Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.
18(6) June (2014)
Review Paper:
Fouling and Mitigation Strategies in Membrane
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment
Keerthi and Balasubramanian N.*
Department of Chemical Engineering, A.C.Tech. Campus, Anna University, Chennai 600 025, INDIA
*nbsbala@annauniv.edu
Abstract
Increase in the complexity of waste water generated
by industries and its detrimental effect on the
environment has brought about stringent water
policies. The treatment of waste water by membrane
bioreactor (MBR) has gained importance in the recent
decade due to its ability to produce high quality
water. But fouling of membranes still remains a
challenge to the researchers which made the hybrid
membrane bioreactors (HMBR) to evolve. This paper
reviews on the membrane characteristics, its causes of
fouling and its application in different waste water
treatment. It also takes a glance on different hybrid
systems where MBR has been incorporated with some
other pre treatment technologies.
Keywords: Membrane, MBR technologies, fouling,
HMBR.
Introduction
Applications of membrane-based technologies in
wastewater treatment are focussed on tertiary treatment of
secondary effluent so as to obtain a high-quality final
effluent that can be reused for different purposes. However,
over the past 10 years, MBRs have shown promising
results as an effective secondary treatment technology.
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology has emerged as
an innovative technology, ideal for advanced wastewater
treatment performance and water reclamation, through the
integration of membrane technology with biological
wastewater treatment as a single process. The general term
MBR refers to three different configurations that combine
membrane technology and biological reaction1 activated
sludge separation MBR, bubble-less membrane aeration
bioreactors (MABR) and extractive membrane bioreactors
(EMBR).
However, the last two configurations are rare and have not
been applied in the industrial scale wastewater treatment
systems. The operational advantages of membrane
bioreactors have been extensively studied and well-
documented2. MBR’s ability to produce high quality
effluent and being an integral pathogen barrier are the key
advantages. By using micro or ultrafiltration membrane
technology, MBR systems allow the complete physical
retention of bacterial flocs and virtually all suspended
solids within the bioreactor3. Activated sludge retention
through sedimentation in secondary clarifier is replaced and
in some cases supplemented by membrane filtration
84
Res.J.Chem.Environ
utilizing micro-or ultrafiltration membranes which
overcomes the clarification problems.
Furthermore, MBRs exhibit good resistance to variations in
hydraulic and organic loading4-6
The key advantages of MBR include7:
(1) Producing stable and directly reclaimable effluent water
by showing high efficiency in pollutant removal.
(2) A more stable and flexible operation mode of complete
separation of sludge from water attributed to hydraulic
retention time (HRT) and sludge retention time (SRT).
(3) Can be operated at high concentration of mixed liquor
suspended solids (MLSS) giving rise to a higher volumetric
load.
(4) Low sludge production favoring cost saving of
subsequent excess sludge disposal.
(5) Possible enhancement of contaminant removal ability of
microbes in the reactor, as it can be operated at high SRTs.
In spite of the cost factor, the MBR process has now
become an attractive option for the treatment and reuse of
industrial and municipal wastewaters which is evident by
their constantly rising numbers and capacity in wastewater
treatment plants worldwide.
MBR in Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Nowadays conventional wastewater treatment technologies
are no longer useful as they cannot meet the recent
standards due to the increasing pollution. There is also an
increasing research arising from the desire for the
development of innovative, more effective and inexpensive
techniques for wastewater treatment8. MBR process can be
used for the treatment of variety of wastewater with a high
degree of organic and nitrogen removal9-12. In the industrial
sector, MBR is being used in the treatment of both high
strength wastewaters (such as brewery wastewater, sauce
wastewater and food processing wastewater) and refractory
wastewaters (such as coke plant wastewater, petrochemical
wastewater and textile wastewater). MBR can eliminate to
some extent problems such as sludge bulking that is
commonly troublesome for the CAS processes, thus
enhancing treatment efficiency and permitting stable
operation in the case of high strength wastewaters. For the
practical application of MBR in the industrial sector,
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
relatively small footprint should be also considered. The
membrane can retain all the biomass as well as part of the
less biodegradable pollutants in the bioreactor, in the case
of refractory industrial wastewaters. This improves the
pollutant removal both physically (via direct membrane
rejection) and biologically (via enhancement of
biodegradation favored by lower F/M ratios).
Compared to municipal wastewater, industrial wastewaters
are characterized by high load and/or low biodegradability,
but there are usually remarkable disparities among
wastewaters from different industrial sources. Therefore,
elaborate consideration should be given to nature of waste
water and specific feed conditions for the design of MBR
processes in the industrial sector. For example, anaerobic
digestion is often applied prior to aerobic MBR process in
the case of high strength organic wastewaters whereas for
refractory wastewaters, anaerobic treatment governed by
hydrolysis and acidification is usually proposed to enhance
the biodegradability. Pre-treatments such as regulation of
acidity or alkalinity, or flotation to remove oily substances
should be addressed carefully which are troublesome for
subsequent biological treatment and membrane
performance.
MBR could be further reinforced by novel technologies
such as bio-enhancement via genetic engineering in order
to enhance the treatment efficiency of some specific
wastewaters which are highly refractory. Liu et al13 used a
laboratory-scale MBR equipped with 0.4 μm PE membrane
to treat synthetic pesticide wastewater containing a high
concentration (15–20 mgL–1) of atrazine which is a
persistent organic pollutant (POP) and demonstrates eco-
toxicity even at ppb level.
The MBR was bio-augmented with a genetically
engineered microorganism (GEM) and showed a high and
stable removal efficiency of above 90% after a start-up
period of around 10 days. Moreover, the MBR exhibited
excellent retention of GEM in the initial stage of filtration
and undetectable with the development of fouling layer.
Membrane Fouling
Membrane fouling which has been recognized as a major
obstacle to the wider application of membrane technology
for wastewater treatment has made the researchers to work
constantly to find the causes and to eradicate fouling.
Considerable energy consumption and engineering cost is
increased by membrane fouling through reduction of
filtration efficiency, increase in frequency and intensity of
cleaning and shortening of membrane lifetime etc. It is
measured by the rate of flux decline or TMP rise during
filtration. Membrane fouling is considered to be
spontaneous and inevitable during the microfiltration or
ultrafiltration process in MBR in spite of all antifouling
measures taken so far. Nevertheless, it should be cost-
effective effort that should be made in order to decelerate
membrane fouling as much as possible. For this purpose, it
85
Res.J.Chem.Environ
is important and essential to understand the mechanisms of
membrane fouling comprehensively to develop robust anti-
fouling strategies.14
Traditionally, fouling can be classified into different
categories and the term reversible fouling refers to fouling
that can be removed by physical means such as back
flushing or relaxation under cross flow conditions while
irreversible fouling refers to fouling which can be removed
only by chemical cleaning. During long-term operation of a
typical full-scale MBR, two distinct fouling rates can be
observed. External deposition of material (cake filtration)
causes the reversible fouling and is mostly removed during
filtration breaks or back flush cycles. The slope of the
baseline is ―irreversible‖ and is alleviated by maintenance
cleans whereas there occurs another baseline to be treated
by main cleans. Finally, irrecoverable or irreversible
fouling which cannot be removed by any cleaning and
occurs over long periods15. Resistance model has also been
used to describe membrane fouling and flux decline
patterns under the three experimental scenarios and was
characterized by three distinct stages, namely, initial
conditioning fouling, rapid fouling and slow fouling16.
Parameters responsible for Membrane fouling
All the parameters involved in the design and operation of
MBR processes influence membrane fouling. Here, three
categories of factors are defined i.e. membrane and module
characteristics, feed and biomass parameters and operating
conditions which may be potential reasons for membrane
fouling. While some of these parameters have a direct
influence on MBR fouling, many others result in
subsequent effects on phenomena causing fouling
propensity. The complex interactions between these
parameters complicate the concept of MBR fouling and it is
therefore not possible to fully understand the biological,
chemical and physical phenomena occurring in MBRs to
assess fouling phenomenon and mechanism.
Membrane characteristics
Physical and chemical parameters: The effects of pore
size (and distribution of pore) on membrane fouling are
strongly related to the feed solution characteristics and in
particular the particle size distribution. Depending on the
pore size and the type of activated sludge filtered, results
reported in the literature have shown opposite trends. Pore
blocking and/or restriction is expected more if the particle
size is smaller than the pore size. It is therefore expected
that large pore membranes like MF would present higher
fouling tendency when compared to UF membranes. It is
known that the pore size alone cannot predict hydraulic
performances as there was no general trend observed
between these two parameters. The complex and changing
nature of the biological suspension and the large pore size
distribution of the membrane generally used in MBR are
the main reasons for the undefined general dependency of
the hydraulic flux on pore size17.
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
Additionally, the duration of the experiment and other
operating parameters like cross flow velocity (CFV) and
constant pressure or constant flux operation have a direct
influence on the membrane pore size. Time dependency for
large pore MF with the highest initial fouling, the long-
term fouling and for the smaller pore was reported for pore
size ranging from 1.5 to 5 µm operated at constant
TMP18,19.
It is important to know that the conclusions derived from
flux decline data could be sometimes deceptive, for the
quest of highest ―steady-state‖ permeability, as an
intrinsically high flux membrane may appear to foul more
for the same increase in resistance. It was obvious that
smaller pore membranes would reject a wider range of
materials and the cake layer resulting from this causes a
higher resistance when compared to large pore membranes.
However, this type of fouling can be easily removed by
physical cleaning during maintenance and hence is
reversible than the fouling due to internal pore clogging.
However, when membranes with pores ranging from 0.4 to
5 µm (at constant TMP), were tested, Gander et al20 found
opposite results, i.e. significant flux decline for the small
pore membrane and higher initial fouling for large pore was
found in the case of long term filtration. The molecular
weight (MW) distribution of the compounds present in the
supernatant was characterized in the MBRs operated with
four pore size membranes (ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 µm) and
it was observed that a small difference in MW distribution
does not affect much the various fouling rates observed
between different MBR systems21. In another study
membrane roughness and porosity were suggested as
potential reasons for the different fouling behaviors
observed when four different MF membranes with nominal
pore sizes narrowly ranged between 0.20 and 0.22 µm were
tested in parallel.
Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), mixed cellulose esters
(MCE) and polyethersulfone (PES) membranes of almost
same pore size showed different fouling behaviors. Cake
formation was the main reason for fouling in PVDF and
MCE membranes whereas pore blocking and clogging was
responsible for most of the total hydraulic resistance for the
PES membrane. The PES membrane showed much higher
fouling resistance than the PVDF and MCE membranes. It
was suggested that membrane microstructure, material and
pore size distribution are significant affecting parameters
for MBR fouling 22.
The configuration of membranes also has a significant
effect on fouling. As far as the domestic wastewater
treatment is concerned, the current trend favors the MBR
design of submerged over side stream configurations23.
Based on short-term critical flux tests, a direct comparison
between submerged and side stream MBRs showed similar
fouling behavior and was operated at superficial gas
velocity (UG) of 0.07–0.11 m/s and superficial liquid
86
Res.J.Chem.Environ
velocity (UL) of 0.25–0.55 m/s for submerged and side
stream respectively24. An increase of UG in the submerged
MBR was found to have more effect in fouling removal
than a similar raise of CFV (or UL) in the side stream
configuration which may be due to the unsteady state flow
achieved by bubbling.
In submerged MBR processes the membrane can be
configured as vertical flat plates (FS), vertical or horizontal
hollow fine fibers (HF) where the filtration is from out-to-
in or, more rarely as tubes where filtration mode is from in-
to-out. The tubular configuration is generally preferred for
side stream filtration processes25. Hollow fiber modules are
generally cheaper to manufacture than other configurations,
have high membrane density which allows to lerating
vigorous backwashing while fluid dynamics and
distributions are easier to control for flat plate and tubular
membranes, as the membrane channel width is well
defined26.
Therefore, hollow fibers are more prone to fouling and
require more frequent washing and cleaning. Relative
performances of hollow fibers and flat plate membranes
were initiated by Gunder and Krauth27 and found better
hydraulic performance for the flat plate. Hydrophobic
membranes foul faster than hydrophilic membranes
because of the interactions occurring between solutes,
microbial cells and membrane material28.
Membrane modifications such as pore size and morphology
can bring about a change in membrane hydrophobicity,
which makes it difficult to correlate between membrane
hydrophobicity and fouling. In a study, when the Molecular
Weight Cut off (MWCO) was increased from 20 to 70 kDa
membranes, the contact angle measurement showed that the
apparent hydrophobicity of polyethersulfone (PES)
membranes19 decreased from 55◦ to 47◦.
The effect of membrane hydrophobicity was studied
extensively during the comparison of two UF membrane
filtration tests of similar characteristics18. The authors were
able to postulate that the hydrophobic membranes showed
greater solute rejection and cake resistances which
apparently affect membrane fouling and removal
performances of the MBR process. Activated sludge
contains a large amount of hydrophilic EPS and is
considered as one of the major foulants. In a study, Fang et
al22 indicated that membranes of greater hydrophilicity tend
to be more vulnerable to deposition of foulants of
hydrophilic nature.
Ceramic membranes which have superior chemical,
thermal and hydraulic resistances are not the preferred
candidate for MBR applications due to their high cost.
However, ceramic membranes have been successfully used
for several MBR applications, such as treatment of high-
strength industrial waste29 and anaerobic biodegradation30.
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
Ceramic membranes modules are generally used in side
stream configurations which require higher pressure and
turbulence and the benefit of turbulence promoters in
ceramic MBR systems has been studied31. Short term
comparison experiments were conducted using 0.1 µm
ceramic membrane and 0.03µm polymeric multi-channel
membrane modules operated in side stream air-lift mode
where the ceramic membranes showed upper hand and did
not foul with fluxes up to 60 l/m2h, while the polymeric
membrane32 critically fouled at around 36 l/m2h.
Novel stainless steel membrane modules used in anaerobic
MBR have been developed recently and have shown good
hydraulic performance and fouling recovery when used for
wastewater treatment33. However, the majority of the
membranes used in MBRs for waste water treatment are
polymeric-based. A direct comparison between the two
polymeric polyethylene (PE) and PVDF membranes clearly
showed that the former fouled quickly and the later leads to
a better prevention of irreversible fouling 34.
Feed–biomass characteristics
Nature of feed and concentration: Although the effects of
wastewater properties on membrane fouling are undeniable
for direct wastewater filtration35, fouling in the MBR is
mostly affected by the interactions between the membrane
and the biological suspension rather than wastewater 21.
The physico-chemical changes of the waste water in the
biological suspensions show some striking effect on
fouling36. When saline sewage was used as feed, the
resulting higher fouling rate generally leads to a more
frequent cleaning 37. In another study the protein fraction
measured in the extracted EPS (eEPS) which is a potential
foulant has been found to be significantly lower when
biomass was fed with synthetic feed of COD of 460 mg/l
rather than with real sewage with lesser COD of 140 mg/l.
For these reasons, during the characterization of the
biomass, the fouling propensity of the wastewater is also
indirectly taken into consideration.
Biomass (bulk) parameters: At first sight MLSS
concentration is considered as the main foulant parameter
and has indeed a complex interaction with MBR fouling.
The increase in MLSS concentration seems to have the
greatest negative impact on the MBR hydraulic
performances like higher TMP or lower flux, if the other
biomass characteristics are not considered38. Some authors
have reported positive impact39 and some have observed
insignificant impact40. The existence of a maximum MLSS
concentration (30g/l) above which it has a negative
influence has also been reported41. While a rise in MLSS
seems to show slower rate of fouling at low MLSS
concentration (<6 g/l), more fouling is expected as the
MLSS concentration increases above 15 g/l. The MLSS
concentration of 8-12 g/l does not appear to have
significant effect on membrane fouling 42.Cho et al43 have
proposed a mathematical expression relating MLSS
87
Res.J.Chem.Environ
concentration, extra polymeric substance (EPS) and TMP
with cake specific resistance.
There was no significant change in specific resistance for
MLSS ranging from 4 to 10 g/l at constant EPS and TMP.
The biomass acclimatization periods are not given its due
importance when the variation in MLSS concentration
impact upon biomass characteristics is concerned. MLSS
concentration plays a significant role in the removal
performance of MBR processes. But, MLSS concentration
(alone) is a poor indicator of biomass fouling propensity as
there is a lack of a clear correlation between MLSS
concentration and any other foulant characteristics.
Biomass viscosity, which is closely related to its
concentration, is also found to be a foulant parameter. The
critical MLSS concentration is where the viscosity is at a
minimum value and above this critical value; the viscosity
of the suspension increases exponentially with
concentration.
For different operating conditions44, this critical value was
found to change from 10 to 17 g MLSS/l. The importance
of MLSS viscosity lies in modifying bubble size and can
dampen the movement of hollow fibers in submerged
modules and would result in greater rate of fouling. The
dissolved oxygen (DO) also gets affected by increased
viscosity which is due to the reduction in the efficiency of
mass transfer of oxygen 45.
Temperature impact on membrane filtration performance
has also been studied through its influence on permeate
fluid viscosity. The operating flux is normalized at a
reference temperature (generally 25◦C) and the hydraulic
performances obtained at different temperatures are
compared by applying a temperature correction factor. At
low temperatures a greater resistance was observed due to
increase in the sludge viscosity which thereby reduces the
shear stress generated by coarse bubbles. The biomass floc
size was reduced, releasing more EPS to the solution which
was due to intensified defloculation at low temperature.
Again with the help of the Brownian diffusion coefficient,
which is linearly related to temperature, the particle back
transport velocity was calculated and was found to be less
at low temperature. Finally biodegradation of COD was
also reduced at decreased temperature, resulting in a higher
concentration of solute and particle COD in the reactor
causing fouling 46.
Floc characteristics: Aggregation of the microorganisms
to form large floc is a significant element in the effective
separation and filtration of suspended biomass from the
waste water by MBR and is more critical in conventional
activated sludge process (CASP). The floc size of the
biomass suspensions in MBRs covers a wide distribution
and varies significantly from one study to another. Distinct
difference in mean particle sizes was found in a comparison
study of the aggregate size distribution of CASP and MBR
sludge47. Instead of the large size of the floc particles,
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
compared to the pore size of the membrane generally used
in MBR, it is expected that biological floc cannot directly
block pore entrances they play a major role in the formation
of the fouling cake on the membrane surface.
In the MBR process hydrophobic flocs tend to have high
flocculation and low interaction with the generally used
hydrophilic membranes. However, reports of these flocs
fouling the MBR membranes can be found in the literature.
Relative hydrophobicity of floc can be directly measured
by bacterial adhesion to hydrocarbons (hexane) or
estimated by contact angle determination. The direct effect
of floc hydrophobicity on MBR fouling is difficult to
assess. The measurement of hydrophobicity of sludge and
EPS solutions revealed that by decreasing the relative
hydrophobicity of EPS, it can bring about deterioration of
floc and consequent increase in cake resistance. EPS level
and presence of filamentous bacteria in sludge also have a
direct influence on the relative hydrophobicity and zeta
potential measured in the biomass floc48.
The negative charges from ionization of the anionic
functional groups of flocs and EPS of most activated sludge
have zeta potential and surface charges ranging from −0.2
to −0.6 mequiv./g VSS and from −20 to −30mV
respectively13. In this study with the increase in SRT, the
fouling resistance caused by microbial floc was found to
increase and the contact angle and surface charge showed a
strong positive correlation with the microbial floc causing
fouling.
Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS): The
construction materials for microbial aggregates such as
biofilms, flocs and activated sludge liquors are known as
Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). EPS comprises
of different classes of macromolecules such as proteins,
polysaccharides, nucleic acids, (phosphor-)lipids and other
polymeric compounds which are found at or outside the
cell surface and in the intercellular space of microbial
aggregate49. They consist of insoluble materials such as
sheaths, loosely bound polymers, capsular polymers
andattached organic material produced by active secretion
and shedding of cell surface material or cell lysis.
The EPS matrix plays multiple roles which include the
aggregation of bacterial cells in flocs and to form biofilms,
it forms a protective barrier around the bacteria, water
retention and adhesion to surface. EPS can form a highly
hydrated gel matrix in which microbial cells are embedded,
which is due to its heterogeneous and changing nature50
and hence is responsible for the creation of a significant
barrier in the membrane for the permeate flow. Bioflocs
attached to the membrane playing a major nutrient source
during the biofilm formation on the membrane surface and
its effect on membrane filtration have been reported for
more than a decade. In recent years they have received
considerable attention with many reports pointing finger at
88
Res.J.Chem.Environ
EPS as the most significant factor affecting fouling in
MBRs51.
The limitation of studies on the effects of EPS in MBR
fouling is that so far no standard method of extraction
exists, making it difficult to compare the data produced by
different research groups. Methods of extraction are
numerous and include cation exchange resin52, heating
methods53 and centrifugation with formaldehyde54. More
recently, dimensional analysis was done to find a functional
relationship between specific resistance, MLVSS, TMP,
permeate viscosity and EPS55.
As mentioned before, the hydrophobic interactions are
influenced by the EPS matrix among microbial cells and
thus in the floc formation, a decrease in EPS levels causes
floc deterioration. This theory was confirmed by the
experimental results obtained by comparative study of
nitrification and denitrification in MBR. If verified more
thoroughly, this indicates that an optimum EPS level exists
for which floc structure is maintained and does not cause
high fouling propensity. Many parameters such as substrate
composition, gas sparging, loading rate affect EPS
characteristics in the MBR and SRT probably remains the
most significant of them.
Soluble microbial products (SMP): Soluble cellular
components that are released during cell lysis, diffuse
through the cell membrane, are lost during synthesis or are
excreted are known as Soluble Microbial Products
(SMP)56. In MBR systems, the concept of SMP and soluble
EPS are the same and the feed substrate can also be a
source of it. As in the case of EPS, SMP also gets adsorbe
and forms a gel structure providing a nutrient source to
form biofilm and hence blocks the membrane pores,
thereby increasing the hydraulic resistance to permeate
flow.
A dual compartment membrane bio reactor where a settling
tank is coupled with the bio reactor and the biomass
supernatant is filtered by the membrane module has been
attempted in order to protect the membrane from direct
contact with MLSS90 where it showed higher filtration
resistance for the membranes filtering supernatant rather
than those filtering 4 g/l of biomass. This clearly indicates
that the membrane filtration performance depends on the
composition and concentration of the organics present in
the biomass supernatant i.e. soluble microbial products
(SMP). The simple filtration through filter paper was found
to be the most effective technique than centrifugation and
sedimentation to separate the water phase which contains
SMP and the biomass 57.
SMP solution is then characterized by TOC measurements
with its relative amount of protein and carbohydrate, or by
High Performance Solvent Extraction Chromatography
(HPSEC)58. SMP has generally larger macromolecules
when compared to EPS molecular weight distribution.
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
Under same conditions, when critical flux tests were
carried out for both MBR and CASP sludge, it was seen
that MBR sludge had higher fouling propensity over CASP.
Only the SMP components can be accounted for the higher
membrane fouling observed for MBR sludge, as the
measured levels of EPS remained unchanged. There was
significant biological activity in the MBR supernatant,
indicating the presence of free bacteria, which could also be
another cause of membrane fouling.
The interaction of macromolecules in the supernatant and
the membrane surface can be explained as a secondary
membrane is formed by the creation of the fouling layer on
the membrane surface which thereby increases the retention
and/or adsorption of macromolecules. The degradation of
macromolecules can also be brought about by the formation
of bio film as the permeate flows through the membrane.
Mitigation of MBR fouling
Removal of fouling: Membrane relaxation (where
filtration is stopped for some time) and membrane
backwashing (where permeate is pumped in the reverse
direction through the membrane) are the major physical
cleaning techniques for MBRs. These techniques are
standard operating strategies in most MBR designs to limit
fouling; although vigorous backwashing cannot be done for
flat plate submerged membranes. Backwashing (also called
back flushing) has been found to be successful in removing
most of the reversible fouling due to pore blocking and
transport the foulants back into the bioreactor. It also
partially dislodged the loosely attached cake layer from the
membrane surface59. Optimization of backwashing in terms
of duration and frequency has to be done with respect to
energy and permeates consumptions to remove fouling.
This can be achieved by a generic control system which can
automatically optimize the duration of the backwash by
monitoring the TMP value 60.
This obviously affects operating costs as energy is required
to achieve a pressure suitable for flow reversion and 5 to
30% of the produced permeate is used up in the process.
Air can also be used as the back flushing medium61.
Although, 400% improvement of the flux can be obtained
by 15 min of air backwash for every 15 min of filtration.
Non-continuous operation or membrane relaxation (of the
membrane) has a significant effect on the improvement of
membrane performance.
Back transport of foulants is naturally enhanced under
relaxation and the attached foulants diffuse away from the
membrane surface to the bulk solution due to concentration
gradient. Air scouring during relaxation can further
increase the fouling removal efficiency of this method62.
Studies shows that membrane relaxation allows filtration
for longer period of times before the need for cleaning,
although the fouling rate is generally higher than the
continuous filtration.
89
Res.J.Chem.Environ
As more and more irreversible fouling accumulates on the
membrane, the effectiveness of membrane relaxation and
backwashing tends to decrease with operation time.
Therefore, chemical cleaning of different types and
intensities are recommended in addition to the physical
cleaning. They include daily chemically enhanced
backwash, weekly maintenance cleaning with higher
chemical concentration and yearly recovery (intensive)
chemical cleaning. Maintenance cleaning is done to
maintain the design permeability and it reduces the
frequency of intense cleaning. Intensive cleaning is
generally done when elevated TMP shows that further
filtration is no longer sustainable. The most commonly
used prevalent cleaning agents are sodium hypochlorite for
organic foulants and citric acid for inorganics. Sodium
hypochlorite loosens the particles and biofilm attached to
the membrane by hydrolyzing the organic molecules. The
effects of hypochlorites such as NaOCl on microbial
community have been also studied for MBR processes63.
Generally maintenance cleaning, is carried out every 3–7
days at a moderate reagent concentration of 0.01 wt.% of
NaOCl. Recovery cleaning rather uses higher reagent
concentrations of 0.2–0.5 wt% of NaOCl mixed with 0.2–
0.3 wt.% of citric acid or 0.5–1 wt.% of oxalic acid. The
specific cleaning protocols i.e. chemical concentrations and
cleaning frequencies vary from one to one MBR suppliers
depending on the plant location and the wastewater to be
treated. It also has been mentioned that just after the
chemical cleaning episodes, the level of pollutants
measured as TOC in the permeate increases. This is
important for MBRs used in reclamation process where the
permeate is used in the upstream processes (i.e. RO for
example).
Due to the site-specific nature of the MBR fouling, no
systematic studies on cleaning agents or procedures have
been published. Sonification for removing cake layers in
MBRs has also been researched. During sonification
cleaning process breakdown of the fouling cake into
smaller fragments takes place. Although sonification is
successful in removing the cake layer from the membrane
surface, this cleaning method is not effective on pore
blocking and may even worsen this type of fouling. A
combination of chemical cleaning and sonification with
backwashing showed that almost complete flux recovery
can be achieved64.
Anti-fouling: As a well said proverb ―Prevention is better
than cure‖, it is also possible to prevent fouling before its
occurrence by:
(1) Improving the anti-fouling properties of the membrane
(2) Operating the MBR under specific non-or-little fouling
conditions.
Optimization of membrane characteristics: In MBRs, to
improve the anti-fouling properties, chemical modifications
of the membrane surface have been shown to be efficient.
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
Increase in the membrane hydrophilicity through
membrane modification has been focused, as more severe
fouling is expected in hydrophobic membranes. Recent
examples for membrane modification include NH3 and CO2
plasma treatments of polypropylene hollow fibers and the
modified membrane’s structural and morphological nature
were characterized by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
(XPS) and SEM. With the NH3 and CO2 plasma treatments,
polar groups (from oxygen and nitrogen) were introduced
on the membrane surface, thereby increasing the membrane
hydrophilicity. The new modified membranes showed
better filtration performances and flux recovery than the
unmodified membranes. TiO2 nanoparticles were added to
the casting solution (entrapped) and were also precoated
(deposited) to prepare two types of TiO2-immobilized UF
membrane and were also used in MBR systems65.
Similarly, membrane was precoated with ferric hydroxide
flocs and was compared to an unmodified MBR, where
both effluent quality and efficiency were found to
increase66. The direct contact between the organics and the
membrane was limited by the adsorption of soluble
organics on ferric hydroxide flocs. Finally, self-forming
dynamic membrane coupled bioreactors are also studied to
investigate fouling phenomena.
Optimization of operating conditions: Optimizing the
operating parameters such as air flow rate becomes
important not only to reduce the fouling but also to
minimize the energy involved in providing aeration to the
membrane as it remains a significant cost factor in MBR
design. The location of aerators and specific design of
airflow patterns have been identified as crucial parameters
in fouling mitigation. MBR suppliers are developing new
aeration design and are often reported in patent format, for
example improved aerator systems and cyclic aeration
systems67. A detailed comparison of various aeration
devices used in tubular membranes has been studied and
the results showed that the MBR with complex aeration
systems and homogeneous injection of air into the feed
with multiple orifices gave the highest performances. The
effect of aeration varies from membrane to membrane
configuration. For a particular flux, the intensity of aeration
also depends on the parameter such as air/permeate ratio
(m3/m3). By varying the aeration rates, attempts have been
made to increase the permeate flux in submerged MBR.
The intermittent operation of aeration has also been tried to
improve the performance of (de)nitrification MBR
system68.
One of the main advantages of MBR is that it can be
operated for long Sludge Retention Time (SRT) which
defines the characteristics of the biomass suspension and
remains probably the main operating parameter to identify
biomass fouling propensity. The choice of optimum SRT
becomes critical to improve the overall performance of the
MBR, as there are numerous reports defining the relation
between SRT and concentrations of both EPS and SMP.
90
Res.J.Chem.Environ
Reactor design and its components are also taken into
consideration for optimizations of operating conditions.
Ghosh69 obtained high permeability in a specially designed
module in which air bubbles were confined in close
proximity to the hollow fiber membrane rather than
diffusing in the reactor.
Conclusion
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have been actively
employed for municipal and industrial wastewater
treatments and have proven to be an emerging technology
which has developed a niche in the wastewater treatment
sector. So far, the high costs of membranes and membrane
fouling are the main factors which restrict the wide
application of MBRs. Over the past few years, considerable
investigations have been performed to develop high-flux or
low-cost membranes and to understand MBR fouling in
detail. Despite of worldwide research on the complex topic
of fouling in MBR, many questions still remain
unanswered to date.
Still by improving the technology and by coupling MBRs
with other unit operations and processes have increased the
expected membrane lifetime and enough full-scale plants
have been successfully operated and now there are more
than 3000 MBR installations in operation or under
construction worldwide. It is clear that the MBR
technology is becoming increasingly competitive andits
future market position is guaranteed.
References
1. Stephenson T., Judd S., Jefferson B. and Brindle K., Membrane
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment, IWA Publishing, London
(2000)
2. Manem J. and Sanderson R., Membrane bioreactors, In Water
Treatment Processes, Ch. 17, AWWARF/Lyonnaise des
Eaux/WRC, Mc Graw Hill (1996)
3. Pierre Le-Clech, Vicki Chen and Tony A. G. Fane, Fouling in
membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment, Journal of
Membrane Science, 284, 17–53 (2006)
4. Cicek N., Franco J. P., Suidan M. T. and Urbain V., Effect of
phosphorus on operation and characteristics of MBR, J. Env. Eng.
ASCE, 125(8), 738-746 (1999)
5. Jefferson B., Laine A. L., Judd S. and Stephenson T.,
Membrane bioreactors and their role in wastewater reuse, Wat.
Sci. Tech., 41(1), 197-204 (2000)
6. Donn A. and Dimitriou, Innovative MBR Process for Industrial
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse, Proceedings of the
International Water Conference October 2005, ESWP - IWC-05-
49 (2005)
7. Huang, (Tsinghua University, China), Process Biochemistry,
36, 1001-1006 (2001)
8. Al-Malack M. H., Performance of an immersed membrane
bioreactor (IMBR), Desalination, 214(1), 112-127 (2007)
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
9. Chiemchaisri C. and Yamamoto K., Enhancement of oxygen
transfer and nitrogen removal in a membrane separation
bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment, Water Sci.
Technol., 51(10), 85–92 (2005)
10. Ahn Y. T., Kang S. T., Chae S. R., Lee C. Y., Bae B. U. and
Shin H. S., Effect of internal recycle rate on the high-strength
nitrogen wastewater treatment in the combined UBF/MBR
system, Water Sci. Technol., 51(10), 241–247 (2005)
11. Visvanathan C., Choudhary M. K., Montalbo M. T. and
Jegatheesan V., Landfill leachate treatment using thermophilic
membrane bioreactor, Desalination, 204(1), 8–16 (2007)
12. Choi C., Lee J., Lee K. and Kim M., The effects on operation
conditions of sludge retention time and carbon/nitrogen ratio in an
intermittently aerated membrane bioreactor (IAMBR), Biores.
Technol., 99(13), 5397–5401 (2008)
13. Liu Y. and Fang H. H. P., Influences of extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS) on flocculation, settling and
dewatering of activated sludge, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
33(3), 237–273 (2003)
14. Xia Huang, Kang Xiao and Yuexiao Shen, Recent advances in
membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment in
China, Front. Environ. Sci. Engin., 4(3), 245–271 (2010)
15. Kraume M., Wedi D., Schaller J., Iversen V. and Drews A.,
Fouling in MBR—what use are lab investigations for full scale
operation? Desalination, 236, 94–103 (2009)
16. Ravindran V., Tsai H. H., Williams M. D. and Pirbazari M.,
Hybrid membrane bioreactor technology for small water
treatment utilities Process evaluation and primordial
considerations, Journal of Membrane Science, 344(1-2), 39–54
(2009)
17. Chang I. S., Le-Clech P., Jefferson B. and Judd S., Membrane
fouling in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment, J.
Environ. Eng., ASCE, 128, 1018–1029 (2002)
18. Chang I. S., Gander M., Jefferson B. and Judd S. J., Low-cost
membranes for use in a submerged MBR, Proc. Saf. Environ.
Protect., 79(3), 183–188 (2001)
19. Ohya H., Kim J. J., Chinen A., Ajhara M., Semenova S. I.,
Negishi Y., Mori O. and Yasuda M., effect of pore size on
separation mechanisms of microfiltration of oily water, using
porous glass tubular membrane, J. Membr. Sci., 145, 1-14 (1998)
20. Gander M. A., Jefferson B. and Judd S. J., Membrane
bioreactors for use in small wastewater treatment plants
membrane materials and effluent quality, Water Sci. Technol.,
41(1), 205–211 (2000)
21. Lee W., Jeon J. H., Cho Y., Chung K. Y. and Min B. R.,
Behavior of TMP according to membrane pore size, in
Proceedings of the International Congress on Membranes and
Membrane Processes (ICOM), Seoul, Korea (2005)
22. Fang H. H. P., Shi X. and Zhang T., Effect of activated carbon
on fouling of activated sludge filtration, Desalination, 189(1-3),
193–199 (2006)
91
Res.J.Chem.Environ
23. Judd S., Fouling control in submerged membrane bioreactors,
Water Sci. Technol., 51, 27–34 (2005)
24. Le-Clech P., Jefferson B. and Judd S. J., A comparison of
submerged and sidestream tubular membrane bioreactor
configurations, Desalination, 173, 113–122 (2005)
25. Chang S. and Fane A. G., Filtration of biomass with
laboratory-scale submerged hollow fibre modules—effect of
operating conditions and module configuration, J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol., 77, 1030–1038 (2002)
26. Cui Z. F., Chang S. and Fane A. G., The use of gas bubbling
to enhance membrane processes, J. Membr. Sci., 221, 1–35
(2003)
27. Gunder B. and Krauth K., Replacement of secondary
clarification by membrane separation—results with plate and
hollow fibre modules, Water Sci. Technol., 38, 383–393 (1998)
28. Yu H. Y., Hu M. X., Xu Z. K., Wang J. L. and Wang S. Y.,
Surface modification of polypropylene micro porous membranes
to improve their antifouling property in MBR NH3 plasma
treatment, Sep. Purif. Technol., 45, 8–15 (2005)
29. Scott J. A., Neilson D. J., Liu W. and Boon P. N., A dual
function membrane bioreactor system for enhanced aerobic
remediation of high-strength industrial waste, Water Sci.
Technol., 38(4-5), 413–420 (1998)
30. Fan X. J., Urbain V., Qian Y. and Manem J., Nitrification and
mass balance with a membrane bioreactor for municipal
wastewater treatment, Water Sci. Technol., 34(1-2), 129–136
(1996)
31. Xu N., Xing W. H., Xu N. P. and Shi J., Study on ceramic
membrane bioreactor with turbulence promoter, Sep. Purif.
Technol., 32, 403–410 (2003)
32. Judd S. J., Robinson T., Holdner J., Alvarez-Vazquez H. and
Jefferson B., Impact of membrane material on membrane
bioreactor permeability, in Proceedings of the Water
Environment-Membrane Technology Conference, Seoul, Korea
(2004)
33. Zhang S. T., Qu Y. B., Liu Y. H., Yang F. L., Zhang X. W.,
Furukawa K. and Yamada Y., Experimental study of domestic
sewage treatment with a metal membrane bioreactor,
Desalination, 177, 83–93 (2005)
34. Yamato N., Kimura K., Miyoshi T. and Watanabe Y.,
Difference in membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors
(MBRs) caused by membrane polymer materials, J. Membr. Sci.,
280, 911–919 (2006)
35. Schrader G. A., Zwijnenburg A. and Wessling M., The effect
of WWTP effluent zeta-potential on direct nanofiltration
performance, J. Membr. Sci., 266(1-2), 80–93 (2005)
36. Jefferson B., Brookes A., Le-Clech P. and Judd S. J., Methods
for understanding organic fouling in MBRs, Water Sci. Technol.,
49, 237–244 (2004)
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
37. Tam L. S., Tang T. W., Leung W. Y., Chen G. H. and Sharma
K. R., A pilot study on performance of a membrane bio-reactor in
treating fresh water sewage and saline sewage in Hong Kong,
Sep. Sci. Technol., 41(7), 1253–1264 (2006)
38. Chang I. S. and Kim S. N., Wastewater treatment using
membrane filtration—effect of biosolids concentration on cake
resistance, Process Biochem., 40, 1307–1314 (2005)
39. Brookes A., Jefferson B., Guglielmi G. and Judd S. J.,
Sustainable flux fouling in a membrane bioreactor impact of flux
and MLSS, Sep. Sci. Technol., 41, 1279–1291 (2006)
40. Lesjean B., Rosenberger S., Laabs C., Jekel M., Gnirss R. and
Amy G., Correlation between membrane fouling and
soluble/colloidal organic substances in membrane bioreactors for
municipal wastewater treatment, Water Sci. Technol., 51, 1–8
(2005)
41. Lubbecke S., Vogelpohl A. and Dewjanin W., Wastewater
treatment in a biological high-performance system with high
biomass concentration, Water Res., 29, 793–802 (1995)
42. Rosenberger S., Evenblij H., Te-Poele S., Wintgens T. and
Laabs C., The importance of liquid phase analyses to understand
fouling in membrane assisted activated sludge processes-six case
studies of different European research groups, J. Membr. Sci.,
263, 113–126 (2005)
43. Cho J., Song K. G. and Ahn K. H., The activated sludge and
microbial substances influences on membrane fouling in
submerged membrane bioreactor unstirred batch cell test,
Desalination, 183, 425–429 (2005)
44. Brookes A., Jefferson B., Le-Clech P. and Judd S., Fouling of
membrane bioreactors during treatment of produced water, in
Proceedings of the IMSTEC, Sydney, Australia (2003)
45. Germain E. and Stephenson T., Biomass characteristics,
aeration and oxygen transfer in membrane bioreactors their
interrelations explained by a review of aerobic biological
processes, Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol., 4, 223–233 (2005)
46. Jiang T., Kennedy M. D., Guinzbourg B. F., Vanrolleghem P.
A. and Schippers J. C., Optimising the operation of a MBR pilot
plant by quantitative analysis of the membrane fouling
mechanism, Water Sci. Technol., 51, 19–25 (2005)
47. Cabassud C., Mass´e A., Espinosa-Bouchot M. and
Sp´erandio M., Submerged membrane bioreactors interactions
between membrane filtration and biological activity, in
Proceedings of the Water Environment-Membrane Technology
Conference, Seoul, Korea (2004)
48. Meng F., Zhang H., Yang F., Li Y., Xiao J. and Zhang X.,
Effect of filamentous bacteria on membrane fouling in submerged
membrane bioreactor, J. Membr. Sci., 272, 161–168 (2006)
49. Flemming H. C. and Wingender J., Relevance of microbial
extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs), Part I, Structural and
ecological aspects, Water Sci. Technol., 43, 1–8 (2001)
92
Res.J.Chem.Environ
50. Nielson P. H. and Jahn A., Extraction of EPS, In Wingender
J., Neu T. R., Flemming H. C. E., Eds., Microbial Extracellular
Polymeric Substances, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1999)
51. Rosenberger S. and Kraume M., Filterability of activated
sludge in membrane bioreactors, Desalination, 146, 373–379
(2002)
52. Frolund B., Palmgren R., Keiding K. and Nielsen P. H.,
Extraction of extracellular polymers from activated sludge using a
cation exchange resin, Water Res., 30(8), 1749–1758 (1996)
53. Morgan J. W., Forster C. F. and Evison L., A comparative
study of the nature of biopolymers extracted from anaerobic and
activated sludges, Water Res., 24, 743–750 (1990)
54. Zhang X. Q., Bishop P. L. and Kinkle B. K., Comparison of
extraction methods for quantifying extracellular polymers in
biofilms, Water Sci. Technol., 39(7), 211–218 (1999)
55. Yin X., Han P. F., Lu X. P. and Wang Y. R., A review on the
dewater ability of bio-sludge and ultrasound pretreatment,
Ultrason. Sonochem., 11, 337–348 (2004)
56. Li Y. Z., He Y. L., Liu Y. H., Yang S. C. and Zhang G. J.,
Comparison of the filtration characteristics between biological
powdered activated carbon sludge and activated sludge in
submerged membrane bioreactors, Desalination, 174, 305–314
(2005)
57. Evenblij H. and van der Graaf J., Occurrence of EPS in
activated sludge from a membrane bioreactor treating municipal
wastewater, Water Sci. Technol., 50, 293–300 (2004)
58. Shin H. S. and Kang S. T., Characteristics and fates of soluble
microbial products in ceramic membrane bioreactor at various
sludge retention times, Water Res., 37, 121–127 (2003)
59. Schoeberl P., Brik M., Bertoni M., Braun R. and Fuchs W.,
Optimization of operational parameters for a submerged
membrane bioreactor treating dye house wastewater, Sep. Purif.
Technol., 44, 61– 68 (2005)
60. Smith P. J., Vigneswaran S., Ngo H. H., Ben-Aim R. and
Nguyen H., Design of a generic control system for optimizing
back flush durations in a submerged membrane hybrid reactor, J.
Membr. Sci., 255, 99–106 (2005)
61. Sun Y., Huang X., Chen F. and Wen X., A dual functional
filtration/aeration membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater
treatment, in Proceedings of the Water Environment-Membrane
Technology Conference, Seoul, Korea (2004)
62. Chua H. C., Arnot T. C. and Howell J. A., Controlling fouling
in membrane bioreactors operated with a variable throughput,
Desalination, 149, 225–229 (2002)
63. Lim B. R., Ahn K. H, Song K. G. and Jin-Woo C., Microbial
community in biofilm on membrane surface of submerged MBR
effect of in-line cleaning chemical agent, in Proceedings of the
Water Environment-Membrane Technology Conference, Seoul,
Korea (2004)
Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment________________________________________Vol.18(6) June (2014)
Res.J.Chem.Environ
64. Liao B. Q., Bagley D. M., Kraemer H. E., Leppard G. G. and 68. Yeom I. T., Nah Y. M. and Ahn K. H., Treatment of
Liss S. N., A review of biofouling and its control in membrane household wastewater using an intermittently aerated membrane
separation bioreactors, Water Environ. Res., 76, 425–436 (2004) bioreactor, Desalination, 124, 193–203 (1999)
65. Bae T.H., Kim I. C. and Tak T. M., Preparation and
characterization of fouling-resistant TiO2 self-assembled 69. Ghosh R., Enhancement of membrane permeability by gas-
nanocomposite membranes, J. Membr. Sci., 275, 1–5 (2006) sparging in submerged hollow fibre ultrafiltration of
macromolecular solutions role of module design, J. Membr. Sci.,
66. Zhang Y., Bu D., Liu C. G., Luo X. and Gu P., Study on 274, 73–82 (2006).
retarding membrane fouling by ferric salts dosing in membrane
bioreactors, in Proceedings of the Water Environment-Membrane (Received 15th November 2013, accepted 26th March 2014)
Technology Conference, Seoul, Korea (2004)
*****
67. Rabie H. R., Cote P., Singh M. and Janson A., Cyclic aeration
system for submerged membrane modules, United States Patent,
684, 406 (2003)

93