Comparison of activated sludge and virus interactions in aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors
Jinfan Zhang,
Jie Zhang,
Daisuke Sano,
Rong Chen
Affiliations
Jinfan Zhang
Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi’an University Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi’an 710055, P.R. China
Jie Zhang
Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi’an University Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi’an 710055, P.R. China
Daisuke Sano
Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aoba 606-06, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan; Department of Frontier Sciences for Advanced Environment, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aoba 6-6-06, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan
Rong Chen
Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi’an University Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi’an 710055, P.R. China; International S&T Cooperation Center for Urban Alternative Water Resources Development, Key Laboratory of Northwest Water Resource, Environment and Ecology, MOE, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi’an 710055, P.R. China; Corresponding author
Summary: Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are effective sewage treatment technologies, yet the differences in virus removal efficiency between aerobic (AeMBR) and anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR), remain inadequately understood. This study compared the virus removal efficiency of AeMBR and AnMBR, focusing on the interactions between aerobic (AeS) and anaerobic (AnS) activated sludge and viruses in the sewage treatment process. Results showed average log removal values (LRVs) for MS2 of 2.53 ± 0.54 in AeMBR and 1.64 ± 0.90 in AnMBR due to the higher virus inactivation in the aerobic mixed liquor. The virus concentration in AnS was greater than in AeS, consistent with the predictions from the pseudo-second-order kinetic model. Soluble extracellular polymeric substances (S-EPS) were key to virus adsorption in AeS, while tightly bound EPS (TB-EPS) were significant in AnS. Additionally, more fluorescent substances in AnS contributed to virus adsorption, while more functional groups in AeS offered adsorption sites.
