Three Mesh Screenning Reactors (MSRs) were operated in three different modes to investigate the effect of the mesh opening size and the filtrate flux on the removal of particulate matters and the production of soluble organic matters. The mesh opening size was $82{\mu}m$ (Mode 1), $61{\mu}m$ (Mode 2) and $38{\mu}m$ (Mode 3), respectively, and each mode has three different filtrate flux; $0.47m^3/m^2/d$, $0.95m^3/m^2/d$ and $1.42m^3/m^2/d$, respectively. TSS removal efficiency of mode 1, 2, and 3 fed with 191 mgTSS/L was 27%, 36%, and 60%, respectively. The SCOD concentration of 91mg/L in influent for the mode 1, 2, and 3 increased to 117 mg/L, 127 mg/L, and 155 mg/L, respectively. For the all MSRs, there was no significant effect of filtrate flux on the removal of particulate matters and the production of soluble organic matters. However, the mesh opening size greatly affected the removal of particulate matters and the production of soluble organic matters in wastewater. Three parallel A2O processes consisting of anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic reactors maintaining mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) of 3,000 mg/L were operated to investigate the effectiveness of MSR on the removal efficiencies of the organic matters, nitrogen, and phosphorus; MSR influent was introduced to System 1 (183 mgTSS/L, 324 mgTCOD/L, 87 mgSCOD/L, 45.2 mgTKN/L, and 6.6 mgTP/L) and MSR efluent was introduced to System 2 and 3(72 mgTSS/L, 289 mgTCOD/L, 141 mgSCOD/L, 40.2 mgTKN/L, and 4.2 mgTP/L). HRTs of the anaerobic reactors in systems 1, 2 and 3 were 1 h, 1 h and 0.6 h, respectively and anoxic reactors were 2 h in all systems. HRTs of the aerobic reactors in systems 1, 2 and 3 were 5 h, 3 h and 3 h, respectively. TSS concentration in effluent of both system 2 and 3 is about 8 mg/L and lower than that of system 1 effluent. Despite higher TCOD loading and SCOD loading, both Systems 2 and 3 had a greater TCOD and SCOD removal efficiency at 91% and 92% than System 1 was at 88% and 82%, respectively. The nitrification efficiency for system 2 was greater than observed for System 1 (99% verses 97%). The denitrification efficiency for systems 1, 2 and 3 was 78%, 88% and 87%, respectively. System 2 and 3 showed about 12% higher TN removal efficiency than system 1 (85% verses 73%). The effluent TP concentration for system 2 was less than observed for system 1 and 3.