Acknowledgement

I extend my sincere gratitude to my seminar guide, Prof. Dr. Renji Remesan, for his
valuable guidance and encouragement, which has been helpful in completing this
seminar.

I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Brajesh Kumar Dubey, Chairperson, School of Water

Resources, and other faculty members for their valuable support.

I also want to thank my friends and family for their moral support.

Sayangdipta Sen

23WM60R08

School of Water Resources

i
 Table of Contents

Sl. No. Description Page No.

1. Introduction 1

2. Membrane Bioreactor 3

3. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor 8

4. Comparison between MBR & MBBR 12

5. Case Study 14

6. Conclusion 17

7. References 18

ii
Abstract

In this study, we will try to explain how we can use membrane technologies to treat
municipal or industrial wastewater. Apart from the conventional activated sludge
digestion technique, these modern-day membrane technologies emerged to be more
effective, more efficient, more sustainable, and more economical in the long run. Here,
we will compare two out of many membrane technologies viz. Membrane Bioreactor
(MBR) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR), how efficient they are in removing
BOD, COD, nutrients, and pharmaceuticals. We will also discuss a case study of a
successfully installed MBR technology in a luxury hotel in New Delhi, India.

Keywords

Conventional Activated Sludge Digestion (CAS)

Membrane Technology
Membrane Bioreactor
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
COD Removal
Pharmaceutical Removal

iii
1. Introduction

1.1 Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) Process

The influent water from the primary sedimentation unit joins the secondary
treatment, where organic dissolved particles are removed by the application of
microorganism biomass along with the aeration process. But nowadays the
incoming high MLSS concentration influent along with influents from the textile,
chemical, and pharmaceutical industries are going untreated. So, an additional
membrane-based technology alongside CAS is required to treat these contaminants
more effectively.

Figure 1: CAS Process (Nonlinear modelling of activated sludge process using the
Hammerstein-Wiener structure (2016). DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20161000119)

1.2 Advantages of Membrane Process

 The treated water from the membrane-based plant of the study area is being
successfully used for flushing and HVAC purposes in the hotel.
 The space requirement is less than conventional treatment methods as the need
for more settling tanks is eliminated.
 Those units can be quickly installed, commissioned, and maintained by trained
personnel.
 Membrane does not require regular backwashing or cleaning.

1
  Membrane cleaning can be done twice a year by use of chemicals.
 These systems have minimal operator interface and smaller carbon footprints
than conventional wastewater treatment plants.

1.3 Types of Membrane Technologies

 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)  Reverse Osmosis (RO)

 Ultrafiltration (UF)
 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors  Nanofiltration (NF)
(MBBR)  Trickling Filters with Media
 Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Optimization
Sludge (IFAS)  Fluidized Bed Reactors
 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

1.4 Most significant technologies to be discussed here

Figure 2: Membrane Bioreactor Figure 3: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

2
2. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

The MBR is a suspended growth-activated sludge system that utilizes microporous

membranes for solid/liquid separation instead of secondary clarifiers. Membrane
bioreactor (MBR) technology, which combines the biological-activated sludge
process and membrane filtration has become more popular, abundant, and accepted
in recent years for the treatment of many types of wastewater, whereas the
conventional activated sludge (CAS) process cannot cope with either composition
of wastewater or fluctuations of wastewater flow rate. MBR technology is also used
in cases where demand for the quality of effluent exceeds the capability of CAS.

Figure 4: Membrane Bioreactor Working Process [Karim (2017)]

3
2.1 Principle of MBR

A pressure difference draws raw wastewater through an advanced microfiltration

membrane to remove suspended material. The 0.4μm micro filters present in a
submerged system are placed into an aeration basin. A vacuum is applied
downstream of the membranes to allow for the solid/ liquid separation process to
occur. The membranes eliminate the need for a secondary clarifier because they act
as an absolute barrier. Air is introduced into the system to scour the membranes and
drive the biological treatment. Tubular systems are also available. These systems
will treat a side stream of the mixture in the aeration tank. This type of system
requires a high amount of pumping power to keep the velocities high to prevent
membrane fouling and high pressure to force the water through the membrane.

2.2 Types of MBR Configuration

Membrane separation is carried out either by pressure-driven filtration in side-

stream MBRs (Fig. 5) or vacuum-driven membranes immersed directly into the
bioreactor, which operates in dead-end mode (Fig. 6) in submerged MBRs.

Figure 5: Pressure driven Side Stream MBR

4
 Figure 6: Vacuum-driven Submerged MBR [Radjenovic et al. (2007)]

The energy consumption required for filtration in submerged MBR is significantly

lower (Table 1). Both configurations need a shear over the membrane surface to
prevent membrane fouling with the constituents of mixed liquor. Side-stream MBRs
provide this shear through pumping, as with most other membrane processes,
whereas immersed processes employ aeration in the bioreactor to provide it. Shear
enhancement is critical in promoting permeate flux and suppressing membrane
fouling, but generating shear also demands energy, which is probably the reason for
submerged configuration predominance. Also, in side-stream MBR module fouling
is more pronounced due to its higher permeate flux. Pumping of activated sludge
induces shear stress to microbial flocs, causing them to break-up, which leads to a
decrease in particle size and releasing of foulant material from the flocs.

5
 Table 1: Comparison of both MBR Configuration

[Source: Radjenovic et al. (2007).]

2.3 Removal of COD

From the experiment conducted by Al-Asheh et al. (2021), we can find out the
COD removal efficiency of different combinations of MBR with different influent
feeds.

Table 2: COD removal efficiency of different MBR Combinations

2.4 Removal of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds (PHACs)

A large number of PhACs are hardly eliminated and, therefore detected in WWTP
effluents. The presence of PhACs in surface, drinking, and wastewater is well

6
documented in literature. Although present in low environmental concentrations,
drugs can have adverse effects on aquatic organisms. The results reinforce concerns
about excreted pharmaceutical compounds from wastewater systems that may end
up in the water supply, potentially resulting in adverse effects for humans and the
environment. Several studies have been conducted that confirmed an advantage of
MBR over CAS when the reduction of pharmaceuticals is concerned. Radjenovic
et al. found significantly improved removal of lipid regulators and cholesterol-
lowering statin drugs (gemfibrozil, bezafibrate, clofibric acid and pravastatin), β-
blockers (atenolol and metoprolol), antibiotics (ofloxacin and erythromycin), anti-
ulcer agent (ranitidine) and some analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs as well
(propyphenazone, mefenamic acid, and diclofenac).

Table 3: Removal efficiency of PHACs for MBR & CAS

120

100

80

60

40

20

PERCENTAGE REMOVAL MBR PERCENTAGE REMOVAL CAS

7
3. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)

In this system, plastic media with a high surface area is added to the treatment tank.
Wastewater flows primary treatment directly flows through to the tank, and
microorganisms attach to the surfaces of the media, forming a biofilm gets a larger
contact area with the microorganisms.

Figure 7: Working of MBBR [Odegaard (2006)]

3.1 Principle of MBBR Operation

The development of the MBBR process was based on the central idea of gathering,
in a single system, the best characteristics of the activated sludge and biofilm
processes and eliminating the undesirable characteristics of each process (RUSTEN
et al. 2006).

In contrast to most biofilm reactors, the MBBR system uses all of the effective
volume of the reactor for the microbial growth, offering some advantages over its
competitors. The head loss is considerably reduced, which represents a significant

8
 advantage in relation to fixed-bed systems, which exhibit a relatively high head
loss. Furthermore, the filter medium of the latter can become blocked or clogged.
Unlike activated sludge systems, MBBR does not require recirculation of the sludge
from the secondary clarifier since the biomass growth occurs on carriers that move
freely inside the reactor tank. MBBR technology can be applied to aerobic and
anaerobic/anoxic systems. Figure below illustrates the possible configurations. In
aerobic systems (Fig. a), the aeration is responsible for the movement of the carriers.
Thus, the aerators perform a dual function; that is, they are responsible for the
oxygenation of the microorganisms and for the maintenance of the carriers in
movement in the reaction medium. Consequently, a greater input of air is required,
which contributes to increasing the operational costs, particularly those associated
with energy.

Fig (a) Fig(b)

Figure 8: Functioning of the variants of the MBBR process (Adapted from Rusten et al.
2006). (a) Aerobic (aerated) reactor. (b) Anaerobic-anoxic reactor

3.2 Types of Filter Media Used

These are the mediums where we promote the growth of microorganisms, and as a
result, such type of plastic media is required where the surface area is more in a
significantly less space.

9
 Figure 9: Different types of filter media used in MBBR, [Bassin and Dezotti, (2011)]

3.2.1 Surface Area of filter media

Figure 10: Surface area of filter media used in MBBR, [Bassin and Dezotti, (2011)]

10
3.3 Removal of Pharmaceutical

Casas et al. (2015) experimentally found out the removal efficiency of different
pharmaceutically active compounds in the effluent water the results are show below.

Figure 11: Removal efficiency of Pharmaceuticals, [Casas et al., (2015)]

3.4 Advantages of using MBBR

 They can be applied in existing treatment installations, often being used to

improve their performance.
 In contrast with conventional activated sludge processes, the sludge does not
need to be recirculated through the system since the biomass grows adhered to
the carriers.
 They allow a reduction in the installation cost since they dispense with the
need for some of the stages required in conventional processes.
 In contrast to fixed-bed reactors, there is no clogging of the sludge bed, and
therefore, periodic cleaning is not needed.
 The system footprint can be reduced, and the treatment plant can be built
much more compact.

11
4. Comparison between MBR and MBBR

4.1 COD Removal

Huang et al. (2016) found in their experiment that COD removal for MBBR and
MBR is 58.2% and 46.4% respectively.

Figure 12: COD removal for MBBR and MBR, [Huang et al., (2016)]

4.2 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

Batch experiments from Huang et al. (2016) showed that HRTs were 96 hr for
MBBR and 12 hr for MBR, which means more power is required in MBBR than
MBR; hence, more cost is associated with the MBBR technology.

12
4.3 Sludge Generation

Sohail et al. (2020) found out the result with an experiment that sludge generation
is less in MBR than MBBR weather it may be with a plastic or may be with a sponge
filter media.

SLUDGE GENERATION (Kg/ML)

150 128.7 134.1

100 79.3

50

0
MBBR with plastic MBBR with sponge MBR
media media

Figure 13: Comparison for sludge generation, [Sohail et al., (2020)]

4.4 Membrane Fouling

Membrane fouling happens due to the attachment of biomass in the filter media and
from the experiments from Sohail et al., (2020) it is clearly visible that MBR has
higher biomass growth in its media which results in membrane fouling but on the
other hand it generated less sludge, increases the surface area and efficiency of the
filter.

Biomass (mg)
70000 63704
60000
50000
40000 28735
30000 25287
20000
10000
0
MBBR with plastic MBBR with sponge MBR
media media

Figure 14: Comparison for biomass generation, [Sohail et al., (2020)]

13
5. Case Study of Membrane Technology in India

This study aims to analyse the performance and efficiency of the wastewater
treatment process by MBR technology in a luxury hotel in Delhi. This study will
provide the results and discussion of the test analysis done on the treated water
from the plant and its suitability for reuse and recycling for various purposes
within the hotel.

The study area is an MBR plant with a design capacity of 500 KLD located in a
luxury hotel in Delhi. Samples of raw sewage and treated water from the MBR
plant were taken and analyzed in a laboratory to evaluate the performance of the
MBR plant. The membrane used in the bioreactor is made of PVDF material and
0.2 microns pore size.

Figure 15: Polyvinyldiene Fluoride (PVDF), [Singh and Reghu (2020)]

14
5.1 Methodology
5.1.1 Sampling Period:
Samples were taken for five days in October 2014 from the inlet and outlet of the
MBR facility.

5.1.2 Sampling Materials & Methods:

The experimental method consisted of collecting composite samples of raw sewage
and treated water from the inlet and outlet of the MBR plant in a one-liter bottle.
Sampling was conducted from 9 am to 2 pm, with a five-day peak sewage flow.

5.2 Results and discussions

5.2.1 BOD Removal

Figure 16: BOD of influent and effluent, [Singh and Reghu (2020)]

5.2.2 COD Removal

Figure 17: COD of influent and effluent, [Singh and Reghu (2020)]

15
5.2.3 Total Suspended Solids Removal (TSS)

Figure 18: TSS of influent and effluent, [Singh and Reghu (2020)]

5.2.4 Total Dissolved Solids Removal (TDS)

Figure 19: TDS of influent and effluent, [Singh and Reghu (2020)]

5.2.5 Parameters for irrigation and horticulture needs

Table 3: Suitability Parameters for Irrigation, [Singh and Reghu (2020)]

16
6. Conclusion

All of these advanced wastewater treatment processes—MBR, MBBR—rely on the

growth of biofilm on a surface to facilitate the biological degradation of pollutants
& relies on a membrane surface for separation and filtration.

MBR technology can be effectively used for waste water treatment in decentralised
wastewater treatment for reuse and disposal of treated water onto water bodies with
lesser pollutant load. The characteristics of the MBR process makes it ideal for
wastewater treatment for small communities, commercial complexes, offices
looking to minimise the impact of WWTP , reuse and recycle the waste water
thereby reducing water demand and waste water discharge. MBR systems have
minimal operator interface and smaller carbon footprints than conventional waste
water treatment plants .MBR systems are ideal for residential colonies, offices,
commercial complexes. There is a need to optimise the cost and performance of
Membrane Bioreactor technology to make this treatment method popular at
community level in India.

So, we can say based on the economy and the case study, MBR is most suitable
than MBBR.

17
7. References

 Al-Asheh, S., 2021. Case studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering

 Al-Asheh, S., Bagheri, M., Aidan, A., 2021. Membrane bioreactor for
wastewater treatment: A review

 Biase, A, D., Kowalski, M, S., Devlin, T, R., Oleszkiewicz, J, A., 2019. Moving
bed biofilm reactor technology in municipal wastewater treatment: A review.

 Casas, M, E., Chhetri, R, K., Ooi, G., Hansen, M.S, K., Litty, K., Christensson,
M., Kragelund, C., Andersen, H, R., Bester, K., 2015. Biodegradation of
pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater by staged Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactors (MBBR).

 Huang, C., Shi, Y., Xue, J., Zhang, Y., El-Din, Md, G., Liu, Y., 2016.
Comparison of biomass from integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS),
moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), and membrane bioreactor (MBR) treating
recalcitrant organics: Importance of attached biomass.

 Karim, M.A., 2017. A Preliminary Comparative Analysis of MBR and CAS

Wastewater Treatment Systems. DOI:10.16966/2381-5299.138

 Nonlinear modelling of activated sludge process using the Hammerstein-

Wiener structure. January 2016. E3S Web of Conferences 10(4):00119Follow
journal. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20161000119.

18
 Odegaard, H., 2006. Innovations in Wastewater Treatment: The Moving Bed
Biofilm Process. In: Water Science and Technology: Volume 53, 17-33.

 Radjenovic, J., Matosic, M., Mijatovic, I., Petrovic, M., Barcelo, D., 2007.
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) as an Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Technology. DOI 10.1007/698-5-093.

 Silvia Diaz-Cruz, M., Barcelo, D., 2007. Input of Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides

and Industrial Chemicals as a Consequence of Using Conventional and Non-
conventional Sources of Water for Artificial Groundwater Recharge.

 Singh, S.K., Reghu, A., 2015. Application of Membrane Bioreactor Technology

for Waste Water Treatment and Reuse: Case Study of MBR Plant in Luxury
Hotel in Delhi.

 Sohail, N., Ahmed, S., Chung, S., & Nawaz, M. S. (2020). Performance
comparison of three different reactors (MBBR, MBR and MBBMR) for
municipal wastewater treatment. Desalination and water treatment, 174, 71–78.
doi:10.5004/dwt.2020.24866

19