Enhanced biological nitrogen and

phosphorus removal within a field-scale membrane

bioreactor by adding pre-treated sludge and alum
Byung-Goon Kim*, Jae-Hwan Cha**, Hong-Suk Kim*, Ji-Yeon Kim*
*K-water Institute, K-waterter, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-730, South Korea
**Korea Institute of Energy Research, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-343 , South Korea

Introduction Field scale KSMBR combined with sludge solubilization process

• The conventional activated sludge process generally produces a considerable • A field-scale KSMBR combined process by incorporating sludge reduction process
amount of excess sludge, which must be safely disposed. into was run at Sari wastewater treatment plant (average influent flow rate was 160
m3/day) in South Korea.
• However, the disposal of sludge is very expensive, which may account for around
• This process is an innovative membrane bioreactor which consists of an anaerobic
20% of the total operating costs of domestic wastewater treatment plants in South
tank located before two interconnected biological tanks of equal volume and a
Korea.
submerged membrane bioreactor.
• Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is considered as a good solution for enhanced • The biological tanks (Aerobic/anaerobic switching tanks), which operated in three
wastewater treatment, because it has great advantages including a smaller phases of non-aeration, aeration and non-aeration, work in an alternating mode of
footprint, less sludge production and better effluent quality. operation.
Influent
• However, it is difficult for MBR employing a single reactor to remove nitrogen and
phosphorus simultaneously.
Pretreated
sludge
• Therefore, in this study, a field-scale MBR coupled with anaerobic tank and two Oxygen Anaerobic
Exhausting P-precipitating
interconnected biological tanks was investigated. Tank tank
Tank

Fermentation
Aerobic/ Aerobic/ Tank
Results & Discussion Anoxic
Switching Tank
Anoxic
Switching Tank
Ozone Oxidation
Coagulant Tank
Run #1 : Control
Membrane P-releasing
Run #2 : Adding pretreated sludge (C source) and Coagulant (Alum) Return sludge Bioreactor Excess sludge Tank

Run #3 : Adding pretreated sludge only

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Effleunt

200 18
COD removal efficiency (%)

Run #1
16 Run #2
100
150 14 Run #3
NH4+-N (mg/L)
CODCr (mg/L)

80 12

100 60 10

Influent 8
40
Effluent 6
50 Removal Efficiency
20 4

0 0 2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 nt nk nk nk R nt
e a a a B ue
flu T T T M fl
Time (day) In
E xh bi c
in
g Ef
o h
xy
aer i tc
O Sw
An

50
14 Run #1
T-N removal efficiency (%)

Run #2
100
40 12 Run #3
NO3--N (mg/L)

80 10
T-N (mg/L)

30
60 8
20
40 6

10 4
20
Influent
Effluent 2
0 Removal Efficiency 0
0
t nk k nk t
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ue
n a an a M BR ue
n
fl T c T T ffl
In E xh bi i ng E
Time (day) y ero
tc
h
Ox a i
An Sw

6 3.5
Run #1
T-P removal efficiency (%)

5 100 3.0 Run #2

Run #3
2.5
PO4--P (mg/L)

4 80
T-P (mg/L)

2.0
3 60
Influent
Effluent 1.5
2 40
Removal Efficiency
1.0
1 20
0.5
0 0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 nt nk nk nk R nt
ue B e
fl Ta Ta Ta M flu
Time (day) In E xh bic
in
g Ef
o h
xy
aer itc
O Sw
An

Summary
• Even though, the COD removal efficiency was varied with the fluctuation of influent COD concentration, it reached a satisfying level of 80%.
• Compared at Run 1, the phosphorus removal efficiency during Run 2 greatly increased from 65 to 95% by adding the coagulant to the effluent of aerobic/anoxic switching tank.
• However, when the alum was stopped to add, the phosphorus removal efficiency decreased to 75%.
• To avoid the membrane bio-fouling by coagulant , coagulant should be injected into the effluent of aerobic/ anoxic switching tank.