24/08/2014

Introduction to Membrane Processes

Part 3 Wastewater Applications
CHEN 6071: Water & Wastewater Engineering
School of Chemical Engineering

Part 3 Wastewater Treatment

The objective of these slides is to cover the following information:
1.

Features of membrane bioreactors: Process flow diagrams,

membrane properties and mechanical equipment

2
2.

R
Reaction
i E
Engineering
i
i concepts iin MBR Reactor
R
D
Design
i

3.

How membrane configuration impacts foot print and mixing

energy

Assessment: On-line quiz questions covering your knowledge of

1.

Design features of MBR versus conventional systems

Tutorial Problem
1.

Foot print calculation for MBR plant

2.

Aeration power calculation

24/08/2014

Eutrophication of receiving waters and transmission of

communicable disease as a result of wastewater discharge

Basic Objective of Wastewater Treatment

Before wastewater can be discharge to the environment it is necessary to
reduce the concentration of nutrients and pathogens so that the receiving
water (river or ocean) remains fishable
fishable & swimable.
swimable . Therefore, the
objectives of wastewater treatment are;
1. Remove nutrients that provide a food source for
bacteria which consume oxygen (kill fish) and promote
growth of macrophytes (plants) in receiving waters
[Fishable]
2. Disinfect to kill pathogens that cause ear, nose, throat
and intestinal disease in swimmers [Swimable]
How can these objectives be achieved using MBRs (what is different
between MBRs and conventional plants)?

24/08/2014

Wastewater Engineering Heuristics

Disinfection (Chlorine or UV light) is more effective after suspended solids
concentration and chlorine demand (nutrients) are reduced. Biological nutrient
removal is based on a reaction space where soluble nutrients are consumed by
microorganisms to form a biomass that can be removed prior to disinfection.
Reaction Engineering Parameters/Features

Attached growth systems

1.Hydraulic Residence Time (HRT) - (hours)

2. Solids Residence Time (SRT) (days)
3. Concentration of microorganisms
4. pH that favors growth of bacteria
5. Oxygen concentration & form
6 Oxygen transfer - (factor)
6.
7. Solid - liquid separation step
What is the key difference between
conventional process and an MBR?

Suspended media activated sludge

Requirements for Carbonaceous Material Removal

Suitable aeration system to maintain a DO in the mixed liquor
Facultative bacterial mass, principally heterotrophs, to utilise the
carbonaceous energy
Appropriate Solids Retention Time (SRT) and MLSS concentration
MLSS 3g/L to 4g/L for settleable sludge
5g/L to 12 g/L for MBR
SRT typically greater than 10 days depending on climate

Appropriately sized clarifier and RAS return system

Return Activated Sludge (RAS) increases HRT in smaller tanks
Returns nitrates formed by nitrification of ammonia

Solids retention time determined by rate of wasting of solids from tank

(WAS)
Determines the type of organisms that develop in the mixed liquor

24/08/2014

Removal of nitrogenous nutrients by nitrification & denitrification

Nitrification is the term used to describe the oxidation of free and saline ammonia to nitrite
and nitrate within the biological process - mediated through the autotrophic bacteria
Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter,
Two stages:
NH4 ----> NO2 (Nitrosomonas)
NO2 ----> NO3 (Nitrobacter)
Nitrosomonas is slowest reacting of the two; uncommon to have significant presence of nitrite
in effluent as Nitrobacter usually rapidly converts it to nitrate.
Nitrification requires 4.6 mg O2/mg N oxidised, Factors that affect the efficacy of nitrification
include;
Solids Retention Time (SRT),
pH (alkalinity)
Toxins (heavy metals etc)
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (Aeration & Alpha Factors)
Diurnal variation in N loading (how nitrogen varies depending on the time of day)

Nitrification Capacity
Influent TKN - two fractions; Organic N and Free and Saline NH3,
Enzymatic conversion of bulk of Organic N to NH3,
N in activated sludge-10 % of VSS in WAS, Always 2-3 mg/L TKN in effluent,
Ncapacity = TKNinf - (TKNeff + TKNsludge).
To Remove 1 g NH4-N:
4.6 g Oxygen required,
0.15 g New Cells formed,
7.14 g Alkalinity (as CaCO3) destroyed,
0.08 g Inorganic Carbon consumed.

Requirements for Denitrification

NO3 ----> N2
Presence of nitrate (or nitrite) to act as final electron acceptor
Absence of dissolved oxygen
Facultative bacterial mass
Suitable energy source to act as electron donor
Anoxic Zone required in process.

24/08/2014

Key features of conventional secondary

wastewater treatment
Reactor Zones
Non Aerated*

Clarifier

Aerated

Return Activated Sludge (RAS)

Waste Activated
Sludge

*Anoxic (O2 available in nitrates, sulphates)

Anaerobic (no available O2)

MBR & Conventional Process

Conventional Process
Primary
Sedimentation
Tanks

Aeration
Basins (Biological
Reactor)

Final
Sedimentation
Tanks

Treated
Wastewater

WasteWater

Primary
y
Sedimentation
Tanks

Disinfection

Membrane
Bioreactor

MBR process

Disinfection

Conventional
process
MBR process

24/08/2014

Key difference between conventional and MBR

In a membrane bioreactors the secondary clarifier is replaced by a membrane
filtration unit that can be located in the bioreactor tank or a separate tank. The
objective is to produce a filterable sludge not a settleable sludge
Therefore MBR MLSS 8-12 g/L vs Conventional MLSS 3-4 g/L
Limitit on MLSS iin MBR d
Li
due tto effect
ff t off solids
lid on O2 transfer
t
f from
f
gas to
t liquid
li id
(alpha factor)
Fine bubble aeration is used to provide oxygen to the biomass, coarse bubble
aeration is used to control accumulation of biomass on the membrane

fine bubble aeration

coarse bubble
aeration

In an MBR suspended solids and particulate effluent quality are not

dependent on sludge settling (Example, Loudon Co Va, USA)
10.0
CA Title 22 reuse standard (unrestricted access) = 2.0 NTU

Turbidity (ntu)

1.0

Regional
g
effluent discharge
g policy
p
y = 0.5 NTU

EPA drinking water standard = 0.3 NTU

0.1

0.01

Average for MBR Effluent = 22 mNTU

0.001

Four-Month Operating Period

24/08/2014

Consequently, MBR systems are ideal for discharge into

recreational waters Cohasset MA, US

Cohasset, MA, USA Effluent Quality TSS < 1 mg/L

Turbidity < 1.0 NTU
Total coliform < 10 cfu/100 ml

However, the higher concentration of colloidal and small

particles in the WAS make sludge dewatering harder

MBRs are designed for higher MLSS which reduces volume (foot print)
of reactor. Elimination of clarifiers reduces footprint of plant
Comparative STP Land Area for similar
equivalent populations in UK

Swanage (28000 EP) - 0.7 ha

MLSS 12 g/L

Scale:

Glastonbury (30000 EP) - 4.5 ha

MLSS 3 g/L

Reference: G.Johnston, Aquatec-Maxcon, AWA MBR Workshop 20/11/2001

24/08/2014

Basic Configuration of the MBR

Metal Salt
(P removal)

P1

Anoxic Zone

Aerobic Zone

DO < 0.5 mg/L

N2
NO3

P2

DO > 1.0 mg/L

NH4+ NO3

Filtrate
RAS
TMP (+) = P1 - P2
Suction (pump)
Gravity

Flux =

TMP
(Rm + Rc)

Waste
Sludge

Typical loading rates (flux)

typically 10 25 l/m2/h depending on the manufacturer

Average Flux vs. Wastewater Quality

Flux (L/m
F

2/h)

70
50
30
10

Primary Unsettled Clarified

Tertiary
Secondary Secondary
Membrane A

Membrane B

Membrane C

16

24/08/2014

Operating Modes
Filtration Mode
Suction pump on for 8-13 minutes
Air
Ai blower
bl
on

Resting Mode
Suction pump off for 2 minutes
Air blower on
No backwashing required

Cleaning Mode
Performed when pressure increases by 0.2 bar
Approx. every 2 to 3 months

17

MBR Retrofit into Aerobic Basin

Filtrate Header

Backwash Tanks
& Pumps

Air scour line

Membranes

24/08/2014

Hollow fibre MBRs

0.04 & 0.2 m pores (e.g. Zenon/ GE,
Siemens/ Memcor, Koch)
Dedicated filtrate pump
TMP 30 - 70 kPa (vacuum)
Varying degrees of oxidant resistance
Liquid backwash
Continuous or Intermittent aeration
(course bubble for fouling control)
19

Hollow Fiber (HF) MBR North Head STP NSW

Anoxic zone
Aerobic zones
Membrane
filtration zone
De-aeration zone

10

24/08/2014

Flat sheet MBRs

0.4 m pores (e.g. Kubota) or 0.08 m pores (e.g. Toray)
Gravity driven process
Continuous aeration to prevent solids accumulation Train or Unit
TMP 20 - 50 kPa
No short term backwash

Single Sheet

Cassette
21

Flat Sheet Membrane Victor Harbour SA

Bioselector
(anoxic/anaerobic)
Swing aeration zones
Aerobic zone
Membrane filtration zone

11

24/08/2014

Compare the turbulence in the different zones of the donut

reactor MBR at Horseshoe Bay, Qld

Inner ring anoxic zone (no turbulence)

Outer ring aerobic zone

(fine bubble aeration)
Membrane zone (coarse bubble aeration)
23

Horseshoe Bay MBR design considered carry over

of oxygen from membrane zone
2-Stage concept,
MLE - like

Raw
influent

DO ~ 6 mg/L
Nearly saturated
Highly aerated MBR tank
1st Anoxic

4-Stage concept,
Bardenpho - like
Raw
influent

Future MBR
cassettes
Diffusers for peak
aeration

S-recycle 10 Q

2nd Anoxic

A-recycle 6 Q

MBR /
Aerobic

Aerobic

Permeate
DO ~ 1.5
mg/L

S-recycle 3 Q

DO ~ 6
mg/L

Permeate
1st Aerobic

MBR / Aerobic

12

24/08/2014

Aeration
1.

Air flow requirements for membrane scouring/ fouling

control given by membrane suppliers:
No. & type of diffuser (usually coarse bubble)
Timing (continuous or intermittent)
Airflow & tank depth

2.

Blower size (kW), controls etc.

Oxygen transfer efficiency & rate: (S)OTE & (S)OTR

BNR process air requirements

Compare required SOTR (from modelling) with that supplied

for membrane scouring
g ((see above))
Consider need for additional aerobic zone(s) & take into
account recycled oxygen from MBR tanks
Remember alpha factor ! ( OTR/SOTR as MLSS)
Recalculate blower requirements from airflow, tank depth
etc.

How does membrane configuration impact foot print

(Reactor volume) & energy consumption in MBRs?
Tank requirements for flat sheet and hollow fibre
membranes of membranes differ due to packing density
Comparison
p
of two possible
p
membrane types
yp for Horseshoe Bay
y WRP
Membrane type
No. of membrane cassettes
No. of membranes per cassette or membrane modules per cassette
Area per membrane cassette, m2
Total membrane area, m2

Flat sheet
6
400
320
1920

Hollow fibre
2
36
1138
2275

MBR tanks, operating total volume, m3

280

60

Ave. flow rate, m3/d

Peak flow rate, m3/d
Flux rate, ave. L/m2.h
Flux rate
rate, peak L/m2.h
L/m2 h

700
2100
15.2
45 6
45.6

700
2100
12.6
37 8
37.8

Note:
Similarity in flux
MBR tank volume * required operating MLSS = Minimum
Mandatory aerobic mass fraction for process!

13

24/08/2014

Airflow/ blower power requirement are influence by water

head above diffuser, air flow rate and operating mode
(continuous or intermittent)
Comparison of two possible membrane types for Horseshoe Bay WRP
Membrane type
Membrane cleaning airflow peak, Nm3/h
Aeration credits, kg/h AOR
No. of blowers, installed for cleaning
No. of blowers, duty for cleaning
Blower delivery pressure, kPa
Air cleaning blower motor installed power, kW per blower
Air cleaning blower motor expected peak power draw, kW
Air cleaning blower motor expected ave. power draw, kW
Expected power consumption for membrane cleaning, kWh/d
Air cleaning operating mode

Flat sheet
1008
15.96
3
2
50
18.5
15.4
12.9

Hollow fibre
1520
TBA
2
1
35
18.5
TBA
10.9

619

262

Continuous

Intermittent

Operational Problems in MBRs

Accumulation of solids in fibre
bundles
Short
Sh t circuiting
i iti iin membrane
b
tank (uneven flow loading)
Excessive power consumption
on blowers to achieve
adequate bubble induced
shear
Problems de-watering sludge
d tto accumulation
due
l ti off fifine
colloids (normally carry over in
clarifier on conventional plants)

14

24/08/2014

Energy & power: MBRs tend to be energy/ power intensive

Mainly due to high air flow requirements (large blowers) for
membrane scouring
Trend
T dh
has b
been iimproving
i ((e.g. iintermittent
t
itt t aeration)
ti )

Lower efficiency of aeration due to high MLSS and

high viscosity (the factor question)
Trade-off capital costs vs. operating costs
Smaller, more compact reactors vs. long term power
requirements to get higher effluent quality (effectively
ultrafiltration)

Power consumption
MBR vs. Conventional BNR plants
Typical average power consumption

Data based on typical domestic sewage:

Biodegradable COD ~ 415 mg/L (raw) ; ~265 mg/L (primary treated, settled)

Type of plant

kWh/kgCOD
(biodegradabale)

kWh/m3

MBR-BNR (extended aeration type,

without primary sedimentation)

3.5

1.46

BNR (extended aeration type,

type with diffused
air)

17
1.7

0 70
0.70

BNR (extended aeration type, with mech.

Surface aerators)

1.6

0.67

BNR (With primary sedimentation,

Anaerobic Digestion, with diffused air)

1.4

0.38

Source: Ken Hartley (2007) Personal comm.

15

24/08/2014

Conclusions Membranes vs traditional treatment

Traditional Technology

Membrane Filtration

Filtrate quality sensitive to

Feed water changes
Flow changes
Chemically assisted separation
common
Low additional cost for spare
capacity

Stable treated water quality

Copes with:
Sudden flow changes
Sudden, short term feed
condition changes
Performance = fn (Contaminant)
Chemicals used for:
Filter cake conditioning (some
applications/vendors
Chemical Cleaning

Higher additional cost for spare

capacity

16