Cost comparison of full-scale water reclamation technologies with an emphasis on membrane bioreactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper assesses the costs of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) of Spanish MBR facilities have been verified and compared to activated sludge plants (CAS) using water reclamation treatment (both conventional and advanced). Spanish MBR facilities require a production of 0.6 to 1.2 kWh per m3, while extended aeration (EA) and advanced reclamation treatment require 1.2 kWh per m3. The energy represents around 40% of the OPEX in MBRs. In terms of CAPEX, the implementation costs of a CAS facility followed by conventional water reclamation treatment (physical–chemical + sand filtration + disinfection) ranged from 730 to 850 €.m−3d, and from 1,050 to 1,250 €.m−3d in the case of advanced reclamation treatment facilities (membrane filtration) with a capacity of 8,000 to 15,000 m3d−1. The MBR cost for similar capacities ranges between 700 and 960 €.m−3d. This study shows that MBRs that have been recently installed represent a cost competitive option for water reuse applications for medium and large capacities (over 10,000 m3d−1), with similar OPEX to EA and conventional water reclamation treatment. In terms of CAPEX, MBRs are cheaper than EA, followed by advanced water reclamation treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".