MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR

A SEMINAR REPORT

Submitted by

FATHIMA FIDHA
AWH19CE022

To
the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree
of

Bachelor of Technology
in
Civil engineering

Department Of Civil Engineering

AWH Engineering College

Kuttikkattoor

November 2022
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AWH ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KUTTIKKATTOOR

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the report entitled ”MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR”

submitted by FATHIMA FIDHA (AWH19CE022) to the APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering is a bonafide record of the seminar
work carried out by her under our guidance and supervision. This report in any form has
not been submitted to any other University or Institute for any purpose.

Guide Head of the Department

Dr. Devika Babu Mrs. Jisha. P
Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and the foremost, I shall thank God Almighty who gave me the inner

strength, resource and ability to complete the work successfully, without which all my

efforts would have been in vain.

I am deeply indebted to my guide Dr. Devika Babu, Associate Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering, for her excellent guidance, positive criticism and

valuable comments. I am greatly thankful to Dr. Sabeena. M. V Principal, of our institution

AWH Engineering College for her support and cooperation. I am thankful to, Mrs. Jisha.P

Head of Department of Civil Engineering, for his valuable advice and motivation.

Finally, I thank my parents and friends near and dear ones who directly and

indirectly contributed to the successful completion of my seminar.

FATHIMA FIDHA

i
 ABSTRACT

Membrane bioreactor is the most important recent technological advance for municipal

waste water treatment in terms of biological waste water treatment. The MBR is a

suspended growth-activated sludge system that utilizes micro porous membranes for

solid/liquid separation instead of secondary clarifiers. It represents a decisive step forward

concerning effluent quality by delivering a hygienically pure effluent and by exhibiting a

very high operational reliability. Advanced MBR waste water treatment technology is

being successfully applied at an ever-increasing number of locations around the world. The

operational and biological performance of bioreactor is presented along with is different

configuration and hydraulics. Conventional activated sludge (CAS) process cannot cope

with either comparison of waste water or flocculation of waste water flow rate whereas,

MBRs represents an efficient and cost effective process that cops excellently with the

growing needs for transforming waste water into clean water that can be returned to the

hydrological cycle without detrimental effects applied at an ever increasing number of

location around the world.

ii
 CONTENTS

Contents Page no

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

Chapter 1. INDRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 History 2

Chapter 2. CONFIGURATION 5

2.1 General 5

2.2 Internal or Submerged MBR 5

2.3 Recirculated or External MBR 7

Chapter 3. WORKING 8

3.1 Treatment Process and Basic Design Principle 11

3.2 Pre-treatment 12

3.3 Operation and Maintenance 13

Chapter 4. MBR FOULING 14

4.1 Classification of Foulants 13

4.1.1 Bio Foulants 13

4.1.2 Organic Foulants 13

4.1.3 Inorganic Foulants 13

4.2 Method of Control 18

iii
Chapter 5. APPLICATION AND COST 21

5.1 Application 21

5.1.1 Muncipal Wastewater 21

5.1.2 Industrial Wastewater 22

5.1.3 Agricultural Wastewater 23

5.1.4 Food Processing Wastewater 24

5.2 Cost 25

5.2.1 Capital Cost 25

5.2.2 Operational Cost 26

(i) Energy Demand 26

(ii) Aeration Energy 27

(iii) Filtration 27

Chapter 6. ADVANTURES AND DISADVENTURES 29

Chapter 7. CASE STUDY 31

7.1 General 31

7.2 Study Area 32

7.3 Methodology 32

7.3.1 Sampling Period 32

7.3.2 Sampling Materials and Methods 32

7.3.3 Laboratory Analysis 33

7.4 Result and Discussion 34

7.4.1 Characteristic of Inlet and Outlet waste water 34

7.4.2 BOD Removal Efficiency 34

7.4.3 COD Removal Efficiency 35

7.4.4 Phosphate Removal Efficiency 35

iv
 7.4.5 Ammonia and Nitrate Removal Efficiency 35

7.4.6 TSS and TDS Removal Efficiency 35

7.4.7 Suitability of Irrigation 36

7.5 Conclusion 36

Chapter 8. CONCLUSION 39

REFERENCES 41

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page No.

2.1 Schematic of integrated or submerged MBR 6

2.2 Recirculated or External MBR 8

2.3 Hollow fiber 9

2.4 Spiral wound 9

2.5 Plate-and-frame immersed membrane module 10

3.1 Typical schematic for MBR system 12

5.1 Fouling mechanism 15

7.1 Sample collected from inlet and outlet MBR plant 33

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

7.1 Laboratory analysis methods 33

7.2 Guidelines of water used for irrigation 36

vii
 ABBREVATIONS

MBR -Membrane bioreactors

CAS - Conventional activated sludge

UF - Ultra filtration

MF - Micro filtration

HF -Hollow fiber

ASP -Activated sludge process

FS -Flat sheet

EPS -Extracellular polymeric substances

MLSS –Mixed liquor suspended solids

SMP -Soluble microbial products

TMP -Trans membrane pressure

WWTP –Wastewater treatment plant

BOD -Biological oxygen demand

COD -Chemical oxygen demand

SS -Suspended solids

TSS -Total Suspended solids

TDS - Total Suspended solids

viii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The world is facing a global water quality crisis. Continuing population growth

and urbanization, rapid industrialization, and expanding and intensifying food

production are all putting pressure on water resources and increasing the unregulated

or illegal discharge of contaminated water within and beyond the borders, therefore, the

interest in waste water treatment is increasing with the growing focus on the need for

water conservation. In additional, urbanization is creating a demand for more compact

waste water treatment plants.

Activated sludge treatment are often used for municipal and domestic waste

water purification, and show high organic matter removal efficiency. However

activated sludge treatments are highly sensitive to external disturbances of a physical

and/or chemical nature and this often results in high concentration of suspended solids

and turbidity in the effluent, reducing the amount of active biomass in the bioreactor.

Currently the reuse of waste water has become an environmentally and

economically viable option, due to increasingly restrictive parameters for waste water

discharge, the imposition of charges both for the collection of water and for the

discharge of effluents, and the reduced availability and quality of water resources. This

being the case, one of the most promising technologies for waste water treatment and

reuse are membrane separation system and the combination of these systems with other

technologies.

1
 MBRs consist of biological reactors combined with membrane separation

processes, usually with microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF). In other word, this

hybrid system is a bio chemical reactions and a porous membrane for the separation of

treated water and biomass. There are two types of MBR technologies: external MBRs,

in which the membrane modules are placed outside the bioreactor, and submerged

MBRs, where the membrane module is placed inside the bioreactor. Among the

advantages of MBRs, is the fact that they are compact and modular systems, with low

sludge production, that completely remove suspended solids independently of the

sediment ability characteristics of the biomass. They also generate high quality treated

wastewater.

MBRs have become the wastewater treatment technology that overtook the

conventional activated sludge process (ASP) and they can be used for both municipal

and domestic wastewater treatment. Lerner et al. found that in comparison with ASP,

the MBR process can produce an effluent of much better quality in terms of organic

matter, suspended solids, and nutrients. Since MBR systems have been introduced for

biological wastewater treatment, it is important to evaluate their performance in heavy

metal removal. Some researchers found that an MBR system using UF membranes for

the treatment of wastewater increased metal removal efficiency compared to the

conventional activated sludge system.

The wastewaters from MBRs may be reused directly for unrestricted irrigation.

The disadvantages associated with MBR include high investment cost and relatively

difficult operation and maintenance. Membrane fouling problems require frequent

cleaning procedures with chemicals, and therefore intermittent operation of the system.

2
1.2 HISTORY

The MBR process was introduced in the late 1960s, as soon as commercial-

scale ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF) membranes were available. The

original process was introduced by Dorr-Oliver Inc. and it combined the use of an

activated sludge bioreactor with a cross-flow membrane filtration loop. The flat sheet

membranes used in this process were polymeric and featured pore sizes ranging from

0.003 to 0.01 μm. Although the idea of replacing the settling tank of the conventional

activated sludge process was attractive, it was difficult to justify the use of such a

process because of the high cost of membranes, the low economic value of the product

and the potential rapid loss of performance due to membrane fouling. As a result, the

focus was on the attainment of high fluxes, and it was necessary to pump the MLSS at

high cross-flow velocity at significant energy demand to reduce fouling. Because of the

poor economics of the first-generation MBRs, they only found applications in niche

areas with special needs.

The breakthrough for the MBR came in 1989 with Yamamoto and co-workers'

idea of submerging the membranes in the bioreactor. Until then, MBRs were designed

with a separation device located external to the reactor and relied on high trans-

membrane pressure to maintain filtration. With the membrane directly immersed in the

bioreactor, submerged MBR systems are usually preferred to the side stream

configuration, especially, for domestic wastewater treatment. The submerged

configuration relies on coarse bubble aeration to produce mixing and limit fouling. The

energy demand of the submerged system can be up to 2 orders of magnitude lower than

that of the side stream systems and submerged systems operate at a lower flux,

demanding more membrane area. In submerged configurations, aeration is considered

as one of the major parameters in process performance both hydraulic and biological.
3
Aeration maintains solids in suspension, scours the membrane surface, and provides

oxygen to the biomass, leading to better bio degradability and cell synthesis.

The other key steps in the recent MBR development were the acceptance of

modest fluxes and the idea to use two-phase bubbly flow to control fouling. The lower

operating cost obtained with the submerged configuration along with the steady

decrease in the membrane cost led to an exponential increase in MBR plant installations

from the mid-90s. Since then, further improvements in the MBR design and operation

have been introduced and incorporated into larger plants. In new operating conditions,

the oxygen transfer and the pumping cost in the MBR have tended to decrease and the

overall maintenance has been simplified. There is now a range of MBR systems

commercially available, most of which use submerged membranes although some

external modules are available. These external systems also use two-phase flow for

fouling control. . In terms of membrane configurations, mainly hollow fiber and flat

sheet membranes are utilized in MBR application. For ease of maintenance, the side

stream configuration can be installed on a lower level in a plant building. Membrane

replacement can be undertaken without specialized lifting equipment. As a result,

research continued with the side stream configuration, during which time it was found

that full-scale plants could be operated with higher fluxes.

4
 CHAPTER 2

CONFIGURATION

2.1 GENERAL

The MBR has emerged as an alternative treatment process, especially in cases

where space and water resources are limited and high quality product water is required.

Industrial wastewater, which is difficult to treat and requires long sludge ages, and

wastewater operations where settling and clarification problems are regularly

encountered are potential areas of application. With new developments in membrane

design and the institution of more stringent discharge limits, MBRs have become

feasible alternatives. Membrane bioreactors are composed of two primary parts; the

biological unit responsible for the biodegradation of the waste compounds, and the

membrane module for the physical separation of the treated water from mixed liquor.

MBR systems can be classified into two major groups according to their configuration.

2.2 INTERNAL OR SUBMERGED MBR

In the immersed Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) configuration, the filtration

element is installed in either the main bioreactor vessel or in a separate tank. The

modules are positioned above the aeration system, fulfilling two functions, the supply

of oxygen and the cleaning of the membranes. The membranes can be a flat sheet or

tubular or a combination of both and can incorporate an online backwash system which

reduces membrane surface fouling by pumping membrane permeate back through the

membrane. The backwash system can be optimized using IPC membranes, as

developed by Blue Foot Membranes. In systems where the membranes are in a separate

tank from the bioreactor, individual trains of membranes can be isolated to undertake

5
cleaning regimes incorporating membrane soaks, however, the biomass must be

continuously pumped back to the main reactor to limit MLSS concentration increase.

Additional aeration is also required to provide air scouring to reduce fouling. Where

the membranes are installed in the main reactor, membrane modules are removed from

the vessel and transferred to an offline cleaning tank. Usually, the internal/submerged

configuration is used for larger-scale lower strength applications.

Figure 2.1 Schematic of integrated or submerged MBR

To optimize the reactor volume and minimize the production of sludge,

submerged MBR systems typically operate with MLSS concentrations comprised

between 12000 mg/L and 20000 mg/L, hence they offer good flexibility in the selection

of the design Sludge retention time. It is mandatory to take into account that an

excessively high content of Mixed liquor suspended solids may render the aeration

system to be not so effective and the useful flux of water treated by the membrane

would decrease; the classical solution to this optimization problem is to ensure a

concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids which approaches 10.000 mg/L, to

guarantee a good mass transfer of oxygen with a good permeate flux. This type of

solution is widely accepted in larger-scale units, where the internal/submerged

6
configuration is typically used, because of the higher relative cost of the membrane,

compared to the additional volume required into the tank.

Immersed MBR has been the preferred configuration due to its low energy

consumption level, high biodegradation efficiency, and low fouling rate compared to

side stream membrane bioreactors. In addition, MBR systems can handle higher SSL

concentrations, while traditional systems work with an MLSS concentration

between2.5-3.5, MBR can handle a concentration between 4-12 g/L, an increase of

300%. This type of configuration is adopted in industrial sectors, including textile, food

& beverages, oil & gas, mining, power generation, pulp & paper in light of its benefit.

2.3 RECIRCULATED OR EXTERNAL MBR

In sMBR technology, the filtration modules are outside the aerobic tank, hence

the name side-stream configuration. Like the iMBR configuration, the aeration system

is also used to clean and supply oxygen to the bacteria that degrade the organic

compounds. The biomass is either pumped directly through several membrane modules

in series and back to the bioreactor, or the biomass is pumped to a bank of modules,

from which a second pump circulates the biomass through the modules in series.

Cleaning and soaking of the membranes can be undertaken in situ with the use of an

installed cleaning tank, pump, and pipework. The quality of the final product is such

that it can be reused in process applications due to the filtration capacity of the micro-

and ultrafiltration membranes. Usually, the external/side stream configuration is used

for small-scale higher strength applications .The main advantage that the external/side

stream configuration shows is the possibility to design and size the tank and the

membrane separately. With practical advantages for the operation and the maintenance

of the unit.

7
 Figure 2.2 Recirculated or External MBR

As in other membrane processes, a shear over the membrane surface is needed

to prevent or limit fouling. The external/side stream configuration provides this shear

using a pumping system, while the internal/submerged configuration provides the shear

through the aeration in the bioreactor and since there is an energy requirement to

promote the shear. This configuration shows this additional cost. Moreover, the MBR

module fouling is more consistent, due to the higher fluxes involved in this

configuration.

Several types and configuration of membrane have been used for MBR application.

These include;

 Hollow fiber (HF)

 Spiral-wound

 Plate-and-frame

 Pleated filter cartridge

 Tubular

8
 In the HF module, large amounts of HF membranes make a bundle, and the ends

of the fibers are sealed in epoxy block connected with the outside of the housing.(Figure

2.3). The water can flow from the inside to the outside of the membrane, and also from

the outside to the inside, which is produced differently by different manufacturers.

These membranes can work under pressure and under vacuum.

Figure 2.3 Hollow fiber

The spiral-wound configuration is mostly used for the NF and RO process. The

membranes are wound around the perforated tube through which permeate goes out

(Figure 2.4). The spiral-wound modules are manufactured in standard dimensions by

all major manufacturers, which makes their installation easier and membrane

production less costly. Many membrane modules can be installed together in series or

parallel in plants with high capacity.

Figure 2.4 Spiral wound

9
 Plate-and-frame membrane modules comprise of FS membranes with separators

and/or support membranes. The pieces of these sheets are clamped onto a plate. The

water flows across the membrane and permeate is being collected through pipes

emerging from the interior of the membrane module in a process that operates under

vacuum.

Figure 2.5 Plate-and-frame immersed membrane module

There are also membrane configurations such as plated filter cartridge and

tubular module, but they are not so widely used as the other three modules. Typically,

tubular membranes are encased in pressure vessels and mixed liquor is pumped to them

and they are predominantly used for side-stream configurations. HF and FS modules

are mostly immersed directly in mixed liquor with permeate drawn through the

membranes using vacuum pumps.

10
 CHAPTER 3

WORKING PRINCIPLE

“MBR System” is considered to be a complete and integrated membrane unit

(sub-systems) with related components necessary to allow the process to function as

desired. An MBR system is often comprised of ten or eleven sub-systems and

includes fine screening (head works), the Membrane Zone and, in most cases, some

type of post-disinfection process.

An MBR, or Membrane Zone, can best be described as the initial step in a

biological process where microbes are used to degrade pollutants that are then filtered

by a series of sub merged membranes (or membrane elements). The individual

membranes are housed in units known as modules, cassettes, or racks and a combined

series of these modules are referred to as a working membrane unit. Air is introduced

through integral diffusers to continually scour membrane surfaces during filtration,

facilitate mixing and in some cases, to contribute oxygen to the biological process.

3.1 TREATMENT PROCESS AND BASIC DESIGN PRINCIPLE

Membrane Bioreactors combine conventional biological treatment (e.g.

activated sludge) processes with membrane filtration to provide an advanced level of

organic and suspended solids removal. When designed accordingly, these systems can

also provide an advanced level of nutrient removal. In an MBR system, the membranes

are submerged in an aerated biological reactor. The membranes have porosities ranging

from 0.035 microns to 0.4 microns (depending on the manufacturer), which is

considered between micro and ultrafiltration.

11
 This level of filtration allows for high quality effluent to be drawn through the

membranes and eliminates the sedimentation and filtration processes typically used for

wastewater treatment. Because the need for sedimentation is eliminated, the biological

process can operate at a much higher mixed liquor concentration. This dramatically

reduces the process tankage required and allows many existing plants to be upgraded

without adding new tanks. To provide optimal aeration and scour around the

membranes, the mixed liquor is typically kept in the 1.0-1.2% solids range, which is

four times that of a conventional plant.

Figure 3.1 Typical schematic for MBR system

3.2 PRE-TREATMENT

To avoid unwanted solids in the waste stream, which enters the membrane tank,

fine screening is an essential pre-treatment step. This minimizes an accumulation of

solids and protects the membrane from damaging debris and particles, extends the

membrane life, reduces operating costs and guarantees a higher sludge quality as well

as a trouble free operation.

12
3.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Most MBRs employ chemical maintenance cleaning on a weekly basis, which

lasts 30–60 min, and recovery cleaning when filtration is no longer durable, which

occurs once or twice a year. A deposit that cannot be removed by available methods

of cleaning is called “irrecoverable fouling”. This fouling builds up over the years of

operation and eventually determines the membrane life-time. All operation and

maintenance tasks have to be done by skilled worker.

13
 CHAPTER 4

MBR FOULING

A decrease in the permeate flux or increase in TMP during a membrane process

is generally understood by the term “fouling”. Fouling occurs as a consequence of

interactions between the membrane and the mixed liquor and is one of the principal

limitations of the MBR process. Fouling of membranes in MBRs is a very complex

phenomenon with diverse relationships among its causes and it is very difficult to

localize and define membrane fouling clearly.

The main causes of membrane fouling are:

 Adsorption of macromolecular and colloidal matter.

 Growth of biofilms on the membrane surface.

 Precipitation of inorganic matter.

 Aging of the membrane.

This total filtration resistance consists of a number of components, which can be

divided as: Membrane resistance, resistance of the fouling layer on the membrane

surface, and resistance offered by the membrane-solution interfacial region. Membrane

resistance is a function of characteristics of membrane material such as thickness and

pore size, and it determines the flux through the membrane for filtration of one-

component liquid, i.e., clean water. For MBRs, membrane resistance is often given as

its inverse value called “clean water permeability”, which is normally within the range

of a few hundred to a few thousand L m–2 h–1 bar–1. The resistance of the fouling layer

is associated with the filtration mechanism, which is dependent on the membrane

characteristics and characteristics of filtered solids, while membrane-solution

14
interfacial region resistance is associated with concentration polarization.

Concentration polarization is a phenomenon of solute tendency to accumulate within

the boundary liquid layer of near-stagnant fluid adjacent to membrane surface. Since

liquid velocity within this layer is close to zero, the only mode of mass transport is

diffusion, which is significantly slower then convective transport in the bulk solution.

As a consequence, resistance to filtration occurs. The thickness of the boundary layer

is dependent on system’s hydrodynamics and can be decreased by promoting the

turbulence of liquid flow.

Figure 4.1 Fouling mechanism

According to recognized mechanisms the fouling on the membrane occurs as:

 Complete blocking caused by occlusion of pores by the particles with no particle

superimposition.

 Intermediate blocking caused by occlusion of pores by particles with particle

superimposition.

 Standard blocking where particles smaller than the membrane pore size deposit

onto the pore walls thus reducing the pore size.

 Cake filtration where particles larger than the membrane pore size deposit onto

the membrane surface.

It is assumed that fouling consists of two separate processes, one being cake fouling

caused by suspended particles that form a cake layer on the membrane surface, and the

15
other type associated with adsorption of smaller colloid and soluble matter on the

membrane surface and in the membrane pores. An attempt to make a distinction among

different constituents of activated sludge, relative contribution of biomass fractions on

fouling has been intensively investigated by fractionation of activated sludge into

suspended solids, colloids, and solutes. This fractionation is usually performed by

centrifugation of biomass and subsequent filtration of the supernatant through 0.45 µm

filter for separation of colloid from soluble matter. Again, this approach does not take

into account all the interactions among fractions, but it represents an interesting

approach to clarification of the fouling phenomenon. It a faster fouling rate with the

effluent of biological process than with the activated sludge and concluded that

suspended solids can act as a dynamic layer over the membrane surface, which can slow

the penetration of soluble fouling species that cause fouling. It is also reported greater

filtration resistance from mixed-liquor supernatant than from the biomass. With regards

to the fouling mechanism, it is generally assumed that soluble and colloid materials are

responsible for pore blocking, while suspended solids contribute mainly to cake layer

resistance. Again, one has to be aware of the fact that biomass itself is responsible for

a composition of soluble and colloid material in the liquid phase, and that composition

of supernatant is a function of the physiological state of the suspended phase.

Among the constituents of the supernatant, extracellular polymeric substances

(EPS) have gained a lot of attention as possible important foulants in MBR. . Apart

from the EPS that are bound in microbial flocs, EPS can be found in the water phase as

free EPS. Substances in this category originate from the breakup of flocs and cell lyses,

or they can be introduced by the influent. Another group of substances overlapping the

EPS is called “soluble microbial products” (SMP). This group contains a wider range

of substances that can also be defined as soluble EPS. The presence of EPS is desirable

16
in CAS because it helps formation of microbial flocs and makes them easier to settle,

but due to its heterogeneous nature EPS can form hydrated gel which can act as a barrier

to permeate flow in MBR. The concentration of polysaccharides of microbiological

origin was influenced by temperature and stress situations to microorganisms.

Fouling can be divided from the practical point of view on:

 Reversible fouling that can be removed from the membrane by physical

cleaning.

 Irreversible fouling removed by chemical cleaning.

 Irrecoverable fouling that cannot be removed by any cleaning.

Physical cleaning in MBRs is normally achieved either by back-flushing. Physical

cleaning is a simple and short method. Fouling suppression which demands no

chemicals and generally it is less likely that it will affect the membrane material.

However, by means of physical cleaning it is not possible to remove all the material

deposited on the membrane. Chemical cleaning is a more effective method, which is

able to remove more strongly the adsorbed deposits. . Cleaning is performed by soaking

the membrane in the cleaning solution or by adding the cleaning agent into the back

flush water. Most MBRs employ chemical maintenance cleaning on a weekly basis,

which lasts 30–60 min, and recovery cleaning when filtration is no longer sustainable,

which occurs once or twice a year. Deposits that cannot be removed by available

methods of cleaning is called “irrecoverable fouling”. This fouling builds up over the

years of operation and eventually determines the membrane life-time. Development of

the fouling given as pressure transient for these three types of fouling for the continuous

operation.

17
4.1 CLASSIFICATION OF FOULANTS

4.1.1 BIO FOULANTS

Bio foulants refer to the bacteria or flocs whose deposition, growth and

metabolism on the membrane results in fouling. For a start, one bacteria cell may attach

to the membrane surface or inside its pores and, after some time, the cell multiplies into

a cluster of cells, leading to the formation of bio cake, and hence reduced permeability.

The bacteria and their metabolic products contribute to fouling.

4.1.2 ORGANIC FOULANTS

Organic foulants in MBRs refer to biopolymers (polysaccharides and proteins)

of which deposition on the membrane results in a decline of membrane permeability.

These foulants are found in metabolic products of bacteria, which are collectively called

EPS. Compared to large particles, such as sludge floc, the deposition of organic foulants

on the membrane surface is more difficult to remove.

4.1.3 INORGANIC FOULANTS

Inorganic foulants are a group of inorganic substances that precipitate onto the

membrane surface or into the membrane pores, resulting in membrane fouling.

Inorganic fouling is produced from the chemical precipitation of inorganic species

and/or biological precipitation of inorganic-organic complexes. While moderate

amounts of metal ions, such as Ca2+ can be beneficial in controlling and improving bio

fouling due to binding and bridging EPS high concentrations have been shown to

significantly increase inorganic fouling due to high inorganic precipitate content of the

MBR mixed liquor.

18
4.2 METHOD TO CONTROL

The most important strategies are concentration polarization suppression,

optimization of physical and chemical cleaning protocols, pre-treatment of feed

wastewater, and mixed-liquor modification. Fouling related to concentration

polarization can be reduced either by promoting turbulence or by reducing flux. As

mentioned above, both MBR configurations need shear over the membrane surface to

prevent this type of fouling. As with most other membrane processes, side-stream

MBRs provide shear through pumping, which increase cross-flow velocity, whereas

immersed processes employ aeration around the membrane to provide shear stresses.

Aeration intensity over the submerged membrane surface is recognized as the

key operational parameter in preventing cake formation on the membrane surface in the

submerged configuration. Membrane permeability and critical flux have been shown to

increase roughly linearly with aeration rate, up to a level above which no further

increase is observed. Investigated critical aeration intensities for different sludge

concentration and fluxes, drawing a quantitative correlation between those parameters.

However, increasing membrane aeration is normally prohibitively expensive. Since

membrane aeration contributes significantly to the energy demand, much development

has been focused on reducing aeration whilst maintaining membrane permeability. A

development has been achieved in aeration efficiency with new jet aeration and cyclic

aeration systems. It is often in practice to use different aeration systems for biological

system and for membrane fouling control, in order to insure most efficient energy use

for both systems demands.

Reducing the permeate flux always reduces fouling, but at the same time this

strategy demands a more installed membranes, which then contributes to the capital

19
cost of MBR installation. In other words, flux can be maintained below the critical value

to ensure stable operation with little or negligible increase in TMP, thus decreasing

cleaning frequency and consumption of chemicals, or total installed membrane area can

be reduced on the behalf of frequent cleaning. The latter strategy is called intermittent

operation. In practice, most submerged MBRs treating municipal wastewater operate at

net fluxes with the relaxation period every 10 min and periodical maintenance chemical

cleaning every few months.

Pre-treatment of feed wastewater through screening is necessary for both HF

and FS membrane modules. HF membranes have a tendency for aggregates of hair and

other debris to collect at the top of the membrane elements. These aggregates usually

cannot be significantly removed by back-flushing. FS modules are somewhat less prone

to such clogging, but they too need a feed-water pre-treatment, though with coarser

screens.

20
 CHAPTER 5

APPLICATION AND COST

5.1 APPLICATION

5.1.1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER

MBR systems were initially used for municipal wastewater treatment, primarily

in the area of water reuse and recycling. Compactness, production of reusable water,

and trouble-free operation made the MBR an ideal process for recycling municipal

wastewater in water and space limited environments. Encouraging water reuse in large

buildings, stimulated the development and application of alternative technologies.

Thus, several types of MBR systems were implemented on a large scale basis and were

made available commercially.

Plate and frame ultrafiltration membranes, connected to an aerobic bioreactor,

were used to treat wastewater originating from kitchens and bathrooms. The treated

water was then recycled and used for flushing of toilets. An effluent free of suspended

solids and very low organic content was obtained consistently. The MBR system was

also used in the treatment of human excreta in domestic wastewater. These applications,

also known as night soil treatment systems, were typified by the high strength of the

waste and the need for on site treatment. These properties promoted the application of

MBR processes which became highly feasible under such conditions. The MBR system

replaced a rather complex set of treatment systems which incorporated de nitrification,

coagulation, filtration, and activated carbon treatment.

21
5.1.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT

High organic loadings and very specific and difficult to treat compounds are

two major characteristics of industrial waste streams that render alternative treatment

techniques such as the MBR desirable. Since traditionally wastewater with high COD

content was treated under anaerobic conditions, initial attempts of MBR applications

for industrial wastewater were in the field of anaerobic treatment. Wastewater

containing fat, wheat starch, and pulp and paper wastes were successfully reclaimed by

various pilot plant MBR systems. Generally, COD removal rates of over 90 % were

obtained while high SRTs and biomass concentrations were maintained in the

bioreactor. The use of aerobic membrane bioreactors in the treatment of industrial

wastewater is fairly recent compared to anaerobic processes. It developed an aerobic

bioreactor coupled with ceramic ultrafiltration membranes.

It compared the performance of an aerobic MBR with a conventional activated

sludge system for the treatment of a chemico-thermo mechanical pulping effluent. He

concluded that the MBR was superior to the conventional system in COD, suspended

solids, and toxicity removal. MBRs also proved effective in removing organic

compounds and odor contaminants such as hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptane

from kraft pulp mill evaporate condensate. This would enable the reuse of this

condensate in several processes within the plant in place of fresh water. Another

application of MBR systems in industry is in the area of landfill leachate treatment.

Landfill leachates usually contain high concentrations of organic and inorganic

compounds. Conventionally, the treatment of leachates involves a physical, biological

or membrane filtration process. MBR systems have been successfully utilized with an

22
additional treatment step for inorganics and heavy metal removal, such as reverse

osmosis. Several industrial scale plants, combining a MBR and a reverse osmosis

system, are presently operated.

5.1.3 AGRICULTURAL WASTE TREATMENT

The growing concern is the environmental impact of waste generated in these

facilities in the form of manure, wastewater, unpleasant odors, ammonia, and methane.

Current waste management systems require large crop areas for nutrient application and

in some regions nutrients in livestock waste exceed available cropland capacity to

receive them in agronomic rates. The public is becoming increasingly concerned with

the livestock industries impact on surface and groundwater sources and air quality

which will ultimately increase pressure on stricter government regulations. Therefore,

there is great interest in developing alternative waste treatment systems to either reduce

the extent of pollution or completely change current practices. Intensive livestock

operations have combined solid and liquid waste in a manure slurry form and have

extensive ventilation systems to discharge odors. If a completely self-sustaining system

is desired the technology selected would have to effectively ameliorate both waste

streams, produce reusable water, eliminate unpleasant odors, and be energy friendly.

A submerged aerobic membrane bioreactor could be used as the centerpiece of

such a treatment process complimented by an anaerobic digester or anaerobic lagoon

as a pre-treatment step. Since one third of the organics and the majority of nutrients and

metals remain in the effluent of anaerobic digesters a submerged MBR system that

facilitates nutrient and organics removal could be utilized. Nitrogen is usually the key

nutrient in livestock waste management and a treatment process incorporating

nitrification and de nitrification is essential. Either intermittent aeration or an anoxic

23
department within the bioreactor can be employed for improved total nitrogen removal.

Metal salts can also be added to reduce phosphorus content in the final effluent.

Stability, biological diversity, capacity for treating high organic and nutrient loadings

make the MBR technology a perfect fit for this purpose.

MBRs are capable of producing effluent free of suspended solids, bacteria, and

pathogens, allowing direct re-use of the product water in the livestock facility as wash-

water. The reduced amount of sludge wasted from the MBR due to high solid retention

times can then be recycled to the anaerobic digester or lagoon. These concerns are

alleviated in MBRs where gravitational settling of the microbial solution is replaced by

physical filtration. Also, the diffusion and bioconversion of odorous gases are a

function of contact time, bubble size, and reactor configuration. Submerged MBRs

incorporate the membrane unit within the bioreactor and rely on gas and liquid scouring

to clean the membrane surface. Since modern livestock operations are equipped with

blowers and ventilation systems, the mere pressurization and introduction of this waste

stream into an aerobic submerged MBR would facilitate aeration, agitation, and

membrane scouring while significantly reducing the release of odorous gases.

5.1.4 FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER

The majority of food processing facilities are characterized by very high water

consumption and high organic strength wastewater generation. Most facilities employ

on-site primary treatment prior to sending their wastewater to municipal wastewater

treatment plants. Large volumes of high strength wastewater will both increase the cost

of disposal for food processing facilities and present difficult challenges for the

municipal wastewater treatment plant operators. MBRs are capable of treating high

24
strength wastewater, attempts were made to evaluate their effectiveness with food

processing effluents. A full scale membrane assisted anaerobic plant was developed.

Tubular ultrafiltration membranes were coupled with an anaerobic digester to

treat high strength effluents In the case of a food ingredients manufacturing company,

the existing conventional activated sludge treatment system was not capable of handling

large variations in wastewater COD and total nitrogen. In the case of a food ingredients

manufacturing company, the existing conventional activated sludge treatment system

was not capable of handling large variations in wastewater COD (1200-12000 mg/L)

and total nitrogen (300-800 mg/L). The continually changing biomass settling behavior

led to high maintenance and operation cost and a submerged MBR was evaluated as a

replacement. The pilot system proved quite effective and led to the installation of a full-

scale internal MBR system which was capable of treating 600 m 3 /d of process

wastewater.

Depending on the wastewater characteristics and effluent requirements, both

aerobic and anaerobic submerged MBRs could be employed. Industries such as

slaughterhouses, fermentation plants, meat, dairy, egg, and potato processing facilities,

and liquor production plants could utilize this technology. Pilot-scale testing and

optimization of the process would be required on a case by case basis. The fouling and

flux behavior of submerged membranes when exposed to specific waste streams would

require detailed evaluation. However intrinsic characteristics of the MBR technology

such as the ability to treat high strength greatly fluctuating wastewater, resilience in the

face of shock loads and toxic chemicals, and production of superior quality effluent

would without doubt justify consideration of the process in food processing facilities.

25
5.2 COST

5.2.1 CAPITAL COST

Capital costs for MBR systems historically have tended to be higher than those

for conventional systems with comparable throughput because of the initial costs of the

membranes. In certain situations, however, in some cases, MBR systems can have

lower or competitive capital costs compared with alternatives because MBRs have

lower land requirements and use smaller tanks, which can reduce the costs for concrete.

Regarding evaluation of capital investment costs, pricing information was obtained

from manufacturers or based on costs provided by end-users for similar items of

equipment at full scale MBR plants. Minimum required membrane tank volume (Vm)

is incorporated. Each 10,000 m3 of membrane area is assumed to demand one

membrane tank, and it’s better to consider four or more membrane tanks to have

flexibility in operation and cleaning. A conservative SADm is 0.29 Nm3/ (m2 h) and

each membrane tank require one blower. Cost of land, civil engineering, other electrical

equipment and construction are excluded because they are all highly dependent to

location.

5.2.2 OPERATIONAL COST

Operating costs for MBR systems are typically higher than conventional

systems because of the higher energy costs used for air scouring to reduce membrane

fouling. The air needed for the scouring is twice the amount needed to maintain aeration

in a conventional activated sludge system. Since in membrane systems the sludge

residence time is longer than those for conventional systems operating costs would be

partially offset.

26
 The primary energy demands are related to aeration (66%), by far pumping is

the second energy requirement. So, the key opportunities for energy reduction focus on

aeration; however, all energy related elements should be considered. In order to provide

the most cost effective and energy efficient system, it is important to look at

opportunities related to design, operations, and equipment.

(i) ENERGY DEMAND

There are some elements that should be considered to reduce the cost and energy

requirement in designing a wastewater treatment plant. Various operational elements

influence the overall energy efficiency of the MBR design. Currently the single largest

energy cost is aeration – both for the biology and for the maintenance of the membranes.

Hence, opportunities to reduce aeration have the potential to reduce the overall energy

requirements significantly.

(ii) AERATION ENERGY

Energy demand is a key cost factor when considering MBR technology. The

main contributors to energy costs are sludge transfer, permeate production and, most

significantly, aeration. Membrane aeration is normally achieved via coarse bubble

aerators positioned beneath the membrane units. The influence of MLSS concentration

and aerator type on oxygen transfer was computed using the dedicated aeration model.

In order to achieve the optimum design parameters of MBR with which operational

costs are minimized, aeration and sludge treatment costs should be estimated for various

operational conditions. Generally sludge treatment cost and aeration cost were

inversely proportional to each other, which means sludge treatment cost is minimized

when aeration cost is maximized and vice versa. Therefore, there might exist an

optimum point between the two extreme cases. However, sludge treatment cost turned

27
out to overwhelm the aeration cost over the reasonable operational conditions.

Therefore, sludge minimization was considered to be a key for the economical

operation of MBR.

(iii) FILTRATION

Filtration performances can be limited by membrane fouling and the aim of

most studies about MBR process is to prevent or to limit fouling in order to enhance

system performances. Consequently we should consider the parameters influencing

fouling. Permeate flux and transmembrane pressure (TMP) are the best indicators of

membrane fouling. Membrane fouling leads to a significant increase in hydraulic

resistance, results in permeate flux decline or TMP increase. In a system where the

permeate flux is maintained by increasing TMP, the energy required to achieve

filtration increases. As the number of filtration cycles increases, the irreversible fraction

of membrane fouling also increases. In order to obtain the desired production rate,

chemical cleaning is required for membrane to regain most of its permeability. The

resultant makes the membrane process costly.

28
 CHAPTER 6

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

MBR technology is a new development that faces some limitations in the CAS

process. On comparing with the CAS process, membrane processes provide several

interests, such as;

 Reduced footprint due to more compact composition.

 Higher biomass concentration.

 Secondary clarifiers.

 Less sludge production.

 Independence of solid separation quality on MLSS concentration.

 Higher water quality outlets.

Three generations of MBR plants have been established and are increased

constantly. MBR systems are primarily preferred to replace the conventional systems

with sedimentation tanks for solid liquid separation because it depends on water reuse,

include solids-free effluent, and needs limited space. MBRs could work at high

concentrations of mixed liquor in a smaller reactor and without any secondary

sedimentation tanks.

Following significant advantages of MBR application;

 Not required a gravitation settler, and therefore, the operation is independent of

sludge parameters and biomass concentrations.

 MBR system produces excellent quality filtered effluent with low turbidity (<1

NTU) and BOD (<5 mg L) levels.

29
 MBR improves the biological process efficacy through degradation; kinetics can

make the membrane as a barrier for suspended solids resulting in constant quality

of effluents.

 MBR systems increased the volumetric loading and reduced the sludge production,

which consequently reduces the costs for civil works.

 Need low energy consumption providing lower sludge formation.

 There is no need for chemicals during the treatment operation.

Despite these great benefits of MBR application, there are also some little

disadvantages; the greater of which is the problem of fouling. The popular distribution

of MBRs was hardly obligated because of the high cost compared to traditional ones

and the short life-time of the membranes. In reality, membrane costs have been

declined versus the prices of steel and concrete, favoring the smaller MBR systems.

30
 CHAPTER 7

CASE STUDY

7.1 GENERAL

Membrane Bioreactor technology can be effectively used for wastewater

treatment in residential, commercial complexes, hotels, industries to achieve enhanced

nutrient and organic matter removal .The treated water can be effectively utilized for

various purposes like horticulture ,flushing etc. This results in reduced net daily water

requirements from Tube wells/Municipal sources for landscape/ horticulture and lesser

withdrawal from underground aquifer water sources. It also reduces dependence on the

public utilities for water supply and sewerage systems. Sludge generated from the

Sewage Treatment Plant is rich in organic materials and is excellent manure for

horticulture purpose.

This case study is conducted by Prof .S.K. Singh, Anjana Reghu and analysis the

performance and efficiency of waste water treatment process by MBR technology in a

luxury hotel in Delhi. 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.

7.2 STUDY AREA

The study area is a 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 laboratory to evaluate the performance of MBR plant. The

membrane used in the bioreactor are made of PVDF material and of 0.2 microns pore

size. The membranes were stacked in form of cassettes. The filtrated from the MBR is
31
removed by means of MBR filtrate pumps. Return activated sludge pumps are provide

in the MBR chamber to maintain the continuous circulation of the mixed liquor between

the aeration tank and MBR chamber. The filtrate from the MBR is collected in treated

water tank.

7.3 METHODOLOGY

7.3.1 SAMPLING PERIOD

Samples were taken for 5 days in the month of October 2014 from the inlet and

outlet of the MBR facility.

7.3.2 SAMPLING MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experimental method consisted of collection of composite samples of raw

sewage and treated water from the inlet and outlet of MBR plant in a one liter bottle.

Sampling was conducted from 9 am to 2 pm which has peak sewage flow for 5 days.

Figure 7.1 Sample collected from inlet and outlet MBR plant

The efficiency of MBR treatment was examined by conducting tests in

laboratory on samples and measuring changes in concentration of the total amount of

organic matter in terms of BOD, COD, suspended solids (SS), Ammonia, nitrate,

Phosphate of raw sewage and treated water.

32
7.3.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS

Table 7.1 Laboratory analysis methods

Parameter Method

pH pHmeter

COD Open reflux

BOD Winkler method

TSS Gravimetric Method

TDS Gravimetric Method

NITRATE Brucin -Spectrofotometric Method

Total phosphate Stannuous chloride- spectrophotometric

method

Hardness EDTA Method

All measurements were conducted in research laboratory of Environmental

Engineering Department of Delhi Technological University.

7.4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Raw Sewage and Treated water characteristics Based on the laboratory analysis

conducted on the inlet and outlet samples for different primary parameters following

results were drawn from the study.

33
7.4.1 CHARACTERISTIC OF INLET AND OUTLET WASTEWATER

The pH of the inlet and outlet varied from 7.38 to 8.45 which was measured

using a pH meter. The ratio of BOD5/ COD indicates the biodegradability of

wastewater and the higher the ratio higher the biodegradability of the wastewater The

ratio of BOD to COD indicates the extent to which the organic matter in wastewater is

degradable by aerobic microorganism and if biological processes is suitable for

treatment of the particular type of wastewater. The BOD5/COD ratio varied from 0.54

-0.61 at inlet indicating suitability for biological treatment by Membrane Bioreactor

Process.

7.4.2 BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY

BOD is described as the dissolved oxygen used by aerobic microorganism in

biochemical oxidation of organic matter. The BOD 5 of the raw sewage from the hotel

at inlet varied from 280- 400 mg/L over the five day sampling period. The BOD5 of

outlet treated water varied from 20-28 mg/L which is within the permissible limits as

given by DPCC. BOD removal is indicative of the efficiency of biological treatment

processes .The efficiency of removal of BOD 5 varied from 91-93 % with an overall

average removal efficiency around 92.9 %.

7.4.3 COD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY

Chemical oxygen demand of the inlet varied from 420- 580 mg/L while at outlet

varied from 28- 46 mg /L. The COD value determines the efficiency of biological

process of treatment plant. The removal efficiencies varied from 89 -91 % overall

average of removal being 90.9 % for 5 day sampling period.

34
7.4.4 PHOSPHATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY

The available phosphate concentration in treated water varied from 7.32- 9.2

ppm with average removal efficiency around 61 %. The total phosphate in outlet varied

from 8.44 -11.365 ppm with removal efficiency around 68 %.

7.4.5 AMMONIA AND NITRATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY

The Total Nitrogen concentration varied from 18.20 -25.80 ppm in samples

collected from outlet with average removal efficiency of 61 %. The nitrate

concentration in treated water samples varied from 7.54 -9.10 ppm with removal

efficiency of around 65 %.

7.4.6 TSS AND TDS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY

MBR technology has very high TSS removal efficiency rate than normal

treatment methods. The TSS and TDS values of inlet varied from 318-458 mg/L and

2231-3892 mg/L measured using gravimetric method. The TSS at outlet varied from

22- 35mg/L with an average removal efficiency of around 93 %.The average removal

efficiency of BOD 5 and COD was around 90-92% which is very high as compared to

conventional treatment methods.. The phosphate and nitrogen removal was found to be

around 65-70 % and not so effective as predicted by the manufacturer. The TSS removal

by MBR was found to be really effective with removal efficiency varying from 93- 94

%. The treated water was very clear. The low efficiency of removal of phosphate and

nitrogen can be due to low MLSS in the bioreactor tank. The MLSS content needs to

be regulated and monitored periodically for effective removal at all times. Addition of

cow dung in the recirculation tank can prove effective for removal of nitrogen and

phosphate content in wastewater. The treated water from MBR has better removal

35
efficiency as compared to conventional methods of treatment but has lower efficiency

from the MBR prototypes.

7.4.7 SUITABILITY OF IRRIGATION

Treated water can be used for horticulture if conform with the standards for

water used for irrigation. The standards for irrigation water in India are given in

Guidelines for Quality of Irrigation Water, Is 11624 -1986. The treated water was tested

for sodium, pottasium and Ca , Mg content. The SAR, sodium absorption ratio and electrical

conductivity was measured and calculated to evaluate its suitability for irrigation and

horticulture.

Table 7.2 Guidelines of water used for irrigation

Water class Sodium % Electrical Conductivity SAR

Excellent <20 <250 <10

Good 20-40 250-750 10-18

Medium 40-60 750-2250 18-26

Bad 60-80 2250-4000 >26

Very Bad >80 >4000 >26

7.5 CONCLUSION

The BOD of the inlet samples varied from 280- 400 mg/L while that of outlet

samples varied from 20-28 mg/L. The efficiency of BOD removal fluctuated from 91-

93% over the five week sampling period. The COD concentration at inlet was found to

vary from 420 to 580 mg/L while the COD concentration at outlet varied from 28- 46

36
mg /L. The efficiency of removal of COD varied from 91-93%. The efficiency of

removal of BOD and COD was found to be slightly lower than the high efficiency of

removal (98-99% removal) usually reported by the MBR plants. The low removal of

organic matter could be due to low MLSS concentration and improper sludge

recirculation. The performance of BOD and COD removal of the plant can be improved

by proper sludge recirculation to maintain the optimum number of heterotrophic

bacteria, which are responsible of degradation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous matter

in wastewater.

The TSS and TDS at inlet varied from 318-458 mg/L and 2231-3892 mg/L

while at the outlet TSS varied from 22- 35mg/L .The suspended solids removal was

found to be good at 93-94 %. The use of smaller pore size would ensure better removal

of suspended solids content in treated water. Though the overall efficiency of MBR

plant at study area was not at par with average efficiency of typical MBR plants, the

overall effluent quality of the plant complied with the prescribed limits set by DPCC

(Delhi Pollution Control Board) for discharge in municipal sewers except for

phosphates .The treated water from the plant was of better quality than those from

conventional treatment methods.

MBR technology can be effectively used for waste water treatment in

decentralized 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 minimize 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

37
complexes. There is a need to optimize the cost and performance of Membrane

Bioreactor technology to make this treatment method popular at community level in

India.

38
 CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSIONS

The membrane bioreactor technology has great potential in wide ranging

applications including municipal and industrial wastewater treatment, groundwater and

drinking water abatement, solid waste digestion, and odor control. The technical and

economic feasibility of this process has been demonstrated through a 26 number of pilot

and bench scale research studies. Full scale systems are operational in various parts of

the world and substantial growth in the number and size of installations is anticipated

for the near future. The MBR process is already considered as a viable alternative for

many waste treatment challenges and with water quality issues firmly placed into the

forefront of public debate, ever tightening discharge standards and increasing water

shortages will further accelerate the development of this technology. Activated sludge

scrubbing can also be incorporated into these systems for odor control and air pollution

management. High quality effluent produced by the MBR would guarantee pathogen

and bacteria control and assist the facility in complying with strict environmental

regulations.

The presence of substances such as natural and synthetic hormones, industrial

chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and pharmaceuticals in ground and surface water

bodies necessitates stricter control of point and non-point sources. Research studies

indicate that certain configurations of MBRs would retain, concentrate, and

consequently break down many of these compounds without requiring sophisticated

tertiary treatment processes. The retention of all microbial entities and biological

catalysts within the bioreactor allows for extensive biomass acclimation and enhanced

reaction kinetics. Consequently, much improvement and attention toward membrane

39
assisted hybrid processes for removing priority contaminants from effluents and

drinking water sources is expected in the near future. As well, the positive barrier

against biological entities provides a fool proof technology that assures a high quality

product which is essential for potable water use. The possibility of combining the

removal of organic matter, nutrients, toxic chemicals, and biological organisms in one

treatment system is certain to fuel future research and development in this emerging

field.

40
 REFERENCES

1. Ajay P. Pardey, [Link], Dr.R.S. Sapkal (2017) A Review on

membrane bioreactor (MBR) Technology, International Journal of Technology

& Engineering.

2. L. Clouzot, Nicolas Roche, B. Marrot (2011) Effect of membrane bioreactor

configuration on sludge structure and microbial activity, Elsevier.

3. Judd. S(2006) The MBR Book, Elsevier.

4. Adham, S., P. Gagliardo, L. Boulos, J. Oppenheimer and R. Trussell

(2000) Feasibility of the membrane bioreactor process for water reclamation.

5. Berube, P.R. and E.R. Hall (2001) Fate and removal kinetics of contaminants

contained in evaporator condensate during treatment for reuse using a high-

temperature membrane bioreactor.

6. Susana rodriguez -couto (2021) Membrane- based hybrid processes for

wastewater treatment, Elsevier.

7. Oliver Terna Iorhemen, Rania Ahmed Hamza and Joo Hwa Tay (2016)

Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation: Membrane Fouling.

8. Shirazi, S., Lin, C.-J.; Chen, D (2010) Inorganic fouling of pressure-driven

membrane processes.

9. [Link], Anjana Reghu (2015) Application of membrane bioreactors

technology for waste water treatment and reuse; case study of MBR plant in

luxury hotel in Delhi, International Journal for Innovation Research in Science

and Technology

10. Adam, Gnirss.R, Lesjean.B, Buisson.H, Kraume (2002) Enhanced

biological phosphorus removal in membrane bioreactors

41
11. Grant. S, Christian. S, Vite. E, Juarez. V (2010) Anaerobic membrane

bioreactor (AnMBR) pilot-scale treatment of stillage from tequila production.

12. Rania Ahmed Hamza and Joo Hwa Tay (2016) Membrane Bioreactor

(MBR) Technology for Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation: Membrane

Fouling

13. Le-Clech. P, Chen. V, FaneT.A.G (2010) Fouling in membrane bioreactors

used in wastewater treatment.

14. Brindle. K, Stephenson. T (1996) The application of membrane biological

reactors for the treatment of wastewaters.

15. Chang. I, Le Clech. P, Jefferson. B, Judd. S (2002) Membrane fouling in

membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment.

42