Department of Civil Engineering

Environmental Engineering and

Management

WASTE WATER
ENGINEERING (CVL723)
USE OF MEMBRANE BIO-REACTORS FOR REMOVAL OF
NITROGEN FROM WASTEWATER

SUBMITTED BY :
ANUPAM SAINI (2021CEV2277)
KIRTI MAURYA (2021CEV2307)

SUBMITTED TO: PROF. ARUN KUMAR

Table of Contents
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Different system configurations of MBR for removal of Nitrogen
3. Comparison of different studies conducted for Nitrogen removal from
wastewater using MBR
4. Effect of operationalizing variables on the performance
5. Opportunities and challenges in using Membrane bioreactor for nitrogen
removal from wastewater
6. References
Abstract
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems are widely used for traditional, municipal, and industrial
wastewater treatment [e.g., decreasing Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)]. MBR nitrogen
removal techniques are still being researched and developed. The review offered here gives an
overview of the MBR nitrogen removal process using traditional nitrogen removal techniques
(i.e., nitrification/denitrification) as well as additional nitrogen removal methods, such as
anaerobic ammonium oxidation. For the use of MBR for nitrogen removal, many system
designs have been investigated, including immersed or side stream membranes, one or multiple
chamber processes, and the use of fixed and moveable bed biofilms. Functional factors such as
feed composition (particularly carbon nitrogen ratio), membrane properties, hydraulic retention
time, and solid retention time all play a role in nitrogen removal and contamination. Modeling
approaches for forecasting nitrogen removal using MBRs are more flexible than those for
traditional sludge and are better suited to capture substantial process changes in MBRs.
Although there are still some obstacles (e.g., membrane damage, cost, and energy consumption
for microbial methods, and the development of a better understanding of process processes in
various ways) that could lead to MBR being used more widely in the future for nitrogen removal
from municipal wastewater.

1. Introduction
The release of nitrogen from water has a variety of negative consequences, ranging from groundwater
contamination to eutrophication and destructive algal blooms in surface water (Camacho et al. 2015).
Because of the negative health consequences of nitrogen, the USEPA mandated nitrogen limits in
drinking water of 10 mg-N/L nitrate and 1 mg-N/L nitrite. Coastal eutrophication, which is marked by
excessive plant and algae growth, depletes oxygen and consumes aquatic life. Saxitoxins, brevetoxins,
and domoic acid are among the poisonous substances released by HABs, which may cause health
problems in people and animals (Davis et al. 2009).
Point sources (home wastewater and industrial effluents), indirect sources (agricultural extraction, storm
water runoff, and site wastewater treatment systems), and atmospheric nitrogen oxide deposition are all
major nitrogen sources in water systems (Vitousek et al. 1997).
Local land use patterns, better wastewater treatment, the application of best agricultural management
practises (BMPs), and other variables all influence nitrogen supply to direct and indirect sources.
Agricultural runoff accounts for 40% of loaded nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay, according to the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Domestic wastewater produces 55 percent of the nitrogen load in Great
South Bay, Long Island, while fertiliser usage is limited to roughly 15 percent (Kinney and Valiela
2011).
Restrictions on fertiliser discharge have been imposed in response to concerns about nitrogen and other
nutrients in water bodies (Jarvie and Solomon 1998). The National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requires more wastewater treatment facilities in the United States to minimise
nutrients (NPDES). Specific water sources are given numerical limitations as part of this procedure. In
2016, just 3% of the 16,860 wastewater treatment plants licenced in the United States had nitrogen
limitations, while 10% of facilities had numerical phosphate limits (USEPA 2016). A further 4% of
universities have imposed nitrogen and phosphorus restrictions. In order to comply with these
constraints, a concentrated effort has been made to design and deploy biological nutrient removal (BNR)
purification methods, such as the Bardenpho process (and its variants), anoxic/oxic batch reactor
sequences, and the modified Ludzack-Ettinger process.
Typical BNR nitrogen removal procedures include two important steps:
(1) The nitrification process, which is mainly caused by autotrophic nitrifying bacteria, in which the
reduced ammonia and nitrogen are converted into nitrates [Eq. 1].
(2) a denitrification step in which nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas (N2) by defining bacteria by the
addition of an external electron supplier or by the residual demand of biological oxygen (BOD) as an
electron supplier [Eq. 2].
NH4+ + 2O2 → NO3- + H2O + 2H+ [Equation 1]
5C6H12O6 + 24NO3- + 24H+ → 12N2 + 42H2O + 30CO2 [Equation 2]

Despite the fact that BNR methods have reduced nitrogen loading to surface and groundwater, they are
at least 25% more expensive than traditional secondary treatment (Wilson et al. 1981), and they may use
more energy and have a bigger plant footprint. The cost of upgrading existing treatment plants for BNR,
according to the USEPA (2007), varies from $588,000=mgd for facilities bigger than 0.44 m3 /s (10
mgd) to close to $7,000,000=mgd for facilities handling less than 0.44 m3 /s (1.0 mgd).
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) is an exciting new method for removing nitrogen from wastewater.
MBRs typically consist of (1) a bioreactor zone containing microorganisms with functional genes that
encode enzymes responsible for the biological transformation of nitrogen into harmless byproducts, and
(2) a membrane filtration process that separates the microorganisms and sludge from treated effluent,
either as a separate compartment or immersed in the bioreactor. MBRs, for example, may be utilised to
implement the previously outlined nitrification/denitrification processes. In the bioreactor's nitrification
zone, a sequence of autotrophic bacteria convert ammonia to nitrite under aerobic circumstances, and
subsequently nitrite is oxidised into nitrates by a distinct population of microorganisms (Sliekers et al.
2002; Yun and Kim 2003). Under anoxic circumstances, the bacterial population in the bioreactor's
denitrification zone turns the nitrates mostly into inert nitrogen gas (Sliekers et al. 2002). MBR systems
are increasingly being used as a platform for the integration of innovative microbial nitrogen removal
routes and processes, such as anaerobic ammonium oxidation and simultaneous nitrification and
denitrification .
MBRs may provide a variety of benefits over more traditional methods. Membrane filtration combined
with microbial processes removes the need for sedimentation after the bioreactor, decreases total system
footprint (MBRs have a footprint of only 30%–50% of traditional technology) (AMTA 2013), and
enhances effluent quality. For these reasons, MBR technology is gaining popularity for secondary
wastewater treatment aimed at lowering BOD (Andersson et al. 2016; Judd 2008; Kraemer et al. 2012;
Krzeminski et al. 2017). In 2019, at least 34 new MBR facilities handling more than 100,000 m3/day of
wastewater are expected to be operational, bringing the worldwide MBR capacity to more than 5 million
m3/day (Krzeminski et al. 2017). However, compared to secondary treatment, full-scale adoption of
MBR technology for nitrogen removal is less prevalent. Although full-scale MBR for nitrogen removal
is still a work in progress, much promising research has concentrated on combining membrane
technology with BNR processes, with numerous novel configurations and methods developing. Despite
its potential, the MBR technique faces a number of obstacles before it can be widely used for secondary
wastewater treatment and nitrogen removal. High capital and operating expenses, process complexity,
and membrane fouling (e.g., cake layer development and pore clogging) are some of the problems
(Kraemer et al. 2012).
There has been no assessment of MBR technology for removing nitrogen from wastewater to date. A
description of several MBR process configurations for nitrogen removal utilising conventional
nitrification and denitrification processes is offered here, followed by an in-depth consideration of
several innovative MBR configurations in which nitrogen removal happens through an alternate
nitrogen-removal route. The next sections focus on the impact of operational factors on overall MBR
performance. In addition, modelling methodologies for estimating nitrogen removal that are presently
accessible are explored. Finally, we look at some of the future problems and potential associated with the
use of MBR for nitrogen removal in a wider sense.

2. Different system configurations of MBR for removal of

Nitrogen
1) Side Stream MBR vs. Immersed MBR
According to the authors' experience, the side-stream membrane bioreactor (sMBR) and the
immersed membrane bioreactor (iMBR) are the two main designs of MBRs utilised in
municipal wastewater treatment. The membrane module of a sMBR is separate from the
bioreactor, and the transmembrane pressure (TMP) and flow arrangement result in a high cross-
flow velocity across the membranes. The cross-flow velocity is also the primary mechanism for
preventing foulant deposition on the membrane and reducing cake layer development (Judd and
Judd 2011). sMBR has been used to treat both drinking water and groundwater (Yang et al.
2006). Pharmaceutical wastewater, landfill leachate, paper-mill effluent, and dairy wastewater
have all been treated by SMBR (Andersson et al. 2016; Buer and Cumin 2010; Falahti-Marvast
and Karimi-Jashni 2015; Falahti-Marvast and Karimi-Jashni 2015). In an iMBR, on the other
hand, the membrane module is submerged in the bioreactor, and the treated water is removed by
a small vacuum. Aeration is often employed to scour the surface of the membrane in the iMBR
to decrease cake layer development rather than depending on cross-flow velocity.
MBRs may also be classified by membrane type or form, such as flat sheet (FS), hollow fibre
(HF), and multitubular (MT) (MT). A single or more membrane sheets are affixed to plates or
panels in an FS MBR, for example. The treated water (permeate) travels via the channel
supplied by the plates/panels after passing through two neighbouring membrane assemblies. A
HF MBR is a pressure vessel that contains a bundle of hollow fibres (hundreds to thousands).
Water is sprayed on the fiber's outside (outside-in flow). Finally, membranes are inserted into a
support made up of porous tubes in an MT MBR. Water flows from the tube's inside to its
outside (Judd & Judd 2011).
iMBRs have been more frequently accepted for household wastewater, whereas sMBRs have
been employed more for low-solid and high-strength wastewater flows, according to an
assessment of membrane module design and operation during the previous decade (Buer and
Cumin 2010; Gander et al. 2000). Although sMBRs are more expensive to build, the lower flow
of submerged systems necessitates a larger membrane area (Gander et al. 2000). To date,
immersed membrane modules have been used in the majority of MBR nitrogen removal
investigations, either in the main bioreactor (Krzeminski et al. 2017) or in a later external tank to
treat the effluent from the main bioreactor (Falahti-Marvast and Karimi-Jashni 2015).

Figure 1 - Side stream MBR

 Figure 2 - Immersed MBR

2) Two Chamber MBR

The sequencing anoxic/oxic MBR system is the most often employed nitrogen removal MBR.
The system can be set up in one of two ways:
(a) a two-chamber configuration with a clarification tank prior to the MBR with or without air
supply and internal recycle
(b) a single-chamber configuration with the clarification step integrated into a single tank but
separated from the aeration zone by baffles.
Baffles may help remove nitrogen from residential wastewater by creating alternate
aerobic/anoxic conditions in distinct zones. In contrast to the intermittently aerated MBR, a
continuous MBR system with a distinct anoxic zone for denitrification and a zone for aeration
allows continuous filtering (Chae and Shin 2007; Song et al. 2010). Due to the ease of adding
baffles to the current bioreactor layout rather than establishing a separate clarifying tank prior to
the MBR, the latter is a popular technique in improved nitrogen-removal MBR systems in
municipal wastewater treatment facilities (Judd and Judd 2011; Kim et al. 2010). The procedure
usually necessitates the recycling of water and sludge from the aerobic to anoxic zones. A high
nitrogen-removal efficiency (>90%) may be reached by adjusting the pace of sludge recycling
(Abegglen et al. 2008; Bracklow et al. 2010; Falahti-Marvast and Karimi-Jashni 2015; Kim et
al. 2010; Perera et al. 2017; Song et al. 2010; Tan and Ng 2008).
Using a two-chamber MBR arrangement, a number of research studies show the influence of
different operational variables on nitrogen removal. In a two-chamber MBR, typical influent
chemical oxygen demand (COD): nitrogen ratios (g-COD/g-N, i.e., C:N ratios) for successful
nitrogen removal have been reported to be in the range 51–101 (Abegglen et al. 2008; Bracklow
et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2010; Falahti-Marvast and Karimi-Jashni 2015).
To ensure effective nitrogen elimination, a C:N ratio of 3.5:1–4.5:1 is necessary. When the
influent C:N ratio exceeded 10:1, a greater nitrogen removal rate (>90%) was reported
(Abegglen et al. 2008; Bracklow et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2010).
To enable effective nitrogen removal utilising MBRs, external carbon addition may be used to
alter the C:N ratio (Perera et al. 2017). Bracklow et al. (2010) discovered that switching the
COD of the influent substrate to an MBR from residential wastewater to mono substrate (i.e.,
acetate) had no effect on nitrogen removal. According to Wu et al. (2013), COD elimination and
nitrification are unaffected by hydraulic retention time (HRT), recycling ratio, or dissolved
oxygen (Wu et al. 2013). Insufficient nitrification causes a reduction in total nitrogen removal,
according to Song et al. (2010), when the HRT falls below a particular threshold (6.5 days).
 Figure 3 - Two chamber MBR

3) MBR system for simultaneous biological nitrogen removal

A simultaneous biological nitrogen-removal (SBNR) MBR is made up of a single bioreactor
with just one chamber, where the effluent is removed via a membrane module after periodic
aeration. In contrast to a two-chamber MBR, where the separation of the biological zones results
in an increase in total reactor capacity, an SBNR-MBR does not have defined anoxic zones,
hence the reactor architecture is simpler (Sarioglu et al. 2008; Daigger and Littleton 2014).
Diffusion resistance generates oxygen-sufficient and oxygen-deficient zones in the activated
sludge flocs generated in the reactor, whilst hydraulic mixing and aeration enable cycling of the
mixed liquor inside the bioreactor (Judd and Judd 2011). SND is enabled by the diffusion of
substrates and the oxygen gradient between these zones (Daigger and Littleton 2014). In
addition to its small footprint, the SBNR-MBR has several other advantages, including a long
solids retention time (SRT) to maintain nitrification bacteria growth, the ability to operate the
system at various dissolved oxygen (DO) levels to facilitate SND, and simple system design and
operation (Ahmed et al. 2008; Daigger and Littleton 2014; Hocaoglu et al. 2013; Hocaoglu et al.
2011)
However, nitrogen removal efficiency by SBNR-MBR varies widely in the literature, ranging
from 30% to 89 percent depending on operating conditions like external carbon sources used,
sludge retention time, and dissolved oxygen levels (Ahmed et al. 2008; Hocaoglu et al. 2011;
Insel et al. 2014; Sarioglu et al. 2009).
Over the past decade, research has shown the role of DO in influencing nitrogen-removal
performance in SBNR-MBRs (Hocaoglu et al. 2013, 2011b; Sarioglu et al. 2009).
According to Sarioglu et al. (2009), a DO concentration of 1.8 mg/L might prevent oxygen
penetration into the flocs and maintain SND, resulting in a 40% nitrogen removal. Furthermore,
when the DO content was kept at a little lower value of roughly 1.5 mg/L, their modelling
indicated 85–95 percent nitrogen removal (Sarioglu et al. 2009). Hocaoglu et al. (2011b)
discovered that DO levels had a greater impact on the denitrification stage, with an ideal DO
concentration of 0.15– 0.35 mg/L for nitrogen removal. When the DO level is held at 0.2–0.3
mg/L, further modelling work predicts that the SND process may contribute to an extra
elimination of 15–20 mg-N/L. (Insel et al. 2014).
Low DO levels, on the other hand, may have an impact on SBNR-MBR process function. When
the DO level is below 0.3 mg/L, for example, it might cause filamentous bacteria to proliferate
as a side effect, which can cause sludge thickening and affect the settling qualities of the sludge
(Insel et al. 2014). Within an SBNR-MBR process, partial nitrification with denitrification may
also occur at low DO levels. During SBNR-MBR treatment, researchers discovered that
 ammonium can be oxidised to nitrite and the resultant nitrite can be converted to nitrogen gas by
heterotrophic denitrification bacteria (Giraldo et al. 2011; Sarioglu et al. 2009). Low DO levels,
excessive ammonium concentrations, or inhibition from soluble microbial products all
contributed to incomplete nitrification in these investigations (SMPs).
Another important component affecting nitrogen removal efficacy in an SBNR-MBR is SRT.
The SRT was discovered to have a direct impact on sludge age, granule/floc size and
composition, and hence on nitrification and denitrification kinetics (Hocaoglu et al. 2011a). For
nitrogen removal, the SBNR-MBR method may be combined with a moving-bed biofilm
(MBB) or a membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) (Hibiya et al. 2003; Hu et al. 2008). The
next sections go over how these two kinds of MBRs are used to remove nitrogen.

Figure 4 - simultaneous biological nitrogen-removal membrane bioreactor

4) Moving bed biofilm MBR

The moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) is a wastewater treatment technique that uses biofilm
carriers to promote both suspended and attached growing biomass in mixed motion. These
biofilm carriers, which are necessary for nitrogen removal, give increased surface area, which
allows for the selective growth of slow-growing bacteria that are required for nitrification and
denitrification (Lee et al. 2006). The high population density of bacteria inside the system not
only supports high biodegradation rates, but it also improves treatment dependability and
simplicity of operation (Dupla et al. 2006; Tang et al. 2016; Zhu et al. 2015). Municipal and
decentralised wastewater treatment methods have used commercialised plastic carriers (e.g.,
polyethylene) (Deguchi and Kashiwaya 1994; Rusten et al. 1997). Novel forms of carriers, such
as biodegradable polymer (PCL) carriers that also act as a source of carbon for denitrification
(Chu and Wang 2011; Pellegrin et al. 2011), have also been used. Carriers that also act as a
carbon source for denitrification make process management easier and reduce the danger of
under or overdose.
The moving-bed biofilm membrane bioreactor (MBB-MBR) is a simple MBBR with a
membrane module (Ivanovic and Leiknes 2012). The MBB-MBR method maintains a high
biomass content inside the reactor, resulting in improved nitrogen removal efficiency and less
membrane fouling at lower HRTs (Luo et al. 2015; Zhu et al. 2015). Other benefits of MBB-
MBR for nitrogen removal include no need to recycle the activated sludge stream (Artiga et al.
2005), flexibility for increased loading (Rusten et al. 1997), less time for establishing enriched
microbial populations (Ivanovic and Leiknes 2012), and protection of the microbial community
from disruption in high substrate loading situations (Zekker et al. 2012). In the MBB-MBR, the
presence of oxic and anoxic zones inside the biofilm may also induce SND (Yang et al. 2009b).
 The two-chamber system (Duan et al. 2015; Leyva-Diaz et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2009b; 2010) is
the most widely described architecture for nitrogen removal utilising MBB-MBR. It consists of
a moving bed biotreatment unit and an immersed MBR unit separated by a baffle wall. MBB-
MBR has been shown to be effective in removing nitrogen from high-strength wastewater
(Zekker et al. 2012). MBB-MBRs have been shown to have improved nitrogen removal (61–
82%), which has been ascribed mostly to the action of SND (Leyva-Diaz et al. 2015, 2016; Luo
et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2009b). The carrier biofilms had a higher abundance of nitrifying
bacteria in the microbial community (Leyva-Diaz et al. 2015). Biofilm stability on the carrier
surface was discovered to be influenced by adhesion properties such as carrier surface
roughness and protein and polysaccharide content (Tang et al. 2016). Microbial investigation
revealed that the biofilm had a considerably different microbial composition than the suspended
growing population (Leyva-Diaz et al. 2015; Tang et al. 2016; Zekker et al. 2012). In
comparison to suspended growth biomass, Leyva-Diaz et al. (2015) discovered increased
abundances of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB), nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB), and
denitrifying bacteria in carrier biofilms (Leyva-Diaz et al. 2015). Another research, on the other
hand, discovered no significant difference in the quantity of functional species in biofilm and
suspended growth biomass (Reboleiro-Rivas et al. 2015).
Membrane fouling studies in MBB-MBRs have shown mixed results. In tests with low levels of
SMPs discharged, MBB-MBRs had slower membrane fouling than conventional MBRs (Lee et
al. 2006; Leiknes et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2010; Luo et al. 2015). However, owing to the creation of
a thick cake layer on the membrane surface and the presence of more filamentous bacteria in the
suspended solids, other investigations revealed more severe membrane fouling in MBB-MBRs
(Lee et al. 2001; Yang et al. 2009a, b).

Figure 5 - Moving bed biofilm membrane bioreactor

5) Membrane-aerated biofilm reactor

Another form of biofilm-based bioreactor is the membrane-aerated biofilm reactor, which
comprises both a biofilm and a membrane in a single bioreactor. In MABR, a hydrophobic
permeable membrane is utilised to promote biofilm development and provide a gaseous electron
donor (e.g., hydrogen or methane) or an electron acceptor (e.g., oxygen) directly to the biofilm,
rather than employing the membrane as a solid–liquid separation unit for the effluent. The
substrate use efficiency may be considerably improved with this setup (Nerenberg 2016). Air or
oxygen is given to the reactor via the pores of the membrane straight to the biofilm without the
creation of bubbles in a nitrogen-removing MABR, giving up to 100% gas transfer (Brindle and
Stephenson 1996; Casey et al. 1999; Mo et al. 2005). MABRs have used a variety of membrane
module designs, including shell, tube, hollow fibre, and plate and frame (Brindle and
Stephenson 1996; Casey et al. 1999; Downing and Nerenberg 2008). Furthermore, chemically
 altering the membrane surface may dramatically enhance gas flow, surface roughness, and TN
removal rate (Hou et al. 2013). MABRs differ from typical MBRs in that the membrane does not
serve as a filtering unit and does not operate to keep the biomass in the reactor (Judd and Judd
2011).
The considerable increase in nitrification rate owing to interfacial oxygen mass transfer to the
microorganisms is one benefit of utilising an MABR for nitrogen removal (Brindle and
Stephenson 1996; Brindle et al. 1998). Nitrifying bacteria are easier to keep in the biofilm
because they develop considerably slower than BOD degraders. Due to the unique biofilm
stratification and high oxygen supply efficiency, increased nitrification and denitrification
activity may be obtained compared to traditional biofilm reactors since oxygen and nutrients are
delivered from two opposed sides of the biofilm (Sun et al. 2010). COD loading rates and
intramembrane air pressures had no influence on ammonium oxidation rates during MABR
beginning, but the establishment of anoxic zones in the biofilm led to the observed rise in the
denitrification rate (Satoh et al. 2004; Syron and Casey 2008). Downing and Nerenberg (2008)
found that AOB were mostly found within the biofilm layer, whereas denitrifying bacteria were
found outside the biofilm layer and in the suspended sludge (Gong et al. 2008; Hibiya et al.
2003; Hu et al. 2008; Satoh et al. 2004; Syron and Casey 2008). It's crucial to keep the biofilm
layer thickness under control to provide high oxygen transfer rates in the inner layer for
successful nitrification and low oxygen transfer rates in the outer layer for heterotrophic
denitrification (Casey et al. 1999). Sloughing or operational characteristics such as fluid
velocity may be used to alter the thickness of the biofilm layer (Casey et al. 1999, 2000).
MABRs also have the benefit of being able to remove nitrogen efficiently at low COD: total
nitrogen (TN) ratios. Downing and Nerenberg (2008), Hibiya et al. 2003, Hu et al. 2008, Terada
et al. 2003, Downing and Nerenberg 2008, Hibiya et al. 2003, Hu et al. 2008, Terada et al. 2003,
Downing and Nerenberg 2008, Downing and Nerenberg 2008, Downing and Nerenberg 2008,
Downing and Nerenberg 2008, Downing and Nerenberg 2008, Down The hydraulic retention
time in an MABR is also crucial for nitrogen removal. When HRT was lowered, Hu et al. (2008)
discovered that nitrogen removal efficiency fell considerably. The high organic loading rate and
excessive biomass development on the membrane contributed to this outcome.

3. Comparison of different studies conducted for Nitrogen

removal from wastewater using MBR
Wastewater Type of Membran Membrane Scale Pore Size of Influent Nitrogen HRT SRT Reference
Type MBR e Module Material Membrane TN (mg removal
N/L) efficiency

Real Two Flat sheet N/A 1500 0.04 μm 100 90% 3d 30-50 Abegglen et al.
wastewater chamber L/chamber days (2008)

Real Three Flat sheet PVDF 580 0.2 μm 214 33.5% 7.2 d N/A Pikorova et al.
wastewater tanks in L/Chamber (2009)
series

Real Two Hollow PVDF 10.1 m3 N/A 81 N/A 1d 35 – Verrecht et al.

wastewater chamber fiber (anoxic 50 (2010)
chamber) days
and
12.8 m3
(oxic
chamber)
Real Two Flat sheet N/A N/A 0.2 μm 105 N/A 1-2 h 200 Chong et al. (2013)
wastewater chamber days

Real Two N/A N/A 4.15 m3 0.04 – 0.06 60 90% 2-3 d 12 – Wu and Englehardt
wastewater chamber μm 24 (2016)
month
s

Real Two Filter bag Nonwoven 15 L 100 μm 43 33.6% - 8-12 h N/A Ren et al. (2010)
wastewater chamber fabric 37.8%

Mixture of Single Microfiltra PEC 600 L 0.4 μm Grey 92% for 18h 50 Atasoy et al.
Grey and black chamber tion plate water greywater (greywa days (2007)
water and frame (9) ter)
Black 89% for 36 h
water blackwater (blackw
(188) ater)
Synthetic grey MBB Hollow HDPE 200 L 0.4 μm 6.5 79% 24 h N/A Jabornig and
water MBR fiber Favero (2013)

Grey water Single Flat sheet N/A 1000 L 0.04 μm 33 19%-45% N/A N/A Fountoulakis et al.
chamber (2016)

4. Effect of operationalizing variables on the performance

a) Feed composition
 When it comes to managing nitrogen removal using MBRs, the feed composition is crucial. The
carbon-nitrogen ratio is critical for successful nitrogen removal in MBRs that use the traditional
nitrification and denitrification process.
(1) aerobic heterotrophs as an electron giver in the breakdown of BOD; and
(2) heterotrophic de-nitrifiers as an electron donor in the reduction of nitrate/nitrite to nitrogen gas.
According to stoichiometry, full nitrogen removal requires a carbon-nitrogen ratio of at least 51
(Rittmann and McCarty 2001). To promote full nitrogen elimination, an external supply of carbon
must be provided if the carbon-nitrogen ratio is too low (Chae and Shin 2007). Various carbon
sources, including as acetate, propionate, glucose, methanol, and biodegradable polymers, have been
examined in MBR experiments for nitrogen removal (Ahmed et al. 2008; Chu and Wang 2011).
The feed content may also influence the generation of N2O during the nitrification and denitrification
processes. Because N2O has a 310-fold greater greenhouse impact than carbon dioxide, it is a
significant concern during biological nitrogen removal. In general, ammonia oxidizing bacteria may
create N2O during nitrification or as a result of inadequate removal during heterotrophic
denitrification (Sabba et al. 2018). Tsushima et al. (2014) investigated N2O emissions from a variety
of full-scale wastewater treatment methods and found that facilities that use MBR for nitrogen
removal emit less N2O than typical activated sludge plants. Sabba et al. (2018) discovered that the
carbon-nitrogen ratio in the denitrification feed is a key operational variable, with low carbon-
nitrogen ratios promoting N2O production. However, the complexity of microbial nutrient removal
processes (i.e., many microorganisms, species, genes, and enzymes) makes quantitative analyses of
gaseous emissions and general generalisations about how different operating circumstances may
impact emissions difficult to come up with.

b) Characteristics of Membrane
MBR performance is heavily influenced by membrane properties and fouling. Drews et al. (2006),
Krzeminski et al. (2017), Meng et al. (2017), Pollice et al. (2005), Wang and Wu (2009), and others
have done considerable research and reviews on this issue. A few research have looked at the impact
of membrane properties on MBR nitrogen removal performance. In terms of nitrogen removal from
sludge reject water created during the sludge dewatering process, Ghyoot et al. (1999) compared the
effectiveness of a polymeric and a ceramic MBR. The polymeric PES membrane clogged quickly, but
the ceramic membrane maintained its high flux for a longer time. Backwashing of ceramic
membranes in an MBR system intended to remove nitrogen from wastewater was investigated by
Chung et al. (2014). They discovered that the MBR was capable of removing enough nitrogen, and
that the ceramic membranes' stiffness allowed them to maintain their structure and effectiveness
throughout frequent backwashing. Jiang et al. (2009) discovered that a ceramic membrane may also
accelerate the breakdown of N2O on the membrane surface, potentially lowering the amount of this
climate change gas released during MBR. Ceramic membranes have various benefits, such as
resilience to harsh operating conditions (temperature, acidity, and alkalinity) and a long life span, but
their expensive cost prevents their widespread use in wastewater treatment when cost is a key
restriction (Tewari et al. 2010).
Although MBRs show tremendous potential for removing nitrogen from wastewater efficiently,
membrane fouling remains a serious issue that prevents broad use (Meng et al. 2009). Membrane
fouling during MBR nitrogen removal has been the subject of a few investigations. Although the
nitrogen-removal efficiency of a mixed liquid MBR was greater than that of a fixed biofilm MBR,
fouling behaviour of the membranes operated in parallel under identical circumstances did not vary
significantly (Liang et al. 2010). Furthermore, a comparison of the fouling behaviour of a
conventional MBR system (CMBR) and a moving-bed membrane bioreactor (MBMBR) during
nitrogen removal revealed that the CMBR exhibited reduced fouling (Yang et al. 2009b). This was
due to a difference in the bacterial communities in the two reactors, with the MBMBR system having
a larger percentage of filamentous bacteria, which resulted in more fouling (Yang et al. 2009b).
 Nonetheless, the biofilm in the MBMBR was shown to have a better nitrogen-removal efficiency
(Yang et al. 2009a).

c) SRT and HRT

Because the SRT can change the properties of the mixed liquor, such as viscosity, biomass
concentration, microbial community composition, granule size, and cell surface properties, it is an
important factor affecting COD removal, nitrogen removal, and membrane fouling in nitrogen-
removing MBRs (Hocaoglu et al. 2011a). SRTs in two-chamber nitrogen-removing MBRs and
SBNRMBRs are generally 20–50 days to permit full nitrification and denitrification and minimise
sludge handling frequency (Abegglen et al. 2008; Bracklow et al. 2010; Insel et al. 2014; Kim et al.
2010; Tan and Ng 2008). However, if the SRT is too long (for example, 60 days), the granules
generated in the system may disintegrate, and cell degradation may reduce
nitrification/denitrification kinetics, resulting in less efficient nitrogen removal (Hocaoglu et al.
2011a). When the SRT is kept low (less than 10 days), nitrifying bacteria may be washed away owing
to their poor growth rate, and the nitrogen-removal efficiency is reduced due to incomplete
nitrification (Verrecht et al. 2010). Because biomass growth primarily occurs on carriers and no
biomass recycling from the membrane tank to the MBBR is required in MBB-MBRs, SRT has less of
an impact on nitrogen-removal performance and can be maintained at less than 10 days (Leyva-Diaz
et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2010). Mannina et al. (2017a, b, 2018, 2019) investigated the formation of N2O
in an MBR for nitrogen removal and discovered that
The quantity and nature of membrane fouling are also influenced by SRT. Membrane fouling in a
sequencing bioreactor at various SRTs (30–100 days) revealed that as the SRT increased, the critical
flow dropped (Van den Broeck et al. 2012). The increased membrane fouling rate associated with
increasing SRT was attributable to higher foulant concentrations and fluid viscosity. COD
elimination and nitrification rates are dramatically decreased at extremely low SRTs (10 days).

5. Opportunities and challenges in using Membrane bioreactor

for nitrogen removal from wastewater
Although tremendous progress has been achieved in the study and development of MBR technology
for nitrogen removal from wastewater, broad application and acceptance of this strategy still faces
substantial obstacles. For one thing, MBR system operational management may be difficult,
particularly if novel microbial pathways are incorporated, which may need a tighter range of
operating parameters to be effective (e.g., ANAMMOX or SND). SND, for example, is only efficient
within a small range of carbon:nitrogen ratio and dissolved oxygen content, as previously described.
Variations in input composition and flow rate, as well as other parameters linked to wastewater
streams, make operational management of MBRs difficult. Furthermore, owing to substantial
fluctuations in wastewater production and composition at these sizes, using MBR for small-scale or
decentralised wastewater treatment might be extremely problematic (e.g., weekend versus weekday,
vacations, and so forth).
Another barrier to wider implementation of MBR technology for nitrogen removal is its high cost.
MBR technology has become less costly in recent years, although it is still more expensive than
competing techniques (Krzeminski et al. 2017). Membrane installation and maintenance is still an
expensive part of MBRs. Membrane fouling raises pressure needs, resulting in increased energy
consumption and operational expenses. Air scouring is required to avoid or eliminate fouling, which
contributes to the energy usage. Even for bigger facilities, the specific energy consumption of MBRs
remains more than 1 kWh/m3, while more traditional processes such as activated sludge use less than
1 kWh/m3 (Lesjean et al. 2011). For smaller or decentralised MBRs serving fewer than 2,000 people,
energy consumption can exceed 3 kWh/m3 (Lesjean et al. 2011). MBRs are considerably more
expensive due to the necessity for chemical cleaning of membranes.
Membrane fouling in MBR systems is a particularly tough problem to comprehend and avoid.
Membrane fouling is especially challenging to forecast in MBR systems for nitrogen removal due to
the complexity of the microbial community structure, solubility product composition, and propensity
for biofilm development. Although substantial progress has been made in understanding fouling in
such systems (Meng et al. 2017; Wang and Wu 2009), further study is required to get a deeper
understanding and to allow the translation of these insights into process changes to reduce or
eliminate fouling Fortunately, work continues to be made in finding and developing new membrane
materials (e.g., nanocellulose and graphene oxides) with unique functionalities (e.g., biomimetic or
self-cleaning) and/or surface qualities (super-hydrophilic) that decrease fouling. For example,
nanocellulose is super-hydrophilic, which inhibits biomolecule fouling (Hadi et al. 2019). It may be
helpful to include nanomaterials (e.g., silver or TiO2) with specialised fouling-mitigation capabilities,
either catalytic or antibacterial. New membrane cleaning procedures (Meng et al. 2017) will also aid
in the advancement of MBR technology and the widespread implementation of this nitrogen removal
method. Mechanically assisted air scouring using granular media such as activated carbon and latex
beads is a developing method for membrane cleaning. Proteases and cellulases are being used in new
ways for enzymatic cleaning. The employment of polysaccharide-degrading bacteria in the bio-cake
layer or soluble microbial product may hold promise for lowering difficult-to-degrade biopolymers.
Novel electrically assisted fouling mitigation technologies are also being investigated, in which
techniques like electrocoagulation and electrophoresis are incorporated into the MBR system.
New and more robust techniques for monitoring gaseous emissions and exploring microbial
community function are being developed and deployed (Ju et al. 2017; Narayanasamy et al. 2015;
Vanwonterghem et al. 2014). Metagenomics offers new insights into the major microbial pathways
that occur during wastewater treatment, as well as how metabolic processes change across various
wastewater treatment systems. Metaproteomics and Metatranscriptomics have the ability to reveal
the actual microbial activities that occur during nitrogen removal, as well as how these processes are
connected to the structure of the microbial community. Despite detecting a small number of
nitrification-related genes, Yu and Zhang (2012) were able to deduce nitrification activity during
wastewater treatment by assessing gene expression using cDNA. When these techniques are
combined with real-time nitrogen dynamics (Huang et al. 2019), a deeper understanding of the
volume of such emissions and how they are connected to process operation will be possible. It's also
vital to note how wastewater discharges are evolving, particularly in terms of the prevalence of
medicines and personal care goods. As new chemicals, goods, and treatments are produced, the
incidence of these substances in wastewater is rapidly changing (Deng et al. 2012; Slater et al. 2011).
The effects of these chemicals on microbial activities during wastewater treatment are just now
becoming clear (Amin et al. 2006; Deng et al. 2012; Slater et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2016). In addition,
our knowledge of the capacity of wastewater treatment systems, particularly MBR systems, to
remove these chemicals from wastewater is developing (Deblonde et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2005;
Onesios et al. 2009; Radjenovi'c et al. 2009; Wang and Wang 2016). The MBR's versatility in terms
of process design and the inclusion of a range of microbial communities and other complimentary
routes implies that it can be improved to meet at least some of the previously mentioned issues. MBR
technology may give ways for nutrient recovery as well as a foundation for the development of
nitrogen-removal procedures (Huang et al. 2015; Johir et al. 2011; Sutton et al. 2011; Yan et al. 2018).
MBR combined with ion exchange was used by Johir et al. (2011) to show nutrient recovery. They
were able to recover phosphate and nitrate at rates of 85 percent and 95 percent, respectively. Using
an osmotic MBR, Huang et al. (2015) showed the recovery of struvite. MBRs provide potential for
the development of systems that can more efficiently use wastewater as a source of water, nutrients,
and energy as materials and resources become more limited in the future. A more comprehensive
examination of MBR, including methodologies like as life cycle assessment (LCA) and
technoeconomic analysis (TA), will aid in the development and deployment of MBR for nitrogen
 removal or recovery from wastewater in the future. Several LCAs and TAs for MBRs have been
conducted, with the conclusion that MBRs produce higher effluent quality than CAS but require more
energy (Bertanza et al. 2017; Krzeminski et al. 2017), but none have been conducted specifically for
nitrogen removal applications to date.

References

1) Abbassi, R., A. K. Yadav, S. Huang, and P. R. Jaffe. 2014. “Laboratory study of nitrification,
denitrification and anammox processes in membrane bioreactors considering periodic aeration.”
J. Environ. Manage. 142 (Sep): 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.013.
2) Abdel-Kader, A. M. 2013. “Assessment of an MBR system for segregated household wastewater
by using simulation mathematical model.” In Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Environmental Science
and Technology, edited by T. D. Lekkas. Athens, Greece: Global NEST.
3) Abegglen, C., M. Ospelt, and H. Siegrist. 2008. “Biological nutrient removal in a small-scale
MBR treating household wastewater.” Water Res. 42 (1–2): 338–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.07.020
4) Ahmed, Z., B.-R. Lim, J. Cho, K.-G. Song, K.-P. Kim, and K.-H. Ahn. 2008. “Biological
nitrogen and phosphorus removal and changes in microbial community structure in a membrane
 bioreactor: Effect of different carbon sources.” Water Res. 42 (1–2): 198–210. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.watres.2007.06.062.
5) Amin, M. M., J. L. Zilles, J. Greiner, S. Charbonneau, L. Raskin, and E. Morgenroth. 2006.
“Influence of the antibiotic erythromycin on anaerobic treatment of a pharmaceutical
wastewater.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (12): 3971–3977. https://doi.org/10.1021/es060428j.
6) AMTA (American Membrane Technology Association). 2013. Membrane bio-reactors (MBR).
Edited by AMTA. Stuart, FL: AMTA.
7) Andersson, S., P. Ek, M. Berg, J. Grundestam, and E. Lindblom. 2016. “Extension of two large
wastewater treatment plants in Stockholm using membrane technology.” Water Pract. Technol.
11 (4): 744–753. https:// doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2016.034.
8) Artiga, P., V. Oyanedel, J. M. Garrido, and R. Mendez. 2005. “An innovative biofilm-suspended
biomass hybrid membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment.” Desalination 179 (1–3): 171–
179. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.065.
9) Atasoy, E., S. Murat, A. Baban, and M. Tiris. 2007. “Membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment of
segregated household wastewater for reuse.” Clean-Soil Air Water 35 (5): 465–472.
https://doi.org/10.1002/clen .200720006
10) Babaei, A., M. R. Mehrnia, J. Shayegan, and M. H. Sarrafzadeh. 2016. “Comparison of different
trophic cultivations in microalgal membrane bioreactor containing N-riched wastewater for
simultaneous nutrient removal and biomass production.” Process Biochem. 51 (10): 1568–1575.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2016.06.011.
11) Bertanza, G., M. Canato, G. Laera, M. Vaccari, M. Svanström, and S. Heimersson. 2017. “A
comparison between two full-scale MBR and CAS municipal wastewater treatment plants:
techno-economicenvironmental assessment.” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (21): 17383–17393.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9409-3.
12) Bilad, M. R., H. A. Arafat, and I. F. J. Vankelecom. 2014. “Membrane technology in microalgae
cultivation and harvesting: A review.” Biotechnol. Adv. 32 (7): 1283–1300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv .2014.07.008.
13) Bracklow, U., A. Drews, R. Gnirss, S. Klamm, B. Lesjean, J. Stuber, M. Barjenbruch, and M.
Kraume. 2010. “Influence of sludge loadings and types of substrates on nutrients removal in
MBRs.” Desalination 250 (2): 734–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.032.
14) Brindle, K., and T. Stephenson. 1996. “Nitrification in a bubbleless oxygen mass transfer
membrane bioreactor.” Water Sci. Technol. 34 (9): 261–267.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1996.0227.
15) Brindle, K., T. Stephenson, and M. J. Semmens. 1998. “Nitrification and oxygen utilisation in a
membrane aeration bioreactor.” J. Membr. Sci. 144 (1–2): 197–209.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00047-7
16) Buer, T., and J. Cumin. 2010. “MBR module design and operation.” Desalination 250 (3): 1073–
1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.09.111
17) Camacho, R. A., J. L. Martin, B. Watson, M. J. Paul, L. Zheng, and J. B. Stribling. 2015.
“Modeling the factors controlling phytoplankton in the St. Louis Bay Estuary, Mississippi and
evaluating estuarine responses to nutrient load modifications.” J. Environ. Eng. 141 (3):
04014067. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000892.
18) Casey, E., B. Glennon, and G. Hamer. 1999. “Review of membrane aerated biofilm reactors.”
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 27 (1–2): 203–215. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(99)00007-5.
19) Casey, E., B. Glennon, and G. Hamer. 2000. “Biofilm development in a membrane-aerated
biofilm reactor: Effect of flow velocity on performance.” Biotechnol. Bioeng. 67 (4): 476–486.
https://doi.org/10.1002 /(SICI)1097-0290(20000220)67:43.0.CO;2-2.
20) Chae, S. R., and H. S. Shin. 2007. “Characteristics of simultaneous organic and nutrient removal
in a pilot-scale vertical submerged membrane bioreactor (VSMBR) treating municipal
wastewater at various temperatures.” Process Biochem. 42 (2): 193–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j .procbio. 2006.07.033
21) Mottet, A., I. Ramirez, H. Carrere, S. Deleris, F. Vedrenne, J. Jimenez, and J. P. Steyer. 2013.
“New fractionation for a better bioaccessibility description of particulate organic matter in a
modified ADM1 model.” Chem. Eng. J. 228 (Jul): 871–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013
.05.082.
22) Narayanasamy, S., E. E. L. Muller, A. R. Sheik, and P. Wilmes. 2015. “Integrated omics for the
identification of key functionalities in biological wastewater treatment microbial communities.”
Microb. Biotechnol. 8 (3): 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12255.
23) Perera, M. K., J. D. Englehardt, G. Tchobanoglous, and R. Shamskhorzani. 2017. “Control of
nitrification/denitrification in an onsite two-chamber intermittently aerated membrane bioreactor
with alkalinity and carbon addition: Model and experiment.” Water Res. 115 (May): 94–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.019.
24) Pikorova, T., Z. Matulova, P. HlavÍnek, and M. Drtil. 2009. “Operation of household Mbr
Wwtp—Operational failures.” In Proc., Risk Management of Water Supply and Sanitation
Systems, 283–292. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
25) Satoh, H., H. Ono, B. Rulin, J. Kamo, S. Okabe, and K. I. Fukushi. 2004. “Macroscale and
microscale analyses of nitrification and denitrification in biofilms attached on membrane aerated
biofilm reactors.” Water Res. 38 (6): 1633–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.020.
26) Slater, F. R., A. C. Singer, S. Turner, J. J. Barr, and P. L. Bond. 2011. “Pandemic pharmaceutical
dosing effects on wastewater treatment: no adaptation of activated sludge bacteria to degrade the
antiviral drug Oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) and loss of nutrient removal performance.” FEMS
Microbiol. Lett. 315 (1): 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574 -6968.2010.02163.x
27) Song, K.-G., J. Cho, K.-W. Cho, S.-D. Kim, and K.-H. Ahn. 2010. “Characteristics of
simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal in a pilotscale sequencing anoxic/anaerobic
membrane bioreactor at various conditions.” Desalination 250 (2): 801–804.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j .desal.2008.11.045.