MBR vs. CAS: Capital and operating cost evaluation

Water Practice and Technology

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2012, Pages

  Young, T ^a   Muftugil, M ^a   Smoot, S ^a   Peeters, J ^b  

^a GHD   (United States)

^b GE Water & Process Technologies   (Canada)

Author keywords

Capital cost; Conventional activated sludge (CAS); Cost comparison; Lifecycle costs; Membrane bioreactors (MBR); Operating cost

Indexed keywords

CAPITAL COSTS; CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGES; COST COMPARISONS; LIFECYCLE COSTS; MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR;

BIOREACTORS; EFFLUENT TREATMENT; LOADING; WASTEWATER TREATMENT;

OPERATING COSTS;

EID: 84871043195     PISSN: 1751231X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2166/wpt.2012.075     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Bontrager, S., Wallis-Lage, C. & Hemken, B. 2005 MBR Steps Up to Meet Reclamation Challenge. AWWA Membrane Technology Conference.
2. Brepols, Ch., Schäfer, H. & Engelhardt, N. 2010 Considerations on the design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Science and Technology 61 (10), 2461-2468.
3. McInnis, A., Neethling, J., Bucher, B. & Johnson, M. 2005 Cost Comparison for Application of MBR and CAS MF Facilities. WEFTEC Conference Proceedings.
4. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2003 Wastewater Engineering: Treatment & Reuse (4th Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. RS Means Construction Publishers & Consultants. 2012 Facilities Construction Cost Data 28th Annual Ed. Reed Construction Data, Inc.
6. Schaller, J., Drews, A. & Kraume, M. 2010 Desalination and Water Treatment, 18 (1-3), 315-320.
7. Verrecht, B., Maere, T., Nopens, I., Brepols, C. & Judd, S. 2010 Water Research 44 (18), 5274-5283, October 2010.
8. Water Environment Federation & American Society of Civil Engineers. 2010 Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants WEF Manual of Practice No. 8 (5th Ed). WEF & ASCE.