恳请哪位大神，好心人帮忙翻译下这篇外文文献，急用，都快被这个折磨疯了，感激不尽
Abstract
Treatment of the wastewater from a petrochemical industry has been investigated using a submerged membrane bioreactor (MBR). A bench scale MBR system with an anoxic/aerobic concept and flat sheet MF membranes were used in the study. The testing system ran continuously (24-h) over 2 months. Trials on different membrane fluxes and hydraulic retention time (HRT) were conducted and the effect of aeration on nitrification was investigated. The results showed that the product quality consistently met the requirement for discharge while segregation of the streams with high TDS was required to reclaim the water for reuse. A flux of 12.5 Lm−2 h−1 (LMH) was sustainable and HRT of 13 h was applicable. The current anoxic volume ratio of 40% in this system might be further increased to reduce the energy consumption in the aeration tank. Membrane permeability could be fully recovered after cleaning. In addition, there was no foaming issue in the process. It was concluded that it was feasible to treat the wastewater using submersed MBR technology.© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Membrane bioreactor; Petrochemical wastewater; Water treatment and reuse; COD removal; Nitrification
1. Introduction
Advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR), a combination of theconventional activated sludge process (ASP) and MF/UF membraneseparation, has been widely used in treatment of domestic sewage. Since the membrane in MBR replaces the clarifier of anASP plant with an ultimate barrier for biomass control and solids separation is achieved by means of filtration rather than gravity settling, the quality of the MBR effluent is independent of the settleability of the mixed liquor and that even if the biological process is upset the membrane can ensure that there will be no
suspended solids in the effluent. Moreover, the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration in MBR is typically 3–5 times as that in ASP, the bioreactor volume in MBR is one-third to one-fifth of that in ASP while the same biomass inventory is maintained. As a result, MBR has advantages of small foot print,reduced sludge production and consistently high quality of effluent over ASP.
Gander et al. [1] introduced various types of commercial aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment with cost considerations and concluded that the submerged configuration would operate more cost effectively than the side-stream configuration
with respect to both energy consumption and cleaning requirements. Stephenson et al. reviewed a number of MBRs for treatment of municipal wastewater. Different commercial MBRplants have proven both reliable and simple to operate. Tao et al. have studied three types of submerged MBR pilots and demonstrated the advantages ofMBRtechnology for reclaiming the domestic sewage under the tropical conditions.
