Before the 1970s, regulation of water was mainly about rights, with some early examples of attempts to control excessive pollution. Between 1970 and 2000 there was a push to protect water sources from pollution due to the knock-on effect on water supply. Since 2000, the watchwords have been sustainability and climate change. But there is still some way to go. Graeme Pearce's guest blog.
The MBR Blog
Ambiguous abbreviations are one thing − but the confusion caused by abbreviations which look pretty similar but refer to completely different things is yet another matter. This is the case with the MABR, MBBR and MBR technologies. Let’s face it, the acronyms do kind of suggest that they are related. But they are actually quite different.
Two significant micropollutants are microplastics and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and these substances are already causing water utilities to rethink their biosolids strategies. Microplastics and PFAS put at risk current low-cost beneficial reuse disposal options, and specifically application to agricultural land.
When I first started travelling to southern California in the early 2000’s, I was struck by the difference in attitude to water reuse between Los Angeles and San Diego. Only 100 miles separate these two centres, but the attitude to reuse is chalk and cheese.
It’s widely believed that membrane replacement represents the second largest contribution to the operating cost of an MBR or UF/MF filtration plant after energy demand. In reality, it’s probably the third largest in most cases, but there is little doubt, though, that membrane life is of keen interest to membrane technology practitioners
With membrane science, you have both physicists and chemists: the physics covering the likes of film theory, hydraulic resistance and molecular dynamics, and the chemistry for chemical/biochemical stoichiometry, organic polymer synthesis and Gibbs–Donnan equilibria. Oh yes, membrane science is pretty hard core.