CIE4485

Wastewater Treatment
Maria Lousada Ferreira

4. Membrane BioReactors

1
 Membrane BioReactors

Maria Lousada Ferreira

November 2012

November 28, 2012

Table of contents

1 – Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Membrane bioreactors
2- MBR technology background
3- Membrane technology
4- Process configuration
5- Relevant operational parameters
5- Advantages vs. disadvantages of MBR technology
6- Fouling
6.1- The Delft Filtration Characterization method
7- MBR technology questions and challenges

November 28, 2012 2

 1-Introduction
1.1 Background
•“Water
Conventional activated
scarcity affects one insludge system:
three people on activated sludge
very continent separated
of the from2009]
world” [WHO,
treated water (effluent) by sedimentation in secondary clarifier (settling
tank).
Water exploitation index-
WEI
Amount of water used
compared with the
available long term
fresh water resources.
>=20% water scarcity
>40% severe problem

Water exploitation index (percentage) [EC, 2010]

1-Introduction
1.1 Background
• Conventional activated sludgeconcern
Widespread system: activated
about sludge
biodiversity lossseparated from
treated water (effluent) by sedimentation in secondary clarifier (settling
tank).

Causes of biodiversity loss [EC, 2010]

Nature 2000- network of natural habitat and species sites-aimed at preserving biodiversity.
The Netherlands 10 % of the territory are Nature 2000 sites [PBL 2003].
Protected areas: mainly major water bodies (surface area of inland waters and the North
Sea, in a total of about 2900 km2)
⇒ wetlands have to achieve good ecological status by 2015 (WFD)

3
 1-Introduction
1.1 Background
• Conventional activated Water
sludgecycle
system:
shouldactivated
be optimalsludge
!! separated from
treated water (effluent) by sedimentation in secondary clarifier (settling
All wastewater should undergo a certain level of treatment.
tank).

In certain locations

Advanced treatment
Followed by reuse

1- Introduction
1.2 Membrane bioreactors
Conventional
• Conventionalactivated
activatedsludge
sludge system: activatedsludge
system: activated sludge separated
separated from
treated
from water water
treated (effluent) by sedimentation
(effluent) in secondary
by sedimentation clarifier (settling
in secondary
tank). (settling tank).
clarifier

Biological treatment Settling tank

Effluent

Voorbehandeld Effluent
Pre-treated
influent
Influent

Bezinktank

Onbelucht Belucht

Recirculatie Spuislib

Recirculation Excess sludge

3
 1-Introduction
1.2 Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
Biological treatment Settling tank
Effluent

Voorbehandeld

MBRs are a compact wastewater

influent

treatment system in which sludge

EffluentBezinktank
and clear water are separated by
membrane filtration Onbelucht Belucht

Recirculatie Spuislib

MBRs produce a high quality and

largely disinfected effluent,
therefore especially suitable for
reuse purposes or for discharging
in environmentally sensitive water
bodies.

1-Introduction
1.2 Membrane bioreactors
Pre-treatment: sieves to remove
coarse and fine materials.

Bioreactor: removal of carbonaceous

material and, if properly designed,
phosphorus and nitrogen.

Membranes: usually submerged in

the activated sludge of the
bioreactor.

Effluent (permeate): no suspended

solids and largely desinfected. Schilde MBR, Belgium

November 28, 2012 8

 1-Introduction
1.2 Membrane bioreactors

November 28, 2012 9

2- MBR technology background

MBR process:
•introduced late 1960s
•Invented by Dorr-Oliver Inc
•Application for ship-board sewage treatment
•Activated sludge bioreactor with a cross-flow membrane filtration loop
Voeding

Voorbehandeld
Membraan-
module Early MBR systems:
influent
-Expensive (due to membranes and
Effluent
fouling)
Concentraat -High energy consumption (10
kWh/m3 produced permeate)
Onbelucht Belucht

Recirculatie Spuislib
MBR process configuration : side-stream

November 28, 2012

10
 2- MBR technology background

•In 1989 Yamamoto presented a new MBR design with submerged membranes;
•Membranes submerged in activated sludge tanks where the static pressure
contributed for the extraction of permeate.

Effluent
New MBR systems:
Voorbehandeld
influent -Modest fluxes were applied (25%
Membraan-
less than earlier systems);
module -Air was used to control fouling;
Onbelucht Belucht -New MBR design, and decreasing
membrane costs, stimulated MBR
Recirculatie Spuislib
applications, since mid 1990s.
MBR process configuration : submerged

November 28, 2012

11

2- MBR technology background

Early New Commercial options

MBRs MBRs
SRT 100 d 20 d
MLSS 30 g/L 8-15 g/L

New MBRs
•Fouling decreased;
•Membrane cleaning simplified;
•Energy consumption ± 1
kWh/m3 produced permeate. MBR process configurations (a) side-
stream (b) submerged [Judd, 2008]

November 28, 2012 12

2- MBR technology background

Layout of the MBR process during the 1990s and the current decade
[Lousada-Ferreira, 2011].

November 28, 2012 13

3- Membrane technology
Membrane operations
•Reverse osmosis- separation by
different solubility and diffusion rates
of water and solutes in water;

•Nanofiltration- separation through

combination of charge rejection,
solubility-diffusion and sieving through
micropores;

•Ultrafiltration- separation by sieving

through mesopores;

•Microfiltration- separation of
suspended solids from water through
Components removed by each pressure- macropores.
driven membrane operation [Judd, 2006]

November 28, 2012 14

4- Process configuration
Membrane process configuration
•Extractive MBRs- membrane used to extract specific components from the bioreactor;
•Diffusive MBRs- membrane used to introduce gas into the bioreactor;
•Rejection MBRs- Biomass is retained in the bioreactor while clarified water goes through the
membrane.

Rejection MBRs
Biological treatment + membranes (inside or outside the bioreactor)
Voeding Effluent
Membraan- Voorbehandeld
Voorbehandeld module
influent
influent

Effluent Membraan-
module
Concentraat
Onbelucht Belucht
Onbelucht Belucht
Recirculatie Spuislib
Recirculatie Spuislib

Side-stream MBRs Submerged MBRs

•Higher fluxes; greater •Lower fluxes;
hydrodynamic control •Higher permeability
•Lower permeability

November 28, 2012 15

4 – Process configuration
Membrane configuration
Hollow fiber (HF)
Multi-tubular
Submerged
applications Side-stream
applications
Cheaper than FS
More cleaning than FS

Flat sheet (FS)

Submerged
applications

a) c)
b)

Schematic flows through FS (a), HF (b) and tube (c)

8
 4 – Process configuration
• Membranes mounted in modules;

Membrane
• Modules composed of: membranes,

Sludge sample
support structures, inlets and outlets.
TMP
• Pumps, placed in the clean water side of J
the membranes, draw the water
through the membrane while solids are
retained in the bioreactor.
CFV = 1,0 m/s
• Compressed air is introduced, by a
distribution manifold at the base of the Scheme of the Delft Filtration Characterization
modules, to: Installation (DFCi)
• keep the biomass in suspension;
• continuously scour the membrane; MBRs work in cross-flow filtration mode,
• provide dissolved oxygen to biomass
i.e. for a single passage of activated sludge
(if necessary in membrane tanks). across the membrane only a fraction is
converted into permeate.

5- Relevant operational parameters

• Trans-membrane pressure (TMP)

TMP= ∆P= P feed- P permeate

• Flux (J)
TMP- [Pa or bar]
TMP
J µ- permeate dynamic viscosity [Pa.s]
 RRt t- total filtration resistance [m-1]
J- [L/m2.h]
• Total resistance (Rt)

Rt= Rm +Rf Rm- clean membrane resistance [m-1]

Rf- fouling resistance
• Permeability (P)

P= J/TMP

November 28, 2012 18

 5- Relevant operational parameters
• MBRs work with constant flux.
• WWTP work with constant flux
General operating conditions for submerged MBR:
• Transmembrane pressure  ± 20 kPa
• Flux sustainable long-term  15 – 30 L/m2*h

• Solids retention time  > 20 days

• Hydraulic retention time  1 – 9 hours
• Food to mass ratio  < 0.2 kg COD/ (kg MLSS·day)
• Sludge production  < 0.25 kg SS/ (kg COD·day)

15

6 – Advantages vs. disadvantages of MBR

technology
Advantages of MBR technology Disadvantages of MBR technology
• High quality and largely disinfected • High capital costs (membranes)
effluent (permeate)
• Potential high cost of membrane
• Smaller footprint replacement (limited data on
• Operation at high MLSS concentration membrane life time)
(usually between 8 and 15 g/L) • High energy costs
• Higher volumetric loading rates • Need to control membrane fouling
=>shorter HRT
• Fouling: process leading to
• Longer SRT => less sludge production deterioration of flux due to
• Operation at low DO with potential for surface or internal blockage of
simultaneous nitrification- the membrane
denitrification, in long SRT designs
• Independent control of SRT and HRT

November 28, 2012 20

6 – Advantages vs. disadvantages of MBR
technology

Energy consumption at MBR Terneuzen (c) and MBR Heenvliet (a).

(Krzeminski et al. (2012))
November 28, 2012 21

7- Fouling
Fouling: Process dealing to detereoration of the flux due to surface
or internal blockage of the membranes (Judd, 2006)
Clogging: blockage of the channels between the membranes and/or
aerator ports (Judd, 2008)

A B C1 C2

Schematics of the fouling mechanims: cake filtration (B), adsorption (C1), pore
blocking (C2).

November 28, 2012 22

7- Fouling
Fouling during constant flux operation [Kraume, 2009].

November 28, 2012 23

6- Fouling
How to minimize fouling:
•Operate at high shear (more air; more cross-flow velocity…);
•Operate at low flux.

How to remove fouling:

•Physical cleaning: membrane relaxation;
•Chemical cleaning: enhanced backwash, maintenance cleaning or
intensive cleaning.

How to limitate fouling:

•Optimizing membrane properties and operating conditions;
•Adding sludge coagulants/flocculents or adsorbent agents.
•(…)
November 28, 2012 24
 7- Fouling
• Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS)
• Macromolecules: polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, etc
• Function: Substances that bound the particles together
• Soluble microbial products (SMP)
• Soluble part of EPS, that is, materials that are not integrated in biological
flocs
• Dissolved organic matter
• Submicron particles

EPS

microorganisms

November 28, 2012 25

7- Fouling
Raw influent

Pre-treatment
Biomass
operation
Influent
Recirculation flows
characteristics Solids Retention Time
Flow rate Hydraulic Retention Time
Suspended solids Aeration
BOD, COD Excess sludge removal
Nutrients Substrate dosing
Temperature PAC dosing
Toxic substances Coagulant dosing
Hydraulic circumstances
Shear

Membrane Membrane Sludge / water

operation characteristics characteristics
Flux / TMP Configuration MLSS concentration
Cross-flow/ Material Colloidal matter
Coarse bubble aeration Pore size Dissolved matter
Relaxation Hydrophobicity Viscosity
Back flush Particle size / shape
Chemical cleaning Fixed / free EPS, COD, TOC
Nutrients
pH
Hydrophobicity
Bacteria species
Oxygen content
Temperature
Divalent cat-ions
FOULING
November 28, 2012 26
 7.1 The Delft Filtration Characterization method
The Delft Filtration Characterization method (DFCm) 10
(Evenblij, 2005) comprises: y = 0,0058x1,2813
1. Measurement of membrane resistance R2 = 0,9353

R [*10 m ]
2. Measurement of sludge filterability

-1
1

12
3. Cleaning of the membrane
0,1
Sewer
O2 T pH
P2
Computer
0,01
P3 Sewer
1 10 100
Membrane Peristaltic Vs [L m-2]
pump
Demi- Activated

Example of DFCi output

water sludge
NaOCl Permeate
UF
Mass
balance Air
ΔR20 values and corresponding sludge filterability
Back flush Centrifugal Peristaltic
pump pump pump
Filterability
Damper
P1 F
∆R20< 0.1 Good
0.1<∆R20<1 Moderate
The Delft Filtration Characterization Installation (DFCi)
• Single Tube UF (X-Flow); nominal pore size0.03 μm ∆R20>1 Poor
• Constant operation: J= 80 L/m2.h; V= 1 m/s [Geilvoet, 2010]

H. Evenblij, [Link], J.H.J.M. van der Graaf and H.F. van der Roest (2005) Filtration characterization for
assessing MBR performance: three cases compared, Desalination (178) 115-124.

7.1 The Delft Filtration Characterization method

Filterability-The fouling potential of the sludge, as measured by the

Delft Filtration Characterization method (DFCm) [Evenblij, 2006]

Filterability
∆R20< 0.1 Good
0.1<∆R20<1 Moderate
∆R20>1 Poor

The volume of sub-micron particles is likely to be a better indicator of

sludge filterability than EPS/SMP [Geilvoet, 2010].

November 28, 2012 28

 8- MBR Technology questions and
challenges

• Design and operation:

• Is a separate membrane tank
needed?
• Which are the optimal
operational parameters, such
as MLSS concentration or
Nordkanal MBR, Germany
flux?
• How to further reduce energy
comsumption in MBRs?

November 28, 2012 29

8- MBR technology questions and

challenges
Low MLSS concentration High MLSS concentration
Design
Separate membrane tank not required Separate membrane tank preferable

Operation
Less clogging More clogging
Less air required to scour the membrane More air required to scour the membrane
and provide DO to the biomass and provide DO to the biomass

Less air preferable to promote floc growth Less air preferable to promote floc
growth=> Air flow requires optimization

Applied return ratio is irrelevant Low return ratio, i.e. lower than 2,
preferable to achieve improved filterability

November 28, 2012 30

Lousada-Ferreira, M. (2011). Filterability and sludge concentration in Membrane Bioreactors Water Management
Department. Delft, Delft University of Technology. PhD: 222.
Questions?

November 28, 2012 31