Membrane bioreactors for the removal of anionic
micropollutants from drinking water
João G Crespo, Svetlozar Velizarov and Maria A Reis
Biological treatment processes allow for the effective
elimination of anionic micropollutants from drinking water.
However, special technologies have to be implemented to
eliminate the target pollutants without changing water quality,
either by adding new pollutants or removing essential water
components. Some innovative technologies that combine
the use of membranes with the biological degradation of
ionic micropollutants in order to minimize the secondary
contamination of treated water include pressure-driven
membrane bioreactors, gas-transfer membrane bioreactors
and ion exchange membrane bioreactors.
Addresses
CQFB/REQUIMTE, Department of Chemistry, FCT, Universidade Nova
de Lisboa, P-2829-516 Caparica, Portugal

e-mail: jgc@dq.fct.unl.pt
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468
This review comes from a themed issue on
Biochemical engineering
Edited by Manuel Carrondo and John G Aunins
Available online 28th July 2004
0958-1669/$ – see front matter
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
DOI 10.1016/j.copbio.2004.07.001
Abbreviation
IEMB ion exchange membrane bioreactor
Introduction
The contamination of drinking water sources with inor-
ganic compounds is a matter of concern, because of their
harmful effect on human health. Some of these com-
pounds are highly soluble in water and dissociate com-
pletely, resulting in ions that are chemically stable under
normal water conditions. Examples of polluting anions
include nitrate, nitrite, perchlorate, bromate, arsenate
and ionic mercury, for which the proposed guideline
values for drinking water quality are quite low (in the
range of mg/L to a few mg/L) owing to their carcinogenic
effects or other risk factors to public health [1,2–5]. Some
of them may be present simultaneously in contaminated
water.
Technologies available for the treatment of water con-
taminated with inorganic anionic compounds include
physical, chemical and biological processes [6–10]. In
the first type of process, ions are concentrated rather than
www.sciencedirect.com
destroyed. A brine stream containing a high concentration
of ions is generated, which must then undergo additional
treatment and disposal.
Biological conversion is a promising technology for the
effective and economical removal of anions from water.
Several bacteria capable of degrading anions to harmless
products have been identified. These bacteria carry out
anaerobic respiration using anions as electron acceptors
and organic or inorganic compounds as electron donors
(e.g. ethanol, acetate, hydrogen gas). Electron donors
must be added to the contaminated water; however,
the dosage must be carefully controlled in response to
fluctuations in ion concentration, and this constitutes one
of the serious drawbacks to the biological process.
In the presence of chemical oxidants, some organic elec-
tron donors, added in excess, can serve as precursors for
the creation of novel contaminants (e.g. disinfection by-
products), which have been recognized as potential car-
cinogens [1,4]. Furthermore, any overdosing of organic
electron donors, which are readily biodegradable, can
promote microbial growth in water distribution systems,
thus requiring post-treatment to produce safe and biolo-
gically stable water.
Instead of an organic compound, hydrogen has been used
to prevent the chemical contamination of water, but it
requires special hydrogen supply devices due to safety
reasons [11].
Most traditional techniques for the biological removal of
anions from contaminated water use high cellular con-
centration bioreactors, in which the hydraulic and cell
retention times are decoupled. This type of reactor is
suited for the treatment of high flow rates of contami-
nated water with a concentration of anions in the range of
mg/L to a few mg/L, for which slow degradation kinetics
are usually obtained. The most common configurations
include immobilized cell reactors (e.g. packed bed, flui-
dized bed or membrane-supported biofilms) [5,9,12,13],
in which cells come into direct contact with the water
stream containing the pollutant.
The concept of an active layer (biofilm) is important for
understanding the functioning of membrane bioreactors.
In the case of the anionic compounds mentioned above,
the biofilm corresponds to a reaction zone where a redox
process takes place involving the oxidation of the added
electron donor and reduction of the anionic pollutant
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468
464 Biochemical engineering
(electron acceptor) to harmless product(s). Two different
transport situations may occur through the biofilm: co-
transport, in which both the electron donor and acceptor
come into the biofilm from the side of the polluted water,
and counter-transport, in which they enter the biofilm
from opposite sides. These two situations may lead to
different biofilm structuring and distribution of microbial
populations.
In this paper, the most promising technologies based on
membrane bioreactors for the removal of anions from
contaminated water are presented and compared in terms
of the treated water quality and process efficiency.
Pressure-driven membrane bioreactors
The integration of biological water treatment with its
filtration across porous membranes, driven by a pressure
difference, has already been successfully employed in
urban and industrial wastewater treatment [14,15–17].
The biomass can be recycled through an external mem-
brane module, but the recent trend involves the use of
membranes directly immersed in the bioreactor, a con-
figuration known as an ‘immersed membrane bioreactor’
[16]. The main advantage of pressure-driven systems is
the possibility of achieving high biomass concentrations
within the bioreactor; therefore, the plant size can be
reduced. As a result of membrane separation, the biomass
retention time is independent from the hydraulic reten-
tion time, thus allowing slow-growing microorganisms to
be maintained in the bioreactor. This feature is of parti-
cular importance for toxic compounds and/or micropollu-
tants, which usually need long periods for their complete
biological degradation/transformation to harmless pro-
ducts. Membrane fouling may affect the performance
of the process, either due to the deposit of a layer at
the membrane surface and/or by partial or complete
blockage of the pores; however, fairly efficient solutions
(e.g. periodic membrane backwashing) can be implem-
ented so that relatively high amounts of water may be
treated per unit area of membrane [12,18].
Several attempts, all aimed at nitrate removal, have been
made to extend this approach to the production of drink-
ing water [12,18–20]. The main concern is the treated
water quality. Although microbial contamination of water
can be avoided, the retention of ions and low molecular
mass compounds (such as metabolic by-products) by
porous membranes is generally insufficient to meet the
stringent drinking water criteria; therefore, either process
modifications or water post-treatment are necessary.
Gas-transfer membrane bioreactors
Hydrogen can serve as an inexpensive, non-polluting
and non-toxic electron donor for reducing different
oxy-anions by autotrophic microorganisms, although its
direct injection is not acceptable because of its low
solubility and high flammability. Under appropriate con-
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468
ditions, gas-permeable membranes offer the advantage of
efficient gas transfer without bubble formation, which
prevents both the waste of excess hydrogen and the
accumulation of explosive amounts of hydrogen in the
headspace above water. In addition, autohydrogen-
otrophic processes are attractive as they generate much
less microbial biomass than heterotrophic ones using
organic electron donors. This approach has recently
received considerable attention for the treatment of
groundwater contaminated with nitrate [11,21,22,
23–25] and perchlorate [26]. Up until now, research
has been carried out with ex situ laboratory-scale reactors;
however, an interesting application would be in situ water
remediation (i.e. at the contaminated site) as illustrated in
Figure 1. The hydrogen gas is supplied to the inside
(lumen side) of hollow-fibre membranes and diffuses to
the outside (shell side), where it is used by existing
microrganisms as an electron donor for the reduction of
anionic micropollutants.
There is still no general agreement concerning the role of
the biofilm, which grows naturally at the outside mem-
brane surface, on the performance of the process. As the
consumption of hydrogen in the vicinity of the membrane
guarantees a relatively high driving force for its transport,
some authors consider that the biofilm is an essential part
of the process and even designate this type of reactor as a
‘membrane-biofilm reactor’ [22,23,24]. However, biofilm
formation hinders gas transfer to the bulk liquid, thus
decreasing the zone of influence around the membrane
Figure 1
Gas-permeable H2
membrane
Microorganism
Biofilm
Water table
H2 H2
Groundwater X–
flow
Harmless products
Confining layer Contaminant plume
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
A schematic representation of an in situ hydrogen gas supplying
membrane system installed across a contaminant plume. Hydrogen gas
is supplied to the lumen of a gas-permeable hollow-fiber membrane,
while groundwater flows past the membrane. The figure shows that, as
hydrogen is transferred, it dissolves into the water and serves as an
electron donor for hydrogenotrophic microorganisms, thus reducing the
anionic micropollutants (X ). The pressure of the gas in the lumen can be
adjusted independently so as to control the desired hydrogen delivery
rate. (Figure adapted from [11] with permission from Elsevier.)
www.sciencedirect.com
 Membrane bioreactors for water purification Crespo, Svetlozar and Reis 465
[21,27]. This problem appears to be more important
for in situ remediation, as natural convection in ground-
water may be poor. Moreover, in some cases, mineral
precipitation on the membrane surface can reduce the gas
transfer rate [27].
The most serious concern for further research is water
quality, which has still not reached acceptable levels.
Indeed, the main problems include a significant increase
in water turbidity as a result of biomass sloughing [25] and
an increase in the total organic content due to soluble
microbial products leaking from the microbial cells
[21,25,28].
The ion exchange membrane bioreactor
A new process has recently been proposed [29–31,32] for
the removal and bioconversion of ionic micropollutants
from water streams. In this process, the ionic micropol-
lutant is transported from the water stream through a non-
porous ion-exchange membrane into a biological com-
partment where it is simultaneously converted by a
suitable microbial culture into harmless products.
The mechanism of ion-transport and co-ion exclusion
(Donnan dialysis) in the ion exchange membrane bior-
eactor (IEMB) is represented in Figure 2, illustrating
the transport and bioconversion of an anionic pollutant.
The microbial culture is fed with an adequate carbon
source and other required nutrients in a continuous
mode. The Donnan dialysis type of operation re-
quires the addition of a so-called driving counter-ion to
the biocompartment, which is transported in a direction
opposite to that of the polluting ion to maintain electro-
neutrality.
This process has been tested for the removal and bio-
conversion of nitrate, nitrite and perchlorate from drink-
ing water, even if they are present simultaneously in
different concentration ranges [29–31,32,33–35,36,37].
Other anionic micropollutants are presently under study,
namely bromate, arsenate and cyanide. This concept
may be extended to the removal and bioconversion/
bioaccumulation of cationic micropollutants such as
ionic mercury.
A microbial biofilm develops naturally at the membrane
surface in contact with the biological compartment. The
development of an active biofilm also guarantees that the
concentration of the carbon source is rather low near
the membrane surface, avoiding the penetration of this
compound into the water stream compartment. Excess
biofilm growth may become a problem because it reduces
the transport rate of the pollutant.
This approach — the transport of a target ionic micro-
pollutant through a dense membrane followed by its
bioconversion in an isolated compartment — presents
some interesting advantages over other processes. Firstly,
www.sciencedirect.com
Figure 2
Anion exchange
membrane
Treated water
Biofilm
Biocompartment Water
compartment
Cations
Cl–
Cl–
Anionic micropollutants
Harmless X– X–
products
Electron donor + nutrients +
driving counterion (e.g. Cl–) Polluted water
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
A schematic diagram of the ion transport mechanism in the ion
exchange membrane bioreactor (IEMB). A non-porous, anion exchange
membrane serves as a selective barrier between the water stream,
containing one or more anionic micropollutants, represented as shaded
circles (X ). The addition of a suitable counterion (e.g. Cl ) to the
biocompartment at a sufficiently high concentration results in a chloride
flux to the water compartment. To preserve electroneutrality, an
equivalent back flux of X to the biocompartment is generated where it
undergoes bioreduction to harmless product(s) within the biofilm, which
develops on the membrane surface and/or in the biomedium. Due to the
Donnan exclusion effect, co-ions (cations in the case presented) are
rejected by the positively charged membrane, thus maintaining their
original levels in the two compartments. (Figure adapted from [32] with
permission from Wiley.)
it allows for the isolation of the microbial culture from the
feed stream behind a dense membrane barrier, avoiding
the contamination of the treated water with cells, meta-
bolic by-products and excess carbon source. This in turn
prevents the secondary contamination of the treated
water. Secondly, the process of removing the charged
target pollutant can be enhanced by providing a selected
ion for counter transport, whereby the conversion of the
pollutant in the biocompartment keeps its concentration
at low levels and consequently guarantees an adequate
driving force for transport. Lastly, the hydraulic residence
time can be independently adjusted in the two compart-
ments to optimise the degree of extraction of the pollu-
tant.
Other attempts have been made to separate the microbial
culture from water to be treated using micro-porous
hydrophobic membranes, based on a simple dialysis mode
of operation [38,39]. However, secondary water contam-
ination by methanol, used as the carbon source, was not
avoided [38]. Furthermore, in this process, the rate of ion
transport is controlled by the size of the water-filled pores
together with a given ion concentration gradient across
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468
466 Biochemical engineering

the membrane, thus reducing the process selectivity

[21]

[26]

[36]
Ref.

[12]
[19]
[18]

[28]

[37]
towards target micropollutants.

TOCb (mg L 1)

Not detectedd
Not detectedd
Table 1 compares the results obtained with different

Not reported
pollution as
Secondary

membrane bioreactor systems for the removal of nitrate

1.5–2.1

1.5–2.0
and perchlorate from drinking water. As can be seen,
5–10

0.9c
pressure-driven membrane bioreactors allow for the high-
0.5
est treated water production rate per unit of membrane
area. However, the IEMB system is most appropriate if
production rate
Treated water

high water quality is envisaged; compared with pressure-

(L m 2 h 1)

driven and gas transfer membrane bioreactors, the former

system produces water with a much lower carbon content,
100
21
80
10

10

11
3
avoiding problems of secondary contamination and dis-
8

infection by-products.
Target anion
removal rate
(g m 2 h 1)

Detection limit ~0.01 mg NO3 L 1; bTOC, total organic carbon; cMeasured as dissolved organic carbon; ddetection limit ~0.5 mg carbon L 1.
0.9  10

0.3  10

The main difficulties regarding this process are associated

with the fact that commercially available ion selective
3.1
4.5
0.8

0.1

0.2
0.4

1.4
11

membranes are expensive in comparison with mem-

branes typically used in pressure-driven processes.
Not detecteda
Target anion content

Treated

Conclusions and perspectives

<0.004

<0.004
<0.14
water
<20

Until recently, membranes in bioreactors were essentially

<2
<1

<3
20
4

regarded as micro/ultra porous barriers to promote high

cell concentrations for process intensification and to avoid
(mg L 1)
Polluted
water

contamination of the treated water with the biocatalysts.

120
150
148

150
0.1

0.1
73
55
12

60

The growing concern about drinking water quality is

Comparison of performance of membrane bioreactors for removal of anions from drinking water.

focusing nowadays not only on the removal of macro-

Perchlorate

Perchlorate

pollutants and nutrients but also on the elimination of

acceptor
Electron

micropollutants, which may have dramatic consequences

Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate

Nitrate
Nitrate

for human health. The need for water treatment systems

able to deal with specific micropollutants has been iden-
tified and new problems and/or opportunities are becom-
Hydrogen
Hydrogen
Hydrogen
Electron

Acetate
Ethanol
Ethanol

Ethanol
Ethanol

ing apparent. To deal with these problems, catalytic

donor

reactors able to combine selective transport steps (selec-

tive membranes are a good example) with (bio)catalytic
compartments may offer flexible target-oriented solu-
Derivatized cellulose hollow fibres, 0.01 mm pores

tions.
Polyvinyldene difluoride, flat, 200 kDa cut-off
Polysulfone hollow fibres 500 kDa cut-off

This comment applies not only to ionic compounds, but

also to a variety of other situations where catalytic reactors
may deal with micropollutants, such as endocrine dis-
ruptors and pesticides among others. In this context, we
Dense anion-exchange; flat
Dense anion-exchange; flat

anticipate that a new generation of membrane bioreactors

Membrane configuration

Composite hollow fibres

Composite hollow fibres

will develop in the near future; these bioreactors will

Silicone-coated fibers

combine selective membranes, exploring different types

of affinity and transport mechanisms (electrostatic inter-
actions/ion-exchange and chiral affinity) with specific
catalysts able to deal with defined compounds. These
bioreactors will be complementary and should be inte-
grated with existing treatment units to offer complete
water treatment solutions.
Pressure-driven
Pressure-driven
Pressure-driven
bioreactor type

Gas-transfer
Gas-transfer
Gas-transfer
Membrane

Acknowledgements
Table 1

IEMB
IEMB

Financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal

(Projects POCTI/EQU/39482/2001 and POCTI/BIO/43625/2000) is
a

gratefully acknowledged.

Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468 www.sciencedirect.com

 Membrane bioreactors for water purification Crespo, Svetlozar and Reis 467
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of
review, have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Richardson SD: Disinfection by-products and other emerging
 contaminants in drinking water. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 2003,
22:666-684.
This review discusses drinking water contaminants of emerging concern
and the methods currently being used for their analysis. The reference to
perchlorate, as a micropollutant, and associated health risks are
addressed.
2. Petrović M, Gonzalez S, Barceló D: Analysis and removal of
emerging contaminants in wastewater and drinking water.
TrAC Trends Anal Chem 2003, 22:685-696.
3. Smith AH, Lopipero PA, Bates MN, Steinmaus CM: Arsenic
epidemiology and drinking water standards. Science 2002,
296:2145-2146.
4. Carraro E, Bugliosi EH, Meucci L, Baiocchi C, Gilli G: Biological
drinking water treatment processes, with special reference to
mutagenicity. Water Res 2000, 34:3042-3054.
5. Hijnen WAM, Jong R, Van der Kooij D: Bromate removal in a
denitrifying bioreactor used in water treatment. Water Res
1999, 33:1049-1053.
6. Van der Bruggen B, Vandecasteele C: Removal of pollutants
from surface water and groundwater by nanofiltration:
overview of possible applications in the drinking water
industry. Environ Pollut 2003, 122:435-445.
7. Centi G, Perathoner S: Remediation of water contamination
using catalytic technologies. Appl Cat B: Environ 2003, 41:15-29.
8. Kapoor A, Viraraghavan T: Nitrate removal from drinking water –
review. J Environ Eng 1997, 123:371-380.
9. Min B, Evans PJ, Chu AK, Logan BE: Perchlorate removal in
sand and plastic media bioreactors. Water Res 2004, 38:47-60.
10. Coates JD, Anderson RT: Emerging techniques for anaerobic
bioremediation of contaminated environments. Trends
Biotechnol 2000, 18:408-412.
11. Fang Y, Hozalski RM, Clapp LW, Novak PJ, Semmens MJ:
Passive dissolution of hydrogen gas into groundwater using
hollow-fiber membranes. Water Res 2002, 36:3533-3542.
12. Chang J, Manem J, Beaubien A: Membrane bioprocesses for
the denitrification of drinking water supplies. J Memb Sci 1993,
80:233-239.
13. Ho CM, Tseng SK, Chang YJ: Autotrophic denitrification via a
novel membrane-attached biofilm reactor. Lett Appl Microbiol
2001, 33:201-205.
14. Cicek N: A review of membrane bioreactors and their potential
 application in the treatment of agricultural wastewater.
Can Biosyst Eng 2003, 45:6.37-6.49.
A recent review discussing current and possible interesting applications
of membrane bioreactors in wastewater treatment.
15. Wintgens T, Rosen J, Melin T, Brepols C, Drensla K, Engelhardt N:
Modelling of a membrane bioreactor system for municipal
wastewater treatment. J Memb Sci 2003, 216:55-65.
16. Ben Aim RM, Semmens MJ: Membrane bioreactors for
wastewater treatment and reuse: a success story. Water Sci
Technol 2003, 47:1-5.
17. Gander M, Jefferson B, Judd S: Aerobic MBRs for domestic
wastewater treatment: a review with cost considerations.
Sep Purif Tech 2000, 18:119-130.
18. Barreiros AM, Rodrigues CM, Crespo JPSG, Reis MAM:
Membrane bioreactor for drinking water denitrification.
Biop Eng 1998, 18:297-302.
19. Delanghe B, Nakamura F, Myoga H, Magara Y: Biological
denitrification with ethanol in a membrane bioreactor.
Environ Technol 1994, 15:61-70.
www.sciencedirect.com
20. Kimura K, Nakamura M, Watanabe Y: Nitrate removal by a
combination of elemental sulfur-based denitrification and
membrane filtration. Water Res 2002, 36:1758-1766.
21. Haugen KS, Semmens MJ, Novak PJ: A novel in situ technology
 for the treatment of nitrate contaminated groundwater.
Water Res 2002, 36:3497-3506.
A flow-through laboratory membrane bioreactor was designed as a
prototype to simulate groundwater flowing through an aquifer. The
authors demonstrate that silicone hollow-fiber membranes can supply
hydrogen in sufficient quantities to effectively reduce nitrate and nitrite in
a simulated environment. In addition, the secondary pollution of the
treated water (~0.5 mg/L total organic carbon) is the lowest value so
far reported for gas-transfer membrane bioreactors.
22. Rittmann BE, Nerenberg R, Lee K-C, Najm I, Gillogly TE, Lehman
 GE, Adham SS: The hydrogen-based hollow-fiber membrane
biofilm reactor (HFMBfR) for removing oxidized contaminants.
Water Sci Technol 2004, 14:127-133.
A summary of the authors’ on-going research that shows promising
results for nitrate and perchlorate removal from groundwater in laboratory
and pilot-scale hydrogen gas-transfer systems. A brief preliminary eco-
nomic analysis is also provided.
23. Lee K-C, Rittmann BE: Effects of pH and precipitation
on autohydrogenotrophic denitrification using the
hollow-fiber membrane-biofilm reactor. Water Res 2003,
37:1551-1556.
24. Lee K-C, Rittmann BE: Applying a novel autohydrogenotrophic
hollow-fiber membrane biofilm reactor for denitrification of
drinking water. Water Res 2002, 36:20401-20521.
25. Ergas SJ, Reuss AF: Hydrogenotrophic denitrification of
drinking water using a hollow fibre membrane bioreactor.
J Water SRT Aquat 2001, 50:161-171.
26. Nerenberg R, Rittmann BE, Najm I: Perchlorate reduction in a
 hydrogen-based membrane-biofilm reactor. J AWWA 2002,
94:103-114.
This article reports that biological reduction of perchlorate to chloride in
drinking water is feasible using hydrogen as an electron donor in a gas-
transfer membrane bioreactor. As nitrate slows down the perchlorate
reduction kinetics, the authors suggest that full nitrate removal and pH
control may be required for complete perchlorate removal.
27. Roggy DK, Novak PJ, Hozalski RM, Clapp LW, Semmens MJ:
 Membrane gas transfer for groundwater remediation:
chemical and biological fouling. Environ Eng Sci 2002,
19:563-574.
Describes the applications of gas-permeable membranes in membrane
bioreactors. The article focuses on the possible inorganic mineral pre-
cipitation at the membrane surface under reducing conditions of hydro-
gen gas supply to groundwater and its effects on the gas transfer.
28. Lee K-C, Rittmann BE: A novel hollow-fiber membrane biofilm
reactor for autohydrogenotrophic denitrification of drinking
water. Water Sci Technol 2000, 41:219-226.
29. Crespo JG, Reis AM, Fonseca AD, Almeida JS: Ion exchange
membrane bioreactor for water denitrification. Portuguese
National Patent No. 102385 N, 1999.
30. Fonseca AD, Crespo JG, Almeida JS, Reis AM: Drinking water
denitrification using a novel ion-exchange membrane
bioreactor. Environ Sci Technol 2000, 34:1557-1562.
31. Crespo JG, Reis AM: Treatment of aqueous media containing
electrically charged compounds. International Patent PCT-WO
01/40118 A1, 2001.
32. Velizarov S, Rodrigues CM, Reis AM, Crespo JG: Mechanism of
 charged pollutants removal in an ion exchange membrane
bioreactor: drinking water denitrification. Biotechnol Bioeng
2001, 71:245-254.
The mechanism of removing charged target compounds from drinking
water in the IEMB system, based on Donnan dialysis principles, is
identified. This approach can be applied for both anionic and cationic
micropollutants depending on the choice of the membrane. A trace
counterion transport model, which can be used as a preliminary step
for process design and optimisation, is proposed.
33. Velizarov S, Crespo JG, Reis AM: Removal of nitrate from water
in a novel ion exchange membrane bioreactor. Wat Sci Technol:
Wat Supply 2002, 2:161-167.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468
468 Biochemical engineering
34. Velizarov S, Reis AM, Crespo JG: Integrated transport and
reaction in an ion exchange membrane bioreactor.
Desalination 2002, 149:205-210.
35. Velizarov S, Reis AM, Crespo JG: Removal of trace mono-valent
inorganic pollutants in an ion exchange membrane bioreactor:
analysis of transport rate in a denitrification process.
J Membr Sci 2003, 217:269-284.
36. Velizarov S, Crespo JG, Reis AM: Ion exchange membrane
 bioreactor for selective removal of nitrate from drinking water:
control of ion fluxes and process performance. Biotechnol Prog
2002, 18:296-302.
The possibility to regulate the flux of bicarbonate in the IEMB system, thus
maintaining its concentration in the treated water at the desired level, is
demonstrated. This beneficial effect is due to the Donnan equilibrium
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2004, 15:463–468
control of counterion distribution in the water stream and biocompart-
ment, which are separated by an anion exchange membrane.
37. Velizarov S, Matos C: Crespo JG, Reis AM: Removal of
perchlorate and nitrate from drinking water in an ion exchange
membrane bioreactor. In Proceedings of the ESEB 2004; 2004
April 25–28; Oostende, Belgium. pp. 99–102.
38. Mansel BO, Schroeder ED: Hydrogenotrophic denitrification in
a microporous membrane bioreactor. Water Res 2002,
36:4683-4690.
39. Mansel BO, Schroeder ED: Biological denitrification in a
continuous flow membrane reactor. Water Res 1999,
33:1845-1850.
www.sciencedirect.com