Kuliah MBR ITB 14 Nov 2022 - For Print

Membrane Bioreactor
1. Basic Concept and Design
o Overview of biological process for wastewater treatment

o Conventional activated sludge process
o MBRs and their advantages
o Overview of full-scale MBRs
o MBR for water recycling
o Case examples
o Design comparison: CAS VS MBR for treatment of domestic wastewater
o Overview of MBR performance for selected industrial wastewater
o Design comparison: CAS VS MBR for treatment Industrial wastewater
o Retrofitting of current CAS to MB
Biological process for wastewater treatment
(H2O +Organic) + O2 + Cells → more Cells + CO2 + H2O + metabolites
Biodegradation Separation
Microorganisms consume organic matter from

the wastewater, using oxygen for respiration
Aerobic and facultative micro-organisms

remove pollutants thru living and growing
process
Main limitation of conventional activated sludge: Need favorable

conditions for growth and sludge for separation
Sludge bulking: • Limited flexibility on system operation

Operator nightmare
• Highly sensitive to feed variations
• Maintaining sludge settling is challenging
Activated Sludge VS Membrane Bioreactor
Main processes: Main processes:

- Biodegradation → Effluent quality - Biodegradation → Effluent quality
- Sludge separation (Sedimentation) - Sludge separation (Membrane filtration)
Operation: maintaining conditions favorable for Operation: maintaining conditions favorable for
effective pollutant biodegradation and solid pollutant degradation and membrane filtration
separation
Drivers for MBR implementations

Stringent regulation
• For environmental protection
• For preservation from eutrophication
• WHO Standard
High demand of water reclamation

• Water shortage
• Increasing tap water tariff for industry
• Limited volume of water
Limited space: Necessity for treating large volume of

wastewater within a small space
Health protection: In case people may contact the

treated water (e.g. irrigation)
Treatment of challenging Industrial wastewater

• Pharmaceutical
• Vulnerable from bulking
• High/variable organic loadings
• Compact Decentralized system Bioresource Technology
Volume 271, January 2019, Pages 473-481
Advantages of MBR
Engineering
• Small footprint by elimination of clarifier
• Applicable for upgrading CAS process utilizing existing facility
• Enhancing the current CAS capacity
Treatment
• Constant and excellent effluent quality even under variable feed composition
• Complete suspended solid removal
• Pathogenic bacteria removal (does not require additional disinfection units)
Reduce excess sludge (Discussed later)
Attractive for water reclamation

• Simplified process (direct reuse or with post-treatment)
• Lower demand of post-disinfection
Plant operation
• Simple and flexible (decouple HRT and SRT)
• No issue of bulking
• Suitable for remote monitoring (using apps in a smartphone?)
MBR Features - Effluent Quality
- Typical effluent quality

Parameter CAS Plant MBR Plant
P
(in mg/L) (Industrial)
TSS 10 – 15 (<50) <1.0
COD 40 – 50 (<150) < 30
Total N < 15 < 10
Total P* 1–2 <1
Microbiological Hygienic EU bathing water

quality critical quality**
* with precipitation Improved effluent quality assisted by

** Total Coliforms < 500 CFU/10ml / E Coli < 100 CFU / 100 ml biofilm on the membrane surface
Water Reclamation Using MBR+RO
Retrofit process (CAS + MF/UF or sand filter + RO)
Wastewater Effluent
MF/UF RO
Reuse
Aeration tank Clarifier
RO
Sand filter
MBR +RO process
Wastewater Effluentor Reuse
Reuse
RO
MBR
MBR + RO process is suitable for plant expansion and new plant

due to advantage of small footprint
MBR Features -Smaller Footprint- (Reduction of required land, Toray’s case study)
- Estimated under actual 5,000 m3/d wastewater treatment plant

80m
Not required in MBR
CAS Process: 5,600m2

55m
70m
Footprint reduced
by 21.4%
Anaerobic tank MBR

Aeration tank Temporary tank
MBR Process: 4,400m2
Clarifier Split chamber
MBR VS CAS: CAPEX and OPEX
o Industrial wastewater capex is higher by ~30%

o OPEX mainly from energy
o Recently built plans are more efficient
o Large capacity reduces specific CAPEX and OPEX
Bioresource Technology
MBR VS CAS: CAPEX and OPEX

Summary
CAPEX (add membrane costs, reduce clarifier and reactor volume)

• CAS: USD380/(m3/d)
• CAS + Tertiary: USD600/(m3/d) LEAP-MBR (Slug-flow)
• MBR: USD600/(m3/d)
OPEX (mainly for membrane aeration)

• CAS: 0.11 USD/m3
• MBR: 0.11-0.18 USD/m3
New MBR design significantly reduce aeration energy MBR-able (Fibre vibration)
Bioresource Technology
GDM (No permeate pump) Rotary system (Less aeration)
Design Parameter of Activated Sludge and Membrane Bioreactor
Need favorable conditions for growth and sludge Need favorable conditions for growth and others
for separation (aeration and membrane fouling control)
Preferred operational condition for CAS and MBRs
Better effluent
quality
Produce less
excess sludge
Membrane cost
Energy cost
Design: CAS VS MBR SRT (d) 8
Vair (m3/min) HRT (h) 4.1
for Domestic wastewater 47.3 V (m3) 685
Air MLVSS (g/L) 3
treatment
Qo (m3/d) 4000 Sludge
Effluent
Feed WW
So (mg/l) 200 Secondary
Aeration Clarifier
Tank
Qp (m3/d) 3967.9
Sp (mg/L) 10
Operational Parameters
Returned Activated Sludge
Capacity 4000 m3/d
Inlet BOD 200 mg/L Qr (m3/d) 2400
Wasted Activated Sludge
Xr (g/l) 8 Qw (m3/d) 32.1

SVI 100 ml/g Xw (g/L) 8
Activated Sludge m-Xw (kg/d) 320.9
Outlet BOD 20 mg/L SRT (d) 15
MLVSS 3 g/L Vair (m3/min) HRT (h) 2.3
52.4 V (m3) 375
SRT 8 day Air MLVSS (g/L) 8
Membrane Bioreactor Qo (m3/d) 4000 Sludge Membrane
Permeate
(Effluent)
Outlet BOD 10 mg/L So (mg/l) 200 Aeration
Tank Qp (m3/d) 3979
MLVSS 8 g/L Sp (mg/L) 10
Air
SRT 15 day A-m (m2) 4341
Returned Activated Sludge A-r (m3/min) 27.8
Qr (m3/d) 20000 Wasted Activated Sludge

Xr (g/l) 9.6 Qw (m3/d) 21
Xw (g/L) 9.6
m-Xw (kg/d) 250.0
Design: CAS VS MBR for Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Parameters CAS MBR Remarks

Bioreactor volume (m3) 685 375 MBR is much smaller
Effluent BOD 20 10 MBR is better (set in the design)
Aeration rate (m3/min) 47.3 52.4 + 27.8 = 80.2 70% higher in MBR
(Biological) (Biological + 1Cost for aeration RM0.3-0.5/m3
Membrane
cleaning)
Sludge production rate 320.9 250.0 90% lower in MBR
(Kg/d) Cost for sludge handling: RM500-800/ton)
Important process differences
• + MBR does not require a clarifier (save footprint and CAPEX)
• + Smaller bioreactor volume (save footprint and CAPEX)
• - MBR needs membrane investment (contributes to CAPEX)
• +/- Trade-off between aeration energy and sludge handling energy
• Substantial cost savings from lower excess sludge production
1Energy Procedia (5), 2011, Pages 2437-2443
Design: CAS VS MBR Vair (m3/min)
SRT (d)
HRT (h)
8
25.3
for Industrial 29.1
Air
V (m3)
MLVSS (g/L)
422
3
Wastewater Treatment Qo (m3/d) 400 Sludge Effluent
So (mg/l) 1250 Feed Secondary
Aeration Clarifier
Tank Qp (m3/d) 380.2
Operational Parameters Sp (mg/L) 80
Capacity 400 m3/d

Returned Activated Sludge
Inlet BOD 1250 mg/L
SVI 100 ml/g Qr (m3/d) 240
Xr (g/l) 8 Qw (m3/d) 19.8
Activated Sludge Xw (g/L) 8
Outlet BOD 80 mg/L m-Xw (kg/d) 197.6
MLVSS 3 g/L SRT (d) 15
Vair (m3/min) HRT (h) 14.7
SRT 8 day 34.2 V (m3) 245
Membrane Bioreactor Air MLVSS (g/L) 8
Outlet BOD 10 mg/L Qo (m3/d) 400

MLSS Membrane
Permeate
So (mg/l) 1250 (Effluent)
MLVSS 8 g/L Aeration
Qp (m3/d) 386
Tank
SRT 15 day Sp (mg/L) 10
Air
Physical or chemical pre-treatments Returned Activated Sludge A-m (m2) 422
may be required prior to biological A-r (m3/min) 2.8
Qr (m3/d) 2000
Xr (g/l) 9.6 Qw (m3/d) 14
Xw (g/L) 9.6
m-Xw (kg/d) 163.2
Design: CAS VS MBR for Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Parameters CAS MBR Remarks

Bioreactor volume (m3) 422 245 MBR is much smaller
Effluent BOD 80 10 MBR is better (Potential for reuse)
Aeration rate (m3/min) 29.1 34.2 + 2.8 = 37 MBR is 27% higher
(Biological) (Biological +
Membrane cleaning)
Sludge production rate 197.6 163.2 17.4% lower in MBR
(Kg/d) Cost for sludge handling: RM500-
800/ton)
Important process differences
• + MBR does not require a clarifier (save footprint and CAPEX)
• + Smaller bioreactor volume (save footprint and CAPEX)
• - MBR needs membrane investment (contributes to CAPEX)
• +/- Trade-off between aeration energy and sludge handling energy
• Substantial cost savings from lower excess sludge production
Retrofitting CAS to MBR (Minor) Adjustment
for industrial wastewater • Installation of membrane filtration system
• Clarifier → membrane filtration tank OR
SRT (d) 8
Vair (m3/min)
29.1
HRT (h)
V (m3)
25.3
422
Immersing membrane in the bioreactor
Air MLVSS (g/L) 3
Qo (m3/d) 400
So (mg/l) 1250 Feed
Sludge
Secondary
Effluent Benefit
Aeration
Tank
Clarifier
Qp (m3/d) 380.2 • Enhance effluent quality (for reuse)
Sp (mg/L) 80
• +72% treatment capacity
Returned Activated Sludge • Reduce sludge handling from 0.494 kg/m3
Qr (m3/d) 240
to 0.350 kg/m3.
Xr (g/l) 8 Qw (m3/d) 19.8
Xw (g/L) 8
m-Xw (kg/d) 197.6
Reduction cost of membrane elements1
1https://www.amtaorg.com/wp-content/uploads/06_Membrane_Desalination_Costs.pdf
Recommendation: What to do with my current system?

Depend on who are you???
• IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT
• There is Always Room for Improvement
• PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE
• Use provided excel tools for basic simulations to assess the current system,
improve it.
• Perform professional assessments and process improvement
• Money speaks even more loudly → Perform techno-economic analysis
• MBR is not the only solution!!!

Membrane Bioreactor
2. Membrane Modules
MBR configurations: Immersed vs Side-stream
• Placement: Aeration tank or (separate) membrane tank
• Cleaning: In place in the membrane tank, Out place
taken out from the aeration tank
• Pressure: vacuum gravity driven, pump up to -0.3 Bar

• Low flux (10-30 LMH)
Submerged
• Module: High packing density (flat sheet/hollow fiber)
• Fouling control: membrane aeration
• Placement: Externally
• Cleaning: Externally
• Pressure: Positive, up to 2-3 Bar

• Flux: up to 200 LMH
• Module: tubular
Side-stream
• Fouling control: cross-flow velocity, (and) airlift
MBR membranes: Flat-sheet, Hollow fiber, Tubular

Permeate line Membrane frame
Tubular membrane
Aeration line
Permeate line
Permeate
Hollow fiber bundles Module housing

Flat-sheet module element
• Submerged MBR • Submerged MBR • Side-stream MBR

• LOW packing density • HIGH packing density • VERY LOW packing
• Easy to clean • Difficult intensive density
cleaning • Easy to cleaning
Selection of membrane mode involve many aspects and shall be done on case-by-case basis
Criteria: CAPEX, OPEX
Photos of SUBMERGED MBR fouling
Hollow-fiber membrane module

taken out from aeration tank for
intensive cleanings
Alfa-Laval
Ecologic Module Kubota – Lego style flat-sheet membrane assembly

Flat-sheet submerged module offers good fluid dynamics
OVIVO flat-sheet module (fluid dynamics)
Toray flat-sheet submerged module (fluid dynamics)
ZeeWeed-500 hollow fiber submerged module

PURON hollow fiber submerged module
Air-lift Pentair tubular
Air-lift Pentair tubular MEGA block
Pure aqua tubular membrane for (side stream) MBR

Berghof tubular membrane for (side stream) MBR
Membrane Bioreactor
3. Applications for Industrial Wastewater Treatment
o Applicable to upgrade any existing biological treatment

o More resistant to variable loading; no issue of sludge bulking
o More resistant to persistent organics chemicals (i.e., phenolic compounds, …..)
o Produce less excess sludge (minimize cost handling)
o Established MBRS for industries
▪ Petroleum
https://www.thembrsite.com/ Source: https://www.scirp.org/html/2-6702647_57474.htm
▪ Food and beverage sector
▪ Pulp and paper sector
▪ Textiles sector
▪ Landfill leachate sector
▪ Slaughterhouse
▪ …..
MBR for treatment of industrial wastewater
Membrane bioreactors have been applied to treat effluent in a number of industrial sectors,
including among others:
o food and beverage − typically high in organic loading
o petroleum industry − sectors relating to exploration, refining and petrochemical
o pharmaceutical industry − with its challenges of active pharmaceutical ingredients
o pulp and paper industry − typically high levels of suspended solids, COD and BOD
o textile industry effluent − with differing challenges re biodegradability, toxicity, FOG content
and colour
o landfill leachate − containing a wide variety of dissolved and suspended organic and
inorganic compounds
o ship effluents − bound by legislative requirements and space restrictions.
MBR in food-and-beverage industry
Divers sector: dairy, maltings, breweries, distilleries, wineries, soft drinks, cereals, potato chips,
salads and produce, coffee, confectionery, edible oils, meat and poultry processing and various
other prepared foods
Water usage: washing, cooling, heating, cooking and conveying, plus cleaning and sanitising of
equipment and to provide site utilities.
Effluent characteristics
• BOD and COD: 5−100x of domestic wastewater
• Variable TSS
• May contain FOG (fats, oils and grease) and high levels of ammonia and/or phosphorus
• Generally readily biodegradable with COD/BOD ratios: ~0.4−0.8.
Key motivations:
• water recovery and reuse, motivated primarily by cost savings
• water scarcity (and regulatory requirements relating to water conservation)
• security supply, and strategic corporate planning.
MBR in food-and-beverage industry
Scan ME
For more case-studies
• Installed 106 MBR units from 2016-2017

• Effluent:
• Standard discharge
• Reuse: direct, (MBR + NF), (MBR + RO)
MBR in pulp and paper industry
Very high water-demand of around 55 m3/ton product.
Water is mainly (85%) consumed in the initial digestion (or cooking) process.
Increasing use of advanced water treatment technologies and strategies geared towards water
reuse and resource recovery, along with anaerobic treatment for energy recovery.
• High levels of suspended solids.
• COD and BOD from the digestion process, along with Chlorinated organic (and possibly toxic)
products generated by the bleaching process.
• Require pretreatment before biological
MBR applications
• Follow the classical process of primary clarification (either sedimentation or flotation), secondary
biological treatment and clarification, and tertiary treatment.
• MBRs is associated with P&P effluent reuse.
• Further cost benefits may arise from reduced sludge production
• The overall high temperatures of P&P effluent make them suitable for thermophilic treatment.
• there are currently few full-scale MBR systems installed for P&P industrial applications
MBR in pulp and paper industry
Paper and cardboard production

173 m³/d, 2 modules / 128 cartridges Paper and cardboard production
Start-up: 2018 1.1-10 MLD
Combined with RO for water reuse Project: membrane module replacement
Further reading: Reference Effluent: discharge
Further reading: Reference
MBR in pharmaceutical industry
• There is a growing concern over the detrimental impacts of active pharmaceutical ingredients.
• The biorefractory nature: persistence degradation, thus accumulate in the environment
• Primary challenge: ancillary constituents, such as the organic solvents, fermentation broth solids and
additives, which are higher in concentration and can be more recalcitrant.
• Varies a lot depending on the products and processes
• Fermentation processes (i.e. through anaerobic biological treatment) and synthetic organic chemistry
are both used to produce medicines and fine chemicals.
• Biological production (i.e. the use of live animals) is used to create vaccines and antitoxins.
• Plants or operations dedicated to the production of tablets, capsules and/or solutions, though mixing,
formulation and preparation.
• Fermentation and organic chemical synthesis wastewaters generally being the highest in organic load
and the most challenging to treat.
MBR applications
• COD of ~4,000 mg/L CAS may be considered unsuitable.
• MBR is suitable with long HRTs and SRTs as in MBRs.
• HRTs reported for actual pharmaceutical wastewaters 1 to >6 days, with SRTs of 26−100 days.
• COD removal > 90%.
MBR in pharmaceutical industry
Commissioned: 2011
Commissioned: 2001 Capacity range MLD: <0.5 (Average: 0.4 MLD)
Capacity range: 0.5−2 MLD (Average: 1.5 MLD) Project: upgrading of ASP using all previous tanks
Project: plant expansion and upgrade (after pilot test) Effluent: extremely high-quality treated water
Removal: COD > 90%, TSS > 99%, Phosphorus > 90%
MBR in petroleum industry
Exploration generates produced water (PW) as the main effluent (MBR not yet popular).
Refining mainly concerns the separation of the crude oil into useful fractions,
Petrochemical operations involving chemical modification of these fractions into further products.
The largest industrial MBRs installed worldwide being associated with refining.
Refinery effluent
• Refinery effluents is challenging due to the presence of recalcitrance and water quality fluctuation.
• Polyvinyl alcohol from polyvinyl chloride) manufacture is relatively resistant to biodegradation and so
require a high MLVSS concentration and long treatment times.
• This makes such effluents very conducive to treatment by MBR technology.
Treating refinery wastewater

• Pretreatment: flotation sequence to remove the oil, followed by clarification.
• Clarification: corrugated plate separators preceded by coagulation/flocculation and followed by either
dissolved air flotation (DAF) or induced gas/air flotation (IGF/IAF).
Biological treatment
• PW biological treatment of PW is still at the developmental stage.
• MBR is routinely employed for refinery and petrochemical effluents.
MBR in petroleum industry Scan ME

For more case-studies
• MBR treats industrial park wastewater in the • MBR treats Coal Liquefaction wastewater
Saudi Arabian desert (240 hectares). • The wastewater contains pollutants that are
• MBR effluent was reused for irrigating green complex and difficult to break down.
areas. • MBR demonstrated the ability to deliver stable
• The effluent complies with all of the operation and long service life under complex feed
requirement. water qualities.
Membrane Bioreactor
4. Operation and Maintenance
Best practice in MBR operations (Monitoring)
Biological parameters
- The key component for biodegradation (organic removals)
- Stable organic and hydraulic loadings
- Desirable biological ecology
- Good filterability (i.e., acceptable filtration indices, SVI (settleability)
- Any condition that favour good operation of conventional activated sludge also good for MBR
Membrane filtration
- Complete separation of solid and disinfection
- Constant-flux operation (stable flux overtime)
- Proper membrane fouling control
- Moderate flux (Capex vs Opex)
- Sludge circulation
- Maintenance cleaning
- Intensive cleaning
- Monitoring of trans membrane pressure (Permeate side)
https://doi.org/10.1021/es7029784
Best practice in MBR operations

For Pollutant degradation
- The key component for biodegradation (organic removals)

- Stable organic and hydraulic loadings (Normally run for 24/7)
- Right proportion of food to microorganisms (F/M)
- Desirable biological ecology (pH, salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen)
- Good balance of C,N, P, macro and micro nutrients
- Good filterability (i.e., acceptable filtration indices, SVI (settleability)
- Any condition that favour good operation of conventional activated sludge
also good for MBR
Pollutant biodegradation in MBR
Common parameters
o The values can be used as basis for

design
o They can be used for monitoring of
performance
o They are inter-related in a dynamic
ecosystem
Best practice in MBR

Membrane filtration
Parameters
1. Flux
2. Pressure
3. Sludge recycle
Fouling control/management
▪ Membrane Aeration
▪ Filtration cycle
o Backwashing
o Relaxation
Considerations ▪ Chemical cleanings
▪ Process design - Optimum o Maintenance
o Intensive
▪ Supplier – Limitation, warranty
▪ Safety factor – To last longer,
avoid operational problems Membrane replacement
Basic Flow diagram of MBR tank
P V3 Filtration is driven by
vacuum pressure
V2 Permeate
(m3, V3)
Sludge Permeate pump

Recycle
Recirculation
(m2)
pump
V4
Air
Essential parameters:
(V4) ▪ Sludge recirculation
Air compressor ▪ Flux
▪ Pressure
Sludge The three parameters are necessary to
Overflow (m1) allow filtration process
Design Parameter of Membrane Filtration

Sludge recycle
▪ To provide the feed for filtration

▪ To maintain biomass in the bioreactor
▪ To maintain solid concentration in MBR
tank – Membrane retains all solids in the
system
▪ Recirculation ratio (m1:m2): 1.2 to 1.8
depending on other factors (20-80% is
returned back to bioreactor)
▪ Sludge recycle is run continuously
Flux
Volume of permeate (Liter)

Flux = (L/(m2 h), or LMH)
Membrane area (m2) x Filtration time (hour)
Dictating the membrane investment costs
Example: A MBR has a capacity of Solution:

Capacity (L/h) = 2,400 (m3/d) 1/24 (h/d) (1,000 L/m3)
2,400 m3 per day. Calculate the
Capacity (L/h) = 100,000 L/h
membrane area for fluxes of 10 LMH
and 20 LMH. 100,000 L/h
For flux = 10 LMH Area = = 10,000 m2
10 LMH
100,000 L/h
For flux = 20 LMH Area = = 5,000 m2
20 LMH

Trans membrane pressure (TMP)
▪ TMP: Pressure difference between the permeate

side and the feed side
▪ Driving force of the permeation
▪ In most MBRs the TMP is vacuum (P<Patm)
▪ Ranges: (0 to -0.35bar for MF) (0 to -0.6 for UF)
▪ It is used to monitor filtration performance and to
guide the cleaning routine.
▪ The pressure sensor is very sensitive to the
placement height (Recalibration)
Permeability
Flux (LMH)
Permeability = (LMH/bar)
TMP (bar)
Implication on filtration:
▪ Constant pressure
Flux declines overtime
▪ Constant flux (Mostly used in full-scale)

TMP increases overtime

Membrane fouling
P
P
P
Pressure
t3
t2
t1
t1 t2 t3 Membrane fouling increases TMP

overtime in a constant-flux operation
Design and operation of MBR are highly dictated by the need

to control/manage membrane fouling
Photos of fouled
membrane modules
Sludge circulation rate
▪ Membrane retains all solids in the system

▪ Because of permeation, solid concentration
increases
▪ Low recycle rate risk of sludging
▪ Sludge recycle must be run continuously
▪ Recirculation ratio (m1:m2): 1.2 to 1.8 depending on
other factors

Operational flux
Flux “dilemma”
Fouling rate
Unacceptable
▪ High flux (Low CAPEX, High OPEX)
(>30 LMH)
o High fouling rate
o High maintenance requirement
Economical
(10-30 LMH)
o Short lifespan
▪ Low flux (High CAPEX, Low OPEX)

Sustainable o Low fouling rate
(<10 LMH) o Low maintenance
o Long lifespan
Applied flux
Sustainable flux → Future direction Implication:
- Very low pressure (Gravity driven) ▪ High flux → Low area
- Very low fouling (natural) (low membrane costs)
- No chemical cleaning ▪ Low flux → High membrane area
Apply the lowest flux as CAPEX allowed (high membrane costs)
Membrane aeration
▪ Used to clean the membrane during filtration

▪ Provide additional mixing
▪ Prevent clogging and sludging
▪ There is an optimum condition
▪ Too low → no cleaning impact
▪ Too high → Reach plateau, break flocs
▪ Aeration is built-up with the module
▪ Quantified using Specific Aeration Demand
(SADp) of permeation
LEAP-MBR (Slug-flow)
Aeration rate (m3/h)

SADp = (m3 air/m3 permeate)
Permeation rate (m3/h)
Summary of full-scale plant data on flux and specific aeration demand data
MBR Book, Page150

Design and Operation approach for
Membrane Cleaning
MBR Operation cycles Filtration
10-30 min Maintenance Intensive

▪ Physical cleanings cleanings
o Relaxation Relaxation
Backwash
o Backwashing
1-2 weeks 6-12 months
▪ Chemical
o Maintenance
o Intensive/Recovery Implementation of intensive/recovery training
• Cleaning in place (CIP) – Inside the tank
• cleaning in air (CIA) – outside the tank
Example: Cleaning protocols for the four MBR technologies, PLWTP
To comply with membrane warranty,

the cleaning protocol and chemicals
must follow supplier guideline
Summary of full-scale plant cleaning protocol data
The cleaning protocol and

chemicals must follow supplier
guideline to comply with membrane
warranty
MBR Book, Page153
Hollow-fiber membrane module taken out from

aeration tank for intensive cleanings
(Cleaning in Air)
Membrane Replacement
Why the membrane need to be replaced?
Interval between ▪ Permanent permeability loss
intensive cleaning
o Reach uneconomical point due to
irrecoverable fouling
o Increase in cleaning frequency to
meet flow throughput
o Occur on a module scale
▪ Physical damage – occurs to certain

part of element
o Poor operation (clogging, sludging)
o Poor handling (scratching, break of
Fouling: fibers)
- reversible o Mechanical module or cassette
- residual failure
- irreversible
o Weakening of the potting resin-
- irrecoverable
membrane fiber bond
• Current design practices correspond to a membrane life of > 10 years.

• The entire membrane to be replaced over a 2–4 year in sub-sets of 10–25% capacity.
• Separate the permeate pump for new and old membranes to balance the flow
distribution and to avoid rapid fouling of the new membranes.
Cote et al., Desalination 288 (2012) 145-151.

Expected lifetime of 10 years
Separate pumping system of

different tanks
Replace strategically
• To even the cleaning
requirements
• The maintain plant hydraulic
capacity.
Year-8 Year-9 Year-10 Year-11 Year-12

Kuliah MBR ITB 14 Nov 2022 - For Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kuliah MBR ITB 14 Nov 2022 - For Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Membrane Bioreactor

1. Basic Concept and Design

o Overview of biological process for wastewater treatment

(H2O +Organic) + O2 + Cells → more Cells + CO2 + H2O + metabolites

Microorganisms consume organic matter from

Aerobic and facultative micro-organisms

Main limitation of conventional activated sludge: Need favorable

Sludge bulking: • Limited flexibility on system operation

Main processes: Main processes:

Drivers for MBR implementations

High demand of water reclamation

Limited space: Necessity for treating large volume of

Health protection: In case people may contact the

Treatment of challenging Industrial wastewater

Reduce excess sludge (Discussed later)

Attractive for water reclamation

MBR Features - Effluent Quality

- Typical effluent quality

(in mg/L) (Industrial)

TSS 10 – 15 (<50) <1.0

COD 40 – 50 (<150) < 30

Total N < 15 < 10

Total P* 1–2 <1

Microbiological Hygienic EU bathing water

* with precipitation Improved effluent quality assisted by

MBR + RO process is suitable for plant expansion and new plant

- Estimated under actual 5,000 m3/d wastewater treatment plant

Not required in MBR

CAS Process: 5,600m2

Anaerobic tank MBR

o Industrial wastewater capex is higher by ~30%

MBR VS CAS: CAPEX and OPEX

CAPEX (add membrane costs, reduce clarifier and reactor volume)

OPEX (mainly for membrane aeration)

Preferred operational condition for CAS and MBRs

Xr (g/l) 8 Qw (m3/d) 32.1

Qr (m3/d) 20000 Wasted Activated Sludge

Design: CAS VS MBR for Domestic Wastewater Treatment

Parameters CAS MBR Remarks

Capacity 400 m3/d

Outlet BOD 10 mg/L Qo (m3/d) 400

Design: CAS VS MBR for Industrial Wastewater Treatment

Parameters CAS MBR Remarks

Reduction cost of membrane elements1

Recommendation: What to do with my current system?

• MBR is not the only solution!!!

• Pressure: vacuum gravity driven, pump up to -0.3 Bar

• Pressure: Positive, up to 2-3 Bar

MBR membranes: Flat-sheet, Hollow fiber, Tubular

Hollow fiber bundles Module housing

• Submerged MBR • Submerged MBR • Side-stream MBR

Hollow-fiber membrane module

Ecologic Module Kubota – Lego style flat-sheet membrane assembly

OVIVO flat-sheet module (fluid dynamics)

Toray flat-sheet submerged module (fluid dynamics)

ZeeWeed-500 hollow fiber submerged module

Pure aqua tubular membrane for (side stream) MBR

o Applicable to upgrade any existing biological treatment

MBR for treatment of industrial wastewater

MBR in food-and-beverage industry

• Installed 106 MBR units from 2016-2017

MBR in pulp and paper industry

Paper and cardboard production

Treating refinery wastewater