Membrane bioreactor: Difference between revisions
m sectioning |
|||
(306 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Combination technology for wastewater treatment}} |
|||
'''Membrane bioreactor''' (MBR) is the combination of a [[membrane process]] like [[microfiltration]] or [[ultrafiltration]] with a suspended growth [[bioreactor]], and is now widely used for municipal and industrial [[wastewater]] treatment with plant sizes up to 80,000 population equivalent (i.e. 48 MLD) <ref name=judd> S. Judd, The MBR book (2006) Principles and applications of membrane bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment, Elsevier, Oxford</ref>. |
|||
{{Multiple issues| |
|||
{{Lead too short|date=February 2022}} |
|||
{{Tone|date=February 2022}} |
|||
}} |
|||
'''Membrane bioreactors''' are combinations of [[Membrane technology|membrane processes]] like [[microfiltration]] or [[ultrafiltration]] with a biological [[wastewater treatment]] process, the [[Activated sludge|activated sludge process]]. These technologies are now widely used for [[Sewage treatment|municipal]] and [[industrial wastewater treatment]].<ref name=judd>S. Judd, The MBR book (2006) Principles and applications of membrane bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment, Elsevier, Oxford {{ISBN|1856174816}}</ref> The two basic membrane bioreactor configurations are the submerged membrane bioreactor and the side stream membrane bioreactor.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Goswami |first1=Lalit |last2=Vinoth Kumar |first2=R. |last3=Borah |first3=Siddhartha Narayan |last4=Arul Manikandan |first4=N. |last5=Pakshirajan |first5=Kannan |last6=Pugazhenthi |first6=G. |date=2018-12-01 |title=Membrane bioreactor and integrated membrane bioreactor systems for micropollutant removal from wastewater: A review |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214714418306329 |journal=Journal of Water Process Engineering |language=en |volume=26 |pages=314–328 |doi=10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.10.024 |bibcode=2018JWPE...26..314G |s2cid=134769916 |issn=2214-7144}}</ref> In the submerged configuration, the membrane is located inside the biological reactor and submerged in the wastewater, while in a side stream membrane bioreactor, the membrane is located outside the reactor as an additional step after biological treatment. |
|||
==Overview== |
==Overview== |
||
[[Water scarcity]] has prompted efforts to reuse waste water once it has been properly treated, known as "[[Reclaimed water|water reclamation]]" (also called '''wastewater reuse''', '''water reuse,''' or '''water recycling'''). Among the treatment technologies available to reclaim [[wastewater]], membrane processes stand out for their capacity to retain solids and salts and even to disinfect water, producing water suitable for reuse in irrigation and other applications. |
|||
[[Image:MBR_Schematic.jpg|thumb|400 px|location|none|Simple schematic describing the MBR process]] |
|||
When used with domestic wastewater, MBR processes could produce effluent of high quality enough to be discharged to coastal, surface or brackish waterways or to be reclaimed for urban irrigation. Other advantages of MBRs over conventional processes include small footprint, easy retrofit and upgrade of old wastewater treatment plants. Two MBR configurations exist: internal, where the membranes are immersed in and integral to the biological reactor; and external/sidestream, where membranes are a separate unit process requiring an intermediate pumping step. |
|||
A [[semipermeable membrane]] is a material that allows the selective flow of certain substances. |
|||
[[Image:MBRvsASP_Schematic.jpg|thumb|550 px|location|none|Schematic of conventional [[activated sludge]] process (top) and membrane bioreactor (bottom)]] |
|||
In the case of water purification or regeneration, the aim is to allow the water to flow through the membrane whilst retaining undesirable particles on the originating side. By varying the type of membrane, it is possible to get better pollutant retention of different kinds. Some of the required characteristics in a membrane for wastewater treatment are chemical and mechanical resistance for five years of operation and capacity to operate stably over a wide [[pH]]<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last1=Zhen |first1=Guangyin |last2=Pan |first2=Yang |last3=Lu |first3=Xueqin |last4=Li |first4=Yu-You |last5=Zhang |first5=Zhongyi |last6=Niu |first6=Chengxin |last7=Kumar |first7=Gopalakrishnan |last8=Kobayashi |first8=Takuro |last9=Zhao |first9=Youcai |last10=Xu |first10=Kaiqin |date=2019-11-01 |title=Anaerobic membrane bioreactor towards biowaste biorefinery and chemical energy harvest: Recent progress, membrane fouling and future perspectives |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119306008 |journal=Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews |language=en |volume=115 |pages=109392 |doi=10.1016/j.rser.2019.109392 |bibcode=2019RSERv.11509392Z |s2cid=203995165 |issn=1364-0321}}</ref> range. |
|||
There are two main types of membrane materials available on the market: organic-based polymeric membranes and ceramic membranes. Polymeric membranes are the most commonly used materials in water and wastewater treatment. In particular, [[Polyvinylidene fluoride|polyvinylidene difluoride]] (PVDF) is the most prevalent material due to its long lifetime and chemical and mechanical resistance.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
Recent technical innovation and significant membrane cost reduction have pushed MBRs to become an established process option to treat wastewaters <ref name=judd/>. As a result, the MBR process has now become an attractive option for the treatment and reuse of industrial and municipal wastewaters, as evidenced by their constantly rising numbers and capacity. The current MBR market has been estimated to value around US$216 million in 2006 and to rise to US$363 million by 2010 <ref>S. Atkinson, research studies predict strong growth for MBR markets. Membrane Technology (2006) 8-10</ref>. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|+ |
|||
| colspan="2" |'''Polymeric Membrane Materials''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''PAN''' |
|||
|''Polyacrylonitrile'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''(HD)PE''' |
|||
|''(High density) polyethylene'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''PES''' |
|||
|''Polyethylsulphone'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''PS''' |
|||
|''Polysulphone'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''PTFE''' |
|||
|''Polytetrafluoroethylene'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''PVDF''' |
|||
|''Polyvinylidine difluoride'' |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
| colspan="2" |'''Ceramic Membrane Materials''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''Al2O3''' |
|||
'''SiC''' |
|||
[[Image:SubmergedMBR_Schematic.jpg|frame|none|Schematic of a submerged MBR]] |
|||
'''TiO2 ''' |
|||
== MBR history and basic operating parameters == |
|||
The MBR process was introduced by the late 1960s, as soon as commercial scale [[ultrafiltration]] (UF) and [[microfiltration]] (MF) membranes were available. The original process was introduced by Dorr-Olivier Inc. and combined the use of an [[activated sludge]] bioreactor with a crossflow 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, low economic value of the product (tertiary effluent) 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 therefore necessary to pump the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) at high crossflow velocity at significant energy penalty (of the order 10 kWh/m3 product) to reduce fouling. Due to the poor economics of the first generation MBRs, they only found applications in niche areas with special needs like isolated trailer parks or ski resorts for example. |
|||
'''ZrO2 ''' |
|||
The breakthrough for the MBR came in 1989 with the idea of Yamamoto and co-workers to submerge the membranes in the bioreactor. Until then, MBRs were designed with the separation device located external to the reactor (sidestream MBR) and relied on high transmembrane pressure (TMP) to maintain filtration. With the membrane directly immersed into the bioreactor, submerged MBR systems are usually preferred to sidestream 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 sidestream systems and submerged systems operate at a lower flux, demanding more membrane area. In submerged configurations, aeration is considered as one of the major parameter on process performances both hydraulic and biological. Aeration maintains solids in suspension, scours the membrane surface and provides oxygen to the biomass, leading to a better biodegradability and cell synthesis. |
|||
|''Aluminum oxide / Alumina'' |
|||
''Silicon carbide'' |
|||
The other key steps in the recent MBR development were the acceptance of modest fluxes (25% or less of those in the first generation), 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 encouraged 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. While early MBRs were operated at solid retention times (SRT) as high as 100 days with mixed liquor suspended solids up to 30 g/L, the recent trend is to apply lower solid retention times (around 10-20 days), resulting in more manageable mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) levels (10-15 g/L). Thanks to these new operating conditions, the oxygen transfer and the pumping cost in the MBR have tended to decrease and 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. Typical hydraulic retention times (HRT) range between 3 and 10 hours. In terms of membrane configurations, mainly hollow fibre and flat sheet membranes are applied for MBR applications <ref name=le-clech1> P. Le-Clech, V. Chen, A.G. Fane, Fouling in membrane bioreactors used for wastewater treatment – A review. J. Memb. Sci. 284 (2006) 17-53</ref>. |
|||
''Titanium dioxide / Titania'' |
|||
== Major considerations in MBR == |
|||
=== Fouling and fouling control === |
|||
The MBR filtration performance inevitably decreases with filtration time. This is due to the deposition of soluble and particulate materials onto and into the membrane, attributed to the interactions between [[activated sludge]] components and the membrane. This major drawback and process limitation has been under investigation since the early MBRs, and remains one of the most challenging issues facing further MBR development <ref>[http://www.membrane.unsw.edu.au/research/mbr.htm Membrane Bioreactors<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>, <ref name=cui> Z.F. Cui, S. Chang, A.G. Fane, The use of gas bubbling to enhance membrane process, J. Memb. Sci. 2211 (2003) 1-35</ref>. |
|||
[[Image:MBRfouling.jpg|thumb|400 px|location|none|Illustration of membrane fouling ]] |
|||
''Zirconium dioxide / Zirconia'' |
|||
In recent reviews covering membrane applications to bioreactors, it has been shown that, as with other membrane separation processes, membrane fouling is the most serious problem affecting system performance. Fouling leads to a significant increase in hydraulic resistance, manifested as permeate flux decline or transmembrane pressure (TMP) increase when the process is operated under constant-TMP or constant-flux conditions respectively. Frequent membrane cleaning and replacement is therefore required, increasing significantly the operating costs. |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
| colspan="2" |'''Comparison: Polymeric vs Ceramic Membranes''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''Polymeric''' |
|||
|'''Ceramic''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|''Subject to mechanical damage'' |
|||
|''Higher mechanical strength'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|''Bundles of hundreds of hollow fibers'' |
|||
|''One "piece" per element'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|''Vulnerable to chemicals'' |
|||
|''Good chemical resistance'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|''Lower cost in terms of capacity'' |
|||
|''High capital costs'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|''Very common product'' |
|||
|''Little operational experience'' |
|||
|- |
|||
|''Majority of commercial products'' |
|||
|''Few applications'' |
|||
|} |
|||
[[Image:MBR Schematic.jpg|thumb|Simple schematic describing the MBR process]] |
|||
When used with [[sewage|domestic wastewater]], membrane bioreactor processes can produce effluent of high enough quality for discharge into the oceans, surfaces, brackish bodies, or urban irrigation waterways. Other advantages of membrane bioreactors over conventional processes include reduced footprints and simpler retrofitting. |
|||
It is possible to operate membrane bioreactor processes at higher [[mixed liquor suspended solids]] concentrations compared to conventional settlement separation systems, thus reducing the reactor volume to achieve the same loading rate. |
|||
Membrane fouling results from interaction between the membrane material and the components of the activated sludge liquor, which include biological flocs formed by a large range of living or dead microorganisms along with soluble and colloidal compounds. The suspended biomass has no fixed composition and varies both with feed water composition and MBR operating conditions employed. Thus though many investigations of membrane fouling have been published, the diverse range of operating conditions and feedwater matrices employed, the different analytical methods used and the limited information reported in most studies on the suspended biomass composition, has made it difficult to establish any generic behaviour pertaining to membrane fouling in MBRs specifically. |
|||
[[Image:MBRvsASP Schematic.jpg|thumb|Schematic of conventional [[activated sludge]] process (top) and external (side stream) membrane bioreactor (bottom)]] |
|||
[[Image:MBR_FiltrationFactors.jpg|thumb|700 px|location|none|Factors influencing fouling (interactions in red)]] |
|||
Recent technical innovation and significant membrane cost reduction have enabled membrane bioreactors to become an established process option to treat wastewater.<ref name=judd/> Membrane bioreactors have become an attractive option for the treatment and reuse of industrial and municipal wastewater, as evidenced by their consistently rising numbers and capacity. The current membrane bioreactor market was estimated to be worth around US $216 million in 2006<ref>{{cite journal|author=S. Atkinson|doi=10.1016/S0958-2118(06)70635-8|title=Research studies predict strong growth for MBR markets|year=2006|journal=Membrane Technology|volume=2006|issue=2|pages=8–10}}</ref> and US$838.2 million in 2011, grounding projections that the market for membrane bioreactors was growing at an average rate of 22.4% and would reach a market size of US $3.44 billion in 2018.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|title=WaterWorld. (2012). Membrane multiplier: MBR set for global growth e water world|journal=WaterWorld}}</ref> |
|||
The air-induced cross flow obtained in submerged MBR can efficiently remove or at least reduce the fouling layer on the membrane surface. A recent review reports the latest findings on applications of aeration in submerged membrane configuration and describes the enhancement of performances offered by gas bubbling <ref name=cui/>. As an optimal air flow-rate has been identified behind which further increases in aeration have no effect on fouling removal, the choice of aeration rate is a key parameter in MBR design. |
|||
The global membrane bioreactor market is expected to grow in the near future due to various driving forces, for instance increasing scarcity of water worldwide which makes wastewater reclamation more profitable; this will likely be further aggravated by continuing climate change.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|title=Membrane bioreactors for water treatment.|journal=Advances in Membrane Technologies for Water Treatment|volume=2|pages=155–184}}</ref> Growing environmental concerns over industrial wastewater disposal along with declining freshwater resources across developing economies also account for increasing demand for membrane bioreactor technology. Population growth, urbanization, and [[Industrialisation|industrialization]] will further complicate the business outlook.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Koop, S. H., & van Leeuwen, C. J.|date=2017|title=The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities.|journal=Environment, Development and Sustainability|volume=19|issue=2|pages=385–418|doi=10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4|s2cid=148564435|doi-access=free|bibcode=2017EDSus..19..385K }}</ref> |
|||
Many other anti-fouling strategies can be applied to MBR applications. They comprise, for example: |
|||
*Intermittent permeation, where the filtration is stopped at regular time interval for a couple of minutes before being resumed. Particles deposited on the membrane surface tend to diffuse back to the reactor; this phenomena being increased by the continuous aeration applied during this resting period. |
|||
*Membrane backwashing, where permeate water is pumped back to the membrane, and flow through the pores to the feed channel, dislodging internal and external foulants. |
|||
*Air backwashing, where pressurized air in the permeate side of the membrane build up and release a significant pressure within a very short period of time. Membrane modules therefore need to be in a pressurised vessel coupled to a vent system. Air usually does not go through the membrane. If it was, the air would dry the membrane and a rewet step would be necessary, by pressurizing the feed side of the membrane. |
|||
However, high initial investments and operational expenditure may hamper the global membrane bioreactor market. In addition, technological limitations, particularly the recurrent costs of membrane fouling, are likely to hinder production adoption. Ongoing research and development progress toward increasing output and minimizing sludge formation are anticipated to fuel industry growth.<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
Strategy to optimize filtration and enhancing the flow by using the MPE-technology. This technology reduces significant fouling. In several case studies the effect is shown. More informations are provided by Nalco |
|||
[[File:MBR Setups.png|thumb|Simplified illustrations of a submerged and side-stream MBR.]] |
|||
*Membrane Performance Enhancer Technology http://www.nalco.com/ASP/applications/membrane_tech/products/mpe.asp |
|||
Membrane bioreactors can be used to reduce the footprint of an activated sludge sewage treatment system by removing some of the liquid components of the mixed liquor. This leaves a concentrated waste product that is then treated using the [[activated sludge]] process. |
|||
Recent studies show the opportunity to use [[nanomaterials]] for the realization of more efficient and sustainable membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pervez|first1=Md Nahid|last2=Balakrishnan|first2=Malini|last3=Hasan|first3=Shadi Wajih|last4=Choo|first4=Kwang-Ho|last5=Zhao|first5=Yaping|last6=Cai|first6=Yingjie|last7=Zarra|first7=Tiziano|last8=Belgiorno|first8=Vincenzo|last9=Naddeo|first9=Vincenzo|date=2020-11-05|title=A critical review on nanomaterials membrane bioreactor (NMs-MBR) for wastewater treatment|journal=npj Clean Water|language=en|volume=3|issue=1|page=43 |doi=10.1038/s41545-020-00090-2|s2cid=226248577|issn=2059-7037|doi-access=free|bibcode=2020npjCW...3...43P }}</ref> |
|||
In addition, different types/intensities of chemical cleaning may also be recommended: |
|||
*Chemically enhanced backwash (daily); |
|||
*Maintenance cleaning with higher chemical concentration (weekly); |
|||
*Intensive chemical cleaning (once or twice a year). |
|||
==History and basic operating parameters== |
|||
Intensive cleaning is also carried out when further filtration cannot be sustained because of an elevated transmembrane pressure (TMP). Each of the four main MBR suppliers (Kubota, Memcor, Mitsubishi and Zenon) have their own chemical cleaning recipes, which differ mainly in terms of concentration and methods (see Table 1). Under normal conditions, the prevalent cleaning agents remain NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) and citric acid. It is common for MBR suppliers to adapt specific protocols for chemical cleanings (i.e. chemical concentrations and cleaning frequencies) for individual facilities <ref name=le-clech1/>. |
|||
Membrane bioreactors were introduced in the late 1960s, shortly after commercial-scale [[ultrafiltration]] and [[microfiltration]] membranes became available. The original designs were introduced by [[Dorr-Oliver|Dorr-Oliver Inc.]] and 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 (tertiary effluent) and sometimes rapid losses of performance due to membrane fouling. As a result, the initial design focus was on the attainment of high fluxes, and it was, therefore, necessary to pump the mixed liquor and its suspended solids at high cross-flow velocity at significant energy demand (of the order 10 kWh/m<sup>3</sup> product) to reduce fouling. Because of the poor economics of the first-generation devices, they only found applications in niche areas with special needs such as isolated trailer parks or ski resorts. |
|||
The next breakthrough for the membrane bioreactor came in 1989 with the introduction of submerged membrane bioreactor configurations. Until then, membrane bioreactors were designed with a separation device located external to the reactor (side stream membrane bioreactors) and relied on high trans-membrane pressure to maintain filtration. The submerged configuration takes advantage of [[Coarse bubble diffusers|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. Aeration maintains solids in suspension, scours the membrane surface, and provides oxygen to the biomass, leading to better [[biodegradability]] and cell synthesis. Submerged membrane bioreactor systems became preferred to side stream configurations, especially for domestic wastewater treatment. |
|||
[[Image:MBR_Cleaning.jpg|thumb|550 px|location|none|Intensive chemical cleaning protocols for four MBR suppliers (the exact protocol for chemical cleaning can vary from a plant to another)]] |
|||
The next key steps in membrane bioreactor development were the acceptance of modest fluxes (25 percent or less of those in the first generation) 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 membrane bioreactor plant installations from the mid-1990s. Since then, further improvements in membrane bioreactor design and operation have been introduced and incorporated into larger plants. While earlier devices were operated at solid retention times as high as 100 days with mixed liquor suspended solids up to 30 g/L, the recent trend is to apply lower solid retention times (around 10–20 days), resulting in more manageable suspended solids levels (10 to 15 g/L). Thanks to these new operating conditions, the [[oxygen]] transfer and the pumping cost in the reactors have tended to decrease and the overall maintenance has been simplified. There is now a range of membrane bioreactor systems available commercially, most of which use submerged membranes although some side stream modules are available; these side stream systems also use two-phase flow for fouling control. Typical hydraulic retention times range between 3 and 10 hours. For the most part, [[Hollow fiber membrane|hollow fiber]] and flat sheet membrane configurations are utilized in membrane bioreactor applications.<ref name=le-clech1>{{cite journal|author1=P. Le-Clech |author2=V. Chen |author3=A.G. Fane |doi=10.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.019|title=Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment|year=2006|journal=Journal of Membrane Science|volume=284|issue=1–2 |pages=17–53}}</ref> |
|||
=== Biological performances/kinetics === |
|||
==== COD Removal and Sludge Yield ==== |
|||
Simply due to the high number of microorganism in MBRs, the pollutants uptake rate can be increased. This leads to better degradation in a given time span or to smaller required reactor volumes. In comparison to the conventional [[activated sludge]] process which typically achieves 95%, COD removal can be increased to 96-99% in MBRs (see table, <ref name=kraume> M. Kraume, U. Bracklow, M. Vocks, A. Drews, Nutrients Removal in MBRs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Wat. Sci. Tech. 51 (2005), 391-402</ref>). COD and BOD5 removal are found to increase with MLSS concentration. Above 15g/L COD removal becomes almost independent of biomass concentration at >96% <ref name=drews> A. Drews, H. Evenblij, S. Rosenberger, Potential and drawbacks of microbiology-membrane interaction in membrane bioreactors, Environmental Progress 24 (4) (2005) 426-433</ref>. Arbitrary high MLSS concentrations are not employed, however, as oxygen transfer is impeded due to higher and [[Non-Newtonian fluid]] viscosity. Kinetics may also differ due to easier substrate access. In ASP, flocs may reach several 100 μm in size. This means that the substrate can reach the active sites only by diffusion which causes an additional resistance and limits the overall reaction rate (diffusion controlled). Hydrodynamic stress in MBRs reduces floc size (to 3.5 μm in sidestream MBRs) and thereby increases the apparent reaction rate. Like in the conventional ASP, sludge yield is decreased at higher SRT or biomass concentration. Little or no sludge is produced at sludge loading rates of 0.01 kgCOD/(kgMLSS d) <ref> T. Stephenson, S. Judd, B. Jefferson, K. Brindle, Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment, IWA Publishing (2000)</ref>. Due to the biomass concentration limit imposed, such low loading rates would result in enormous tank sizes or long HRTs in conventional ASP. |
|||
[[File:Wastewater UF membrane system, Aquabio.jpg|thumb|UF membrane side stream configuration]] |
|||
==== Nutrient Removal ==== |
|||
Despite the more favorable energy usage of submerged membranes, there continued to be a market for the side stream configuration, particularly in smaller flow industrial applications. For ease of maintenance, side stream configurations can be installed on a lower level in a plant building, and thus membrane replacement can be undertaken without specialized lifting equipment. As a result, research and development has continued to improve the side stream configurations, and this has culminated in recent years with the development of low energy systems which incorporate more sophisticated control of the operating parameters coupled with periodic backwashes, which enable sustainable operation at energy usage as low as 0.3 kWh/m3 of product. |
|||
Nutrient removal is one of the main concerns in modern [[wastewater treatment]] especially in areas that are sensitive to [[eutrophication]]. Like in the conventional ASP, currently, the most widely applied technology for N-removal from municipal wastewater is [[nitrification]] combined with [[denitrification]]. Besides phosphorus precipitation, [[enhanced biological phosphorus removal]] (EBPR) can be implemented which requires an additional anaerobic process step. Some characteristics of MBR technology render EBPR in combination with post-denitrification an attractive alternative that achieves very low nutrient effluent concentrations <ref name=drews/>. |
|||
==Configurations== |
|||
[[Image:MBR_NutrientRemoval.jpg|thumb|600 px|location|none|Nutrients Removal in MBRs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment<ref name=kraume/> |
|||
=== Internal/submerged/''immersed'' === |
|||
==== Anaerobic MBRs ==== |
|||
[[File:ZeeWeed 500 ultrafiltration module at a NEWater plant.jpg|thumb| A reinforced immersed [[hollow fiber membrane]] cassette<ref>{{cite conference |url=http://www.ohiowea.org/docs/GE_MBR_-_The_reliable_solution_for_difficult_to_treat_wastewaters.pdf |title=MBR-The reliable solution for difficult to treat Wastewaters |last1= |first1= |author-link1= |last2= |first2= |author-link2= |date=20 February 2014 |publisher= |book-title= |pages= |location= |conference=OWEA NE Industrial Waste Seminar |id=}}</ref>]] |
|||
Anaerobic MBRs were introduced in the 1980s in South Africa and currently see a renaissance in research. However, anaerobic processes are normally used when a low cost treatment is required that enables energy recovery but does not achieve advanced treatment (low carbon removal, no nutrients removal). In contrast, membrane-based technologies enable advanced treatment (disinfection), but at high energy cost. Therefore, the combination of both can only be economically viable if a compact process for energy recovery is desired, or when disinfection is required after anaerobic treatment (cases of water reuse with nutrients). If maximal energy recovery is desired, a single anaerobic process will be always superior to a combination with a membrane process. |
|||
In the immersed Membrane Bioreactor (iMBR) 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. In systems where the membranes are in a separate tank from the bioreactor, individual trains of membranes can be isolated to undertake cleaning regimes incorporating membrane soaks, however, the biomass must be continuously pumped back to the main reactor to limit mixed liquor suspended solids concentration increases. 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.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wang | first1 = Z. | last2 = Wu | first2 = Z. | last3 = Yin | first3 = X. | last4 = Tian | first4 = L. | year = 2008 | title = Membrane fouling in a submerged membrane bioreactor (MBR) under sub-critical flux operation: Membrane foulant and gel layer characterization | journal = Journal of Membrane Science | volume = 325 | issue = 1| pages = 238–244 | doi = 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.07.035 }}</ref> Usually, the internal/submerged configuration is used for larger-scale lower strength applications.<ref>{{Citation|title=Introduction|work=Catalytic Membranes and Membrane Reactors|year=2002|pages=1–14|publisher=Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA|doi=10.1002/3527601988.ch1|isbn=3-527-30277-8}}</ref> To optimize the reactor volume and minimize the production of sludge, submerged membrane bioreactor systems typically operate with mixed liquor suspended solids 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 less effective; 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 permeation flux. This type of solution is widely accepted in larger-scale units, where the internal/submerged configuration is typically used, because of the higher relative cost of the membrane compared to the additional tank volume required.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Hai|first1=F.I.|title=Membrane Biological Reactors|date=2011|work=Treatise on Water Science|pages=571–613|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-0-444-53199-5|last2=Yamamoto|first2=K.|doi=10.1016/b978-0-444-53199-5.00096-8|s2cid=32232685 |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2198&context=scipapers}}</ref> |
|||
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, iMBR systems can handle higher suspended solids concentrations, while traditional systems work only with suspended solids concentrations between 2.5-3.5, iMBR can handle concentrations between 4-12 g/L, an increase in range of 300%. This type of configuration is adopted in industrial sectors including textile, food & beverage, oil & gas, mining, power generation, pulp & paper.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=January 2019|title=2018 oleochemicals market size, share & trends analysis report|journal=Focus on Surfactants|volume=2019|issue=1|pages=2|doi=10.1016/j.fos.2019.01.003|issn=1351-4210|doi-access=}}</ref> |
|||
===External/side stream=== |
|||
== MBR Suppliers == |
|||
In side stream membrane bioreactor technology, the filtration modules are outside the aerobic tank, hence the name side-stream configuration. Like the immersed or submerged 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. |
|||
The design of the reactor (including membrane, baffle and aerator locations) and the mode of operation of the membrane also appear as key parameters in the optimisation of the system. Several immersed MBR designs are currently proposed by the leading membrane suppliers such as GE-Zenon (Canada), X-Flow (The Netherlands), Siemens-Australia (Australia), Mitsubishi and Kubota (Japan). In each case, the process proposed is very specific. Not only the membrane material and configuration used are different, but the operating conditions, cleaning protocols and reactor designs also change from a company to another. For example, the flat sheet membrane provided by Kubota does not require backwash operation, while hollow fibre membrane type from Zenon and Memcor (USFilter) have been especially designed to hydraulically backwash the membrane on a given frequency (around every 10 min). |
|||
Usually, the external/side stream configuration is used for smaller scale and 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. 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 aeration in the bioreactor, and there is an energy requirement to promote the shear by pumping. In this configuration fouling is more consistent due to the higher fluxes involved.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=1995|editor-last=Hrubec|editor-first=Jiri|title=Water Pollution|journal=The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry|volume=5 / 5B|doi=10.1007/978-3-540-48468-4|isbn=978-3-662-14504-3|issn=1867-979X}}</ref> |
|||
==Major considerations== |
|||
===Fouling and fouling control=== |
|||
== MBR Related Links == |
|||
Membrane bioreactor filtration performance inevitably decreases with filtration time due to the deposition of soluble and particulate materials onto and into the membrane, attributable to the interactions between activated sludge components and the membrane. This major drawback and process limitation has been under investigation since the earliest membrane bioreactors and remains one of the most challenging issues facing further development.<ref>[http://www.membrane.unsw.edu.au/research/mbr.htm Membrane Bioreactors] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080308092504/http://www.membrane.unsw.edu.au/research/mbr.htm |date=2008-03-08 }}. membrane.unsw.edu.au</ref><ref name=cui>{{cite journal|author1=Z.F. Cui |author2=S. Chang |author3=A.G. Fane |doi=10.1016/S0376-7388(03)00246-1|title=The use of gas bubbling to enhance membrane processes|year=2003|journal=Journal of Membrane Science|volume=221|issue=1–2 |pages=1–35}}</ref> |
|||
*MBR-Network http://www.mbr-network.eu |
|||
* [http://biomath.ugent.be/publications/download/jiangtao_phd.pdf Characterisation and modelling of soluble microbial products in membrane bioreactors] PhD thesis |
|||
Fouling is the process by which the particles (colloidal particles, solute macromolecules) are deposited or adsorbed onto the membrane surface or pores by physical and chemical interactions or mechanical action. This produces a reduction in size or blockage of membrane pores. |
|||
== References == |
|||
<references/> |
|||
Membrane fouling can cause severe flux drops and affects the quality of the water produced. Severe fouling may require intense chemical cleaning or membrane replacement.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Liu |first1=Lingling |title=4 - Application of Nanotechnology in the Removal of Heavy Metal From Water |date=2019-01-01 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128148372000044 |work=Nanomaterials for the Removal of Pollutants and Resource Reutilization |pages=83–147 |editor-last=Luo |editor-first=Xubiao |series=Micro and Nano Technologies |publisher=Elsevier |language=en |doi=10.1016/b978-0-12-814837-2.00004-4 |isbn=978-0-12-814837-2 |access-date=2022-06-02 |last2=Luo |first2=Xu-Biao |last3=Ding |first3=Lin |last4=Luo |first4=Sheng-Lian |s2cid=139850140 |editor2-last=Deng |editor2-first=Fang}}</ref> This increases the operating costs of a treatment plant. Membrane fouling has traditionally been thought to occur through four mechanisms: 1) complete pore blocking, 2) standard blocking, 3) intermediate blocking, and 4) cake layer formation.<ref name=":3" /> There are various types of foulants: biological (bacteria, fungi), colloidal (clays, flocs), scaling (mineral precipitates), and organic (oils, polyelectrolytes, (humics). |
|||
[[Category:Waste treatment technology]] |
|||
Membrane fouling can be accommodated either by allowing a decrease in permeation flux while holding transmembrane pressure constant or by increasing transmembrane pressure to maintain constant flux. Most wastewater treatment plants are operated in constant flux mode, and hence fouling phenomena are generally tracked via the variation of transmembrane pressure with time. In recent reviews covering membrane applications to bioreactors, it has been shown that, as with other membrane separation processes, membrane fouling is the most serious problem affecting system performance. Fouling leads to a significant increase in hydraulic resistance, manifested as permeate flux declines or transmembrane pressure increases when the process is operated under constant-transmembrane-pressure or constant-flux conditions respectively.<ref name="meng">{{cite journal|last1=Meng|first1=Fangang|last2=Yang|first2=Fenglin|last3=Shi|first3=Baoqiang|last4=Zhang|first4=Hanmin|title=A comprehensive study on membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors operated under different aeration intensities|journal=Separation and Purification Technology|date=February 2008|volume=59|issue=1|pages=91–100|doi=10.1016/j.seppur.2007.05.040}}</ref> In systems where flux is maintained by increasing transmembrane pressure, the energy required to achieve filtration increases. Frequent membrane cleaning is an alternative that significantly increases operating costs as a result of added cleaning agent costs, added production downtime, and more frequent membrane replacement. |
|||
Membrane fouling results from the interaction between a membrane material and the components of the activated sludge liquor, which include biological flocs formed by a large range of living or dead microorganisms along with soluble and colloidal compounds. The suspended biomass has no fixed composition and varies with feed water composition and reactor operating conditions. Thus, though many investigations of membrane fouling have been published, the diverse range of operating conditions and feedwater matrices employed, the different analytical methods used, and the limited information reported in most studies on the suspended biomass composition, have made it difficult to establish any generic behavior pertaining to membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors specifically. |
|||
[[Image:MBR FiltrationFactors.jpg|thumb|Factors influencing fouling (interactions in red)]] |
|||
Air-induced cross flow in submerged membrane bioreactors can efficiently remove or at least reduce the fouling layer on the membrane surface. A recent review reports the latest findings on applications of aeration in submerged membrane configuration and describes the performance benefits of gas bubbling.<ref name=cui/> The choice of aeration rate is a key parameter in submerged membrane bioreactor design, as there is generally an optimal air flow rate beyond which further increases in aeration have no benefits for preventing fouling. |
|||
Many other antifouling strategies can be applied in membrane bioreactor applications. They include, for example: |
|||
* Intermittent permeation or relaxation, where the filtration is stopped at regular time intervals before being resumed. Particles deposited on the membrane surface tend to diffuse back to the reactor; this phenomenon will be increased by the continuous aeration applied during this resting period. |
|||
* Membrane backwashing, where permeate water is pumped back to the membrane and flows through the pores to the feed channel, dislodging internal and external foulants. |
|||
* Air backwashing, where pressurized air in the membrane's permeate side builds up and releases a significant pressure within a very short period of time. Membrane modules, therefore, need to be in a pressurized vessel coupled to a vent system. Air usually does not go through the membrane. If it did, the air would dry the membrane and a re-wet step would be necessary, accomplished by pressurizing the feed side of the membrane. |
|||
* Proprietary antifouling products, such as Nalco's Membrane Performance Enhancer Technology.<ref>Nalco. http://www.nalco.com/ASP/applications/membrane_tech/products/mpe.asp . {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080607074607/http://www.nalco.com/ASP/applications/membrane_tech/products/mpe.asp |date=June 7, 2008 }}</ref> |
|||
In addition, different types and intensities of chemical cleaning may also be recommended on typical schedules: |
|||
* Chemically enhanced backwash (daily); |
|||
* Maintenance cleaning with higher chemical concentration (weekly); |
|||
* Intensive chemical cleaning (once or twice a year). |
|||
Intensive cleaning may also be carried out when further filtration cannot be sustained because of an elevated transmembrane pressure. Each of the four membrane bioreactor suppliers Kubota, Evoqua, Mitsubishi and GE Water have their own chemical cleaning recipes; these differ mainly in terms of concentration and methods (see Table 1). Under normal conditions, the prevalent cleaning agents are NaOCl ([[sodium hypochlorite]]) and [[citric acid]]. It is common for membrane bioreactor suppliers to adapt specific protocols for chemical cleanings (i.e. chemical concentrations and cleaning frequencies) for individual facilities.<ref name=le-clech1/> |
|||
[[Image:MBR Cleaning.jpg|thumb|Intensive chemical cleaning protocols for four MBR suppliers (the exact protocol for chemical cleaning can vary from a plant to another)]] |
|||
===Biological performances/kinetics=== |
|||
====Chemical oxygen demand removal and sludge yield==== |
|||
Simply due to the high number of microorganisms in membrane bioreactors, pollutant uptake rates can be increased. This leads to better degradation in a given time span or to smaller required reactor volumes. In comparison to conventional activated sludge process treatments which typically achieve 95 percent removal, removal can be increased to 96 to 99 percent in membrane bioreactors (see table,<ref name=kraume>{{cite journal|author1=M. Kraume |author1-link=Matthias Kraume |author2=U. Bracklow |author3=M. Vocks |author4=A. Drews |pmid=16004001|year=2005|title=Nutrients removal in MBRs for municipal wastewater treatment|volume=51|issue=6–7|pages=391–402|journal=Water Science and Technology|doi=10.2166/wst.2005.0661 }}</ref>). Chemical oxygen demand ([[Chemical oxygen demand|COD]]) and biological oxygen demand ([[Biochemical oxygen demand|BOD5]]) removal is found to increase with mixed liquor suspended solids concentration. Above 15 g/L, COD removal becomes almost independent of biomass concentration at >96 percent.<ref name=drews>{{cite journal|author1=A. Drews |author2=H. Evenblij |author3=S. Rosenberger |doi=10.1002/ep.10113|title=Potential and drawbacks of microbiology-membrane interaction in membrane bioreactors|year=2005|journal=Environmental Progress|volume=24|issue=4|pages=426–433|bibcode=2005EnvPr..24..426D }}</ref> Arbitrary high suspended solids concentrations are not employed, however, lest oxygen transfer be impeded due to higher viscosity and [[non-Newtonian fluid|non-Newtonian]] viscosity effects. Kinetics may also differ due to easier substrate access. In typical activated sludge process treatment, flocs may reach several 100 μm in size. This means that the substrate can reach the active sites only by diffusion which causes an additional resistance and limits the overall reaction rate (diffusion-controlled). Hydrodynamic stress in membrane bioreactors reduces floc size (to 3.5 μm in side stream configurations) and thereby increases the effective reaction rate. Like in the conventional activated sludge process, sludge yield is decreased at higher solids retention times or biomass concentrations. Little or no sludge is produced at sludge loading rates of 0.01 kgCOD/(kgMLSS d).<ref>T. Stephenson, S. Judd, B. Jefferson, K. Brindle, Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment, IWA Publishing (2000) {{ISBN|1900222078}}</ref> Because of the imposed biomass concentration limit, such low loading rates would result in enormous tank sizes or long hydrodynamic residence times in conventional activated sludge processes. |
|||
====Nutrient removal==== |
|||
Nutrient removal is one of the main concerns in modern [[wastewater treatment]], especially, in areas that are sensitive to [[eutrophication]]. [[Nitrogen]] (N) is a pollutant present in wastewater that must be eliminated for multiple reasons: it reduces dissolved oxygen in surface waters, is toxic to the [[aquatic ecosystem]], poses a risk to public health, and together with [[phosphorus]] (P), are responsible for the excessive growth of photosynthetic organisms like algae. All these factors make its reduction focus on wastewater treatment. In wastewater, nitrogen can be present in multiple forms. |
|||
Like in the conventional activated sludge process, currently, the most widely applied technology for N-removal from municipal wastewater is [[nitrification]] combined with [[denitrification]], carried out by bacteria nitrifying and the involvement of facultative organisms. |
|||
Besides phosphorus precipitation, [[enhanced biological phosphorus removal]] can be implemented which requires an additional anaerobic process step. Some characteristics for membrane bioreactor technology render enhanced biological phosphorus removal in combination with post-denitrification an attractive alternative that achieves very low nutrient effluent concentrations.<ref name=drews/> |
|||
For this, a membrane bioreactor improves the retention of solids, which provides a better biotreatment, supporting the development of slower-growing microorganisms, especially nitrifying ones, so that it makes them especially effective in the elimination of N (nitrification). |
|||
[[Image:MBR NutrientRemoval.jpg|thumb|Nutrients removal in MBRs for municipal wastewater treatment<ref name=kraume/>]] |
|||
====Anaerobic MBRs==== |
|||
[[Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor|Anaerobic membrane bioreactors]] (sometimes abbreviated AnMBR) were introduced in the 1980s in South Africa. However, anaerobic processes are normally used when a low-cost treatment is required that enables [[energy recovery]] but does not achieve advanced treatment (low [[carbon removal]], no nutrients removal). In contrast, membrane-based technologies enable advanced treatment (disinfection), but at a high energy cost. Therefore, the combination of both can only be economically viable if a compact process for energy recovery is desired, or when disinfection is required after anaerobic treatment (cases of [[water reuse]] with nutrients). If maximal energy recovery is desired, a single anaerobic process will always be superior to a combination with a membrane process. |
|||
Recently, anaerobic membrane bioreactors have seen successful full-scale application to the treatment of some types of industrial wastewaters—typically high-strength wastes. Example applications include the treatment of alcohol stillage wastewater in Japan<ref>{{cite journal|last=Grant|first=Shannon|author2=Page, Ian |author3=Moro, Masashi |author4= Yamamoto, Tetsuya |title=Full-Scale Applications of the Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Process for Treatment of Stillage from Alcohol Production in Japan|journal=Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation|year=2008|series=WEFTEC 2008: Session 101 through Session 115|pages=7556–7570|doi=10.2175/193864708790894179 |volume=2008|issue=7}}</ref> and the treatment of salad dressing/barbecue sauce wastewater in the United States.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Christian|first=Scott |author2=Shannon Grant |author3=Peter McCarthy |author4=Dwain Wilson |author5=Dale Mills|title=The First Two Years of Full-Scale Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR) Operation Treating High-Strength Industrial Wastewater|journal=Water Practice & Technology|year=2011|volume=6|issue=2|doi=10.2166/wpt.2011.032|url=http://www.iwaponline.com/wpt/006/wpt0060032.htm}}</ref> |
|||
===Mixing and hydrodynamics=== |
|||
Like in any other reactors, the [[hydrodynamics]] (or mixing) within a membrane bioreactor plays an important role in determining the pollutant removal and fouling control within the system. It has a substantial effect on energy usage and size requirements, and therefore the whole life cost of a membrane bioreactor is high. |
|||
The removal of pollutants is greatly influenced by the length of time fluid elements spend in the membrane bioreactor (i.e. the [[residence time distribution]]). The [[residence time distribution]] is a description of the [[hydrodynamics]] of mixing in the system and it is determined by the design of the reactor (e.g. size, inlet/recycle flow rates, wall/baffle/mixer/aerator positioning, mixing energy input). An example of the effect of mixing is that a [[continuous stirred-tank reactor]] will not have as high pollutant conversion per unit volume of reactor as a [[plug flow]] reactor. |
|||
The control of fouling, as previously mentioned, is primarily achieved via coarse bubble aeration. The distribution of bubbles around the membranes, the shear at the membrane surface for cake removal and the size of the bubble are greatly influenced by the [[hydrodynamics]] of the system. The mixing within the system can also influence the production of possible foulants. For example, vessels not completely mixed (i.e. plug flow reactors) are more susceptible to the effects of shock loads which may cause cell lysis and release of soluble microbial products. |
|||
[[Image:MBR-Mixing RTD-and-CFD.jpg|thumb|Example of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling results (streamlines) for a full-scale MBR (Adapted from the Project AMEDEUS – Australian Node Newsletter August 2007<ref>[http://www.mbr-network.eu/mbr-forum/forum_entry.php?id=194 MBR-Network] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080425045125/http://www.mbr-network.eu/mbr-forum/forum_entry.php?id=194 |date=2008-04-25 }}. mbr-network.eu</ref>).]] |
|||
Many factors affect the hydrodynamics of wastewater processes and hence membrane bioreactors. These range from physical properties (e.g. mixture [[rheology]] and gas/liquid/solid density etc.) to fluid [[boundary conditions]] (e.g. inlet/outlet/recycle flow rates, baffle/mixer position etc.). However, some factors are peculiar to membrane bioreactors and these include the filtration tank design (e.g. membrane type, multiple outlets attributed to membranes, membrane packing density, membrane orientation, etc.) and its operation (e.g. membrane relaxation, membrane backflush, etc.). |
|||
The mixing modeling and design techniques applied to membrane bioreactors are very similar to those used for conventional activated sludge systems. They include the relatively quick and easy [[compartmental modelling]] technique which will only derive the residence time distribution of a process (e.g. the reactor) or a process unit (e.g. the membrane filtration vessel) and which relies on broad assumptions of the mixing properties of each sub-unit. [[Computational fluid dynamics]] modeling, on the other hand, does not rely on broad assumptions about the mixing characteristics and instead attempts to predict the hydrodynamics from a fundamental level. It is applicable to all scales of fluid flow and can reveal much information about the mixing in a process, ranging from the residence time distribution to the shear profile on a membrane surface. A visualization of such modeling results is shown in the image. |
|||
Investigations of membrane bioreactor hydrodynamics have occurred at many different scales ranging from examination of [[shear stress]] at the membrane surface to residence time distribution analysis for a complete membrane bioreactor. Cui et al. (2003)<ref name=cui/> investigated the movement of Taylor bubbles<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mao |first1=Zai-Sha |last2=Dukler |first2=A. E |date=1990-11-01 |title=The motion of Taylor bubbles in vertical tubes. I. A numerical simulation for the shape and rise velocity of Taylor bubbles in stagnant and flowing liquid |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991%2890%2990008-O |journal=Journal of Computational Physics |language=en |volume=91 |issue=1 |pages=132–160 |doi=10.1016/0021-9991(90)90008-O |bibcode=1990JCoPh..91..132M |issn=0021-9991}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Salman |first1=Wael |last2=Gavriilidis |first2=Asterios |last3=Angeli |first3=Panagiota |date=2006-10-01 |title=On the formation of Taylor bubbles in small tubes |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250906003447 |journal=Chemical Engineering Science |language=en |volume=61 |issue=20 |pages=6653–6666 |doi=10.1016/j.ces.2006.05.036 |bibcode=2006ChEnS..61.6653S |issn=0009-2509}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zhou |first1=Guangzhao |last2=Prosperetti |first2=Andrea |date=August 2021 |title=Faster Taylor bubbles |journal=Journal of Fluid Mechanics |language=en |volume=920 |doi=10.1017/jfm.2021.432 |bibcode=2021JFM...920R...2Z |issn=0022-1120|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fabre |first1=Jean |last2=Figueroa-Espinoza |first2=Bernardo |date=September 2014 |title=Taylor bubble rising in a vertical pipe against laminar or turbulent downward flow: symmetric to asymmetric shape transition |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/abs/taylor-bubble-rising-in-a-vertical-pipe-against-laminar-or-turbulent-downward-flow-symmetric-to-asymmetric-shape-transition/A7359209E1D29102E883A5816BD96566 |journal=Journal of Fluid Mechanics |language=en |volume=755 |pages=485–502 |doi=10.1017/jfm.2014.429 |bibcode=2014JFM...755..485F |s2cid=31959380 |issn=0022-1120}}</ref> through tubular membranes. Khosravi, M. (2007)<ref>Khosravi, M. and Kraume, M. (2007) Prediction of the circulation velocity in a membrane bioreactor, IWA Harrogate, UK</ref> examined an entire membrane filtration vessel using CFD and velocity measurements. Brannock et al. (2007)<ref>Brannock, M.W.D., Kuechle, B., Wang, Y. and Leslie, G. (2007) Evaluation of membrane bioreactor performance via residence time distribution analysis: effects of membrane configuration in full-scale MBRs, IWA Berlin, Germany</ref> examined an entire MBR system using tracer study experiments and RTD analysis. |
|||
== Advantages == |
|||
Some of the advantages provided by membrane bioreactors are as follows.<ref>{{Cite web |title=MBR Introduction |url=https://www.lenntech.com/processes/mbr-introduction.htm |access-date=2023-01-13 |website=www.lenntech.com}}</ref> |
|||
* High quality effluent: given the small size of the membrane's pores, the effluent is clear and pathogen free. |
|||
* Independent control of solids retention time and hydraulic retention time: As all the biological solids are contained in the bioreactor, the solids retention time can be controlled independently from the hydrodynamic retention time. |
|||
* Small footprint: thanks to the membrane filtration, there is a high biomass concentration contained in a small volume. |
|||
* Robust to load variations: membrane bioreactors can be operated with a broad range of operation conditions. |
|||
* Compact process: compared to the conventional activated sludge process, membrane bioreactors are more compact. |
|||
== Market framework == |
|||
=== Regional insights === |
|||
The market for membrane bioreactors is segmented based on end-user type, such as municipal and industrial users, and end-user geography, for instance Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), Asia-Pacific (APAC), and the Americas.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Membrane Bioreactors Market - Segments and Forecast by Technavio|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170907006089/en/Membrane-Bioreactors-Market---Segments-Forecast-Technavio|date=2017-09-07|website=www.businesswire.com|language=en|access-date=2020-05-27}}</ref> |
|||
In this line, in 2016, some studies and reports showed that the APAC region took the lead in terms of market share, owning 41.90%. On the other hand, the EMEA region's market share is approximately 31.34% and the Americas constitute 26.67% of the market.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
APAC has the largest membrane bioreactors market. Developing economies such as India, China, Indonesia, and the Philippines are major contributors to growth in this market region. APAC is considered one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world: in 2013, thousands of people died from water-related disasters in the region, accounting for nine-tenth of the water-related deaths, globally. In addition to this, the public water supply system in the region is not as developed when compared to other countries such as the US, Canada, the countries in Europe, etc.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
The membrane bioreactors market in the EMEA region has witnessed stable growth. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Turkey, and Spain are major contributors to that growth rate. Scarcity of clean and fresh water is the key driver for the increasing demand for efficient water treatment technologies. In this regard, increased awareness about water treatment and safe drinking water is also driving the growth.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
Ultimately, the Americas region has been witnessing major demand from countries including the US, Canada, Antigua, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The membrane bioreactor market has grown on account of stringent regulatory enforcement towards the safe discharge of wastewater. The demand for this emerging technology comes mainly from the pharmaceuticals, food & beverages, automotive, and chemicals industries.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{commons category|Membrane bioreactors}} |
|||
* [[List of waste-water treatment technologies]] |
|||
* [[Activated sludge model]] |
|||
* [[Membrane fouling]] |
|||
* [[Hollow fiber membrane]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
{{Wastewater}} |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Membrane Bioreactor}} |
|||
[[Category:Sewerage]] |
[[Category:Sewerage]] |
||
[[Category:Environmental engineering]] |
[[Category:Environmental engineering]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Bioreactors]] |
||
[[Category:Membrane technology]] |
|||
[[Category:Water treatment]] |
|||
[[it:Processo a membrana#Applicazioni della tecnologia MBR al trattamento delle acque reflue]] |
Latest revision as of 07:46, 28 August 2024
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Membrane bioreactors are combinations of membrane processes like microfiltration or ultrafiltration with a biological wastewater treatment process, the activated sludge process. These technologies are now widely used for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment.[1] The two basic membrane bioreactor configurations are the submerged membrane bioreactor and the side stream membrane bioreactor.[2] In the submerged configuration, the membrane is located inside the biological reactor and submerged in the wastewater, while in a side stream membrane bioreactor, the membrane is located outside the reactor as an additional step after biological treatment.
Overview
[edit]Water scarcity has prompted efforts to reuse waste water once it has been properly treated, known as "water reclamation" (also called wastewater reuse, water reuse, or water recycling). Among the treatment technologies available to reclaim wastewater, membrane processes stand out for their capacity to retain solids and salts and even to disinfect water, producing water suitable for reuse in irrigation and other applications.
A semipermeable membrane is a material that allows the selective flow of certain substances. In the case of water purification or regeneration, the aim is to allow the water to flow through the membrane whilst retaining undesirable particles on the originating side. By varying the type of membrane, it is possible to get better pollutant retention of different kinds. Some of the required characteristics in a membrane for wastewater treatment are chemical and mechanical resistance for five years of operation and capacity to operate stably over a wide pH[3] range.
There are two main types of membrane materials available on the market: organic-based polymeric membranes and ceramic membranes. Polymeric membranes are the most commonly used materials in water and wastewater treatment. In particular, polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) is the most prevalent material due to its long lifetime and chemical and mechanical resistance.[3]
Polymeric Membrane Materials | |
PAN | Polyacrylonitrile |
(HD)PE | (High density) polyethylene |
PES | Polyethylsulphone |
PS | Polysulphone |
PTFE | Polytetrafluoroethylene |
PVDF | Polyvinylidine difluoride |
Ceramic Membrane Materials | |
Al2O3
SiC TiO2 ZrO2 |
Aluminum oxide / Alumina
Silicon carbide Titanium dioxide / Titania Zirconium dioxide / Zirconia |
Comparison: Polymeric vs Ceramic Membranes | |
Polymeric | Ceramic |
Subject to mechanical damage | Higher mechanical strength |
Bundles of hundreds of hollow fibers | One "piece" per element |
Vulnerable to chemicals | Good chemical resistance |
Lower cost in terms of capacity | High capital costs |
Very common product | Little operational experience |
Majority of commercial products | Few applications |
When used with domestic wastewater, membrane bioreactor processes can produce effluent of high enough quality for discharge into the oceans, surfaces, brackish bodies, or urban irrigation waterways. Other advantages of membrane bioreactors over conventional processes include reduced footprints and simpler retrofitting.
It is possible to operate membrane bioreactor processes at higher mixed liquor suspended solids concentrations compared to conventional settlement separation systems, thus reducing the reactor volume to achieve the same loading rate.
Recent technical innovation and significant membrane cost reduction have enabled membrane bioreactors to become an established process option to treat wastewater.[1] Membrane bioreactors have become an attractive option for the treatment and reuse of industrial and municipal wastewater, as evidenced by their consistently rising numbers and capacity. The current membrane bioreactor market was estimated to be worth around US $216 million in 2006[4] and US$838.2 million in 2011, grounding projections that the market for membrane bioreactors was growing at an average rate of 22.4% and would reach a market size of US $3.44 billion in 2018.[5]
The global membrane bioreactor market is expected to grow in the near future due to various driving forces, for instance increasing scarcity of water worldwide which makes wastewater reclamation more profitable; this will likely be further aggravated by continuing climate change.[6] Growing environmental concerns over industrial wastewater disposal along with declining freshwater resources across developing economies also account for increasing demand for membrane bioreactor technology. Population growth, urbanization, and industrialization will further complicate the business outlook.[7]
However, high initial investments and operational expenditure may hamper the global membrane bioreactor market. In addition, technological limitations, particularly the recurrent costs of membrane fouling, are likely to hinder production adoption. Ongoing research and development progress toward increasing output and minimizing sludge formation are anticipated to fuel industry growth.[5]
Membrane bioreactors can be used to reduce the footprint of an activated sludge sewage treatment system by removing some of the liquid components of the mixed liquor. This leaves a concentrated waste product that is then treated using the activated sludge process.
Recent studies show the opportunity to use nanomaterials for the realization of more efficient and sustainable membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment.[8]
History and basic operating parameters
[edit]Membrane bioreactors were introduced in the late 1960s, shortly after commercial-scale ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes became available. The original designs were introduced by Dorr-Oliver Inc. and 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 (tertiary effluent) and sometimes rapid losses of performance due to membrane fouling. As a result, the initial design focus was on the attainment of high fluxes, and it was, therefore, necessary to pump the mixed liquor and its suspended solids at high cross-flow velocity at significant energy demand (of the order 10 kWh/m3 product) to reduce fouling. Because of the poor economics of the first-generation devices, they only found applications in niche areas with special needs such as isolated trailer parks or ski resorts.
The next breakthrough for the membrane bioreactor came in 1989 with the introduction of submerged membrane bioreactor configurations. Until then, membrane bioreactors were designed with a separation device located external to the reactor (side stream membrane bioreactors) and relied on high trans-membrane pressure to maintain filtration. The submerged configuration takes advantage of 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. Aeration maintains solids in suspension, scours the membrane surface, and provides oxygen to the biomass, leading to better biodegradability and cell synthesis. Submerged membrane bioreactor systems became preferred to side stream configurations, especially for domestic wastewater treatment.
The next key steps in membrane bioreactor development were the acceptance of modest fluxes (25 percent or less of those in the first generation) 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 membrane bioreactor plant installations from the mid-1990s. Since then, further improvements in membrane bioreactor design and operation have been introduced and incorporated into larger plants. While earlier devices were operated at solid retention times as high as 100 days with mixed liquor suspended solids up to 30 g/L, the recent trend is to apply lower solid retention times (around 10–20 days), resulting in more manageable suspended solids levels (10 to 15 g/L). Thanks to these new operating conditions, the oxygen transfer and the pumping cost in the reactors have tended to decrease and the overall maintenance has been simplified. There is now a range of membrane bioreactor systems available commercially, most of which use submerged membranes although some side stream modules are available; these side stream systems also use two-phase flow for fouling control. Typical hydraulic retention times range between 3 and 10 hours. For the most part, hollow fiber and flat sheet membrane configurations are utilized in membrane bioreactor applications.[9]
Despite the more favorable energy usage of submerged membranes, there continued to be a market for the side stream configuration, particularly in smaller flow industrial applications. For ease of maintenance, side stream configurations can be installed on a lower level in a plant building, and thus membrane replacement can be undertaken without specialized lifting equipment. As a result, research and development has continued to improve the side stream configurations, and this has culminated in recent years with the development of low energy systems which incorporate more sophisticated control of the operating parameters coupled with periodic backwashes, which enable sustainable operation at energy usage as low as 0.3 kWh/m3 of product.
Configurations
[edit]Internal/submerged/immersed
[edit]In the immersed Membrane Bioreactor (iMBR) 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. In systems where the membranes are in a separate tank from the bioreactor, individual trains of membranes can be isolated to undertake cleaning regimes incorporating membrane soaks, however, the biomass must be continuously pumped back to the main reactor to limit mixed liquor suspended solids concentration increases. 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.[11] Usually, the internal/submerged configuration is used for larger-scale lower strength applications.[12] To optimize the reactor volume and minimize the production of sludge, submerged membrane bioreactor systems typically operate with mixed liquor suspended solids 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 less effective; 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 permeation flux. This type of solution is widely accepted in larger-scale units, where the internal/submerged configuration is typically used, because of the higher relative cost of the membrane compared to the additional tank volume required.[13]
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, iMBR systems can handle higher suspended solids concentrations, while traditional systems work only with suspended solids concentrations between 2.5-3.5, iMBR can handle concentrations between 4-12 g/L, an increase in range of 300%. This type of configuration is adopted in industrial sectors including textile, food & beverage, oil & gas, mining, power generation, pulp & paper.[14]
External/side stream
[edit]In side stream membrane bioreactor technology, the filtration modules are outside the aerobic tank, hence the name side-stream configuration. Like the immersed or submerged 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 smaller scale and 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. 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 aeration in the bioreactor, and there is an energy requirement to promote the shear by pumping. In this configuration fouling is more consistent due to the higher fluxes involved.[15]
Major considerations
[edit]Fouling and fouling control
[edit]Membrane bioreactor filtration performance inevitably decreases with filtration time due to the deposition of soluble and particulate materials onto and into the membrane, attributable to the interactions between activated sludge components and the membrane. This major drawback and process limitation has been under investigation since the earliest membrane bioreactors and remains one of the most challenging issues facing further development.[16][17]
Fouling is the process by which the particles (colloidal particles, solute macromolecules) are deposited or adsorbed onto the membrane surface or pores by physical and chemical interactions or mechanical action. This produces a reduction in size or blockage of membrane pores.
Membrane fouling can cause severe flux drops and affects the quality of the water produced. Severe fouling may require intense chemical cleaning or membrane replacement.[18] This increases the operating costs of a treatment plant. Membrane fouling has traditionally been thought to occur through four mechanisms: 1) complete pore blocking, 2) standard blocking, 3) intermediate blocking, and 4) cake layer formation.[2] There are various types of foulants: biological (bacteria, fungi), colloidal (clays, flocs), scaling (mineral precipitates), and organic (oils, polyelectrolytes, (humics).
Membrane fouling can be accommodated either by allowing a decrease in permeation flux while holding transmembrane pressure constant or by increasing transmembrane pressure to maintain constant flux. Most wastewater treatment plants are operated in constant flux mode, and hence fouling phenomena are generally tracked via the variation of transmembrane pressure with time. In recent reviews covering membrane applications to bioreactors, it has been shown that, as with other membrane separation processes, membrane fouling is the most serious problem affecting system performance. Fouling leads to a significant increase in hydraulic resistance, manifested as permeate flux declines or transmembrane pressure increases when the process is operated under constant-transmembrane-pressure or constant-flux conditions respectively.[19] In systems where flux is maintained by increasing transmembrane pressure, the energy required to achieve filtration increases. Frequent membrane cleaning is an alternative that significantly increases operating costs as a result of added cleaning agent costs, added production downtime, and more frequent membrane replacement.
Membrane fouling results from the interaction between a membrane material and the components of the activated sludge liquor, which include biological flocs formed by a large range of living or dead microorganisms along with soluble and colloidal compounds. The suspended biomass has no fixed composition and varies with feed water composition and reactor operating conditions. Thus, though many investigations of membrane fouling have been published, the diverse range of operating conditions and feedwater matrices employed, the different analytical methods used, and the limited information reported in most studies on the suspended biomass composition, have made it difficult to establish any generic behavior pertaining to membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors specifically.
Air-induced cross flow in submerged membrane bioreactors can efficiently remove or at least reduce the fouling layer on the membrane surface. A recent review reports the latest findings on applications of aeration in submerged membrane configuration and describes the performance benefits of gas bubbling.[17] The choice of aeration rate is a key parameter in submerged membrane bioreactor design, as there is generally an optimal air flow rate beyond which further increases in aeration have no benefits for preventing fouling.
Many other antifouling strategies can be applied in membrane bioreactor applications. They include, for example:
- Intermittent permeation or relaxation, where the filtration is stopped at regular time intervals before being resumed. Particles deposited on the membrane surface tend to diffuse back to the reactor; this phenomenon will be increased by the continuous aeration applied during this resting period.
- Membrane backwashing, where permeate water is pumped back to the membrane and flows through the pores to the feed channel, dislodging internal and external foulants.
- Air backwashing, where pressurized air in the membrane's permeate side builds up and releases a significant pressure within a very short period of time. Membrane modules, therefore, need to be in a pressurized vessel coupled to a vent system. Air usually does not go through the membrane. If it did, the air would dry the membrane and a re-wet step would be necessary, accomplished by pressurizing the feed side of the membrane.
- Proprietary antifouling products, such as Nalco's Membrane Performance Enhancer Technology.[20]
In addition, different types and intensities of chemical cleaning may also be recommended on typical schedules:
- Chemically enhanced backwash (daily);
- Maintenance cleaning with higher chemical concentration (weekly);
- Intensive chemical cleaning (once or twice a year).
Intensive cleaning may also be carried out when further filtration cannot be sustained because of an elevated transmembrane pressure. Each of the four membrane bioreactor suppliers Kubota, Evoqua, Mitsubishi and GE Water have their own chemical cleaning recipes; these differ mainly in terms of concentration and methods (see Table 1). Under normal conditions, the prevalent cleaning agents are NaOCl (sodium hypochlorite) and citric acid. It is common for membrane bioreactor suppliers to adapt specific protocols for chemical cleanings (i.e. chemical concentrations and cleaning frequencies) for individual facilities.[9]
Biological performances/kinetics
[edit]Chemical oxygen demand removal and sludge yield
[edit]Simply due to the high number of microorganisms in membrane bioreactors, pollutant uptake rates can be increased. This leads to better degradation in a given time span or to smaller required reactor volumes. In comparison to conventional activated sludge process treatments which typically achieve 95 percent removal, removal can be increased to 96 to 99 percent in membrane bioreactors (see table,[21]). Chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD5) removal is found to increase with mixed liquor suspended solids concentration. Above 15 g/L, COD removal becomes almost independent of biomass concentration at >96 percent.[22] Arbitrary high suspended solids concentrations are not employed, however, lest oxygen transfer be impeded due to higher viscosity and non-Newtonian viscosity effects. Kinetics may also differ due to easier substrate access. In typical activated sludge process treatment, flocs may reach several 100 μm in size. This means that the substrate can reach the active sites only by diffusion which causes an additional resistance and limits the overall reaction rate (diffusion-controlled). Hydrodynamic stress in membrane bioreactors reduces floc size (to 3.5 μm in side stream configurations) and thereby increases the effective reaction rate. Like in the conventional activated sludge process, sludge yield is decreased at higher solids retention times or biomass concentrations. Little or no sludge is produced at sludge loading rates of 0.01 kgCOD/(kgMLSS d).[23] Because of the imposed biomass concentration limit, such low loading rates would result in enormous tank sizes or long hydrodynamic residence times in conventional activated sludge processes.
Nutrient removal
[edit]Nutrient removal is one of the main concerns in modern wastewater treatment, especially, in areas that are sensitive to eutrophication. Nitrogen (N) is a pollutant present in wastewater that must be eliminated for multiple reasons: it reduces dissolved oxygen in surface waters, is toxic to the aquatic ecosystem, poses a risk to public health, and together with phosphorus (P), are responsible for the excessive growth of photosynthetic organisms like algae. All these factors make its reduction focus on wastewater treatment. In wastewater, nitrogen can be present in multiple forms. Like in the conventional activated sludge process, currently, the most widely applied technology for N-removal from municipal wastewater is nitrification combined with denitrification, carried out by bacteria nitrifying and the involvement of facultative organisms. Besides phosphorus precipitation, enhanced biological phosphorus removal can be implemented which requires an additional anaerobic process step. Some characteristics for membrane bioreactor technology render enhanced biological phosphorus removal in combination with post-denitrification an attractive alternative that achieves very low nutrient effluent concentrations.[22] For this, a membrane bioreactor improves the retention of solids, which provides a better biotreatment, supporting the development of slower-growing microorganisms, especially nitrifying ones, so that it makes them especially effective in the elimination of N (nitrification).
Anaerobic MBRs
[edit]Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (sometimes abbreviated AnMBR) were introduced in the 1980s in South Africa. However, anaerobic processes are normally used when a low-cost treatment is required that enables energy recovery but does not achieve advanced treatment (low carbon removal, no nutrients removal). In contrast, membrane-based technologies enable advanced treatment (disinfection), but at a high energy cost. Therefore, the combination of both can only be economically viable if a compact process for energy recovery is desired, or when disinfection is required after anaerobic treatment (cases of water reuse with nutrients). If maximal energy recovery is desired, a single anaerobic process will always be superior to a combination with a membrane process.
Recently, anaerobic membrane bioreactors have seen successful full-scale application to the treatment of some types of industrial wastewaters—typically high-strength wastes. Example applications include the treatment of alcohol stillage wastewater in Japan[24] and the treatment of salad dressing/barbecue sauce wastewater in the United States.[25]
Mixing and hydrodynamics
[edit]Like in any other reactors, the hydrodynamics (or mixing) within a membrane bioreactor plays an important role in determining the pollutant removal and fouling control within the system. It has a substantial effect on energy usage and size requirements, and therefore the whole life cost of a membrane bioreactor is high.
The removal of pollutants is greatly influenced by the length of time fluid elements spend in the membrane bioreactor (i.e. the residence time distribution). The residence time distribution is a description of the hydrodynamics of mixing in the system and it is determined by the design of the reactor (e.g. size, inlet/recycle flow rates, wall/baffle/mixer/aerator positioning, mixing energy input). An example of the effect of mixing is that a continuous stirred-tank reactor will not have as high pollutant conversion per unit volume of reactor as a plug flow reactor.
The control of fouling, as previously mentioned, is primarily achieved via coarse bubble aeration. The distribution of bubbles around the membranes, the shear at the membrane surface for cake removal and the size of the bubble are greatly influenced by the hydrodynamics of the system. The mixing within the system can also influence the production of possible foulants. For example, vessels not completely mixed (i.e. plug flow reactors) are more susceptible to the effects of shock loads which may cause cell lysis and release of soluble microbial products.
Many factors affect the hydrodynamics of wastewater processes and hence membrane bioreactors. These range from physical properties (e.g. mixture rheology and gas/liquid/solid density etc.) to fluid boundary conditions (e.g. inlet/outlet/recycle flow rates, baffle/mixer position etc.). However, some factors are peculiar to membrane bioreactors and these include the filtration tank design (e.g. membrane type, multiple outlets attributed to membranes, membrane packing density, membrane orientation, etc.) and its operation (e.g. membrane relaxation, membrane backflush, etc.).
The mixing modeling and design techniques applied to membrane bioreactors are very similar to those used for conventional activated sludge systems. They include the relatively quick and easy compartmental modelling technique which will only derive the residence time distribution of a process (e.g. the reactor) or a process unit (e.g. the membrane filtration vessel) and which relies on broad assumptions of the mixing properties of each sub-unit. Computational fluid dynamics modeling, on the other hand, does not rely on broad assumptions about the mixing characteristics and instead attempts to predict the hydrodynamics from a fundamental level. It is applicable to all scales of fluid flow and can reveal much information about the mixing in a process, ranging from the residence time distribution to the shear profile on a membrane surface. A visualization of such modeling results is shown in the image.
Investigations of membrane bioreactor hydrodynamics have occurred at many different scales ranging from examination of shear stress at the membrane surface to residence time distribution analysis for a complete membrane bioreactor. Cui et al. (2003)[17] investigated the movement of Taylor bubbles[27][28][29][30] through tubular membranes. Khosravi, M. (2007)[31] examined an entire membrane filtration vessel using CFD and velocity measurements. Brannock et al. (2007)[32] examined an entire MBR system using tracer study experiments and RTD analysis.
Advantages
[edit]Some of the advantages provided by membrane bioreactors are as follows.[33]
- High quality effluent: given the small size of the membrane's pores, the effluent is clear and pathogen free.
- Independent control of solids retention time and hydraulic retention time: As all the biological solids are contained in the bioreactor, the solids retention time can be controlled independently from the hydrodynamic retention time.
- Small footprint: thanks to the membrane filtration, there is a high biomass concentration contained in a small volume.
- Robust to load variations: membrane bioreactors can be operated with a broad range of operation conditions.
- Compact process: compared to the conventional activated sludge process, membrane bioreactors are more compact.
Market framework
[edit]Regional insights
[edit]The market for membrane bioreactors is segmented based on end-user type, such as municipal and industrial users, and end-user geography, for instance Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), Asia-Pacific (APAC), and the Americas.[34]
In this line, in 2016, some studies and reports showed that the APAC region took the lead in terms of market share, owning 41.90%. On the other hand, the EMEA region's market share is approximately 31.34% and the Americas constitute 26.67% of the market.[34]
APAC has the largest membrane bioreactors market. Developing economies such as India, China, Indonesia, and the Philippines are major contributors to growth in this market region. APAC is considered one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world: in 2013, thousands of people died from water-related disasters in the region, accounting for nine-tenth of the water-related deaths, globally. In addition to this, the public water supply system in the region is not as developed when compared to other countries such as the US, Canada, the countries in Europe, etc.[34]
The membrane bioreactors market in the EMEA region has witnessed stable growth. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Turkey, and Spain are major contributors to that growth rate. Scarcity of clean and fresh water is the key driver for the increasing demand for efficient water treatment technologies. In this regard, increased awareness about water treatment and safe drinking water is also driving the growth.[34]
Ultimately, the Americas region has been witnessing major demand from countries including the US, Canada, Antigua, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The membrane bioreactor market has grown on account of stringent regulatory enforcement towards the safe discharge of wastewater. The demand for this emerging technology comes mainly from the pharmaceuticals, food & beverages, automotive, and chemicals industries.[34]
See also
[edit]- List of waste-water treatment technologies
- Activated sludge model
- Membrane fouling
- Hollow fiber membrane
References
[edit]- ^ a b S. Judd, The MBR book (2006) Principles and applications of membrane bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment, Elsevier, Oxford ISBN 1856174816
- ^ a b Goswami, Lalit; Vinoth Kumar, R.; Borah, Siddhartha Narayan; Arul Manikandan, N.; Pakshirajan, Kannan; Pugazhenthi, G. (2018-12-01). "Membrane bioreactor and integrated membrane bioreactor systems for micropollutant removal from wastewater: A review". Journal of Water Process Engineering. 26: 314–328. Bibcode:2018JWPE...26..314G. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.10.024. ISSN 2214-7144. S2CID 134769916.
- ^ a b Zhen, Guangyin; Pan, Yang; Lu, Xueqin; Li, Yu-You; Zhang, Zhongyi; Niu, Chengxin; Kumar, Gopalakrishnan; Kobayashi, Takuro; Zhao, Youcai; Xu, Kaiqin (2019-11-01). "Anaerobic membrane bioreactor towards biowaste biorefinery and chemical energy harvest: Recent progress, membrane fouling and future perspectives". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 115: 109392. Bibcode:2019RSERv.11509392Z. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109392. ISSN 1364-0321. S2CID 203995165.
- ^ S. Atkinson (2006). "Research studies predict strong growth for MBR markets". Membrane Technology. 2006 (2): 8–10. doi:10.1016/S0958-2118(06)70635-8.
- ^ a b "WaterWorld. (2012). Membrane multiplier: MBR set for global growth e water world". WaterWorld.
- ^ "Membrane bioreactors for water treatment". Advances in Membrane Technologies for Water Treatment. 2: 155–184.
- ^ Koop, S. H., & van Leeuwen, C. J. (2017). "The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 19 (2): 385–418. Bibcode:2017EDSus..19..385K. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4. S2CID 148564435.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Pervez, Md Nahid; Balakrishnan, Malini; Hasan, Shadi Wajih; Choo, Kwang-Ho; Zhao, Yaping; Cai, Yingjie; Zarra, Tiziano; Belgiorno, Vincenzo; Naddeo, Vincenzo (2020-11-05). "A critical review on nanomaterials membrane bioreactor (NMs-MBR) for wastewater treatment". npj Clean Water. 3 (1): 43. Bibcode:2020npjCW...3...43P. doi:10.1038/s41545-020-00090-2. ISSN 2059-7037. S2CID 226248577.
- ^ a b P. Le-Clech; V. Chen; A.G. Fane (2006). "Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment". Journal of Membrane Science. 284 (1–2): 17–53. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.019.
- ^ MBR-The reliable solution for difficult to treat Wastewaters (PDF). OWEA NE Industrial Waste Seminar. 20 February 2014.
- ^ Wang, Z.; Wu, Z.; Yin, X.; Tian, L. (2008). "Membrane fouling in a submerged membrane bioreactor (MBR) under sub-critical flux operation: Membrane foulant and gel layer characterization". Journal of Membrane Science. 325 (1): 238–244. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2008.07.035.
- ^ "Introduction", Catalytic Membranes and Membrane Reactors, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 1–14, 2002, doi:10.1002/3527601988.ch1, ISBN 3-527-30277-8
- ^ Hai, F.I.; Yamamoto, K. (2011), "Membrane Biological Reactors", Treatise on Water Science, Elsevier, pp. 571–613, doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53199-5.00096-8, ISBN 978-0-444-53199-5, S2CID 32232685
- ^ "2018 oleochemicals market size, share & trends analysis report". Focus on Surfactants. 2019 (1): 2. January 2019. doi:10.1016/j.fos.2019.01.003. ISSN 1351-4210.
- ^ Hrubec, Jiri, ed. (1995). "Water Pollution". The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. 5 / 5B. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-48468-4. ISBN 978-3-662-14504-3. ISSN 1867-979X.
- ^ Membrane Bioreactors Archived 2008-03-08 at the Wayback Machine. membrane.unsw.edu.au
- ^ a b c Z.F. Cui; S. Chang; A.G. Fane (2003). "The use of gas bubbling to enhance membrane processes". Journal of Membrane Science. 221 (1–2): 1–35. doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(03)00246-1.
- ^ Liu, Lingling; Luo, Xu-Biao; Ding, Lin; Luo, Sheng-Lian (2019-01-01), Luo, Xubiao; Deng, Fang (eds.), "4 - Application of Nanotechnology in the Removal of Heavy Metal From Water", Nanomaterials for the Removal of Pollutants and Resource Reutilization, Micro and Nano Technologies, Elsevier, pp. 83–147, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-814837-2.00004-4, ISBN 978-0-12-814837-2, S2CID 139850140, retrieved 2022-06-02
- ^ Meng, Fangang; Yang, Fenglin; Shi, Baoqiang; Zhang, Hanmin (February 2008). "A comprehensive study on membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors operated under different aeration intensities". Separation and Purification Technology. 59 (1): 91–100. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2007.05.040.
- ^ Nalco. http://www.nalco.com/ASP/applications/membrane_tech/products/mpe.asp . Archived June 7, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b M. Kraume; U. Bracklow; M. Vocks; A. Drews (2005). "Nutrients removal in MBRs for municipal wastewater treatment". Water Science and Technology. 51 (6–7): 391–402. doi:10.2166/wst.2005.0661. PMID 16004001.
- ^ a b A. Drews; H. Evenblij; S. Rosenberger (2005). "Potential and drawbacks of microbiology-membrane interaction in membrane bioreactors". Environmental Progress. 24 (4): 426–433. Bibcode:2005EnvPr..24..426D. doi:10.1002/ep.10113.
- ^ T. Stephenson, S. Judd, B. Jefferson, K. Brindle, Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment, IWA Publishing (2000) ISBN 1900222078
- ^ Grant, Shannon; Page, Ian; Moro, Masashi; Yamamoto, Tetsuya (2008). "Full-Scale Applications of the Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Process for Treatment of Stillage from Alcohol Production in Japan". Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. WEFTEC 2008: Session 101 through Session 115. 2008 (7): 7556–7570. doi:10.2175/193864708790894179.
- ^ Christian, Scott; Shannon Grant; Peter McCarthy; Dwain Wilson; Dale Mills (2011). "The First Two Years of Full-Scale Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR) Operation Treating High-Strength Industrial Wastewater". Water Practice & Technology. 6 (2). doi:10.2166/wpt.2011.032.
- ^ MBR-Network Archived 2008-04-25 at the Wayback Machine. mbr-network.eu
- ^ Mao, Zai-Sha; Dukler, A. E (1990-11-01). "The motion of Taylor bubbles in vertical tubes. I. A numerical simulation for the shape and rise velocity of Taylor bubbles in stagnant and flowing liquid". Journal of Computational Physics. 91 (1): 132–160. Bibcode:1990JCoPh..91..132M. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(90)90008-O. ISSN 0021-9991.
- ^ Salman, Wael; Gavriilidis, Asterios; Angeli, Panagiota (2006-10-01). "On the formation of Taylor bubbles in small tubes". Chemical Engineering Science. 61 (20): 6653–6666. Bibcode:2006ChEnS..61.6653S. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2006.05.036. ISSN 0009-2509.
- ^ Zhou, Guangzhao; Prosperetti, Andrea (August 2021). "Faster Taylor bubbles". Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 920. Bibcode:2021JFM...920R...2Z. doi:10.1017/jfm.2021.432. ISSN 0022-1120.
- ^ Fabre, Jean; Figueroa-Espinoza, Bernardo (September 2014). "Taylor bubble rising in a vertical pipe against laminar or turbulent downward flow: symmetric to asymmetric shape transition". Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 755: 485–502. Bibcode:2014JFM...755..485F. doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.429. ISSN 0022-1120. S2CID 31959380.
- ^ Khosravi, M. and Kraume, M. (2007) Prediction of the circulation velocity in a membrane bioreactor, IWA Harrogate, UK
- ^ Brannock, M.W.D., Kuechle, B., Wang, Y. and Leslie, G. (2007) Evaluation of membrane bioreactor performance via residence time distribution analysis: effects of membrane configuration in full-scale MBRs, IWA Berlin, Germany
- ^ "MBR Introduction". www.lenntech.com. Retrieved 2023-01-13.
- ^ a b c d e "Membrane Bioreactors Market - Segments and Forecast by Technavio". www.businesswire.com. 2017-09-07. Retrieved 2020-05-27.