Professional Documents
Culture Documents
25 To 26-Class
25 To 26-Class
MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR
PROCESSES FOR
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Membrane filtration processes
Filtration
◦ Separation of particulate and colloidal matter from a liquid
Membrane filtration
◦ Range of particle size includes dissolved constitutes
0.0001 to 1.o µm
Membrane – selective barrier
Membrane bioreactor
Coupling a biological reactor with a membrane system
◦ Enhanced organic and suspended solids removal
Conventional treatment operations can be eliminated (secondary
clarifier)
◦ Overall space requirement and facilities cost can be reduced
◦ Small footprint – MRB plants to be located in sites with
limited area or satellite treatment applications
Description of MBR
Fig 7-12 General types of
membrane bioreactors:
(a) With external
pressure-driven
membrane
(b) Integrated
submerged,
(c) With external
submerged,
(d) With external
submerged rotating
membrane
Low-pressure membrane
system (MF or UF)
for solid liquid
separation
Description of MBR
Advantages over conventional clarifiers:
MF or UF membrane
◦ Flat sheet (FS)
◦ Fine hollow fiber (HF)
◦ (multi) Tubular form (MT)
◦ Spiral-wound (SW)
Tubular form
Spiral-wound
Hollow fiber
Hollow fiber
Spiral wound
Kubota membrane (flat sheet)
Suitability of MBRs for Reclaimed Water
applications
1. A high level of water quality is produced
consistently
2. Compact size
MBR can be sited close to the points of potential users
3. Membrane units have small pore sizes (0.04-0.4μm)
product water low in BOD, TSS, turbidity and bacteria
4. Product water suitable for a variety of reclaimed
water applications
5. Nutrient removal (places where N must be
controlled)
Types of membrane bioreactor systems
Types of membrane bioreactor systems
Type-1: integrated submerged membranes
installed in fixed module
Advantage
◦ Can be installed in an existing aeration tank
Save space
Vacuum up to 50kPa
Types of membrane bioreactor systems
Type-2: fixed membrane modules installed in an
external membrane separation vessel
Advantage
◦ Can be designed to utilize fine pores diffusers in the
aeration tank to improve energy efficiency, and coarse
bubble diffusers in the membrane compartment for
membrane scouring and fouling control
Types of membrane bioreactor systems
Type-3: rotating membrane modules
Advantage:
◦ Can utilize rotation of the membrane modules to assist
in membrane fouling control and minimize air
requirement for coarse bubble diffusers
◦ Can also be submerged in aeration tank
Comparison with conventional suspended
growth
1. MBRs operates at higher suspended solids
concentration
◦ Reactor hydraulic retentiont time (HRT) are short
Reduced reactor size
2. Longer SRT ( in order 2-3 times than conventional)
◦ Less sludge production
◦ More stable operation
◦ Less chances for process upsets
3. Simultaneous nitrification-denitification can be
achieved
When longer SRT combined with low DO in bioreactor
Disadvantages of MBRs
High capital costs for the membrane modules
Limited data on membrane life
◦ Thus a potential high recurring cost of periodic
membrane replacement
Higher energy costs due to membrane
scouring as compared to conventional suspended-
growth processes
Potential membrane fouling that affects the
ability to treat design flows
Waste sludge from eh membrane process may
be more difficult to dewater
Characteristics of popular membrane
modules
Trans membrane pressure TMP [bar] static pressure [bar] - dynamic pressure [bar]
Nitrogenous
constituents
Suspended and
volatile solids
Wastewater Characterization
1. Carbonaceous constituents
nbVSS
Where Px, VSS= total mass of volatile suspended solids produced per day , kg
VSS/day
Y= heterotrophic biomass yield, g biomass produced/g substrate utilized
g VSS/g VSS.d
Estimating biosolids production based on
kinetic coefficient
Total mass of dry solids wasted per day
◦ Include influent inert TSS fraction
(TSS includes VSS plus inorganic solids)
Example 7-3 (Water reuse)
bpCOD 1.6140 70g / m3
0.67
pCOD
300 132g / m3
nbVSS 1 0.67 60gVSS / m3 20g / m3
.solution (ASP)
iii.Find iTSS using eq 7-7
iTSS= TSS-VSS= (70-60)g/m3 = 10 g/m3
Determine kd at T=12oC using = 1.04 k d ,T k d , 20o c T 20 0.12 g / g d 1.04 12 20 0.088 g / g.d
PX ,VSS
(18,900m 3 / d)0.4g / g 224 1.8 1kg / 103 g
1 (0.088g / g.d)5d
(0.15g / g)(0.088g / g.d)(18,900m 3 / d)0.4g / g 224 1.85d 1kg / 103 g
1 (0.088g / g.d)5d
PX ,TSS
1243.5kg / d (378kg / d ) Q(TSS
o VSSo )
0.85
1463kg / d (378kg / d ) 18900m 3 / d (10mg / L)(1kg / 103 g )
2030kg / d
20 g / m3 1 0.088g / g d 15d
S 1.3g bCOD/m3
15d 3.5 0.088g / g d 1
……solution (MBR)
b. Determine mass of VSS and TSS in MBR.
i. Substitute values in eq 7-27 for term (A) and (B) and solve for
the biological solids production component of PX,VSS
QYSo S1kg / 103 g (f d )(k d )QYSo SSRT 1kg / 103 g
PX ,VSS
1 (k d )SRT 1 (k d )SRT
PX ,VSS
(18,900m3 / d )0.4 g / g 224 1.3 1kg / 103 g
1 (0.088g / g.d )(15d )
(0.15 g / g )(0.088g / g.d )(18,900m3 / d )0.4 g / g 224 1.8(15d ) 1kg / 103 g
1 (0.088g / g.d )(15d )
PX ,TSS
869.4kg / d (378kg / d ) Q(TSS
o VSSo )
0.85
1022.8kg / d (378kg / d ) 18900m 3 / d (10mg / L)(1kg / 103 g )
1589.8kg / d
22m / m .d
3 2
V (2385m3 )(24h / d )
3.02h
Q (18,900m3 / d )
When the TMP is no longer stable at each flux step and increases
rapidly to indicate rapid accumulation of foulants, this is usually
referred to as the critical flux.
Cakes formed in the crossflow mode may have higher specific cake
resistances than cakes formed in dead-end filtration
66
cake resistance (Rc)
R Rm Rc
Specific cake resistance ()
Rc mc
Vp
accumulated permeate volume AP 2 A
Vp trans-membrane 2
P
pressure area of the membrane [m ], 2
C(0) is the concentration of solute at the initial time [kg/m3] and t is the time elapsed.
Then the specific cake resistance can be calculated from the slope.
Factors affecting membrane fouling in MBR
Operation Conditions
Imposed flux
Aeration
Filteration mode
Sludge waste (SRT)
Membrane cleaning
Factors affecting membrane fouling in MBR
■ Nature and strength of feed
◦ physico-chemical changes in the biological suspensions
Protein fraction in the bound-EPS found to be significantly
lower when biomass was fed with synthetic feed
Fouling decrease
3.5–10 Jc: <60 to >80 l/m2 h (Defrance et al., 1999)
74
Factors affecting membrane fouling in MBR
■ Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS)
■ EPS can form a highly hydrated gel matrix in which microbial cells are
embedded
EPS
-EPS hydrolysis
nd
bou
Active Cell SMP Substrate
Diffusion
Concentration of bound-EPS components in different MBR systems (units: mg/g SS)a
bound-EPSp bound-EPSc Other Details Reference
25-30 7-8 Humic: 12-13 R(10) (Cabassud et al., 2004)
31-116 6-15 TOC:37-65 Four pilot-scale plants, municipal (Brookes et al., 2003)
60 17 - R ()
VSS
116-101 22-24 - S(20) (Ji et al., 2006)
S, synthetic wastewater; R, real wastewater; SRT are given in days in bracket; , infinite SRT (i.e. no sludge wastage); SUVA, specific ultraviolet absorbance method.
a adapted from (Le-Clech et al., 2006); b Anaerobic up flow-sludge bed filter (UBF) and an aerobic MBR.
Physical cleaning
◦ Pressured water to remove material from surface of membrane
– flat sheet membrane