Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40968264›Full record

ReviewBiodegradation2025

Advanced treatment and recovery of wastewater using aerobic membrane bioreactor-a review.

Tanmoy Bir, Debabrata Mazumder

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biodegradation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tanmoy BirDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering and Science Technology, Shibpur, Howrah, West Bengal, 711103, India. tanmoybir5@gmail.com.
Debabrata MazumderDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering and Science Technology, Shibpur, Howrah, West Bengal, 711103, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the decline of freshwater resources, attention is increasingly directed towards recovering, reusing, and recycling water. In addition, stringent compliance mandates for wastewater disposal, increasing treatment expenses, and spatial limitations necessitate an alternative solution. Due to its wide applicability, membrane technology has received significant attention in conjunction with biological treatment methods. Numerous studies have demonstrated satisfactory performance attributes of membrane systems over a few decades. This paper presents a comprehensive review of MBR operation, delving into the configurations, design attributes, membrane fouling, and strategies for its control. Furthermore, the possibilities and implementation of MBR as a viable solution for wastewater treatment have been examined. The data regarding process parameters and effluent quality are presented to assess the key findings of the aerobic membrane bioreactor (AeMBR). Essential elements like loading rates, retention time, cross-flow velocities, types of membranes, membrane fouling, and backwashing are also reviewed. This study delves deeper into contemporary mathematical models and simulations aimed at forecasting MBR efficiency. The focus is on employing membranes as solid/liquid separators, which are essential for attaining directly reusable effluent quality. The review also accounts for a financial analysis, for the selection of a process based on economic feasibility.

Indexed as

BioreactorsMembranes, ArtificialWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterWater PurificationAerobiosisBiodegradation, EnvironmentalMembranes, ArtificialWastewaterAerobic membrane bioreactorConfigurationEconomic statusMathematical modellingOperational mechanismReal-life application

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.