ReviewApplied biochemistry and biotechnology2023
Biofouling in Membrane Bioreactors: Mechanism, Interactions and Possible Mitigation Using Biosurfactants.
Review in Applied biochemistry and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic Insights into Quorum Quenching-Mediated Control of EPS and Biofilm Formation in Submerged MBR.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advanced (bio)fouling resistant surface modification of PTFE hollow-fiber membranes for water treatment.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Prolonging the Life Span of Membrane in Submerged MBR by the Application of Different Anti-Biofouling Techniques.Membranes · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biofouling roots damage to membrane bioreactors (MBRs), such as physical, functional and organisational changes and even therefore clogging of the membrane pores and successive microbial degradation. Further, it blocks the pores, results into a biomass cake and in due course reduces the membrane flux and leads to an increase in the operational costs. MBR fouling contributed to the rise in transmembrane pressure (TMP) and decrease in permeate flux (in case of constant pressure operation mode). Chemical surfactants adopted for the cleaning of membrane surfaces have certain disadvantages such as toxicity manifestations, damage to the membranes and high CMC concentrations. Biosurfactant surfactants have attained increasing interest due to their low toxicity, biodegradability, stability to extreme environmental conditions such as temperatures, pH and tolerance to salinity. The biosurfactants trapped the foulants via micelle formation, which distresses hydrophobic interactions amongst bacteria and the surface. Rhamnolipids as an anionic biosurfactant pose a significant interfacial potential and have affinity to bind organic matter. The present review discusses the problem of biofouling in MBRs, type and interactions of foulants involved and also highlights the mechanisms of biosurfactant cleaning, effect of different parameters, effect of concentration, TMP, flux recovery, permeability, mitigation practices and challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.