⚠ Official Notice: www.ijisrt.com is the official website of the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) Journal for research paper submission and publication. Please beware of fake or duplicate websites using the IJISRT name.



Geospatial Evaluation of Biofouling Prevention Strategies in Water Treatment Plants (A Case Study of Davyhulme Water Treatment Works in the UK)


Authors : Nwogbu Peter Chinedu; Chima Daniel Azubuike; Utobo Ruth Chinaza; Nwigwe Simon; Nwozaku Basil Odinaka; Ngwuta Amuche Daniel; Utobo Maria Ginika; Utobo Martha Kelechi

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 3 - March


Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/52thn5dp

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/mb549sk8

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26mar449

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.


Abstract : Biofouling is a significant operational challenge in wastewater treatment systems, caused by the accumulation of microorganisms and organic matter on treatment infrastructure, which reduces efficiency and increases maintenance costs. This study evaluates the biofouling potential at the Davyhulme Wastewater Treatment Works by analysing temporal water quality trends, spatial hydrological conditions, and machine learning–based predictive models. Key water quality indicators examined include Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), ammoniacal nitrogen, suspended solids, arsenic, and chloroform using monitoring data collected between January and April 2025. Statistical analysis revealed high variability in organic loading, particularly for BOD and COD, which recorded mean values of 97.9 mg/L and 282 mg/L respectively, with peak concentrations reaching 317 mg/L and 694 mg/L. Time-series analysis showed that biofouling risk is episodic, driven by short-term spikes in organic matter that promote microbial growth and biofilm formation. Correlation analysis further indicated strong relationships between oxygen-demand parameters, highlighting organic loading as a key driver of biofouling risk. Spatial analysis of upstream hydrological infrastructure demonstrated that variations in flow velocity and catchment characteristics influence nutrient accumulation and create stagnation zones favourable for microbial attachment. To assess risk levels, K-Means clustering classified water quality conditions into low, moderate, and high biofouling risk categories, with high-risk clusters strongly associated with elevated BOD and COD concentrations. A Decision Tree classification model achieved a predictive accuracy of 98%, confirming that pollutant concentration levels are strong predictors of biofouling risk. Overall, the study demonstrates that integrating statistical analysis, geospatial intelligence, and machine learning provides an effective predictive framework for proactive biofouling management and improved wastewater treatment system resilience.

Keywords : Biofouling, Wastewater Treatment, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Machine Learning, Geospatial Analysis, Water Quality Monitoring.

References :

  1. Aiyelokun, O., Adeyemi, A., & Oladipo, M. (2024). Microbial biofilm formation and its impact on wastewater treatment infrastructure. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196, 745.
  2. Anis, S. F., Lalia, B. S., Khair, M., Hashaikeh, R., & Hilal, N. (2021). Electro-ceramic self-cleaning membranes for biofouling control and prevention in water treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 415, 128395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128395
  3. Beech, I. B., & Sunner, J. (2004). Biocorrosion: towards understanding interactions between biofilms and metals. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15(3), 181–186.
  4. Berry, D., Xi, C., & Raskin, L. (2006). Microbial ecology of drinking water distribution systems. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17(3), 297–302.
  5. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., & Stone, C. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman & Hall.
  6. Brunsdon, C., & Comber, L. (2015). An Introduction to R for Spatial Analysis and Mapping. Sage.
  7. Characklis, W. G., & Marshall, K. C. (1990). Biofilms. Wiley.
  8. Chaudhari, R., Sharma, P., & Singh, R. (2024). Modelling fouling mechanisms in membrane-based wastewater treatment technologies. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 201, 415–426.
  9. Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, H., & Wang, Q. (2025). Advances in microbial biofilm monitoring and control strategies in wastewater treatment systems. Water Research, 245, 120684.
  10. Flemming, H. C., & Wingender, J. (2010). The biofilm matrix. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 8, 623–633.
  11. Flemming, H. C., Wingender, J., Szewzyk, U., et al. (2016). Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 14, 563–575.
  12. Fragassa, C., Minak, G., & Pavlovic, A. (2024). Prevention of biofouling due to water absorption of natural fiber composites in aquatic environments: A critical review. Journal of Composites Science, 8(12), 532.
  13. Huang, D., & Huang, H. (2024). Microbial interactions and biofilm formation in water purification systems. Environmental Research, 240, 118017.
  14. Huseynova, L. (2025). Monitoring microbial biofilms in drinking water systems using advanced analytical techniques. Water Science and Technology, 91(4), 1035–1048.
  15. Karmaker, S., Rahman, M., Hasan, M., & Islam, S. (2024). Biofilm growth dynamics and its effects on water treatment efficiency. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management, 21, 100980.
  16. Lan, Y., Chen, W., Li, Z., & Zhou, Q. (2025). Integrated modelling approaches for biofouling prediction in membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 702, 121598.
  17. Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., & Fane, T. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 284, 17–53.
  18. Liu, Y., Tay, J. H., & Moy, B. Y. (2017). Influence of environmental factors on biofilm formation. Water Research, 51, 101–110.
  19. Li, S., Wang, J., Zhang, Q., & Zhao, X. (2023). Environmental factors influencing microbial biofilm development in aquatic systems. Science of the Total Environment, 869, 161786.
  20. Majed, S., & Ghafour, Z. (2023). Assessment of microbial fouling in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Engineering Research, 28(5), 220640.
  21. Meng, F., Zhang, H., Yang, F., & Liu, L. (2009). Characterization of cake layer in membrane bioreactor. Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 8826–8831.
  22. Metcalf & Eddy. (2014). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. McGraw-Hill.
  23. Milićević, M., & Ilić, A. (2025). Biofouling dynamics and mitigation strategies in modern wastewater treatment facilities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 32, 21485–21499.
  24. Novokhatnii, V., Petrov, A., & Smirnov, I. (2024). Surface modification technologies for mitigating biofouling in water treatment membranes. Materials Today Sustainability, 24, 100468.
  25. Olden, J. D., Lawler, J. J., & Poff, N. L. (2008). Machine learning methods in ecological modelling. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(5), 265–273.
  26. Oremland, R. S., & Stolz, J. F. (2003). The ecology of arsenic. Science, 300(5621), 939–944.
  27. Pasaribu, C. A., Rahman, A., & Santoso, B. (2023). Biofilm formation and fouling behaviour in membrane filtration systems for wastewater treatment. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 53, 103756.
  28. Ren, K., Li, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, X. (2024). Predictive modelling of membrane biofouling in water treatment using machine learning techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 356, 120348.
  29. Saeidi, N., Kim, S., & Park, H. (2020). Control of membrane biofouling in water treatment using nanomaterial-based antimicrobial surfaces. Desalination, 496, 114699.
  30. Samal, S., Misra, M., Rangarajan, V., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2023). Antimicrobial nanoparticles mediated prevention and control of membrane biofouling in water and wastewater treatment: Current trends and future perspectives. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 195(9), 5458–5477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-023-04497-8.
  31. Sheng, G. P., Yu, H. Q., & Li, X. Y. (2010). Extracellular polymeric substances in biofilms. Biotechnology Advances, 28, 882–894.
  32. Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F., & Stensel, H. (2014). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. McGraw-Hill.
  33. Tran, G. T., Nguyen, H. T., & Pham, L. T. (2023). Application of artificial intelligence in predicting biofouling risk in water treatment facilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 394, 136368.
  34. Vrouwenvelder, J. S., et al. (2018). Biofouling of spiral-wound membrane systems. Water Research, 138, 1–21.
  35. Visentini, C. B. (2024). Biofouling processes in aquatic infrastructures: Mechanisms and control strategies. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 33, 103515.
  36. Xing, M., Liu, J., Zhao, L., & Yang, H. (2024). Biofilm formation mechanisms and antifouling strategies in membrane filtration systems. Water Research, 243, 120492.

Biofouling is a significant operational challenge in wastewater treatment systems, caused by the accumulation of microorganisms and organic matter on treatment infrastructure, which reduces efficiency and increases maintenance costs. This study evaluates the biofouling potential at the Davyhulme Wastewater Treatment Works by analysing temporal water quality trends, spatial hydrological conditions, and machine learning–based predictive models. Key water quality indicators examined include Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), ammoniacal nitrogen, suspended solids, arsenic, and chloroform using monitoring data collected between January and April 2025. Statistical analysis revealed high variability in organic loading, particularly for BOD and COD, which recorded mean values of 97.9 mg/L and 282 mg/L respectively, with peak concentrations reaching 317 mg/L and 694 mg/L. Time-series analysis showed that biofouling risk is episodic, driven by short-term spikes in organic matter that promote microbial growth and biofilm formation. Correlation analysis further indicated strong relationships between oxygen-demand parameters, highlighting organic loading as a key driver of biofouling risk. Spatial analysis of upstream hydrological infrastructure demonstrated that variations in flow velocity and catchment characteristics influence nutrient accumulation and create stagnation zones favourable for microbial attachment. To assess risk levels, K-Means clustering classified water quality conditions into low, moderate, and high biofouling risk categories, with high-risk clusters strongly associated with elevated BOD and COD concentrations. A Decision Tree classification model achieved a predictive accuracy of 98%, confirming that pollutant concentration levels are strong predictors of biofouling risk. Overall, the study demonstrates that integrating statistical analysis, geospatial intelligence, and machine learning provides an effective predictive framework for proactive biofouling management and improved wastewater treatment system resilience.

Keywords : Biofouling, Wastewater Treatment, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Machine Learning, Geospatial Analysis, Water Quality Monitoring.

Paper Submission Last Date
31 - March - 2026

SUBMIT YOUR PAPER CALL FOR PAPERS
Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe