Technol; 2020 Apr; 302():122824. PubMed ID: 32000132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Thermophilic biological fluidized bed reactor in sludge line reduces greenhouse gas emissions in wastewater treatment system.
Collivignarelli MC; Baldi M; Carnevale Miino M
Sci Total Environ; 2022 Nov; 848():157794. PubMed ID: 35932854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Integrated fixed-film activated sludge membrane bioreactors versus membrane bioreactors for nutrient removal: A comprehensive comparison.
Mannina G; Ekama GA; Capodici M; Cosenza A; Di Trapani D; Ødegaard H
J Environ Manage; 2018 Nov; 226():347-357. PubMed ID: 30130704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reducing biosolids from a membrane bioreactor system: Assessing the effects on carbon and nutrient removal, membrane fouling and greenhouse gas emissions.
Bosco Mofatto PM; Cosenza A; Di Trapani D; Mannina G
J Environ Manage; 2024 Mar; 354():120345. PubMed ID: 38401496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Greenhouse gas emissions and the links to plant performance in a fixed-film activated sludge membrane bioreactor - Pilot plant experimental evidence.
Mannina G; Capodici M; Cosenza A; Di Trapani D; Olsson G
Bioresour Technol; 2017 Oct; 241():1145-1151. PubMed ID: 28579177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Integrated membrane bioreactors modelling: A review on new comprehensive modelling framework.
Mannina G; Alliet M; Brepols C; Comas J; Harmand J; Heran M; Kalboussi N; Makinia J; Robles Á; Rebouças TF; Ni BJ; Rodriguez-Roda I; Victoria Ruano M; Bertanza G; Smets I
Bioresour Technol; 2021 Jun; 329():124828. PubMed ID: 33621928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effluent quality of a conventional activated sludge and a membrane bioreactor system treating hospital wastewater.
Pauwels B; Fru Ngwa F; Deconinck S; Verstraete W
Environ Technol; 2006 Apr; 27(4):395-402. PubMed ID: 16583824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Aeration control in membrane bioreactor for sustainable environmental footprint.
Mannina G; Cosenza A; Rebouças TF
Bioresour Technol; 2020 Apr; 301():122734. PubMed ID: 31954967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Sewage sludge minimisation by OSA-MBR: A pilot plant experiment.
Cosenza A; Di Trapani D; Bosco Mofatto PM; Mannina G
Chemosphere; 2024 Jan; 347():140695. PubMed ID: 37977537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Activated sludge model (ASM) based modelling of membrane bioreactor (MBR) processes: a critical review with special regard to MBR specificities.
Fenu A; Guglielmi G; Jimenez J; Spèrandio M; Saroj D; Lesjean B; Brepols C; Thoeye C; Nopens I
Water Res; 2010 Aug; 44(15):4272-94. PubMed ID: 20619870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Greenhouse gas emissions from membrane bioreactors: analysis of a two-year survey on different MBR configurations.
Mannina G; Chandran K; Capodici M; Cosenza A; Di Trapani D; van Loosdrecht MCM
Water Sci Technol; 2018 Sep; 78(3-4):896-903. PubMed ID: 30252667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Occurrence, identification and removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process and advanced MBR technology.
Lares M; Ncibi MC; Sillanpää M; Sillanpää M
Water Res; 2018 Apr; 133():236-246. PubMed ID: 29407704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from biological wastewater treatment by GPS-X: The full-scale case study of Corleone (Italy).
Gulhan H; Cosenza A; Mannina G
Sci Total Environ; 2023 Dec; 905():167327. PubMed ID: 37748617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of two treatments for the removal of selected organic micropollutants and bulk organic matter: conventional activated sludge followed by ultrafiltration versus membrane bioreactor.
Sahar E; Ernst M; Godehardt M; Hein A; Herr J; Kazner C; Melin T; Cikurel H; Aharoni A; Messalem R; Brenner A; Jekel M
Water Sci Technol; 2011; 63(4):733-40. PubMed ID: 21330721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Analysis of characteristics of microbial communities in membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge process].
Ouyang K; Liu JX
Huan Jing Ke Xue; 2009 Feb; 30(2):499-503. PubMed ID: 19402506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Comparison of sludge filtration characteristics between a membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge process].
Sun BS; Zhang HF; Qi GS
Huan Jing Ke Xue; 2006 Feb; 27(2):315-8. PubMed ID: 16686196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Fate of antibiotics in activated sludge followed by ultrafiltration (CAS-UF) and in a membrane bioreactor (MBR).
Sahar E; Messalem R; Cikurel H; Aharoni A; Brenner A; Godehardt M; Jekel M; Ernst M
Water Res; 2011 Oct; 45(16):4827-36. PubMed ID: 21764099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
