ArticleMembranes2022
Evaluation of a Hybrid Moving Bed Biofilm Membrane Bioreactor and a Direct Contact Membrane Distillation System for Purification of Industrial Wastewater.
Article in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Nanomembranes for Membrane Distillation Desalination: Research Status, Challenges, and Prospects.ChemSusChem · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Integrated wastewater treatment processes are accepted as the best option for sustainable and unrestricted onsite water reuse. In this study, moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), membrane bioreactor (MBR), and direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) treatment steps were integrated successively to obtain the combined advantages of these processes for industrial wastewater treatment. The MBBR step acts as the first step in the biological treatment and also mitigates foulant load on the MBR. Similarly, MBR acts as the second step in the biological treatment and serves as a pretreatment prior to the DCMD step. The latter acts as a final treatment to produce high-quality water. A laboratory scale integrated MBBR/MBR/DCMD experimental system was used for assessing the treatment efficiency of primary treated (PTIWW) and secondary treated (STIWW) industrial wastewater in terms of permeate water flux, effluent quality, and membrane fouling. The removal efficiency of total dissolved solids (TDS) and effluent permeate flux of the three-step process (MBBR/MBR/DCMD) were better than the two-step (MBR/DCMD) process. In the three-step process, the average removal efficiency of TDS was 99.85% and 98.16% when treating STIWW and PTIWW, respectively. While in the case of the two-step process, the average removal efficiency of TDS was 93.83% when treating STIWW. Similar trends were observed for effluent permeate flux values which were found, in the case of the three-step process, 62.6% higher than the two-step process, when treating STIWW in both cases. Moreover, the comparison of the quality of the effluents obtained with the analysed configurations with that obtained by Jeddah Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant proved the higher performance of the proposed membrane processes.
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.