Back to Basics

Understand
the Fundamentals of
Wastewater Treatment
Mukesh Doble Wastewater treatment technologies range from
Venkatachalam Geetha
Indian Institute of Technology Madras membrane filtration to UV radiation to
activated sludge. Compare their advantages
and disadvantages to select the appropriate
methods for your application.

W
astewater generated by industrial, commercial,
agricultural, and domestic sources requires treat-
ment before the water can be put back into the
environment or reused. These wastewater streams could
contain such contaminants as solids, organic matter, patho-
gens, nutrients, chemicals, etc., which must be removed
by a combination of physical, chemical, and biological
technologies. Wastewater typically undergoes several levels
of treatment primary, secondary, and tertiary (Table 1).
Primary treatment involves the partial removal of
suspended solids and organic matter by physical methods,
most commonly by membrane filtration or adsorption.
Aeration or mechanical flocculation with chemical addi-
tives, disinfection, dechlorination, and oxidation can also
be used to enhance primary treatment. Primary treatment
acts as a precursor for secondary treatment, and is aimed
mainly at producing an effluent suitable for downstream
biological treatment.
Secondary treatment is generally done by chemical and
biological processes. The latter include activated-sludge
systems, fixed-film reactors, and lagoons. The chemical
secondary treatment methods are similar to those used for

Table 1. Wastewater typically undergoes several levels of treatment.

Primary Secondary Tertiary
Physical Activated-carbon adsorption Membrane filtration
Membrane filtration Reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis
Chemical Chemical precipitation Chemical precipitation Chemical coagulation
Disinfection Disinfection Flocculation and sedimentation
Dechlorination Dechlorination Activated-carbon adsorption
Oxidation Ion exchange
Biological Activated-sludge processes Activated-sludge processes
Natural treatment systems Natural treatment systems
Fixed-film reactors

36 www.aiche.org/cep October 2011 CEP Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
primary treatment. Tertiary treatment employs physical,
chemical, and biological methods.
This article compares some of the wastewater treatment
technologies commonly used in the chemical industry.
Primary physical treatment
Primary treatment technologies are less expensive than
secondary and tertiary processes and are designed to handle
large volumes of dilute effluent. This category includes
physical and chemical treatments.
Primary physical treatments (Table 2) typically involve
either membranes or adsorption on activated carbon.
Carbon adsorption is often used to remove organic
materials, chlorine, and hydrogen sulfide from water.
Granular activated carbon (GAC) can be manufactured
from a wide range of raw materials, including coal, wood,
peat, coconut shells, and coke. Because of its high porosity,
GAC provides a large surface area to which contaminants
can adsorb. GAC contains solid carbon blocks blends of
carbon and polymer molded into various shapes under high
pressure which are very effective at removing a wide
variety of organic compounds.
Microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and
reverse osmosis are membrane-based technologies. Micro-
filtration is used to remove Cryptosporidium and Giardia
Characterize Wastewater Quality
P
rofiling the wastewater stream in terms of its physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics is an important
first step in determining the right treatment technologies.
Physical properties. A key physical property is the
solids content of the water. Solids may include floating
debris, grease, oil slicks, and so on, and can be categorized
as dissolved or suspended, volatile or nonvolatile, and
organic or inorganic. Color and odor are other important
physical properties.
Chemical properties. Chemical characteristics include
the concentrations of organics, inorganics (e.g., chloride and
hydrogen ions, nitrogen, and phosphorus), and gases (NH3,
CO, CO2, H2S, and CH4) in the wastewater stream. Biological
oxygen demand (BOD) indicates the amount of organic mate-
rial of biological origin (such as proteins, carbohydrates, and
fats and oils) and biodegradable synthetic organic chemicals
that can be broken down by biological means; chemical
oxygen demand (COD) is a measure of the nonbiodegradable
organics, which require chemical treatment. The ratio of BOD5
(i.e., oxygen demand determined by a 5-day test) to COD
indicates whether biological processes will be adequate.
Biological properties. Bacteriological contaminants
include coliforms, fecal coliforms, specific pathogens,
and viruses.
Source: (1).

Table 2. Comparison of physical wastewater treatment strategies.

Treatment Technology Advantages Disadvantages Cost*
Granulated Activated-Carbon Reduces chlorine and Cannot physically remove small $9/kgal
(GAC) Adsorption particulate matter particulates, such as Cryptosporidia,
Giardia, and other bacteria
Improves taste and odor
Does not require electricity
95% efficiency
Membrane Filtration Removes pyrogens, micro Requires mechanical devices TC = 0.1612/m3
(See Table 3) organisms and colloids
Does not remove dissolved
Produces high-quality water inorganics
Regenerable, low cost
Easy to operate
94% efficiency
Ceramic Filters Reusable Expensive compared to polymeric OC = Less than $0.01/gal (2)
membranes
90% efficiency for removal of
0.05-m (50-nm) particles Requires regular regeneration
Reverse Osmosis Filters 0.5-m Extensive and expensive $3.25/m3 (3)
(See Table 3) (500-nm) particles maintenance requirements
94% efficiency
*Costs are for operation and maintenance unless otherwise specified. The total cost (TC) associated with wastewater treatment includes capital
investment, operation (OC) and maintenance, land requirements, sludge handling and disposal, monitoring, and quality control.
All
costs are based on the Simultaneous Compliance Tool unless otherwise specified, available at: www.simultaneouscompliancetool.org/
SCToolSmall/jsp/modules/welcome/welcome.jsp.

Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP October 2011 www.aiche.org/cep 37
Back to Basics

cysts, oocysts parasites, and turbidity. Ultrafiltration
membranes will remove high molecular-weight substances,
colloidal materials, and organic and inorganic polymeric
molecules. Nanofilters are used to remove water hardness
and multivalent ions, while reverse osmosis will remove
dissolved and suspended materials including monovalent
salts. Table 3 provides details on these membrane-based
technologies.
Ultrafiltration membranes are commonly made of poly-
meric and other hydrophobic materials and have pore sizes
in the range of 0.0010.1 m (1.0100 nm), making them
effective at removing bacteria and most viruses, colloids,
and silt. The smaller the nominal pore size, the higher the
removal capability of the membrane. These systems require
routine backwashing to remove foulants from the membrane
surfaces. Backwash frequency and duration depend on the
quality of the feedwater, operating conditions, and the design
of the membrane system.
Microfiltration membranes can remove particles and
microorganisms in the size range of 0.110 m. A nanofilter,
which has a pore size of 0.510 nm, removes most organic
molecules, nearly all viruses, most of the natural organic
matter, and a range of salts. In some cases, such as for
desalination or the removal of monovalent ions and viruses,
nanofiltration can be used instead of reverse osmosis, which
is a more expensive process.
Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are typically used to
remove total dissolved solids (TDS) and monovalent ions
that are smaller than 0.5 m (500 nm), such as salt, fluoride,
manganese, and iron. RO filters have pores ranging in size
from 0.1 nm to 5,000 nm, making them effective at remov-
ing bacteria. Reverse osmosis cannot be used upstream of
other primary treatment methods because suspended solids
may foul and damage the membrane.
Another type of filter is the ceramic membrane, which
is made of such materials as aluminia, zirconia, titania
and silicon carbide. Ceramic membranes have a pore size
range of 0.0051 m and have higher fluxes than organic
membranes due to their higher porosity and larger hydro-
philic surface area. These membranes are more resistant
to mechanical, chemical, and thermal stresses than poly-
meric membranes.
Primary and secondary chemical treatment
Chemical processes used for wastewater treatment
(Table 4) include precipitation to remove metals, and dis-
infection by various chlorine compounds, ultraviolet (UV)
radiation, and ozone.
Metals are precipitated from contaminated water by
converting soluble heavy metal salts into insoluble ones a
process that typically involves adjusting the pH and adding a
precipitant. Physical methods such as clarification (settling)
and filtration can then be used to remove the metals from the
treated water. Coagulation and flocculation can also be used
to remove metals, although the safe disposal of the metal
sludge could be problematic.
Another way to remove metals is by the addition of
chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide is effective at remov-
ing such metals as iron, manganese, and arsenic, as well
as compounds that affect taste and odor. The maximum

Table 3. Comparison of membrane technologies.

Membrane Type Pore Size Common Applications Disadvantages Membrane Materials
Microfiltration 0.110 m Separation of oil-water Potential viral Polysulfone
emulsions contamination because
Polyvinylidine fluoride
viruses are smaller than
the pores of microfiltration
membranes
Ultrafiltration 0.0010.1 m Separation of oil-water Does not remove low Polyethersulfone
(1.0100 nm) emulsions molecular-weight organics
Polyacrylonitrile
and ions such as sodium,
calcium, magnesium, Polyvinylidene fluoride
chloride, and sulfate
Nanofiltration 0.510 nm Removal of pesticides from Does not remove volatiles, Cellulose acetate blends
groundwater oils, sulfides, and bacteria,
Polyamide composites
which foul membranes
Removal of heavy metals
from wastewater Requires pretreatment
Reverse Osmosis 0.15,000 nm Water softening High cost Cellulose acetate
(Not driven by pore
Drinking water production Removes minerals essential Cellulose triacetate
size)
to health, including calcium
Process water production
and magnesium
Ultrapure water production

38 www.aiche.org/cep October 2011 CEP Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
total concentration of chlorine dioxide and its breakdown
products chlorite (ClO2-) and chlorate (ClO3-) should not
exceed 1.0 mg/L.
UV radiation is typically used to inactivate microor-
ganisms such as bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and chlorine-
resistant pathogens (e.g., Cryptosporidium). It is commonly
combined with hydrogen peroxide. Turbidity (i.e., cloudi-
ness caused by suspended solids) and some organics and
inorganics (e.g., iron, calcium) can reduce the effectiveness
of this technique by lowering the waters UV transmittance.
Ozone is widely used in drinking water treatment plants
to inactivate Giardia and Cryptosporidium, and to oxidize
many inorganic and organic compounds. Ozone oxidation
can also break down many natural organic compounds into
smaller molecules, thus increasing the assimilable organic
carbon (AOC). This increase in AOC may cause problematic
biological regrowth in the distribution systems unless it is
removed (typically by carbon adsorption).
Secondary biological treatment
The purpose of secondary treatment is to remove soluble
and colloidal organics, as well as suspended solids that
have survived the primary treatment process. The chemical
methods discussed in the previous section (Table 4) as well as
biological methods (Table 5) are used in secondary treatment.
The activated-sludge process is an aerobic, continuous-
flow system that mixes the wastewater with activated
microorganisms, mainly bacteria and protozoa, to stabilize
the organic matter. This process, which is typically done in
an aeration tank, degrades the organic matter into carbon

Table 4. Comparison of chemical wastewater treatment strategies.

Treatment Technology Advantages Disadvantages Cost*
Precipitation, Coagulation, and Removes dissolved toxic metals Process can be costly, depend- TC = $41/kgal (4)
Flocculation and radionuclides ing on reagents used
8090% efficiency for removal Requires system controls
of total suspended solids (TSS)
Requires operator involvement
Chlorine Dioxide Highly effective against most Forms byproducts such as tri $1.70/kgal
pathogens halomethanes
Provides residual protection Special operator training needed
required for drinking water
Subject to regulations,
Cost-effective such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencys Risk
Approx. 50% efficiency for
Management Program
removal of TSS with ClO2
concentration equal to COD of Not effective against
sample Cryptosporidium
Ultraviolet Radiation Effective sanitizing treatment Low doses may not inactivate $2.00/kgal
some viruses, spores, and cysts
99% efficiency for bacteria and
virus removal Turbidity and TSS can render
UV radiation ineffective
No measurable residual exists to
indicate efficacy of UV radiation
Oxidation by Ozone Inactivates Cryptosporidium Increases assimilable organic $6.50/kgal
and Giardia carbon (AOC) and biological
regrowth in distribution system
Able to oxidize many inorganic
and organic compounds
95% efficiency for color
removal (e.g., textile dyes)
Ion Exchange Very low operating costs Organic matter or Fe3+ ions in $3.00/kgal
water can foul the resin
Long resin life
9098% efficiency
*Costs are for operation and maintenance unless otherwise specified. The total cost (TC) associated with wastewater treatment includes capital
investment, operation and maintenance, land requirements, sludge handling and disposal, monitoring, and quality control.
All
costs are based on the Simultaneous Compliance Tool unless otherwise specified, available at: www.simultaneouscompliancetool.org/
SCToolSmall/jsp/modules/welcome/welcome.jsp.

Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP October 2011 www.aiche.org/cep 39
Back to Basics

dioxide, water, new microorganisms, and other materials (7).
Another type of secondary biological treatment takes
advantage of the natural physical, chemical, and biological
processes that occur in the environment when water, soil,
plants, microorganisms, and the atmosphere interact. Exam-
ples of such natural treatment systems (NTSs) include land-
based treatment, floating aquatic plants, and constructed
wetlands. The wastewater typically goes through a physical
pretreatment step to remove gross solids before it enters
the NTS. Where sufficient land is available, NTSs are
often a cost-effective option in terms of both construction
and operation.

Table 5. Comparison of various biological wastewater treatment strategies.

Treatment Technology Advantages Disadvantages Cost*
Activated Sludge High efficiency High cost TC = $0.25/m3 (5)
Small footprint Requires sludge disposal area
(sludge is usually land-spread)
Suitable for local-scale
treatment in small communities, Requires technically skilled
and for regional-scale treatment manpower for operation and
in large cities maintenance
90% efficiency for ammonia
removal
Rapid Infiltration Very low cost Requires a large land area $0.05$0.1/m3-d (6)
Approx. 90% efficiency for
trace organics removal
Overland Flow Very simple process Restricted use in urban and $0.08$0.15/m3-d (6)
rural sites
Approx. 90% efficiency for
trace organics removal Exposes bare dirt
Stabilization Ponds Low capital cost Requires a large land area TC = $0.03/m3 (6)
Low operation and maintenance May produce undesirable odors
costs
Very long treatment times
Low technical manpower
requirement
80% efficiency for nitrogen
removal
Aerated Ponds Requires relatively little land Requires mechanical devices to $0.10$0.16/m3-d (6)
area aerate the basins
Produces few undesirable Produces effluents with high
odors concentrations of suspended
solids
95% efficiency for BOD removal
Faculative Ponds Carries out both aerobic and Large algal growth may occur $0.07$0.13/m3-d (6)
anaerobic activities in the tanks, which could
cause a high concentration of
80% efficiency of BOD removal
suspended solids
Long retention time
Constructed Wetlands Natural wetlands act as Excessive amounts of sediment $0.03$0.09/m3-d (6)
biofilters can reduce performance over
time
Removes sediments and
pollutants such as heavy metals
70% efficiency for solids and
bacteria removal
*Costs are for operation and maintenance unless otherwise specified. The total cost (TC) associated with wastewater treatment includes capital
investment, operation and maintenance, land requirements, sludge handling and disposal, monitoring, and quality control.
All
costs are based on the Simultaneous Compliance Tool unless otherwise specified, available at: www.simultaneouscompliancetool.org/
SCToolSmall/jsp/modules/welcome/welcome.jsp.

40 www.aiche.org/cep October 2011 CEP Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 The rapid infiltration NTS process uses the soil matrix
for physical, chemical, and biological treatment. Physical
straining and filtering occur at the soil surface and within
the soil matrix. Chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and
adsorption occur as the water percolates through the soil.
Biological oxidation and reduction of BOD occur within the
top few feet of the soil.
Other NTSs include the overland flow system, in which
wastewater flows down a network of vegetated sloping
terraces to remove nutrients, and stabilization ponds,
which are shallow bodies of wastewater contained in
earthen basins. A stabilization pond system can consist of
one pond, or several, with aneorobic (primary treatment),
facultative (secondary treatment), and maturation (tertiary
treatment) ponds in series. In facultative ponds, algae
and heterotrophic bacteria remove the BOD5 that was not
removed in the aneorobic pond.
Wetlands are land areas with water depths of less than
2 ft that support the growth of emergent plants such as
cattail, bulrush, reeds, and sedges. The vegetation provides
surfaces to which bacterial films can attach. Wetlands aid
in the filtration and adsorption of wastewater constituents,
transfer oxygen into the water column, and control the
growth of algae by restricting the penetration of sunlight.
Tertiary treatment
Tertiary treatment is carried out after secondary
treatment to remove significant amounts of nitrogen,
phosphorus, heavy metals, biodegradable organics,
bacteria, and viruses. The most commonly used tertiary
treatment methods are reverse osmosis, membrane filtra-
tion, chemical coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation,
activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange, and natural
treatment systems.
The physical tertiary treatment systems include low-
pressure microfiltration and ultrafiltration. The membranes
used in this method act as physical barriers to prevent
contaminants from passing through.
Tertiary filtration is sometimes preceeded by adding
such chemicals as aluminum- or iron-based coagulants,
which together can reduce the phosphorus concentration to
0.01 mg/L.
Activated carbon removes two pollutants, namely
phosphorous and nitrogen, in tertiary treatment. When used
in tertiary treatment, activated carbon achieves a 90% effi-
ciency of COD removal. Phosphorus can also be removed
through precipitation.
The main function of a tertiary-treatment stabiliza-
tion (or maturation) pond is the removal of pathogens
and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen) through natural disinfec-
tion mechanisms. Because the intensity of the sunlight
and high temperatures are key factors in achieving high
Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
efficiencies, this technique is well-suited to tropical and
subtropical environments.
Future focus
Wastewater treatment and management methods must
change in response to urban development, population
growth, and diminishing natural resources. Three aspects
of wastewater management will become important in the
future, namely decentralized wastewater management,
wastewater reclamation and reuse, and wet-weather flow
(i.e., water from rain, floods, and snowmelt) management.
Addressing the challenges associated with these trends
will require a combination of traditional wastewater treat-
ment technologies as discussed in this article and new and
innovative approaches. Some of the advances that might be
expected over the next decade or so include:
Photons and engineered nanostructures. A futuristic
disinfection method might combine photons (from UV or
visible light) and nanostructures (such as titanium dioxide).
UV light, for instance, is capable of activating photocatalytic
materials such as TiO2, which in turn can inactivate viruses.
TiO2 doped with nitrogen, or co-doped with nitrogen and a
metal such as palladium, can be activated with visible light
or with sunlight.
Development of this disinfection method will require
a better understanding of the mechanisms that control the
interaction of pathogens with excited photocatalyst surfaces
and active moieties, such as hydroxyl radicals and super-
oxides. In addition, the physicochemical characteristics of
such surfaces need to be optimized for maximum selective
affinity of target viruses.
Antiviral photocatalysts could be immobilized on fibers
and foams of various materials (8, 9) or incorporated into
membranes (10). Optical fibers could be used to transport
photons into compact configurations such as monolithic
reactors (11). Reactors incorporating visible-light photo-
catalysts could be designed using sunlight as the source of
photons (12, 13).
Improved membrane technologies. The major challenges
in seawater desalination are the quality and life of the reverse
osmosis membranes, membrane fouling, relatively low
recovery of freshwater from seawater (which results in large
volumes of concentrated brine), and inefficient removal of
low-molecular-weight contaminants (primarily boron).
Future membranes should ideally have high water flux,
complete rejection of dissolved solids, low fouling ten-
dency, and tolerance to oxidants used for biofouling control.
Conventional polyamide membranes and low-fouling com-
posite membranes have been shown to have stable flux and
rejection over long periods of time.
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) process. The MBR
process combines microporous membranes for solid-liquid
CEP October 2011 www.aiche.org/cep 41
Back to Basics
separation with a suspended-growth activated-sludge
bioreactor. Such a design obviates the need for an external
filter or secondary clarifiers.
MBR technology is becoming increasingly competitive,
and products are available for domestic, municipal, and
industrial applications. European countries currently have
the largest number of full-scale MBR plants (14), and this
process is expected to play a key role worldwide as well.
Microbial fuel cells. A wastewater treatment scheme in
the future could incorporate microbial fuel cells as sus-
tainable energy sources (15). Microbial fuel cells create
electricity by mimicking bacterial interactions found in
nature. Conventional aerobic biological treatment pro-
cesses require energy input; for example, activated sludge
requires energy in the form of aeration and mechanical
mixing, which results in the conversion of metabolizable
organic wastes into carbon dioxide and biomass. In anaero-
bic respiration, the microorganisms anaerobically metabo-
lize the organic wastes and produce electrons, which can be
converted into electricity in the microbial fuel cell with less
net energy input than the aeration process.
Final thoughts
The volume of wastewater produced, and thus the
demand for wastewater treatment, is expected to increase
dramatically due to rapid growth of the worlds population
and industrialization. The World Bank has estimated that
over the next decade, a total global outlay of $600$800
billion will be required to meet the demand for clean
water, including water for sanitation, irrigation, and power
generation. In the U.S., the wastewater treatment market
is expected to grow from $6.0 billion in 2010 to more than
$10 billion by 2015. CEP
MukeSh Doble is a professor in the Dept. of Biotechnology at the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras (Chennai-600036, India; Phone:
+91-044-2257-4107; Email: mukeshd@iitm.ac.in, mukesh.doble0@
gmail.com). He previously worked for 20 years at Imperial Chemi-
cal Industries (ICI) and General Electric (GE) Technology Centre in
Bangalore, India. His areas of interest are bioremediation, bioreactors,
biomaterials, Six-Sigma, and statistical process control. He received a
BTech and an MTech in chemical engineering from IIT and a PhD from
the Univ. of Aston (Birmingham, U.K.), and did postdoctoral work at
the Univ. of Cambridge (U.K.) and Texas A&M Univ. Doble is a member
of the editorial board of Chemical Engineering magazine, a Fellow of
the Royal Society of Chemistry, and a member of AIChE and the Indian
Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE). He has authored or co-authored
165 technical papers and five books. He is a recipient of the IIChEs
Herdillia Award for Excellence in Basic Research.
VenkaTachalaM GeeTha is a postdoctoral fellow in the Drug Design and
Bioengineering Lab, Dept. of Biotechnology at the Indian Institute of
Technology Madras (Chennai-600036, India; Phone: +91-044-5122;
Email: geegha@gmail.com). She has more than five years of experience
in scaleup and production of enzymes, dye degradation, and bioactive
compounds derived from microbes, and has published two articles in
international journals. She holds a BS and an MS in microbiology from
the Periyar Univ., and a PhD from the Univ. of Madras.
42 www.aiche.org/cep October 2011 CEP
Literature Cited
1. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment
and Reuse, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2003).
2. Gmez, M., et al., A Comparative Study of Tertiary Wastewater
Treatment by Physicochemical-UV Process and Macrofiltration-
Ultrafiltration Technologies, Desalination, 202 (13),
pp. 369376 (2007).
3. Organization of American States (OAS), Water Quality
Improvement Technologies, Chapter 2 in Source Book of
Alternative Technologies for Freshwater Augmentation in Latin
America and the Caribbean, www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/
techpublications/techpub-8c/ (May 2010).
4. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version
4.0, section 4.49, www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-50.html
(June 2010).
5. United Nations, Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A
General Review, United Nations, New York, NY (2003).
6. Water Environment Federation, Natural Systems for Waste-
water Treatment, Hampton Press, New York, NY (2005).
7. Sustarsic, M., Wastewater Treatment: Understanding the
Activated Sludge Process, Chem. Eng. Progress, 105 (11),
pp. 2629 (Nov. 2009).
8. Fu, P., et al., Preparation of Activated Carbon Fibers Supported
TiO2 Photocatalyst and Evaluation of its Photocatalytic Reactiv-
ity, Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chem., 221 (12),
pp. 8188 (2004).
9. Medina-Valtierra, J., et al., The Photocatalytic Application and
Regeneration of Anatase Thin Films with Embedded Commercial
TiO2 Particles Deposited on Glass Microrods, Applied Surface
Science, 252 (10), pp. 36003608 (2006).
10. Molinari, R., et al., Studies on Various Reactor Configurations
for Coupling Photocatalysis and Membrane Processes in Water
Purification, Journal of Membrane Science, 206 (12),
pp. 399415 (2002).
11. Lin, H., and K. T. Valsaraj, Development of an Optical Fiber
Monolith Reactor for Photocatalytic Wastewater Treatment,
Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 35 (78), pp. 699708
(2005).
12. Blanco-Galvez, J., et al., Solar Photocatalytic Detoxification
and Disinfection of Water: Recent Overview, Journal of Solar
Energy Eng., 129 (1), pp. 415 (2007).
13. Gill, L. W., and O. A. McLoughlin, Solar Disinfection Kinetic
Design Parameters for Continuous Flow Reactors, Journal of
Solar Energy Eng., 129 (1), pp. 111118 (2007).
14. Radjenovi, J., et al., Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) as an
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology, in The Hand-
book of Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 5, Part S/2, pp. 37101,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg (2008, published online
Nov. 6, 2007).
15. Pisutpaisal, N., Future Wastewater Treatment Technology:
Simultaneous Treatment of Wastewater and Electricity Genera-
tion, Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on
Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE), pp. 331333,
Hua Hin, Thailand (2004).
Copyright 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)