MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409112935 · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2025.107594

Electro-membrane bioreactor for the treatment of landfill leachate: Effect of SRT, HRT and current density on contaminant removal and membrane fouling

2025· article· en· W4409112935 on OpenAlexafffund
Oumaima El Hachimi, Bikash R. Tiwari, Patrick Drogui, Satinder Kaur Brar, Jean‐François Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Process Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLeachateMembrane bioreactorFoulingMembrane foulingBioreactorBiofoulingMembraneEnvironmental scienceChemistryCurrent (fluid)Waste managementEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryPulp and paper industryEngineeringBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coupling of membrane bioreactor (MBR) with electrocoagulation (EC) in a submerged single reactor (E-MBR) is proposed for the treatment of landfill leachate (LFL) over a 240-days continuous operation. The E-MBR was designed to simultaneously remove total phosphorus (P tot ) (50 ± 12 mg·L −1 ), ammonia nitrogen (N-NH 4 + ) (351 ± 20 mg·L −1 ), chemical oxygen demand (COD) (3409 ± 394 mg·L −1 ), and recalcitrant residual organics. The lab-scale aerobic E-MBR was comprised of two electrodes (Fe-anode and Ti/Pt-cathode) immersed in the mixed liquor of a hollow fiber membrane bioreactor (0.04 μm pore size). The effects of current densities (CD) (2.2, 4.5 and 9.1 A·m −2 ), hydraulic retention time (HRT) (24 h and 16 h), and solid retention time (SRT) (30 days and infinite) on pollutant's removal and membrane clogging were evaluated. The best performance for pollutants removal was obtained in E-MBR-3, operated at a CD of 9.1 A·m −2 , HRT of 24 h and SRT of 30d, with removal percentages of 90 %, 97 %, and ≈100 % for N-NH 4 + , COD and P tot , respectively. However, when HRT was reduced to 16 h (E-MBR-4), N-NH₄ + removal efficiency declined significantly from 90 % to 58 %, despite maintaining the same current density, highlighting the critical role of HRT in nitrification performance. Furthermore, prolonged SRT was found to accelerate membrane clogging, emphasizing the importance of optimizing SRT in E-MBR to mitigate fouling. This study provides valuable insights into the interactions between SRT, HRT, Fe coagulant dosage, and membrane performance in submerged E-MBRs. • E-MBR demonstrated excellent COD, nitrogen and phosphorus removal for LFL treatment. • Iron coagulants increased flocs size and avoided blockage of membrane pores. • Lower SRT and higher CD in E-MBR favoured COD removal and reduced membrane fouling. • Phosphorus was completely precipitated by iron coagulants released from electrodes. • E-MBR also assisted in recalcitrant organics removal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Process EngineeringSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207