{rfName}
Co

Indexed in

License and use

Altmetrics

Grant support

CEDEX would like to acknowledge both ESAMUR and ACA for the collaboration and the supply of the required data to perform this study. Authors also acknowledge the support from the Economy and Knowledge Department of the Catalan Government (Consolidated Research Groups 2014 SGR 291 - ICRA and 2014-SGR-1168 - LEQUIA).

Analysis of institutional authors

Arce, AugustoAuthor

Share

June 9, 2019
Publications
>
Article
No

Cost comparison of full-scale water reclamation technologies with an emphasis on membrane bioreactors

Publicated to:Water Science And Technology. 75 (11): 2562-2570 - 2017-06-01 75(11), DOI: 10.2166/wst.2017.132

Authors: Iglesias, Raquel; Simon, Pedro; Moragas, Lucas; Arce, Augusto; Rodriguez-Roda, Ignasi;

Affiliations

ACA, Barcelona, Spain - Author
Catalan Inst Water Res ICRA, Girona, Spain - Author
Ctr Hydrog Studies CEDEX, Dept Water Technol, Head Water Treatment & Reuse Programs, Madrid, Spain - Author
Entidad Saneamiento Depuracionde Aguas Residu Reg, Murcia, Spain - Author
Tech Agr Engn Univ Politecn Madrid UPM, Dept Chem & Food Proc, Madrid, Spain - Author
See more

Abstract

The paper assesses the costs of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) of Spanish MBR facilities have been verified and compared to activated sludge plants (CAS) using water reclamation treatment (both conventional and advanced). Spanish MBR facilities require a production of 0.6 to 1.2 kWh per m(3), while extended aeration (EA) and advanced reclamation treatment require 1.2 kWh per m3. The energy represents around 40% of the OPEX in MBRs. In terms of CAPEX, the implementation costs of a CAS facility followed by conventional water reclamation treatment (physical-chemical + sand filtration + disinfection) ranged from 730 to 850 epsilon.m(-3)d, and from 1,050 to 1,250 epsilon.m(-3)d in the case of advanced reclamation treatment facilities (membrane filtration) with a capacity of 8,000 to 15,000 m(3)d(-1). The MBR cost for similar capacities ranges between 700 and 960 epsilon.m(-3)d. This study shows that MBRs that have been recently installed represent a cost competitive option for water reuse applications for medium and large capacities (over 10,000 m(3)d(-1)), with similar OPEX to EA and conventional water reclamation treatment. In terms of CAPEX, MBRs are cheaper than EA, followed by advanced water reclamation treatment.

Keywords

BioreactorsCapexCosts and cost analysisFiltrationMembrane bioreactor (mbr)Membranes, artificialOpexSpainWaste disposal, fluidWater purificationWater reclamation technologies

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Water Science And Technology due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency Scopus (SJR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2017, it was in position , thus managing to position itself as a Q2 (Segundo Cuartil), in the category Environmental Engineering. Notably, the journal is positioned en el Cuartil Q3 for the agency WoS (JCR) in the category Water Resources.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations from Scopus Elsevier, it yields a value for the Field-Weighted Citation Impact from the Scopus agency: 1.7, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 5.09 (source consulted: Dimensions Jul 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-07-09, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 23
  • Scopus: 67

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-07-09:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 108.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 121 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 2.35.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 4 (Altmetric).