Water Environment Research Foundation

Treatment Processes

Membrane Bioreactors for Anaerobic Treatment of Wastewaters

The University of British Columbia Civil Engineering

Membrane Bioreactors for Anaerobic Treatment of Wastewaters

WERF Project 02-CTS-4

Task 1. Phase 1 Report: Compilation/Review of Existing Literature

P.M. Sutton, P. Brub and E.R. Hall August 31, 2004

The Water Environment Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, funds and manages water quality research for its subscribers through a diverse public-private partnership between municipal utilities, corporations, academia, industry, and the federal government. WERF subscribers include municipal and regional water and wastewater utilities, industrial corporations, environmental engineering firms, and others that share a commitment to cost-effective water quality solutions. WERF is dedicated to advancing science and technology addressing water quality issues as they impact water resources, the atmosphere, the lands, and quality of life. For more information, contact: Water Environment Research Foundation 635 Slaters Lane, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314-1177 Tel: (703) 684-2470 Fax: (703) 299-0742 www.werf.org werf@werf.org Copyright 2004 by the Water Environment Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be obtained from the Water Environment Research Foundation. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2004114158 Printed in the United States of America This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). Neither WERF, members of WERF, the organization(s) named below, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe on privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. The University of British Columbia This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by WERF. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute WERF nor EPA endorsement or recommendations for use. Similarly, omission of products or trade names indicates nothing concerning WERF's nor EPA's positions regarding product effectiveness or applicability. The research on which this report is based was funded, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through Cooperative Agreement No. CR-827345-01 with the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). Unless an EPA logo appears on the cover, this report is a publication of WERF, not EPA. Funds awarded under the Cooperative Agreement cited above were not used for editorial services, reproduction, printing, or distribution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 2.0 3.0

Background ..........................................................................................................................4 Approach..............................................................................................................................4 Results from Review of Existing Literature and Other Information ...................................5 3.1 Anaerobic MBR Treatment System Experience......................................................6 3.1.1 Literature and Information from Other Sources ..........................................6 3.1.2 Anaerobic MBR Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters ............................12 Anaerobic Treatment of Lower Strength Wastewaters at Lower Temperatures ...13 Mechanisms Governing the Efficiency of the Membrane Component of the Anaerobic MBR .....................................................................................................15 3.3.1 Membrane System ....................................................................................16 3.3.2 Operational Parameters..............................................................................19 3.3.3 Characteristics of the Mixed Liquor ..........................................................25

3.2 3.3

4.0

Summary: Parameters Critical to Anaerobic MBR System Performance and Efficiency ....................................................................................................................28 4.1 4.2 4.3 Critical Bioreactor Parameters...............................................................................29 Critical Membrane System Parameters..................................................................29 Mixed Liquor Characteristics ................................................................................30

5.0

References..........................................................................................................................31 Appendix A National and International Researchers Contacted ................................................58 Commercial MBR System and/or Membrane Suppliers Contacted ......................59 Appendix B Nomenclature List..................................................................................................60

1.0

BACKGROUND The WERF project entitled Membrane Bioreactors for Anaerobic Treatment of Conventional and Medium Strength Wastewater was initiated in early August 2003. The objective of the project is to compile existing information and develop new information from laboratory and field pilot studies, in order to assess the technical and economic feasibility of treating relatively low strength wastewater using membrane biological reactors (MBRs) operating under anaerobic conditions. The first project task (i.e., Task 1.0 Phase 1) was the compilation and review of existing literature and other information, and completion of a report. The principal objective of Task 1.0 Phase 1 was to identify the variables thought to be critical to achieving a high effluent quality (e.g., secondary, tertiary) in an economical fashion (e.g., achieving high membrane efficiency) in the treatment of municipal and/or low-to-medium strength industrial wastewaters using the anaerobic MBR technology.

2.0

APPROACH The following activities were completed in order to compile the literature and other information, which formed the basis of the report. Appropriate databases were identified for the literature compilation task and a search of the databases was completed. Titles were downloaded together with abstracts where available. Selected, full text documents were downloaded where feasible or ordered through the University of British Columbia (UBC) library system. Contact was made with national and international researchers thought to be involved in or have knowledge of, anaerobic MBR research projects (Appendix A). Contacts were made with commercial suppliers of MBR systems and/or membranes used in MBR systems, with the objective of obtaining information they may have developed in the application of the MBR technology to anaerobic treatment of wastewaters or contacts they may have with commercial practitioners of the technology (Appendix A). Members of the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) were contacted and asked to review the status of anaerobic MBR technology in their respective geographical regions. The databases searched in conducting the literature compilation task included SciFinder Scholar, Dialog, El Compendex, NTIS, Water Resources Abstracts, CA Search, SciSearch Waternet, Inside Conferences, Dissertation Abstracts, Pollution Abstracts, U.S. EPA, as well as internet search engines. Relevant information derived as a result of contacting MBR system researchers and consultants, and commercial suppliers, is included herein.

3.0

RESULTS FROM REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE AND OTHER INFORMATION

The literature and other information compiled were critically reviewed keeping in mind the principal objective of Task 1.0 Phase 1, stated previously. The information compiled relevant to treatment of municipal and/or low-to-medium strength industrial wastewaters using anaerobic MBR technology, was categorized as follows. General system design, performance and efficiency information derived from operation of laboratory, pilot and full scale anaerobic MBRs treating municipal or industrial wastewater. Specific information relevant to the questions of bioreactor performance and efficiency during operation of anaerobic MBRs in the treatment of municipal and/or low-to-medium strength wastewaters under low temperature conditions (i.e., less than 18C). Specific information relevant to the question of membrane efficiency based on operation of MBRs under anaerobic conditions. The performance and economics of an anaerobic MBR system will dictate its applicability in the treatment of municipal and/or low-to-medium strength industrial wastewaters. It is important to document existing information implying or indicating the potential of anaerobic MBRs to achieve near complete treatment (i.e., CBOD5, carbonaceous five-day biochemical oxygen demand, equal to or less than 30 mg/L) or to play a role in the management of municipal wastewaters using less traditional approaches. An example of such an approach might be the use of an anaerobic MBR system as a satellite plant located on a municipal wastewater trunk line, designed to reduce the organic load to an existing, centralized treatment facility. Treatment system economics will be affected by factors impacting the capital and operating costs of both the bioreactor, and the membrane component of the system. Factors dictating bioreactor costs will include volumetric efficiency, mechanical configuration details (e.g. number of bioreactor stages/compartments, suspended growth versus fixed film reactors, etc) and the operating complexity (e.g., instrumentation and control requirements). Factors dictating membrane component costs will include the membrane configuration (e.g., tubular, hollow fiber membrane bundles), membrane composition (e.g., polymeric versus ceramic), membrane packing density (i.e., membrane area per unit volume), membrane flux and permeability (i.e., flux per unit transmembrane pressure or TMP), membrane cleaning requirements (e.g., procedures and chemical requirements), membrane cross-flow and/or sparging requirements, and required membrane pumps and/or blowers. The relevant compiled literature and other information follow, categorized as noted. An analysis of the information was completed in order to identify the critical bioreactor parameters (e.g., feed characteristics, SRT, volumetric loading, TSS concentration, pH, temperature, alkalinity) and membrane parameters (e.g., membrane materials, membrane configuration, pore size, operating TMP, cleaning requirements) dictating the performance and efficiency of the bioreactor and the membrane component of the anaerobic MBR system. The results of the information analysis, summarized in Section 4.0, influenced the Task 2.0 Phase 2 laboratory studies experimental program.

3.1

Anaerobic MBR Treatment System Experience

General system design, performance and efficiency information derived from operation of laboratory, pilot and full scale anaerobic MBR systems treating municipal or industrial wastewater was compiled from published and unpublished literature, and other information sources. 3.1.1 Literature and Information from Other Sources

Literature information and information from other sources (i.e., TAP member reports and contacts noted in Appendix A) were compiled, reviewed and the relevant information summarized in tabular form where possible (Table 1). Comments regarding Table 1 follow. Table 1 is not intended to provide detailed information on the question of membrane efficiency and performance in the context of operation of anaerobic MBRs. That information is presented in Section 3.3. The entries included in Table 1 are specific to anaerobic (i.e., not aerobic or anoxic) MBR treatment of wastewaters and wastewater solids (i.e., does not include application of membranes in conjunction with anaerobic sludge digestion). Table 1 includes entries from studies with influent CODs over a wide range of concentrations; however, relatively few studies (< 10) could be characterized as using low-to-medium strength influents The System referred to in Table 1 is a suspended growth anaerobic reactor unless otherwise indicated. Certain systems consist of two-stage or two-phase reactors. The results presented in those cases are specific to the reactor coupled with an internally submerged or externally located membrane. Where possible, the reference entries (1 through 55) are arranged by research groups or common system supplier applications, as follows: - entries 1 through 7, the C-H. Lee group from Seoul National University, South Korea, - entries 8 and 9, the E.R. Hall group from The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, - entries 10 through 14, the A. Fakhrul-Razi group from Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia, - entries 15 and 16, the G. Yuntao group from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, - entries 17 and 18, the full scale experience at Tenstar Products, Ashford, U.K., - entries 19 and 20, the Ross Consultancy group from Tygerpark, South Africa, - entries 21 through 23, the G.K. Anderson group from The University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K., and - entries 24 through 27, the Dorr-Oliver, membrane anaerobic reactor system (MARS) applications, Dorr-Oliver, Stamford, CT. The values for the various parameters recorded in Table 1 are as stated in or calculated from the referenced publication. If a parameter value is not stated in Table 1 for a particular reference, this indicates that the value was not available or could not be

calculated with certainty. Single values stated are typically average values but should be treated as approximate. Values stated for such parameters as OLR (organic loading rate), COD (chemical oxygen demand) removal and MLSS (mixed liquor suspended solids) do not necessarily include results from the start-up phase of the bioreactor system. There is widespread interest in the anaerobic MBR technology for wastewater treatment, as evident from the number of entries in Table 1. Anaerobic MBR development activities have largely taken place in the Far East, Europe and South Africa. The first known research project involving the coupling of an anaerobic reactor to a membrane module for sanitary wastewater treatment, took place in the U.S. in the mid to late 1970s (Table 1, entry 31). Full-scale application of the technology was first reported in England where a UF (ultrafiltration) membrane unit was coupled to an existing suspended growth anaerobic reactor installed for the treatment of wheat flour processing wastewater at Tenstar Products (Table 1, entry 17). Although there are no known commercial, large scale, anaerobic MBR systems in operation treating municipal wastewater, active research with respect to this application in China, England, and the U.S. has recently been reported (Table 1, entries 46, 53, and 54). Further information concerning this anaerobic MBR application is provided in Section 3.1.2. The technical feasibility of applying anaerobic MBR systems for treatment of municipal and other lower strength wastewaters is likely to depend on the necessity of achieving a high level of performance (e.g., effluent CBOD5 less than 30 mg/L) at lower temperatures. Information addressing the issue of anaerobic system performance under these conditions, is presented in Section 3.2. The following general observations can be made regarding application of the anaerobic MBR technology for industrial and municipal wastewater treatment from examination of the contents of Table 1 and/or from additional information derived from the references cited. Anaerobic MBR systems have been applied for treatment of a wide variety of industrial wastewaters at the lab, pilot and full scale level. Applications have generally involved the use of a UF or MF (microfiltration) membrane located external to the bioreactor (i.e., external membrane MBR configuration). Tubular and flat plate membranes represented the most popular external membrane configuration. In most lab and many pilot scale systems, the membrane component was not operated under conditions to maximize the membrane throughput or flux (i.e., optimal TMP and cross-flow velocity) but rather served as a component which allowed absolute retention of biomass. As such, the results from these studies provide little information of value in design of the membrane component for use in full scale anaerobic MBR systems. In some of the lab and pilot scale studies referenced, the experimental program focused on the efficiency of the membrane component and/or the mechanisms governing membrane fouling (e.g., Table 1 entries 1 through 7). The results from these and other studies where relevant membrane component information was reported, are discussed in Section 3.3, as previously noted. The membrane component of the larger pilot scale and full scale MBR systems referenced in Table 1 (e.g., entries 17, 20, 26, 34, 35), appeared to be operated at conditions which should maximize the membrane flux. Unfortunately, the data available were not derived from operation during recent years and therefore may not be representative of the performance that could be expected from such membranes as are

manufactured today. The results of contacts made with those familiar with the full scale systems referenced in Table 1, indicate the systems are no longer in operation or recent operating data are not available. Little information has been reported regarding the performance and efficiency of anaerobic MBRs when operated under lower temperature conditions. The economic feasibility of applying anaerobic MBR systems for treatment of relatively low strength wastewaters may be predicated on efficient operation of the system at lower temperatures. Information addressing the issue of operation of anaerobic wastewater treatment systems under these conditions, is presented in Section 3.2, as previously noted. The COD and BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) removals reported from operation of lab, pilot and full scale anaerobic MBRs in the treatment of readily biodegradable, higher strength wastewaters (e.g., brewery, alcohol fermentation, wheat flour and starch, cheese whey and whey permeate) generally have exceeded those reported from operation of more conventional anaerobic systems (e.g., UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors, or anaerobic PBR, packed bed reactors). Reports of COD and BOD removals exceeding 95% are not uncommon (e.g., entries 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 35, and Table 2). Effluent COD and BOD5 values less than respectively, 100 and 50 mg/L were reported in the treatment of industrial and municipal wastewaters (Table 1, entries 24, 46, 53, and 54). The improved performance of the MBR versus other anaerobic reactor configurations is largely the result of absolute retention of the biomass produced in the reactor together with retention of organic solids originating in the feed. In certain instances, performance improvements were reported as a result of physical retention of soluble organics by the membrane component (Table 1, entries 8, 24, 38, and 46). Ince et al. (1998, 2000) determined through concentration profiles across a suspended growth anaerobic MBR treating brewery wastewater, that the soluble COD in the reactor was two to three times higher than in the effluent (i.e., membrane permeate). The reported results imply that MBR technology represents an ideal reactor configuration for achieving the highest quality effluent feasible in the anaerobic treatment of wastewaters. Lab, pilot and full scale anaerobic MBR systems have been operated at OLRs ranging from less than 5 to over 30 kg COD/m3day. In general, the higher OLRs reported were based on treatment of readily biodegradable wastewaters utilizing external membrane MBRs in which a high concentration of MLSS (i.e., 20 to 60 g/L) was maintained in the bioreactor (e.g., Table 1, entries 12, 22, 23, 37, 55). There are reports of operation of internal submerged membrane MBRs under anaerobic conditions at OLRs up to 19 kg/m3day in which the bioreactor MLSS exceeded 20 g/L (Table 1, entries 32 and 48). These anaerobic MBRs involved the use of membranes manufactured by Kubota, Japan. Kubota claims to have installed six, full scale, internal membrane anaerobic MBRs in Japan in the last four years, all treating food processing wastewater or kitchen waste combined with night soil and other organic solids (Kimura, 2004). The first full-scale Kubota plant was installed at the Shinmo-Inc medical facility in Nagano. Repeated attempts to obtain design and operating information for this plant and/or information associated with the other plants, were unsuccessful. Despite a lack of operating data from full scale anaerobic MBR systems currently in operation, the full scale results reported in the 1980s and 1990s, and the lab and pilot scale results reported at that time and more recently, indicate the technology has the potential to meet stringent CBOD5 and TSS discharge standards.

 There have been reports of a decrease in specific biomass activity and/or excessive biomass decay in the operation of lab and pilot scale external membrane MBRs operating under anaerobic (Table 1, entries 4, 38, 41, 42, 54, and Nikaido et al., 1996) and aerobic conditions (Kim et al., 2001). Results indicate that the decrease in activity is correlated to the magnitude of the shear conditions within the external membrane loop and the frequency at which the reactor contents are exposed to those conditions. The external membrane component used in both the Jones and Hall, and Sutton pilot studies (Table 1, entries 24 and 27) relied on pumping of the bioreactor contents through the membrane channels at a high membrane TMP and cross-flow velocity to effect permeation. These operating conditions and the small operating volume of the anaerobic pilot reactors resulted in frequent exposure of the anaerobic biomass to a high shear environment. The conditions required a gradual adaptation of the anaerobic seed material (i.e., solids from a conventional municipal sludge digester) added at start-up, to the high shear environment and may have influenced the specific rate of biomass activity throughout the pilot studies. Information falling into the category of general anaerobic MBR treatment system experience was compiled and reviewed and although relevant, was not suitable for summary in the Table 1 format. The information follows. Information provided by members of the TAP. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), Japan launched a six-year research and development project (i.e., AquaRenaissance 90) in 1985 with the objective of water reuse and energy recovery This project led to the development in the late 1980s of a number of anaerobic MBR-based pilot plant systems for treatment of industrial and municipal wastewaters ranging in capacity from 0.5 to 20 m3/day. Key findings from this project of importance in assessing the technical and economic feasibility of the anaerobic MBR technology, follow. In the treatment of wastewaters from fat/oil and protein production and starch processing, an acidogenic first stage external membrane MBR followed by a second stage conventional anaerobic reactor (i.e., methanogenic stage) reduced the wastewater BOD from 13,000 to 50 mg/L. This flowsheet concept has been explored by others (Table 1, entries 15, 16, 44, 50, and Fukuma et al., 1993) and has generally exhibited higher performance than the alternative single stage anaerobic MBR flowsheet or the two stage flowsheet in which an anaerobic MBR constitutes the second stage (i.e., methanogenic reactor). Municipal wastewater and wastewater solids were treated anaerobically using a variety of flowsheet configurations involving multiple stages and MBRs. A fixed-film FBR (fluidized bed reactor) coupled to a hollow fiber membrane component produced an effluent containing less than 20 mg/L BOD when treating a feed containing up to 140 mg/L. Despite this performance, a flowsheet involving only anaerobic MBR treatment of primary separated solids for the production of volatile acids for use in a downstream nitrogen removal step, was viewed as more suitable for application to municipal wastewaters. Similar anaerobic MBR flowsheet concepts involving treatment of municipal wastewater solids have been explored by others (Table 1, entries 34 and 51). The concept of an anaerobic fixed-film reactor coupled to an external membrane system for treatment of municipal wastewaters may prove more attractive today than in the late

1980s due to the advent of lower cost membranes. One example of such a configuration is an anaerobic hybrid reactor, containing suspended biofilm carrier media, coupled to a small membrane tank containing hollow fiber membranes or flat membrane panels that rely on gas and liquid scouring to prevent short term membrane fouling. In this case, the majority of the biomass inventory required to carry out the anaerobic reactions is located on the fixed-film media. Operation of the system at a low concentration of suspended growth (e.g., 3 g VSS/L, volatile suspended solids) in the anaerobic reactor and a high concentration of solids in the membrane tank (e.g., 15 g VSS/L), will minimize the biomass recycle ratio which would be important if air was used as the source of gas for membrane scouring. This configuration (Figure 1) is likely to be particularly attractive in the treatment of municipal or low strength industrial wastewater where aerobic post treatment may be required to achieve more stringent effluent quality requirements (e.g., BOD5 less than 10 mg/L, NH4-N less than 2 mg/L) as the membrane tank could be sized to achieve nitrification. It should be noted that, in this case, a high biomass recycle ratio (e.g., 4 or greater) may be favored in order to promote denitrification in the anaerobic reactor, which in fact may operate at ORP conditions more characteristic of anoxic reactor. Commercial scale systems for industrial wastewater treatment are in operation in Europe involving the concept of coupling an anaerobic reactor for pretreatment with a tank containing membranes relying on air and liquid scouring to prevent short term membrane fouling and to achieve aerobic post treatment (Kraft and Brockmann, 1999). Pilot work was reported in Japan in 2000 involving the application of an anaerobic MBR as part of a flowsheet for treatment of slurries from livestock farming operations together with kitchen and vegetable waste (K. Yamamoto, University of Tokyo, pers. comm.). In the flowsheet, an external rotating disc membrane module dramatically improved the efficiency of the anaerobic digester while providing an effluent permeate suitable for ammonia recovery through stripping and condensation. The application of an anaerobic MBR for waste treatment and resource recovery in the management of livestock waste slurries was first reported in Norway in the early 1990s (Bilstead et al., 1992). A Danish engineering company, Bioscan A/S, recently installed commercial scale thermophilic anaerobic MBRs in The Netherlands, Denmark and Japan, and have proposed systems in the U.S. and Canada for the treatment of slurries from livestock farming operations based on the use of external, tubular ultrafiltration membrane modules for solids-effluent separation (Ejner, 2003). To improve efficiency of the membrane component, a centrifuge is used to pretreat the digested solids prior to the membrane step. A major function of the centrifuge is to remove dense inorganic solids that form in the thermophilic anaerobic bioreactor (e.g., struvite). The underflow solids from the centrifuge represent waste solids from the MBR. A similar anaerobic MBR based flowsheet was proposed by the University of Illinois for the treatment of hog and pig farm waste slurries (Morgenroth et al., 2003). Pilot work was reported in Japan and other Far East countries in the 1990s on the application of external membranes to improve the efficiency and performance of conventional anaerobic sludge digesters or to provide a method for recovery of organic acids from a sludge fermentor. The objective of one study was the recovery of volatile fatty acids for use as an organic carbon source for denitrification. This same application is referenced in Table 1 (entry 51). The application of external membranes to improve the efficiency and performance of other fermentation processes (i.e., recovery of organic acids, production of ethanol and other organic chemicals) was first reported in the 1980s (Olmstead et al., 1980; OSullivan et al., 1984;

10

Cheryan and Mehaia, 1986; Ferras et al., 1986). More recently Giorno et al. (2002) explored the concept for lactic acid production. Another report described a lab study in which aerobic sludge produced from the treatment of glucose and peptone was treated in an anaerobic MBR and the digested sludge was subjected to alkaline hydrolysis (Takashima et al., 1996). The authors claimed the combined sludge treatment steps resulted in complete sludge digestion. The application of external membranes to conventional anaerobic digesters to improve efficiency and performance or for organic acid recovery, has been explored by researchers in countries outside the Far East. In South Africa, Pillay et al. (1994) used MF tubular membranes to increase the volumetric efficiency of a 1800 L pilot scale digester treating municipal wastewater sludge from primary clarifiers. More recently in the U.S., Lanting (2003) and Jackivicz et al. (2003) reported on the application of an external membrane system coupled to a digester at the pilot scale level which they claimed would allow operation of the digester at an HRT as low as one day while maintaining the SRT in the range from eight to 12 days. In Australia, Barnes et al. (2003) explored indirectly, the concept of using an external membrane to selectively remove volatile fatty acids from the acidogenic stage of a two-stage sludge digester and transferring the acid solution to the second stage digester. Another novel application of membranes in combination with anaerobic digestion of municipal wastewater solids was reported by Juby et al. (2000). A treatment train comprising MF plus RO processing of primary effluent and anaerobic digestion of the RO concentrate was proposed. The results from piloting of the MF and RO treatment steps were reported. Other information. The assessment of microbial populations in anaerobic MBRs has been the focus of a number of studies beginning with the research of Kobayashi et al. (1988). These researchers examined small (i.e., 189 L) and larger (i.e., 37,850 L) scale external membrane anaerobic MBRs treating cheese whey permeate, and observed differences in organism size. Samples from the larger reactor showed more flocculated material and more numerous long filaments versus the smaller systems. Methanothrix were the predominant methanogen species observed and Methanosarcina were scarce, particularly in the smaller system. The Methanothrix organisms were mainly individual short rods. Ince et al. (1995, 1997) examined a 120 L external membrane anaerobic MBR treating brewery wastewater and made the same observation regarding organism size. These researchers identified Methanococcus as the most dominant methanogen species. Kataoka et al. (1992) characterized the bacterial populations in anaerobic MBRs treating municipal wastewater and soybean processing wastewater. Analyzing colony forming results, the researchers determined that the wastewater characteristics and bioreactor operating conditions significantly influenced the physiological characteristics of the bacterial populations. The soybean wastewater gave rise to much faster growing organisms than municipal wastewater. There are a number of reports of operation of MBRs under anoxic conditions with the objective of reducing nitrate, sulphate and/or other inorganic oxides (e.g., Magara et al., 1992; Delanghe et al., 1994; Nagaoka, 1999; Zoh and Stenstrom, 2002; Nuhoglu et al., 2002; Kimura et al., 2002). Typically, an ORP reading of approximately -100 to +100 mV is indicative of anoxic conditions whereas anaerobic conditions exist below approximately 100 mV. Exposing the membrane component to lower ORP conditions than those indicative of aerobic conditions (i.e., greater than approximately +100 mV), may impact the efficiency of the membrane component as discussed in Section 3.3. Therefore, information from these studies specific to the membrane component may have relevance to this project.

11

The commercial application of aerobic MBRs for municipal or industrial wastewater treatment is currently growing at a yearly rate of 20-40% in North America, according to Zenon Environmental (Bonkoski, 2003). In Japan, it has been reported through mid-2003, that over 360 commercial MBR systems were in operation (Uemura and Kondou, 2003). With the emergence of the MBR technology, researchers, engineering consultants and system suppliers have begun to develop process and system models in order to design MBRs, predict performance and estimate system costs. In order to determine the economic feasibility of applying the anaerobic MBR technology for treatment of dairy industry wastewaters in France, researchers carried out laboratory experimental studies in support of the development of anaerobic MBR models (Arros et al., 2001; Arros-Alileche et al., 2002). Conclusions reached by the researchers from the results of simulation studies performed using the models, of relevance to this project follow. A higher membrane flux than reported for anaerobic MBRs in the literature must be achieved in order for the technology to represent an economical solution for treatment of dairy industry wastewaters. A promising anaerobic MBR based flowsheet for dairy wastewater treatment and water recovery for reuse, is a two stage anaerobic system (i.e., acidogenic plus methanogenic) with the second stage consisting of an anaerobic suspended growth reactor coupled to a NF or RO membrane step. 3.1.2 Anaerobic MBR Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters

Although there are no known large, full scale, anaerobic MBR systems in operation treating municipal wastewater, active research with respect to this application has recently been reported, as previously noted in Section 3.1.1. Other anaerobic reactor configurations have been commercially applied for treatment of municipal wastewaters at both high and low temperatures, as discussed in Section 3.2. There are four entries in Table 1 (i.e., entries 31, 46, 53 and 54) providing general anaerobic MBR design and performance information from the results of lab scale treatment of municipal wastewater. In addition in the subsection entitled, Information provided by members of the TAP (Section 3.1.1), reference is made to a variety of membrane coupled anaerobic reactors and flowsheet configurations explored during pilot plant treatment of municipal wastewaters and wastewater solids. Further information from these reports and other information sources, deemed particularly relevant to this project, follows. Stuckey and others at Imperial College in London have completed significant laboratory research on the application of submerged internal membrane MBRs for anaerobic treatment of a synthetic feed claimed to be representative of municipal wastewaters. The only significant information available to our research team to date, is presentation material from a recent conference (Stuckey and Hu, 2003). The information does imply that it is feasible to treat degritted and screened municipal wastewater using an anaerobic MBR system, and achieve effluent CBOD5 and TSS values of less than 30 mg/L at a bioreactor HRT as low as three hours operating at a temperature of 35C. The information also implies that the addition of PAC (powdered activated carbon) to an anaerobic MBR could provide significant bioreactor performance benefits (i.e., improved

12

effluent quality) and increase the efficiency of the membrane component (i.e., up to 50% increase in membrane flux at same TMP). Pagilla and others at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago have completed a 15month laboratory experimental study and are completing modeling studies on the application of an external membrane MBR for anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater (Baek and Pagilla, 2003; Pagilla, 2004). The researchers experimental results imply it is feasible to treat primary treated municipal wastewater using an anaerobic MBR system and achieve effluent CBOD5 and TSS values less than 30 mg/L at a bioreactor HRT as low as 12 hours, operating at a temperature of approximately 32C. The researchers plan to complete mathematical modeling and model calibration studies and complete fluorescent in-situ hybridization analyses to characterize the reactor biomass. Wen and others at Tsinghua University in Beijing completed a six month laboratory study involving application of an anaerobic reactor containing a hollow fiber, UF membrane module in the treatment of municipal wastewater (Wen et al., 1999). The anaerobic reactor is best characterized as a hybrid UASB. Packing media, in the form of fine fibres, was located towards the top of the reactor. The membrane module was submerged in an expanded cross-sectional zone above the media. The laboratory results imply it is feasible to treat municipal wastewater using an anaerobic MBR system, and to achieve effluent CBOD5 and TSS values of less than 30 mg/L at a bioreactor HRT as low as four hours, and temperatures as low as 12C. The results imply physical retention of organics by the UF membrane played a significant role in achieving good performance at temperatures below 15C. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is sponsoring a field demonstration study in upstate New York involving application of an anaerobic reactor coupled to an MF membrane component for treatment of degritted and screened municipal wastewater (Hickey, 2004). The anaerobic reactor consists of a hydraulic pulsed FBR containing sand as the site for biofilm growth. Solids retained by the membrane module will be returned to the anaerobic reactor. The study is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2004. 3.2 Anaerobic Treatment of Lower Strength Wastewaters at Lower Temperatures

Little information has been reported regarding the performance and efficiency of anaerobic MBRs in the treatment of lower strength wastewaters at lower temperatures, as previously discussed. Reference has been made to anaerobic fixed-film and UASB reactors coupled to internal and external membranes, which resulted in effluent COD and BOD5 values less than respectively, 100 and 30 mg/L (e.g., Table 1 entry 46). In these systems, the membrane component played a key role in enhancing performance by essentially eliminating TSS, and particulate or colloidal COD or BOD from the effluent. Although there is extensive literature documenting the performance and efficiency of fixed-film, UASB and other anaerobic reactor configurations treating lower strength wastewaters at lower temperatures (Foresti, 2002; Zeeman and Lettinga, 2002; Elmitwalli et al., 2002;Angenent et al., 2000), to date there are no large, commercial scale systems operating

13

under these conditions to the knowledge of the writers. Research results indicate that anaerobic reactors designed to achieve hydrolysis of wastewater organic particulates, capable of maintaining a high concentration of active methanogens and operating under plug-flow hydraulic conditions, are likely to achieve the highest efficiency in the treatment of lower strength wastewaters at temperatures below 20C. Stensel and Strand (2004) recently examined more than 50 reports documenting the effects of temperature, wastewater strength and OLR on treatment performance of lab and pilot scale anaerobic reactors. Reference was make to 13 anaerobic reactor studies reported over the period from 1981 to 2002 involving treatment of municipal wastewaters at temperatures equal to or less than 20C, during which an effluent COD of equal to or less than 65 mg/L was achieved. Additional relevant information from these studies, follows. The Wen et al. (1999) study included in Table 1 (entry 46), was the only MBR application referenced. Ten of the 13 studies involved operation of fixed-film or UASB reactors. The anaerobic reactor configuration achieving the highest efficiency while operating under low temperature conditions and achieving an effluent COD of less than 65 mg/L, was the fixed-film FBR. OLRs of 7.7 to 9.4 kg COD/m3day were reported by respectively, Jewell et al. (1981) and Rebac (1998) for FBRs. Achieving an anaerobic reactor OLR of 7 kg COD/m3day or greater in the treatment of degritted and screened or primary treated municipal wastewater (i.e., COD 200 to 400 mg/L), translates to a bioreactor HRT of less than 1.4 h, representing efficient treatment. Additional relevant information on the topic of anaerobic treatment of lower strength wastewaters at lower temperatures not referenced in the review of Stensel and Strand (2004), follows. UASB reactors continue to receive particular attention for the treatment of municipal wastewaters at lower temperatures. Singh and Viraraghavan (2003), and Lew et al. (2003) operated pilot scale UASBs in this application at temperatures as low as respectively, 6 and 10C. At these temperature conditions, COD removal was less than 50%. Singh and Viraraghaven (2003) concluded at a bioreactor temperature of approximately 10C and operation at a COD OLR of approximately 1 kg/m3day, that UASB reactors could not meet BOD effluent quality requirements of less than 30 mg/L. The results from the Lew et al. (2003) study imply similar results. Their results also imply microbial hydrolysis of the TSS in the feed will be the rate limiting treatment step at temperatures less than 14C. This result implies an advantage for the MBR configuration, as the feed TSS will remain in the reactor for a period of time equivalent to the reactor SRT. Seghezzo et al. (2002) operated a pilot scale UASB reactor treating settled municipal wastewater at a temperature near 20C. At a mean COD OLR of approximately 0.7 during a two-year operating period, the feed and effluent UASB reactor mean values were respectively, 153 and 69 mg/L. The calculated reactor SRT was 450 days. Barker and Stuckey (1990) concluded from a review of the literature on the topic of SMPs (soluble microbial products) that these compounds make up a large fraction of the soluble organic material present in the effluent from anaerobic and aerobic treatment systems. The SMPs are comprised of a wide range of both high (i.e., greater than 50,000

14

daltons) and low (i.e., less than 500 daltons) molecular weight (MW) compounds. In a subsequent laboratory study, the researchers operated anaerobic baffled reactors (ABRs) treating a lower strength (i.e., COD approximately 500 mg/L) milk wastewater at temperatures ranging from 10-35C (Barker et al., 2000). It was concluded that SMP production increases with decreasing temperature and the production decreases with decreasing HRT. These results imply that an anaerobic UF membrane based MBR operated at a low HRT (e.g., corresponding to OLR of 7 kg COD/m3/day) is likely to result in the maximum performance achievable in the anaerobic treatment of lower strength wastewaters at lower temperatures. The plug-flow hydraulic conditions, characteristic of properly designed ABRs, imply an advantage for this reactor configuration in the anaerobic treatment of lower strength wastewaters at lower temperatures, as previously noted. Manariotis and Grigoropoulos (2002) operated a laboratory scale ABR treating a synthetic, lower strength (i.e., COD approximately 400 mg/L) food ingredients wastewater at temperatures of 16C and 26C. A COD removal of up to 92% was achieved at 16 at a OLR of up to 0.7 kg/m3day. It is worthwhile noting that although the researchers observed little difference in reactor performance at the lower temperature, a significant decrease in methane gas production was observed. Baek and Pagilla (2003), and Wen et al. (1999) also observed low methane gas production in operating anaerobic MBRs treating municipal wastewaters at lower temperatures. The usual explanation for this observation is the effect of temperature on methane gas solubility (Manariotis and Grigoropoulos, 2002). Bodik et al. (2002) operated a pilot scale ABR containing plastic media (i.e., hybrid ABR) coupled to an aerobic step. Treating settled municipal wastewater during low temperature conditions (i.e., average approximately 8C, minimum 5C) over a five month period, the researchers observed a reduction in BOD5 from 162 to 34 mg/L (mean values) across the anaerobic-aerobic system. The system COD OLR during this period was approximately 0.4 kg/m3/day. The OLR to the hybrid ABR was approximately 0.3 kg/m3/day. The specific performance of this treatment step was not determined. 3.3 Mechanisms Governing the Efficiency of the Membrane Component of the Anaerobic MBR

Extensive research has been performed to investigate the mechanisms impacting the permeate flux in an aerobic MBR. On the other hand, only a limited amount of research has focused on the mechanisms governing the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR. Some of the mechanisms impacting the permeate flux in an aerobic system are likely to be similar to those impacting the permeate flux in an anaerobic system. Considering that the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the mixed liquor in aerobic and anaerobic systems differ significantly, it is reasonable to also expect that a number of mechanisms impacting the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR will differ from those impacting the permeate flux in an aerobic MBR (Van Houten et al., 2001). Consequently, unless stated otherwise, only the results from studies focusing on permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR will be discussed. In addition, the characteristics of the mixed liquor in an anaerobic MBR are expected to vary significantly based on the type of wastewater being treated (Kataoka et al., 1992). Although this review focuses on the treatment of municipal wastewater, some of the results presented below are from studies that focused on synthetic municipal wastewater or other types of wastewaters. Many of the studies are those from which general anaerobic MBR system design and performance information was derived

15

(Table 1) and discussed in Section 3.1.1. The mechanisms impacting the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR can be loosely classified into three general categories; those governed by the membrane itself (see subsection 3.3.1, membrane system), those governed by the operational parameters of the membrane (see subsection 3.3.3, operational parameters), and those governed by the characteristics of the mixed liquor being filtered (see subsection 3.3.3, characteristics of the mixed liquor). The characteristics of the membrane material (e.g., polymeric versus ceramic, charge, pore size), the membrane packing density (i.e., membrane area per unit volume), the membrane configuration (external or submerged), and the operating conditions (i.e. surface shear and operating TMP) are all membrane specific parameters that affect the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR. The membrane material, packing density and configuration are fixed design characteristics specific to a given membrane product. Although the operating surface shear and TMP are relatively fixed for a given membrane product, usually they be varied within a specific range. Therefore, to maximize the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR, an optimal membrane product and the optimal operating conditions for that specific product must be determined. The characteristics of the MLSS being filtered also significantly affect the permeate flux. These characteristics are in part related to the raw wastewater being treated, but also to the operating conditions specific to the biological component of an anaerobic MBR. As discussed below, operating parameters such as the OLR, the SRT and HRT, as well as the operating temperature, can significantly affect the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR. However, these parameters are typically selected to optimize the biological component of the system rather than the permeate flux. As a result, an optimal set-point in terms of the biological component of an anaerobic MBR may result in non-optimal conditions for permeate flux. 3.3.1 Membrane System Membrane material. The type of membrane material used can significantly affect the fouling mechanisms in an anaerobic MBR. Fouling increases the resistance the permeate must overcome to flow through a membrane. Fouling of organic membranes (also commonly referred to as polymeric membranes) typically results from the formation of a cake layer on the membrane surface during filtration (Kang et al., 2002). Choo and Lee (1996a) reported that the cake layer that forms on organic membranes in an anaerobic MBR consists of both biological/organic solids and inorganic precipitates, and that the principal inorganic constituent of the cake layer is struvite. However, as also reported by Choo et al. (2000), the fouling of organic membranes appears to be predominantly governed by biological/organic interactions with the membrane, rather than by struvite precipitation. They observed no difference in the rate of fouling when ammonia, a component of struvite, was removed from the mixed liquor prior to filtration using an organic membrane. For organic membranes, the resistance due to internal fouling, which is caused by the adsorption of soluble and/or particulate material within the pore structure of a membrane, has been reported to be significantly less than the resistance due to the cake layer (Kang et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2001c; Choo and Lee, 1996a). A cake layer typically does not form on an inorganic membrane, and the bulk of the fouling can be attributed to internal fouling (Kang et al., 2002; Yoon et al., 1999). Yoon et al.

16

(1999) attributed the extensive internal fouling that occurs in inorganic membranes to the precipitation of struvite. Using scanning electron microscope (SEM) image analysis, they observed no visible cake layer formation on the surface of an inorganic membrane. SEM image analysis also revealed the presence of white crystals, characteristic of struvite precipitate, within the pore structure of the inorganic membrane. They also reported that the amount of struvite present in the membrane as internal foulant could be estimated based on the difference between the mass of magnesium, a component of struvite, contained in the mixed liquor and that contained in the permeate. Kang et al. (2002) reported that the struvite content of the internal foulant material in inorganic membranes was more than twice that observed in organic membranes. Choo et al. (2000) also attributed the extensive internal fouling that occurs in inorganic membranes to the precipitation of struvite. In constrast to observations with an organic membrane, Choo et al. noted a significant difference in the rate of fouling when ammonia, a component of struvite, was removed from the mixed liquor prior to filtration using an inorganic membrane. These results are somewhat contradictory to those reported by Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni (1997), who observed that the formation of a cake layer was the principal mechanism governing the reduction in the permeate flux through an inorganic membrane. However, as indicated in the following discussion, the cross-flow velocity at the membrane surface can also affect the presence of a cake layer on a membrane surface. The absence of a cake layer on inorganic membranes has been reported to result in a slower decline in permeate flux over time than that observed for organic membranes (Kang et al., 2002). It should be noted that the differences reported by Kang et al. (2002) could also have been due to structural differences between the two types of membranes investigated. The inorganic membranes studied had a smooth surface and a pore diameter of 0.14 m, while the organic membranes had a rougher, fibrous surface and a pore diameter of 0.2 m. Ghyoot and Verstraete (1997) also observed that the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR with a ceramic membrane was significantly higher than that which could be achieved with an organic membrane. However, based on a life cycle analysis, the cost of an anaerobic MBR with a ceramic membrane was approximately twice that of an anaerobic MBR with an organic membrane. Hydrophobic nature and charge of the membrane. The hydrophobic nature of a membrane material in an anaerobic MBR has been documented to significantly affect the permeate flux. Choo et al. (2000) reported that a higher permeate flux could be maintained when the surface of a membrane was hydrophilic in nature. Sainbayar et al. (2001) reported that the permeate flux through a hydrophobic membrane could be increased through graft polymerization, which introduces hydrophilic functional groups on a membrane surface. The extent of internal pore fouling decreased as the degree of graft polymerization increased. However, graft polymerization also affected the physical structure of the membrane surface, reducing the size of the pores. As a result, a maximum permeate flux was observed at an intermediate degree of grafting, at which the membrane surface exhibited primarily hydrophilic characteristics and the membrane pores were relatively large. Contradictory results were reported by Choo and Lee (1996b) who observed that the extent of fouling was lower for membrane materials that were more hydrophobic in nature. These results suggest surface hydrophobicity on its own does not govern membrane fouling (Choo and Lee, 1996b).

17

The membrane surface charge also likely plays a significant role in membrane fouling. The membrane surface charge is strongly impacted by the pH and the ionic strength of the mixed liquor. Shimizu et al. (1989) reported that negatively charged inorganic membranes fouled less rapidly than non-charged or positively charged membranes during the filtration of an anaerobic broth. They attributed the difference to a stronger electrical repulsion between negatively charged colloids in the broth and the membrane surface. In addition, as discussed below, the charge that a membrane adopts during the cleaning process significantly affects the extent to which the permeate flux can be recovered (Kang et al., 2002). However, for filtration of protein solutions, Fane et al. (1983) reported that the impact of the membrane surface charge becomes negligible when the ionic concentration of the solution being filtered, is high. Nominal pore size. In addition to the characteristics of the membrane material, the nominal pore size of a membrane can also significantly affect the permeate flux. Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni (1997) investigated the impact of pore size on the steady state permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR. The permeate flux was highest for a membrane with a nominal pore diameter of approximately 0.45 m when filtering an anaerobic mixed liquor. However, when filtering a mixed microbial population of methanogens, the optimal pore diameter was approximately 0.15 m (Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni, 1997). The differences in these results clearly indicate that the optimal membrane pore size is a function of the specific mixed microbial population being filtered. Choo and Lee (1996b) reported that the optimal pore size for an anaerobic MBR was 0.1 m. Chung et al. (1998) indicated that the permeate flux that could be achieved in an anaerobic MBR with a nominal pore size of 0.22 m was three times higher than that which could be achieved with a membrane with a pore size of 0.6 m. He et al. (1999) reported that for the treatment of a high strength food processing wastewater using an anaerobic MBR, membranes with a larger molecular weight cut-off fouled more rapidly and to a greater extent. These results suggest that membranes with a larger nominal pore size foul more readily due to clogging by macro-colloids, which can completely block the entrance of the pores, while those with a smaller nominal pore size foul more readily due to clogging by micro-colloids, which can adsorb to the surface of the pores. The initial permeate flux through membranes with a larger nominal pore size tends to be greater than through a membrane with a smaller pore size (Saw et al., 1986). However, Saw et al. (1986) observed that the rate of fouling was also higher for membranes with a larger nominal pore size. These results are consistent with those reported by Wen et al. (1999) who observed that the rate of fouling in an anaerobic MBR was greater at a higher operating permeate flux, as discussed in the subsection entitled, Operating flux (Section 3.3.2). Imasaka et al. (1989) reported that the increase in the rate of fouling with an increase in the membrane pore size was due mainly to an increase in internal pore fouling. The pore size had no impact on the extent of cake fouling. Hernandez et al. (2002) observed that membranes with a nominal pore size of 10 m fouled more rapidly than those with a pore size of 100 m. The discrepancy can likely be

18

explained by the differences in the mechanisms that govern the fouling of coarse membranes (i.e., pore size greater than 10 m) and those that govern the fouling of ultrafiltration membranes. Membrane configuration. Both external and submerged internal membrane configurations have been used in anaerobic MBRs. The circulation rate (i.e., cross-flow velocity) and operating TMP used in external membrane systems are typically high. For an anaerobic MBR with an external membrane, the cross-flow velocity and operating TMP typically ranges from 1 to 5 m/s and 2.1 to 7 kg/cm2, respectively. On the other hand, the cross-flow velocity and operating TMP used in internal membrane systems are typically relatively low. For an anaerobic MBR with an internal membrane, the operating TMP has been reported to range from 0.21 to 1.1 kg/cm2. The bulk cross-flow velocity tends to be less than 0.6 m/s in these systems (Lei and Berube, 2004). Stuckey and Hu (2003) reported that the permeate flux that could be maintained in an anaerobic MBR with a hollow-fibre internal membrane configuration was slightly higher than that which could be maintained in a comparable flat-sheet configuration. The difference, although small, may be due to the dissimilarity in the extent of contact occuring between the membrane surfaces in these two types of internal membrane systems. Lei and Berube (2004) demonstrated that the physical contact between membranes that occurs in internal membrane systems, which is a function of the membrane packing density and looseness, significantly affects the permeate flux. Unfortunately, no previous studies were identified in which the impact of the configuration of the membrane component of an anaerobic MBR on the permeate flux was investigated. The TMP and the cross-flow velocity can significantly affect the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR, as discussed in the following section. Considering that the magnitudes of these operating parameters differ significantly for external and internal membrane systems, it can be expected the membrane configuration will have a significant impact on the achievable permeate flux. 3.3.2 Operational Parameters

Cross-flow velocity. Choo and Lee (1998) reported it was possible to significantly decrease the resistance due to concentration polarization and the resistance due to cake layer formation by increasing the cross-flow velocity. However, a plateau was reached at a Reynolds number of approximately 2000, for which no further reduction in the resistance could be achieved by increasing the cross-flow velocity (Choo et al., 2000). At the highest cross-flow velocity investigated, the surface resistance (i.e. the resistance due to the concentration polarization and the cake layer) still accounted for most of the total resistance to the permeate flux (Choo and Lee, 1998). For inorganic membranes, internal fouling can dominate, especially at high cross-flow velocities (Kang, 1996). Although the extent of internal fouling is typically considered to be independent of the cross-flow velocity, internal fouling can increase slightly as the cross-flow velocity increases (Choo and Lee, 1998; Choo et al., 2000). This increase in the extent of internal fouling can be attributed to thinning of the cake layer, which serves as protection against the passage of foulants, followed by an increase in the passage of foulants into the membrane pores.

19

Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni (1997) reported that the total fouling resistance could be reduced to virtually zero when the cross-flow velocity in a tubular membrane system exceeded 3 m/s. This result suggests that for this anaerobic MBR, the fouling was due to cake fouling only. The permeate flux increased linearly with an increase in the surface shear stress caused by the cross-flow velocity (Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni, 1997, 1998). However, the permeate flux remained constant once a certain shear stress level was reached. The use of baffles to induce a high surface shear stress at the membrane surface resulted in a similar effect on the permeate flux as did an increase in the cross-flow velocity. The impact of baffles on the permeate flux was greatest when the cross-flowing liquid was in the transition regime between laminar and turbulent flow. The results suggest that the magnitude of the permeate flux at the plateau is governed by the mass flux of solids towards the membrane. Saw et al. (1986) reported that the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR increased to a greater extent with an increase in the crossflow velocity, when the flow through the membrane was turbulent. Imaskaka et al. (1989) also reported that permeate flux increased with an increase in the cross-flow velocity. However, they noted that when varying the cross-flow velocity, the permeate flux at a given cross-flow velocity was dependent on the step-wise manner in which the cross-flow velocity was changed. Also, Grethlein (1978) reported that the rate of fouling decreased as the cross-flow velocity increased. However, as noted by Bourgeous et al. (2001), although the permeate flux can be increased by increasing the cross-flow velocity, this increase comes at a cost. They reported that an increase in the cross-flow velocity from 1 to 2 m/s increased the permeate flux by 20%. However, the power cost for the system was also increased, but by 58%. In addition, the high cross-flow velocity required to generate high shear conditions can generate large axial pressure gradients, resulting in a non-uniform TMP in tubular membrane systems (Lee et al., 1999). As a consequence, some sections of the membrane can be subject to non-optimal TMP conditions. The cross-flow velocity can also negatively impact the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR. Brockmann and Seyfried (1996), Ghyoot and Verstraete (1997) and others, reported that the biomass activity could be significantly affected by shear, as discussed in Section 3.1.1. Choo and Lee (1998) reported that the higher shear forces imposed on mixed liquor at higher crossflow velocities can reduce the size of the particulate material (i.e. biomass). The size of the biosolid particles in the mixed liquor can significantly affect the permeate flux, as discussed in the subsection entitled, Colloidal solids (in subsection 3.3.3). In addition, Choo and Lee (1996a) suggested that the high shear conditions caused by high cross-flow velocities can significantly increase cell lysis, resulting in a decrease in the overall activity of the biomass in an anaerobic MBR. For an aerobic MBR, Kim et al. (2001) suggested that the high shear conditions present in a bioreactor could result in the release of high concentrations of exocellular polymeric substances (EPS) or SMP into the bioreactor. High concentrations of EPS or SMP have been documented to negatively impact the permeate flux in aerobic MBRs (Van Houten et al., 2001; Lawrence et al., 2001). Fortunately, anaerobic biosolids do not appear to be as impacted significantly by high cross-flow velocities in comparison to aerobic biosolids (Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni, 1997). The high shear forces to which the biomass is exposed in an aerobic external membrane MBR is mainly due to the recirculation pumping that is required in this type of configuration (Shimizu et al., 1994). Gear pumps and positive displacement pumps have been observed by some researchers to have the largest negative impact on biomass activity in an aerobic MBR,

20

while centrifugal pumps had the smallest impact (Flaschel et al., 1986). This may explain why Beaubien et al. (1996) did not observe a negative impact of high cross-flow velocities on methanogenic activity. Unfortunately, the authors did not disclose the type of recirculation pump used. Gas sparging. Gas sparging is extensively used in submerged internal membrane systems as a means to provide high shear conditions at the membrane surface. Increasing the amount of gas increases the amount of shear to which the membrane surface is exposed, much in the same manner as an increase in the cross-flow velocity in an external tubular membrane system increases the surface shear. Air is typically used as the sparging gas in an aerobic MBR. Vera et al. (2000) reported that for an aerobic MBR, the extent of fouling decreased as the air flow rate increased. Lee et al. (2001c) reported that it was possible to maintain a relatively high permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR by sparging the submerged membrane system with air. However, the membranes could only be sparged for approximately five seconds every 10 minutes. Sparging the system with air for a longer duration resulted in non-anaerobic conditions that significantly reduced the activity of the acid-forming microorganisms in the system. More extensive sparging is required to maximize the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR. Stuckey and Hu (2003) effectively used the gas in the headspace in an anaerobic MBR as a source of relatively inert gas for continuously sparging an internal membrane system. The TMP required to maintain a constant permeate flux decreased as the gas sparging flow increased. However, a plateau was reached at which no additional significant reduction in the required TMP could be achieved by increasing the gas sparging flow (Stuckey and Hu, 2003). Kayawake et al. (1991) reported that the permeate flux that could be maintained in an anaerobic MBR with an internal ceramic membrane system could be doubled by sparging the system with head-space gas. Imasaka et al. (1989) used nitrogen gas for sparging in an anaerobic MBR. The permeate flux increased as the nitrogen gas sparging rate increased, up to a certain value, after which a further increase in the sparging rate did not result in a significant increase in the permeate flux. It was also observed at the higher sparging rates investigated, the permeate flux tended to continuously decrease over time, while at the lower sparging rates, the permeate flux tended to reach a pseudosteady state value. They attributed the continuous decrease in the permeate flux to the thinning of the cake layer, which can occur at higher sparging rates. As noted above, this thinning of the cake layer, which can serve as a protective layer against the passage of foulants, may result in an increase in the passage of foulants into the membrane pores. Fawehinmi et al. (2004) also reported a higher permeate flux when sparging an AnMBR with nitrogen gas during the treatment of a high strength synthetic wastewater. TMP. The permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR is governed by different mechanisms when the membrane is operated at low or at a high TMPs. At a relatively low TMP, the permeate flux is governed by the TMP. Under such pressure-limited conditions, the permeate flux increases linearly with the applied TMP, and the permeate flux is not significantly impacted by the cross-flow velocity (Beaubien et al., 1996). The permeate flux is, however, impacted by the MLSS concentration, but only at low concentrations (i.e. less than 2.5 g/L) according to Beaubien at al. (1996). At higher solids concentrations, the permeate flux is not impacted by the concentration of the MLSS.

21

At a relatively high TMP, the permeate flux is governed by the mass transfer of material away from the membrane surface. Under mass transfer-limited conditions, the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR is governed by the cross-flow velocity (i.e. surface shear) and the MLSS concentration (Beaubien et al., 1996). Beaubien et al. (1996) reported a linear increase in the permeate flux with an increase in the cross-flow velocity along the membrane surface at high TMPs. However, the magnitude of the increase in the permeate flux was lower at higher MLSS concentrations. The lower magnitude of the increase in the permeate flux can be attributed to the higher rate of mass transfer towards the membrane and/or to the increase in the viscosity of the mixed liquor that occurs at higher MLSS concentrations. Under mass transfer-limited conditions, the permeate flux theoretically is not affected by the TMP. However, at very high TMPs, Elmaleh and Abdelmoumni (1997) reported a decrease in the permeate flux with an increase in TMP. The decrease in the permeate flux under such conditions was attributed to a compaction of the foulant layer. When filtering a digested sludge, Saw et al. (1986) also observed that at very high operating TMPs, the permeate flux in an MF membrane decreased with an increase in the TMP. However, they also observed that when using UF membranes (MW cut-off 8,000 to 20,000 daltons), the permeate flux remained constant with an increase in the TMP. They suggested that the structure of the foulant layer forming on an MF membrane is not as dense as the layer that forms on a UF membrane, and is therefore more susceptible to collapsing under elevated TMPs. Beaubien et al. (1996) suggested that for relatively high pressure systems, it is possible to identify a TMP that maximizes the permeate flux while minimizing membrane fouling. The optimal operating pressure could be calculated using Equation 1,
R P = m, opt a

(1) where Popt is the optimal TMP, Rm is the resistance due to membrane-solute interactions (i.e. resistance due to pore plugging and adsorption), and a is a mass transfer parameter. According to Equation 1, when fouling is caused predominantly by the formation of a cake layer on the membrane surface (i.e. the Rm is small), the optimal TMP is low. If internal fouling governs (i.e. Rm is large), the optimal TMP is high. Although the permeate flux for high TMP systems was reported to be a function of both the cross-flow velocity and the concentration of suspended solids in the mixed liquor, the optimal TMP was reported to be independent of the TSS concentration (Beaubien et al., 1996). The dependence of the optimal TMP on the crossflow velocity is somewhat intuitive since high cross-flow velocities tend to remove the cake layer, making internal fouling the dominant fouling mechanism. The operation of a membrane system under high TMPs and high cross-flow velocities can be relatively expensive in terms of operating costs. Sutton et al. (2002) reported that usually it is not possible to maintain a relatively high permeate flux for a long period of time under these conditions, with an aerobic internal membrane MBR system.

22

Operating flux. The ability to maintain a high permeate flux can decrease both the capital and operating cost associated with an anaerobic MBR, as previously discussed. However, at a higher permeate flux, the rate of mass transfer of material towards the membrane surface is also greater. As a result, the rate of fouling (i.e. the accumulation of foulant material on the membrane surface) in an anaerobic MBR has been reported to be greater at a higher operating permeate flux (Wen et al., 1999). The more rapidly a membrane fouls, the more often it must be cleaned. Therefore, it may not be advisable to attempt to maintain the highest possible permeate flux. A balance between a high permeate flux and long filtration runs must be maintained in order to maximize the total permeate volume achieved over time. Permeate flux recovery (i.e. membrane cleaning). Lee et al. (2001c) reported that it was not possible to recover the permeate flux through an organic membrane by back-flushing the membrane with a caustic solution. Caustic solutions are considered to be effective for removing organic/biological foulants from a membrane surface, while acidic solutions are considered to be effective for removing inorganic foulants from a membrane surface (Lee et al., 2001c). However, a number of studies have reported that it is possible to consistently recover the permeate flux through an organic membrane by back-flushing the membrane exclusively with an acidic solution (Kang et al., 2002; Choo et al, 2000), or with a caustic solution following an acidic cleaning (Lee et al., 2001c). Considering that the fouling of organic membranes can be attributed mainly to the formation of a cake layer, which consists of biomass and struvite (Kang et al., 2002), these results suggest that the removal of struvite governs the recovery of the permeate flux. A number of studies have reported that it is not possible to consistently recover the permeate flux through an inorganic membrane by back-flushing with an acidic solution, regardless of the type of acidic solution used (Yoon et al.,1999; Kang et al., 2002; Choo et al, 2000). These results are somewhat counter-intuitive since the internal pore fouling in inorganic membranes has been attributed mainly to struvite (Yoon et al.,1999; Kang et al., 2002), which is soluble under acidic conditions. Kang et al. (2002) attributed the poor recoveries observed when back-flushing an inorganic membrane with acidic solutions to the positive charge adopted by the inorganic membrane during acidic cleaning. They suggested that the positive charge could result in strong attractive interactions between the membrane surface and the various solutes and colloids in the mixed liquor. Relaxation, which consists of periodic interruptions of the filtration process by reducing the TMP to zero, is also extensively used in MBRs to increase the permeate flux. Wen et al. (1999) investigated a number of relaxation scenarios with permeation and relax times ranging from 2-8 minutes and 0.5-2 minutes, respectively. Their results indicated that the permeate flux was highest at intermediate permeate times (i.e. 4 minutes) and intermediate relax times (e.g.. 1 minute). Grethlein (1978) also reported that the rate of decline in the permeate flux could be minimized using this approach. Operating temperature. Baek and Pagilla (2003) reported that higher operating temperatures could be maintained in anaerobic MBRs compared to their aerobic counterparts. The difference in the achievable operating temperatures can be attributed to the cooling effect of the aeration system in the aerobic MBR. Higher operating temperatures can have beneficial impacts on the permeate flux by reducing the viscosity of the permeate. Hogetsu et al. (1992)

23

reported an increase in the permeate flux of over 30 percent when the operating temperature was increased from 40C to 47C. Similar results were reported by Zoh et al. (2002). Schiener et al. (1998) and Fawehinmi et al. (2004) observed a slight decrease in the concentration of SMPs in a conventional anaerobic bioreactor as the operating temperature increased. Therefore, operating an anaerobic MBR at an elevated temperature may have beneficial impacts on the permeate flux by reducing the concentration of SMPs in the system, as discussed in the subsection entitled, Soluble products (in subsection 3.3.3). Most of the results presented herein regarding membrane efficiency are from studies that were performed using an anaerobic MBR operating at temperatures in excess of 30C. However, a number of studies were performed at ambient or moderate temperatures. Wen et al. (1999) were able to maintain a relatively high permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR operated at temperatures ranging from 14-25C over an extended period of time, when the membrane was operated with a relaxation period. Kiriyama et al. (1994) also successfully operated an anaerobic MBR at temperatures ranging from 20-25C. They did not report the magnitude of the permeate flux achieved. Pretreatment approaches. PAC addition has also been used to enhance the permeate flux in anaerobic MBRs. Park et al. (1999) reported that at relatively low cross-flow velocities, PAC addition did not significantly affect the permeate flux. However, at higher cross-flow velocities, the addition of PAC resulted in an increase in the flux. The impact of PAC addition on the flux was greater at a higher PAC dosage. Park et al. (1999) attributed the results to the scouring effect of the PAC on the membrane surface and to the PAC adsorption of dissolved/colloidal material from the mixed liquor. Similar results were observed by Pirbazari et al. (1996) who investigated the impact of PAC addition in an aerobic MBR system. Kim and Lee (2003) attributed a higher permeate flux observed following PAC addition to an aerobic MBR, to a reduction in the quantities of fine colloids and soluble microbial products in the mixed liquor, as discussed in the subsections entitled, Colloidal solids and Soluble products (in subsection 3.3.3). They also observed that the effect of PAC on the permeate flux was more pronounced for a submerged internal membrane system than for an external membrane system. They attributed the difference to the more extensive floc breakage which occurred in the external membrane system. Choo and Lee (1996b) suggested that the addition of an adsorbent or a coagulant could also enhance permeate flux by agglomerating the fine colloids present in the mixed liquor being filtered into larger particles that have a lower tendency to foul membranes, as discussed in the subsection entitled, Colloidal solids (Section 3.3.3). Imasaka et al. (1989) investigated the addition of an ion exchange resin to an anaerobic MBR to enhance the scouring effect of the cross-flow at the membrane surface, and as a result, to reduce the thickness of the foulant layer. The addition of the ion exchange resin at a concentration of 2.5% solids did not impact the permeate flux. However, the addition of the resin at a concentration of 5% solids doubled the permeate flux. The removal of other material that can contribute to membrane fouling has also been investigated. Choo et al. (2000) reported that struvite formation can be minimized by combining a dialysis/zeolite system with an anaerobic MBR. The dialysis/zeolite component of the system can selectively remove ammonia. With such a combined approach, the permeate flux through an inorganic membrane was reported to have increased by 15-20%.

24

Miscellaneous operating conditions. Shimizu et al. (1989) reported that the permeate flux that could be maintained in an anaerobic MBR operated under stable, steady state conditions was approximately twice that which could be maintained under non-stable conditions. These results may be due to the different amounts of SMPs that are produced under steady state and non-steady state conditions. Kang et al. (2003) observed a strong correlation between the DO concentration in an anoxic MBR and the specific cake resistance. The resistance was significantly higher at a DO concentration of 0.3 mg/L than at a concentration of 5 mg/L. They suggested that the differences could be attributed to the larger flocs that are typically more prevalent at higher DO concentrations. Smaller solids tend to contribute to membrane fouling to a greater extent than large flocs, as previously discussed. Kim and Somiya (1999) investigated the impact of intermittent ozone gas sparging on flux recovery in an anaerobic MBR. The permeate flux that could be maintained with intermittent ozonation was almost twice that which could be maintained without ozonation. The specific mechanisms which resulted in an increase in the permeate flux were not examined. However, the authors noted extensive ozonation could inhibit microbial activity in the anaerobic MBR. 3.3.3 Characteristics of the Mixed Liquor Suspended solids. The concentration of suspended solids in the mixed liquor in an anaerobic MBR has been reported to have a significant impact on the resistance to the permeate flux. Stuckey and Hu (2003) observed that the TMP required to maintain a constant permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR treating a synthetic wastewater at an MLSS concentration of 35 g/L was over two times greater than the pressure required at an MLSS concentration of 7 g/L. Saw et al. (1986) observed a log-linear decrease in the steady state permeate flux with an increase in the concentration of suspended solids when filtering a digested sludge. The extent of the decline was greater for membranes with larger pore sizes. Kitamura et al. (1996) also observed a decrease in the permeate flux with an increase in the concentration of suspended solids in an anaerobic MBR treating distillery wastewater. The authors noted that the permeate flux did not increase to the same extent when the suspended solids concentration was decreased. However, the exact relationship between the concentration of suspended solids and the steady state permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR has not been extensively investigated. Yamazaki et al. (1997) also observed a decrease in the permeate flux that could be maintained with an increase in the MLSS concentration in an anaerobic MBR. A number of studies have documented the impact of TSS on the permeate flux in aerobic MBRs. In general, the steady state permeate flux has been reported to decrease at higher suspended solids concentrations. This is likely due to the higher rate of mass transfer of material towards the membrane surface that occurs at higher TSS concentrations. The impact of the concentration of suspended solids in an aerobic MBR has been reported to also be a function of the hydrodynamic conditions in the system. Lubbecke et al. (1995) reported that at lower concentrations, the steady state permeate flux in an aerobic MBR was not impacted by suspended solids. However, above a specific concentration, which was dependent on the crossflow velocity, the steady state permeate flux decreased as the concentration of TSS in the system increased. The results suggest that at low concentrations of TSS, the rate of mass transfer of

25

solids towards the membrane surface is less than the rate of mass transfer of TSS away from the membrane surface. As the concentration of suspended solids increases, the viscosity of the mixed liquor increases. At a certain point, the increase in the viscosity of the mixed liquor will cause a shift from turbulent to laminar flow conditions along the membrane. The rate of mass transfer of suspended solids away from the membrane surface, which is largely governed by eddy diffusion, is much lower under laminar flow, than turbulent flow conditions (Mallevialle et al., 1996). Colloidal solids. Choo and Lee (1996b, 1998) reported that fine colloids played a critical role in increasing the hydraulic resistance of a foulant layer in an anaerobic MBR. Fine colloids tend to have a lower back-diffusion rate than larger solids. Choo and Lee (1998) suggested that as a consequence of this lower back-diffusion rate, fine colloids tend to migrate to and accumulate at the membrane surface to a greater extent than larger suspended solids. In addition, they suggested that smaller particles tend to form a more compact foulant layer on the membrane surface. Therefore, not only do smaller solids tend to accumulate at the membrane surface, the resulting foulant layer is more compact. Choo and Lee (1996b) also reported that the polarization index at the membrane surface for colloidal material was much higher than for soluble material or for microorganisms contained in an anaerobic digestion broth. They speculated that flux improvements could be obtained by degrading the colloidal material into soluble material or by agglomerating the colloidal material into coarser particles, based on these results. Langenhoff et al. (2000) observed that the production of SMPs in a conventional anaerobic bioreactor fed a synthetic wastewater was higher when the colloidal content of the wastewater was higher. This production of SMPs could enhance membrane fouling as discussed in the following subsection. In a review of recent developments in anaerobic MBR technology, Van Houten et al. (2001) suggested that since an anaerobic mixed liquor tends to contain more fine colloids than an aerobic mixed liquor, the mechanisms that govern fouling in anaerobic systems are likely to be different from the mechanisms that govern fouling in aerobic systems. No specific data or results were presented. Soluble products. Although the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR has been reported to be significantly impacted by the concentrations of suspended and colloidal solids in the mixed liquor, the soluble component of the mixed liquor appears to play a significant, if not greater role in the formation of a foulant layer on the membrane component of the system (Harada et al., 1994) For aerobic MBRs, the extent of fouling has been documented to be related to the concentration of SMPs in the mixed liquor (Fawehinmi et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2001a; Chang and Lee, 1998; Wisniewski and Grasmick, 1998). Lee et al. (2001a) reported that a higher permeate flux could be maintained in a suspended growth aerobic MBR than could be maintained in an fixed-film aerobic MBR. These results are counter-intuitive, considering the impact of suspended solids on the permeate flux in MBRs, reported in the subsection entitled Suspended solids. This may indicate that the soluble products play a significant role in membrane fouling. In addition, these results suggest that there may be no benefit to including attached growth surfaces in an anaerobic MBR to reduce the concentration of TSS in the solution being filtered. Lee et al. (2001a) also observed that for both fixed-film and suspended growth aerobic MBRs, the rate of fouling was lower at higher TSS concentrations, and the rate of fouling was lower when filtering a mixture of suspended solids and SMPs, in contrast to filtration of a solution containing only soluble microbial products. These results are consistent with those reported by Shin and Kang

26

(2002). When investigating the permeate flux in an aerobic-anoxic MBR, they observed most of the membrane resistance was induced by soluble components in the mixed liquor. To date, the impact of SMPs on the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR has received limited attention. Stuckey observed that the type of SMPs produced in an anaerobic MBR and those present in the effluent permeate were different. These results suggest that the membrane component of the anaerobic MBR retained some of the SMPs and that these are likely to have contributed to the formation of a foulant layer on the membrane surface. Stuckey (2003) also reported that the type of SMP that predominates in an anaerobic MBR was a function of both the influent load and the composition of the wastewater. This is consistent with results reported for conventional anaerobic bioreactors. Barker and Stuckey (2001) reported that the quantities of SMPs formed in a conventional anaerobic bioreactor fed with synthetic wastewater increased with the COD concentration of the wastewater being treated. These results are somewhat contradictory to those reported by Langenhoff et al. (2000). In this case, higher concentrations of SMPs were observed at lower hydraulic loading rates for a conventional anaerobic bioreactor treating a synthetic wastewater. This is consistent with the results reported by Kayawake et al (1991) for an anaerobic MBR treating municipal wastewater solids. It was reported that a higher permeate flux could be maintained when the anaerobic MBR was operated at a higher loading rate. Barker et al. (2000) suggested that the higher production of SMPs in a conventional anaerobic bioreactor at longer hydraulic retention times is likely due to the more extensive biomass decay that occurs at longer SRTs. This hypothesis is consistent with results reported by Shin and Kang (2002). For an aerobic-anoxic MBR, they observed that the resistance induced by the soluble fraction of the mixed liquor was more severe at long SRTs. The production of SMPs and the impact of these compounds on the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR remains unclear. It is likely that an intermediate loading rate can maximize the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR, as suggested by Hernandez et al. (2002). They reported that the permeate flux was greater at a medium loading rate (1.5 to 10 kg/m3day) than at a low loading rate (0.3 to 1 kg/m3day). Barker et al. (2000) reported that 22% of the effluent COD from a conventional anaerobic bioreactor treating a low strength synthetic wastewater consisted of high MW SMPs. This fraction was found to be highly biodegradable under aerobic conditions, with 86% of the COD being biodegradable. Only 4% of the COD was biodegradable under anaerobic conditions. The low MW fraction of the SMPs formed during anaerobic treatment accounted for 36%t of the effluent COD. The authors reported that 33% of this fraction was biodegradable under anaerobic conditions, while only 17% was biodegradable under aerobic conditions. These results suggest it may be beneficial to add an aerobic polishing step prior to membrane filtration in an anaerobic MBR to remove the aerobically biodegradable SMPs. Barker et al. (2000) and Schiener et al. (1998) reported that the quantity of SMPs produced in a conventional anaerobic bioreactor treating a synthetic low strength wastewater increased as the operating temperature decreased. Barker et al. (2000) speculated that the greater concentration of SMPs was due to a reduction in the rate of biodegradation of these products at lower temperatures. Similar results were reported by Fawehinmi et al. (2004) from a study of

27

AnMBR treatment of a high strength synthetic wastewater. Inorganic precipitates/struvite. The conditions in an anaerobic MBR are ideal for the formation of struvite (Mamais et al., 1994). Both ammonia and phosphate are usually abundant, and the pH of the mixed liquor in an anaerobic MBR typically ranges from 7.5 to 8.5, which promotes the precipitation of struvite. Choo and Lee (1996a) reported that struvite contributed significantly to the fouling of membranes in an anaerobic MBR. The amount of struvite precipitated could be estimated based on a mass balance analysis of the concentration of magnesium in the influent and effluent of an anaerobic MBR and the concentration of ammonia and phosphate in the mixed liquor. The extent to which struvite can affect the permeate flux in an anaerobic MBR has been reported to be impacted by the type of membrane used. The cake layer that forms on organic membranes in an anaerobic MBR consists of both biological/organic solids and inorganic precipitates, and the principal inorganic constituent of the cake layer is struvite, as discussed in the subsection entitled, Membrane material (Section 3.3.1). However, the fouling of organic membranes is predominantly governed by biological/organic interactions with the membrane. On the other hand, the fouling of inorganic membranes can mainly be attributed to internal pore fouling by struvite.

4.0

SUMMARY: PARAMETERS CRITICAL TO ANAEROBIC MBR SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY

An analysis of the relevant compiled literature and other information, on the topic of anaerobic MBR wastewater treatment, was completed. The principal objective of the information analysis was to identify the variables that appear to be critical to the achievment of a high effluent quality in an economical fashion, in applying anaerobic MBR technology for treatment of low-to-medium strength wastewaters. The results from the information analysis clearly imply that the anaerobic MBR technology has the potential to achieve near complete treatment (i.e., CBOD5 equal to or less than 30 mg/L) of municipal and/or low-to-medium strength industrial wastewaters operating under moderate temperature conditions (i.e., less than 20C). The technology may be particularly attractive in the management of municipal wastewaters using a less traditional approach. Treatment system economics may favor application of anaerobic MBR systems as a satellite plant located on a municipal wastewater trunk sewer, designed to reduce the organic load to an existing, centralized treatment facility. The information analysis results imply that anaerobic MBR technology has the potential to be applied at a commercial scale for treatment of a wide variety of industrial wastewaters, or as a unit operation in a variety of flowsheets involving the treatment of municipal wastewater solids and sludges. The results suggest that the efficiency of the membrane component likely will dictate treatment system economics. A number of mechanisms govern the permeate flux during operation of membrane systems coupled to anaerobic bioreactors.

28

The results from the information analysis follows. 4.1 Critical Bioreactor Parameters

The bioreactor parameters that appear to be critical, relevant to the principal objective of the information analysis stated previously, are the following. Bioreactor operating temperature. The information analysis clearly indicates the bioreactor operating temperature will significantly affect treatment efficiency. The results imply that an anaerobic MBR should be capable of achieving near complete treatment of low-tomedium strength wastewaters operating under moderate (15-25oC) temperature conditions. Bioreactor OLR. The bioreactor COD OLR and effectively the operating SRT, will dictate treatment performance. Results from the information analysis imply that the anaerobic bioreactor of an MBR system should be capable of operating in the range from 5-8 kg COD/m3day and should achieve near complete removal of carbonaceous BOD from municipal wastewater under moderate temperature conditions. Bioreactor configuration and biomass characteristics. The membrane component plays a critical role in dictating the performance and efficiency of the anaerobic MBR, by allowing for capture and hydrolysis of wastewater organic colloids and particulates, physical retention of certain soluble organics and maintenance of a high concentration of active methanogens in the bioreactor component. The bioreactor must be capable of operating at an effective concentration of at least 10 g/L, of VSS to achieve efficient treatment. The efficiency of the membrane component will dictate the optimal bioreactor configuration with respect to the nature of the biological growth (i.e., suspended growth versus fixed-film versus hybrid reactor). An anaerobic bioreactor configuration with plug-flow hydraulic characteristics is likely to be favored in the treatment of lower strength wastewaters. 4.2 Critical Membrane System Parameters

The information analysis implies that the optimal membrane system for an anaerobic MBR consists of an organic, hydrophilic and negatively charged membrane with a pore size of approximately 0.1 m. The use of both external and submerged internal membrane configurations shows promise. Other design and operational parameters dictating the performance and efficiency of the membrane component, follow. The operating parameters impacting the permeate flux in an external membrane system are the TMP and the cross-flow velocity. The operating parameters impacting the permeate flux in an internal membrane system are the TMP, the sparging intensity and the duration of the relaxation period. The optimal set-points for these different operating parameters need to be determined. Both the cross-flow velocity and the sparging intensity impart a significant amount of shear on the biomass in an anaerobic MBR. High shear forces can reduce the microbial activity in an anaerobic MBR. In addition, high shear forces can reduce the size of the biosolids in the mixed liquor and increase the release of SMPs. In this respect, external and internal membrane systems are expected to perform differently since the magnitude of the shear forces to which the

29

biomass is exposed in an external membrane system is significantly greater than that in a submerged system. The impact of the shear forces needs to be considered when investigating the optimal set-points for the different operating parameters. 4.3 Mixed Liquor Characteristics

The size of the biosolids and the amount of SMPs in the mixed liquor affect the permeate flux. The exact size fraction and the components of the soluble microbial products that have the greatest impact on the permeate flux need to be determined. Higher concentrations of SMPs may be present in mixed liquor when an anaerobic MBR is operated at low temperatures. Aerobic polishing following anaerobic treatment, can potentially reduce the concentration of some components of the SMPs in the mixed liquor. Both the impact of the operating temperature and aerobic polishing, on the concentration/composition of SMPs and permeate flux, need to be investigated. It is not possible to remove the foulant layer on an organic membrane with caustic cleaning alone. Acidic cleaning or acidic cleaning followed by caustic cleaning is required to remove the foulant layer. This suggests that both biological/organic and inorganic material contributes to membrane fouling. Further research is required to investigate the composition of the foulant layer.

30

5.0

REFERENCES

Anderson, G.K., Saw, C.B. and Fernandes, M.I.A.P. (1986). Application of porous membranes for biomass retention in biological wastewater treatment processes, Process Biochemistry, December, p. 174. Anderson, G.K., Kasapgil, B., and Ince, O. (1996). Microbial kinetics of a membrane anaerobic reactor, Environmental Technology, Vol. 17, p. 449. Angenent, L.T., Banik, G.C., and Sung, S. (2000). Psychrophilic anaerobic pretreatment of lowstrength wastewater using the anaerobic migrating blanket reactor, Proceedings of the WEF 73rd Annual Conference & Exposition, Anaheim, California, October. Arros, S., Torrijos, M., Gesan-Guiziou, G., Lafforgue, C., Daufin, G., and Merin, U. (2001). Is the anaerobic membrane bioreactor a valuable process for purification of end-of-pipe dairy wastewater with reduced sludge production? International Conference: Membrane Technology for Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Ed. G. Oron and A. Bick, p. 98, Tel Aviv, Israel, September. Arros-Alileche, S., Gesan-Guiziou, G., Lafforgue, C., Daufin, G., and Merin, U. (2002). Whats the membrane role in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor? Simulation, Proceedings of the Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production Conference, Mulheim/Ruhr, Germany, September. Baek, S.H. and Pagilla, K.R. (2003). Anaerobic membrane bioreactor for dilute municipal wastewater treatment, Proceedings of the WEF 49 Annual Conference & Exposition, Los Angeles, California, October. Bailey, A. D., Hansford, G. S., and Dold, P. L. (1994). The enhancement of upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor performance using crossflow microfiltration, Water Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 291. Barker, D.J. and Stuckey, D.C. (1999). A review of soluble microbial products (SMP) in wastewater treatment systems, Water Research, Vol. 33, No. 144, p. 3063. Barker, D.J., Salvi, S.M.L., Langenhoff, A.A.M., and Stuckey, D.C. (2000). Soluble microbial products in ABR treating low-strength wastewater, Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 3, p. 239. Barker, D.J. and Stuckey, D.C. (2001). Modelling of soluble microbial products in anaerobic digestion: the effect of feed strength and composition, Water Environment Research, Vol. 73, No. 2, p. 173. Barnes, S., Dalhoff, R., Keller, J., Wilderer, P., and Kendall, L. (2003). Investigation of membrane processes for the removal of volatile fatty acids, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 47, No. 12, p. 191. Beaubien, A., Baty, M., Jeannot, F., Francoeur, E., and Manem, J. (1996). Design and operation of anaerobic membrane bioreactors: development of a filtration testing strategy, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 109, No 2, p. 173. Berube, P.R. and Hall, E.R. (1999). Effects of kraft evaporator condensate matrix on methanol removal in a high temperature membrane bioreactor, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 40, No. 11-12, p. 327. Berube, P.R., Ronteltap, M., and Hall, E.R. (2003). Impact of recycling rate on the specific substrate utilization coefficient and the observed growth yield in a membrane bioreactor, submitted for publication.

31

Bilstad, T., Madland, M., Espedal, E., and Hanssen, P.H. (1992). Membrane separation of raw and anaerobically digested pig manure, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 10, p. 19. Bodik, I., Kratochvil, K., Herdova, B., Tapia, G., and Gasparikova, E. (2002). Municipal wastewater treatment in the anaerobic-aerobic baffled reactor at ambient temperature, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 46, No. 8, p. 127. Bonkoski, W.A. (2003). Personal communication to P.M. Sutton, Vice President, Zenon Environmental, December. Botha, G.R., Sanderson, R.D., and Buckley, C.A. (1992). Brief historical review of membrane development and membrane applications in wastewater treatment in Southern Africa, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, p. 10. Bourgeous, K.N., Darby, J.L., and Tchobanoglous, G. (2001). Ultrafiltration of wastewater: effects of particles, mode of operation, and backwash effectiveness, Water Research, Vol. 35. p.77. Brockman, M. and Seyfried, C.F. (1996). Sludge activity and cross-flow microfiltration a non-beneficial relationship, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 34, No. 9, p. 205. Brockman, M. and Seyfried, C.F. (1997). Sludge activity under the conditions of cross-flow microfiltration, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 35, No. 10, p. 173. Budd, W.E. and Okey R.W. (1969). U.S. patent 3,472,765. Buswell, A.M., Boruff, C.S., and Wiesman (1932). Anaerobic stabilization of milk waste, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 24, p. 1423. Cadi, Z., Huyard, H., Manem, J., and Moletta, R. (1994). Anaerobic digestion of a synthetic wastewater containing starch by a membrane reactor, Environmental Technology - London, Vol. 15, No. 11, p. 1029. Chang, I-S. and Lee, C-H. (1998). Membrane filtration characteristics in membrane-coupled activated sludge system the effect of physiological states of activated sludge on membrane fouling, Delsalination, Vol. 120, p. 221. Cheryan, M. and Mehaia, M.A. (1986). Membrane bioreactors, Chemtech, November, p. 676. Choate, W.T., Houldsworth, D., and Butler G.A. (1983). Membrane enhanced anaerobic digesters, Proceedings 37th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 661. Choo, K-H. and Lee, C-H. (1996a). Membrane fouling mechanisms in the membrane-coupled anaerobic bioreactor, Water Research, Vol. 30, No. 8, p. 1771. Choo, K.-H. and Lee, C-H. (1996b). Effect of anaerobic digestion broth composition on membrane permeability, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 34, No. 9, p. 173. Choo, K-H., and Lee, C-H. (1998). Hydrodynamic behavior of anaerobic biosolids during crossflow filtration in the membrane anaerobic bioreactor, Water Research, Vol. 32, No. 11, p. 3387. Choo, K-H., Kang, I.J., Yoon, S.H., Park, H., Kim, J.H., Adlya, S., and Lee, C-H. (2000). Approaches to membrane fouling control in anaerobic membrane bioreactors, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 41, No. 10-11, p. 363. Chung, Y-C., Jung, J-Y., Ahn, D-H. and Kim, D-H. (1998). Development of two phase anaerobic reactor with membrane separation system, Journal of Environ Sci HealthToxic/Hazard Subst Environ Eng, Vol. A33, No. 2, p. 249.

32

DeFrance, L. and Jaffrin, M. (1999). Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 152, p. 203. Delanghe, B., Nakamura, F., Myoga, H., Magara, Y. and Guibal, E. (1994). Drinking water denitrification in a membrane bioreactor, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 30, No. 6, p. 157. Ejner, P. (2003). Personal communication to P.M. Sutton, President, Bioscan A/S, October. Elmaleh, S. and Abdelmoumni, L. (1997). Cross-flow filtration of an anaerobic methanogenic suspension, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 131, No. 1-2, p. 261. Elmaleh, S. and Abdelmoumni, L. (1998). Experimental test to evaluate performance of an anaerobic reactor provided with an external membrane unit, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 38, No. 8-9, p. 385. Elmitwalli, T.A., Oahn, K.L.T., Zeeman, G. and Lettinga, G. (2002). Treatment of domestic sewage in a two-step anaerobic filter/anaerobic hybrid system at low temperature, Water Research, Vol. 36, No. 9, p. 2225. Fakhru'l-Razi, A. (1993). Performance study of a new membrane anaerobic digester configuration, Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Management, Geo-Water and Engineering Aspects, p 115. Fakhru'l-Razi, A. (1994). Ultrafiltration membrane separation for anaerobic wastewater treatment, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 30, No. 12, p 321. Fakhru'l-Razi, A. (1995). Steady states study in a membrane anaerobic system (MAS) for wastewater treatment, Proceedings of the WEF 68th Annual Conference & Exposition, Vol. 3, p. 669. Fakhru'l-Razi, A. and Noor, M.J.M.M. (1999). Treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) with the Membrane Anaerobic System (MAS), Water Science & Technology, Vol. 39, No. 10-11, p. 159. Fane A.G., Fell C.J.D. and Suzuki, A. (1983). The effect of pH and ionic environment on the ultrafiltration of protein solutions with retentive membranes, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 16, p. 195. Fawehinmi, F., Lens, P., Stephenson, T., Rogalla, F. and Jefferson B. (2004) The influence of operating conditions on extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) production and biofouling in anaerobic membrane bioreactors, Proceedings of Water Environment Membrane Technology Conference (WEMT 2004), 7-10 June, 2004, Seoul, Korea, p. 469. Ferras, E., Minier, M. and Goma, G. (1986). Acetonobutylic fermentation: improvement of performances by coupling continuous fermentation and ultrafiltration, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. 28, p. 523. Flaschel, E., Raetz, E. and Renken, A. (1986). Shear deactivation of enzymes in membrane reactors, Proceedings International Conference on Bioreactor Dynamics, Cambridge, UK. Foresti, E. (2002). Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage; established technologies and perspectives, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 45, No. 10, p. 181. Fuchs, W., Binder, H., Mavrias, G. and Braun, R. (2003). Anaerobic treatment of wastewater with high organic content using a stirred tank reactor coupled with a membrane filtration unit, Water Research, Vol. 37, No. 4, p. 902. Fukuma, M., Takesada, K. and Yasunishi, A. (1993). Two-phase anaerobic treatment of wastewater containing cellulose using membrane module in acidogenic phase, Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu, Vol. 19, No. 5, p. 936 (in Chinese).

33

Ghyoot, W. R. and Verstraete, W. H. (1997). Coupling membrane filtration to anaerobic primary sludge digestion, Environmental Technology (England), Vol. 18, No. 6, p. 569. Giorno, L., Chojnacka, K., Donato, L. and Drioli, E. (2002). Study of a cell-recycle membrane fermentor for the production of lactic acid by Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, p. 433. Grethlein, H.E. (1978). "Anaerobic digestion and membrane separation of domestic wastewater," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 50, p. 754. Hall, E.R. (1992). Anaerobic treatment of wastewaters in suspended growth and fixed film processes, Design of Anaerobic Processes for the Treatment of Industrial and Municipal Wastes, edited by J.F. Malina Jr. and F.G. Pohland, Technomic Publishing Co. Ltd., Lancaster, PA, p. 41. Hall, E.R., Onysko, K.A. and Parker, W.J. (1995). Enhancement of bleached Kraft organochlorine removal by coupling membrane filtration and anaerobic treatment, Environmental Technology, Vol. 16, p. 115. Harada, H., Momonoi, K., Yamazaki, S. and Takizawa, S. (1994). Application of anaerobicUF membrane reactor for treatment of a wastewater containing high strength particulate organics, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 30, No. 12, p. 307. He, Y., Li, C., Wu, Z. and Gu, G. (1999). Study on molecular weight cut-off of the anaerobic ultrafiltration membrane bioreactor, Zhongguo Jishui Paishui/China Water & Wastewater, Vol. 15, No. 9, p. 10. Hernandez, A.E., Belalcazar, L.C., Rodriguez, M.S. and Giraldo, E. (2002). Retention of granular sludge at high hydraulic loading rates in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor with immersed filtration, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 45, No. 10, p. 169. Hickey, R.F. (2004). Personal communication to P.M. Sutton, Senior Vice President, Ecovation, February. Hogetsu, A., Ishikawa, T., Yoshikawa, M., Tanabe, T., Yudate, S. and Sawada, J. (1992). High rate anaerobic digestion of wool scouring wastewater in a digester combined with membrane filter, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 7, p 341. Imasaka, T. Kanekuni, N. So, H. and Yoshino, H. (1989). Cross-flow of methane fermentation broth by ceramic membrane, Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, Vol. 68, p. 200. Ince, O., Anderson, G.K. and Kasapgil, B. (1993). Improvement in performance of an anaerobic contact digester using a crossflow ultrafiltration membrane techniques for brewery wastewater treatment, Proceedings 48th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, Vol. 48, p. 551. Ince, O., Anderson, G.K. and Kasapgil, B. (1995). Effect of changes in composition of methanogenic species on performance of a membrane anaerobic reactor system treating brewery wastewater, Environmental Technology, Vol. 16, No. 10, p 901. Ince, O., Anderson, G.K. and Kasapgil, B. (1997). Composition of the microbial population in a membrane anaerobic reactor system during start-up, Water Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, p 1. Ince, B., Ince, O., Sallis, P.J. and Anderson, G.K. (1998). Experimental determination of the inert soluble COD fraction of a brewery wastewater under anaerobic conditions, Environmental Technology, Vol. 19, p. 437. Ince, B. K., Ince, O., Sallis, P.J., and Anderson, G.K. (2000). Inert COD production in a membrane anaerobic reactor treating brewery wastewater, Water Research, Vol. 34, No. 16, p. 3943.

34

Jewell, W.J., Switzenbaum, M.S. and Morris, J.W. (1981). Municipal wastewater treatment with the anaerobic attached microbial film expanded bed process, Journal WPCF, Vol. 53, No. 4, p.482. Jones, R.M. and Hall, E.R. (1986). Pilot scale study of high rate anaerobic treatment of wheat starch wastewater from the Candiac, Quebec plant of Ogilvie Mills Ltd., Environment Canada, Wastewater Technology Centre, June. Juby, J.J.G., Leslie, G.L., Deshmukh, S.S., Torres, E.M. , Brown, J.P., Sethi, S. and Buhr, H.O. (2000). A novel membrane-anaerobic digestion approach for wastewater treatment and water reclamation, 2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceedings San Antonio, TX, January February. Judd, S.J., Le-Clech, P., Taha, T. and Cui, Z.G. (2001). Theoretical and experimental representation of a submerged MBR system, Membrane Technology, No. 135, p. 4. Kang, I.J. (1996). Comparison of fouling characteristics between ceramic and polymeric membranes in membrane coupled anaerobic bioreactors, MS Thesis, Department of Chemical Technology, Seoul National University, Korea. Kang, I-J., Yoon, S-H. and Lee, C-H. (2002). Comparison of the filtration characteristics of organic and inorganic membranes in a membrane-coupled anaerobic bioreactor, Water Research, Vol. 36, p. 1803. Kang, I-J., Lee, C-H. and Kim, K-J. (2003). Characteristics of microfiltration membranes in a membrane coupled sequencing batch reactor system, Water Research, Vol. 37, p. 1192. Kataoka, N., Tokiwa, Y., Tanaka, Y., Fujiki, K., Taroda, H. and Takeda, K. (1992). Examination of bacterial characteristics of anaerobic membrane bioreactors in three pilot-scale plants for treating low-strength wastewater by application of the colony-forming-curve analysis method, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 58, No. 9, p. 2751. Kawayake, E., Narukami, Y., and Yamagata, M. (1991). Anaerobic digestion by a ceramic membrane enclosed reactor, Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, Vol. 71, No. 2, p 122. Kim, J-O., and Somiya, I. (1999). Performance of organics decomposition and filterability improvement of ceramic membrane by intermittent ozonation in an organic acid fermenter, Journal of Japanese Sewage Works Association, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 101. Kim, J-O., Somiya, I., Shin, E-B., Bae, W., Kim, S-K. and Kim, R-H. (2002). Application of membrane-coupled anaerobic volatile fatty acids fermentor for dissolved organics recovery from coagulated raw sludge, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 45, No. 12, p. 167. Kim, J.S., Lee, C.H. and Chang, I.S. (2001). Effect of pump shear on the performance of a cross-flow membrane bioreactor, Water Research, Vol. 36, p. 2137. Kim, J.S. and Lee, C.H. (2003). Effect of powdered activated carbon on the performance of an aerobic membrane bioreactor: comparison between cross-flow and submerged membrane systems, Water Environment Research, Vol. 75, No. 4, p. 300. Kimura, K., Nakamura, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2001). Nitrate removal by a combination of elemental sulfur-based denitrification and membrane filtration, Water Research, Vol. 36, p. 1758. Kiriyama, K., Tanaka, Y. and Mori, I. (1992). Field test of a composite methane gas production system incorporating a membrane module for municipal sewage, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, p. 135. Kirmura, S. (1991). Japans aqua renaissance 90 project, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 23, No. 7-9, p.1573.

35

Kitamura, Y., Maekawa, T., Tagawa, A., Hayashi, H. and Farrell-Poe, K.L. (1996). Treatment of strong organic, nitrogenous wastewater by an anaerobic contact process incorporating ultrafiltration, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol. 12, No. 6, p. 709. Kobayashi, H.A., Conway De Macario, E., Williams, R.S, and Macario, A.J.L. (1988). Direct characterization of methanogens in two high-rate anaerobic biological reactors, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 54, No. 3, p. 693. Kraft, A. and Brockmann, M. (1999). Anaerobic technology and membrane bioreactor technology for energy and water generation, Wasser Abwasser Praxis, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 15 (in German). Lai, L.S., Fakhru'l-Razi, A., Idris, A. and Hassan, M. (1999). Performance and kinetic study of membrane anaerobic system in treating POME, Artificial Cells, Blood Substitutes, and Immobilization Biotechnology, Vol. 27, No. 5, p. 469. Langenhoff, A.A.M., Intrachandra, N. and Stuckey, D.C. (2000). Treatment of dilute soluble and colloidal wastewater in an anaerobic baffled reactor: influence of hydraulic retention time, Water Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, p. 1307. Langenhoff, A.A.M. and Stuckey, D.C. (2000). Treatment of dilute wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor: effect of low temperature, Water Research, Vol. 34, No. 15, p. 3867. Lawrence, D., Van Bentem, A., Van Der Herberg and Roeleveld, P. (2001). MBR pilot research at the Beverwijk WWTP, a step forward to full scale implementation, STOWA, Foundation for Applied Water Research 2001, H2O, October, p. 11. Lee, S., Burt, A., Rusoti, G. and Buckland, B. (1999). Microfiltration of yeast cells using a rotary disk dynamic filtration system, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. 48, p. 386. Lee, J., Ahn, W-Y. and Lee, C-H. (2001a). Comparison of the filtration characteristics between attached and suspended growth microorganisms in a submerged membrane bioreactor, Water Research, Vol. 35, p. 2435. Lee, J.C., Kim, J.S., Kang, I.J., Cho, M.H., Park, P.K. and Lee, C.H. (2001b). Potential and limitations of alum or zeolite addition to improve the performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 43, No. 11 p. 59. Lee, S-M., Jung, J-Y. and Chung, Y-C. (2001c). Novel method for enhancing permeate flux of submerged membrane system in two-phase anaerobic reactor, Water Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 471. Lei, E. and Berube, P.R. (2004). Impact of membrane configuration and hydrodynamic conditions on the permeate flux in submerged membrane systems for drinking water treatment, Proceedings British Columbia Water and Waste Association Conference, Whistler, BC, Canada. Lettinga, G., De Man, A., Van Der Last, A.R.M., Wiegrant, W., Van Knippenberg, K., Frijors, J. and Van Buren, J.C.L. (1993). Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage and wastewater, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 27, No.9, p. 67. Lew, B., Belavski, M., Admon, S., Tarre, S. and Green, M. (2003). Temperature effect on UASB reactor operation for domestic wastewater treatment in temperate climate regions, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 48, No. 3, p. 25. Li, A. and Corrado, J.J. (1986). Scale-up of the membrane anaerobic reactor system, Proceedings 40th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 805. Lubbecke, A., Vogelpohl, A. and Dewjanin, W. (1995). Wastewater treatment in a biological high-performance system with high biomass concentration, WaterResearch, Vol. 29, p. 793.

36

Madakoro, T., Ueno, M., Moro, M., Yamamoto, T. and Shibata, T. (1999). Anaerobic digestion system with micro-filtration membrane for kitchen refuse, Presented at 2nd International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Wastes, Barcelona, Spain, June. Magara, Y., Nishimura, K., Itoh, M. and Tanaka, M. (1992). Biological denitrification system with membrane separation for collective human excreta treatment plant, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 10, p. 241. Mallevialle, J., Odendaal, P.E. and Wiesner, M.R. (editors) (1996). Water treatment membrane processes, McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York, NY, USA. Mamais, D., Paul, A.P., Cheng, Y.W., Loiacono, J. and Jenkins, D. (1994). Determination of ferric chloride dose to control struvite precipitation in anaerobic sludge digesters, Water Environment Research, Vol. 66, No. 7, p. 912. Manning, J., Sutton, P.M., Gaines, F.R. and Dunn, W.G. (2001). Combined and separate municipal and leachate wastewater treatment: full scale application of the membrane bioreactor system, Proceedings of the WEF 74th Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, CDROM, October. Minami, K., Okamura, K., Ogawa, S. and Naritomi, T. (1991). Continuous anaerobic treatment of wastewater from a kraft pulp mill, Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, Vol. 71, No. 4, p. 270. Mizuno, O., Takagi, H. and Noike, T. (1998). Biological sulphate removal in an acidogenic bioreactor with an ultrafiltration membrane system, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 38, No. 4-5, p. 513. Morgenroth, E., Raskin, L., Norddahl, B., Criddle, C. and Hickey, B. (2003). Membrane bioreactors for biological wastewater treatment and water reuse advanced treatment of swine manure and how it relates to CAMPWS, CAMPWS Seminar Presentation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November. Munariatis, I.D. and Grigoropoulos, S.G. (2002). Low-strength wastewater treatment using an anaerobic baffled reactor, Water Environment Research, Vol. 74, No., 2, p.170. Nagano, A., Arikawa, E. and Kobayashi, H. (1992). The treatment of liquor wastewater containing high-strength suspended solids by membrane bioreactor system, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, P. 887. Nagaoka, H. (1999). Nitrogen removal by submerged membrane separation activated sludge process, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 39, No. 8, p. 107. Ng, W.J., Ong, S.L., Gomez, M.J., Hu, J.Y. and Fan, X.J. (2000). Study on a sequencing batch membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 41, No. 1011, p. 227. Nikaido, S., Nishimura, K. and Noike, T. (1996). Study on treatment of long-chain fatty acid containing wastewater in the anaerobic digestion with membrane filtration systems, J. Japan Society on Water Environment, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 220 (in Japanese). Norddahl, B. and Rohold, L. (1998). Biorek principle - a membrane bioreactor coupled to an ammonia stripper and an RO unit enabling conversion of manure and slurry into energy, concentrated fertiliser and potable water, Proceedings of Bioenergy 98, Madison, Wisconsin, October. Nuhoglu, A., Pekdemir, T., Yildiz, E., Keskinler, B. and Akay, G. (2002). Drinking water denitrification by a membrane bio-reactor, WaterResearch, Vol. 36, p. 1155. Ognier, S., Wisniewski, C. and Grasmick, A. (2001). Biofouling in membrane bioreactors: phenomenon analysis and modelling, Presented at Membrane Bioreactors International Conference, May.

37

Okamura, K. (1994). Study of wastewater treatment using anaerobic bioreactor combined UF membrane, Papers Ship Research Institute Tokoyo, Vol. 31, No. 5, p. 2-50. Omstead, D.R., Jeffries, T.W., Naughton, R. and Gregor, H. P. (1980). Membrane controlled digestion: anaerobic production of methane and organic acids, Biotechnology & Bioengineering Symposium, No. 10, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, p. 247. Onysko, K.A., and Hall, E.R. (1993). Anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment of segregated bleach plant wastewater. 1993 Environmental Conference, Tappi, p. 845. OSullivan, T.J., Epstein, A.C., Korchin, S.R. and Beaton, N.C. (1984). Applications of ultrafiltration in biotechnology, Chemical Engineering Progress, January, p. 68. Ozaki, N. and Yamamoto, K. (2001). Hydraulic effects on sludge accumulation on membrane surface in crossflow filtration, Water Research, Vol. 35, No. 13, p. 3137. Pagilla, K.R. (2004). Personal communication to P.M. Sutton, Associate Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology, February. Park, H., Choo, K. and Lee, C. (1999). Flux enhancement with powdered activated carbon addition in the membrane anaerobic bioreactor, Separation Science and Technology, Vol. 34, No. 14, p. 2781. Pillay, V.L., Townsend, B. and Buckley, C.A. (1994). Improving the performance of anaerobic digesters at waste water treatment works: the coupled cross-flow microfiltration/digester process, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 30, No. 12, p. 329. Pirbazari, M., Ravindran, V., Badriyha, B.N. and Kim, S.H. (1996). Hybrid membrane filtration process for leachate treatment, Water Research, Vol. 30, No. 11, p. 2691. Rebac, S. (1998). Psychrophilic anaerobic treatment of low strength wastewaters, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Ross, B. and Strohwald, H. (1994). Membranes add edge to old technology, Water Quality International, No. 4, , p 18. Ross, W.R., Barnard, J.P., Le Roux, J. and Villiers, H. A. (1990). Application of ultrafiltration membranes for solids-liquid separation in anaerobic digestion systems: The ADUF process, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 16, p. 85. Ross, W.R., Barnard, J.P., Strohwald, N.K.H., Grobler, C.J. and Sanetra, J. (1992). Practical application of the ADUF process to the full-scale treatment of a maize-processing effluent, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 10, p 27. Ross W.R., Strohwald, N. K. H., Grobler, C.J. and Senetra, J. (1994). Membrane-assisted anaerobic treatment of industrial effluents: The South African ADUF process, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, Cape Town, South Africa, p. 550. Sainbayar, A., Kim, J. S., Jung, W. J., Lee, Y. S. and Lee, C. H. (2001). Application of surface modified polypropylene membranes to an anaerobic membrane bioreactor, Environmental Technology, Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 1035. Saw, C.B., Anderson, G.K., James, A. and Le, M.S. (1986). A membrane technique for biomass retention in anaerobic waste treatment, Proceedings 40th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 805. Schiener, P., Nachaiyasit, S., and Stuckey, D.C. (1998). Production of soluble microbial products (SMP) in an anaerobic baffled reactor: composition biodegradability and the effect of process parameters, Environmental Technology, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 391. Seghezzo, L., Guerra, R.G., Gonzalez, S.M., Trupiano, A.P., Figueroa, M.E., Cuevas, C.M., Zeeman, G. and Lettinga, G. (2002). Removal efficiency and methanogenic activity profiles in a

38

pilot-scale UASB reactor treating settled sewage at moderate temperatures, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 45, No. 10, p. 243. Shimizu, U., Rokudai, M., Tohya, S., Kauawake, E., Yazawa, T., Tanaka, H. and Eguchi, K. (1989). Effect of pore size on the filtration characteristics of ceramic membrane for membrane bioreactors, Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu, Vol. 15, p. 322. Shimizu, Y. et al. (1991). Influence of organic acid density in methane fermentation liquid on membrane filtration characteristics, Japanese Journal of Fermentation Technology, Vol. 67, No. 1, p. 15. Shimizu, Y., Matsushita, K. and Watanabe, A. (1994). Influence of shear breakage of microbial cells on cross-flow microfiltration flux, Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, Vol. 78, No. 2, p. 170. Shimizu, Y., Uryu, K., Okuno, Y. and Watanabe, A. (1996). Cross-flow microfiltration of activated sludge using submerged membrane with air bubbling, Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, Vol. 81, No. 1, p. 55. Shimizu, Y., Okuno, Y., Uryu, K., Ohtsubo, S. and Watanabe, A. (1996). Filtration characteristics of hollow fiber microfiltration membranes used in membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment, Water Research, Vol. 30, No. 10, p. 2385. Shin, H. and Kang, S. (2002). Performance and membrane fouling in a pilot scale SBR process coupled with membrane, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 47, No. 1, p. 139. Singh, K.S. and Viraraghavan, T. (2003). Impact of temperature on performance, microbiological, and hydrodynamic aspects of UASB reactors treating municipal wastewater, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 48, No. 6, p. 211. Smith, C.V., Di Gregorio, D.O. and Talcott, R.M. (1969). The use of ultrafiltration membranes for activated sludge separation, Proceedings 24th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, p. 805. Stensel, H.D. and Strand, S.E. (2004). Evaluation of feasibility of methods to minimize biomass production from biotreatment, Water Environment Research Foundation, Project Report 00CTS-10 (in publication). Strohwald, N.K.H. and Ross, W.R. (1992). Application of the ADUF process to brewery effluent on a laboratory scale, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 10, p 95. Stuckey, D.C. (2003). The submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR): an intensification of anaerobic wastewater treatment, Abstract of Presentation to the Dept. Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September. Stuckey, D.C. and Hu, A. (2003). The submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR): an intensification of anaerobic wastewater treatment, Presented at the International Water Association Leading Edge Conference on Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, May. Sutton, P.M., Li, A., Evans R.R. and Korchin S.R. (1983). Dorr-Oliver's fixed film and suspended growth anaerobic systems for industrial wastewater treatment and energy recovery, Proceedings 37th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 667. Sutton, P.M. and Evans, R.R. (1983). Anaerobic system designs for efficient treatment of industrial wastewater, Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, IAWQ. Sutton, P.M. (1986a). Active biomass retention: the key to anaerobic process efficiency, Presented at Anaerobic Fixed-Film Digestion Seminar, Ontario Ministry of Health Laboratories, Toronto, Ontario, November.

39

Sutton, P.M. (1986b). Innovative biological systems for anaerobic treatment of grain and food processing wastewater, Starch/Starke, Vol. 38, No. 9, p.314. Sutton, P.M., Mishra, P.N., Bratby, J.R. and Enegess, D. (2002). Membrane bioreactor industrial and municipal wastewater applications: long term operating experience, Presented at the WEF 75th Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois, September/October. Takashima, M., Kudoh, Y. and Tabata, N. (1996). Complete anaerobic digestion of activated sludge by combining membrane separation and alkaline heat post-treatment, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 34, No. 5-6 pg. 3. Tardieu, E., Grasmick, A., Geaugey, V. and Manem, J. (1999). Influence of hydrodynamics on fouling velocity in a recirculated MBR for wastewater treatment, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 156, No. 10, p. 131. Torres, P. and Foresti, E. (2001). Domestic sewage treatment in a pilot system composed of UASB and SBR reactors, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 44, No. 4, p. 247. Uemura, S. and Harada, H. (2000). Treatment of sewage by a UASB reactor under moderate to low temperature conditions, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 72, No. 3, p. 275. Uemura, T. and Kondou, Y. (2003). Membrane technology progress in Japan, Water 21, August. Van Bentem, A., Lawrence, D., Horjus, F., De Boer, R., Koornneef, E. and Van Efferen, B. (2001). MBR pilot research in Beverwijk: side studies, STOWA, Foundation for Applied Water Research 2001, H2O, October, p. 16. Van Der Last, A.R.M. and Lettinga, G. (1992). Anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater under moderate climatic (Dutch) conditions using upflow reactors at increased superficial velocities, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 25, No. 7, p. 167. Van Der Roest, H. and Leenen, J. (2001). The MBR as worldwide promising technology, STOWA, Foundation for Applied Water Research 2001, H2O, October, p. 5. Van Houten, R., Evenblij, H. and Keijmel, M. (2001). Membrane bioreactors hit the big time ten years of research in the Netherlands, STOWA, Foundation for Applied Water Research 2001, H2O, October, p. 26. Vera, L., Delgado, S. and Elmaleh, S. (2000). Gas sparged cross-flow microfiltration of biologically treated wastewater, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 41, No. 10-11, p. 173. Weigant, W.M. (2001). Experiences and potential of anaerobic wastewater treatment in tropical regions, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 44, No. 8, p. 107. Wen, W., Huang, X. and Qian, Y. (1999). Domestic wastewater treatment using an anaerobic bioreactor coupled with membrane filtration, Process Biochemistry, Vol. 35, No. 3-4, p. 335. Wisniewski, C. and Grasmick, A. (1998). Floc size distribution in a membrane bioreactor and consequences for membrane fouling, Colloids and Surfaces, A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, Vol. 138, p. 403. Yamagishi, S. et al. (1997). Study on the factors influencing permeate flux of membrane coupled with anaerobic membrane reactor, Japanese Industrial Water, Vol. 468, p. 2. Yamagishi, T., Matsuda, M., Masuda, H., Kamisawa, C., Iizumi, S., Oomura, T., Nagura, K., Ito, S., Taked, A.H., Suzuki, T., Toyohara, H. and Okada, T. (1990). Cross-flow filtration for anaerobic wastewaters, Polution Japan, Vol. 5, p. 291. Yamaguchi, M., Okamura, K., Tanimoto, Y., Naritomi, T., Ogawa, S., Hake, J. and Minami, K. (1990). Thermophilic methane fermentation of evaporator condensate from a kraft pulp mill, TAPPI Environ Conf, Seattle, WA Vol. 2, p. 631.

40

Yamamoto, K., Hiasa, M., Mahmood, T. and Matsuo, T. (1989). Direct solid-liquid separation using hollow fiber membrane in an activated sludge aeration tank, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 21, p. 43. Yiliang, H., Zhichao, W., Chunjie, L., Guowie, G., Fenging, X., Mingxu, Z. and Zuyi, C. (1999). Application of the anaerobic MBR for treatment of high concentration food wastewater, Chinese Journal of Environmental Science, November (in Chinese). Yoon, S.H., Kang, I.J. and Lee, C.H. (1999). Fouling of inorganic membrane and flux enhancement in membrane-coupled anaerobic bioreactor. Separation Science and Technology, Vol. 34, No. 5, p.709. Yuntao, G., Zhanpeng, J., Wanpeng, Z. and Zhongying, C. (1998). Two-phase anaerobic membrane biosystem for organic wastewater treatment, Chinese Journal of Environmental Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, p. 52 (in Chinese). Yuntao, G., Zhanpeng, J., Wanpeng, Z. and Peng, J. (2000). Two-phase anaerobic membrane biosystem for treatment of papermill wastewater, Chinese Journal of Environmental Science, Vol. 19, No. 6, p. 56 (in Chinese). Yushina, Y. and Hasegawa, J. (1994). Process performance comparison of membrane introduced anaerobic digestion using food industry waste water, Desalination, Vol. 98, No. 1-3, p 413. Zeeman, G. and Lettinga, G. (2002). The role of anaerobic digestion of domestic sewage in closing the water and nutrient cycle at community level, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 39, No. 5, p. 187. Zoh, K-D. and Stenstrom, M.K. (2001). Application of a membrane bioreactor for treating explosives process wastewater, Water Research, Vol. 36, p. 1018.

41

Figure 1. Simplified Schematic of an Internal Submerged Membrane Anaerobic Hybrid MBR Configuration.

PROCESS GAS

GAS HANDLING PACKAGE

GAS FOR CUSTOMER USE OR TO FLARE

EFFLUENT WASTEWATER ANAEROBIC HYBRID REACTOR MEMBRANES

SOLIDS RECYCLE

AIR

EXCESS SOLIDS

42

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information.

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Kang et al. (2000); 1 Alcohol fermentation Lab scale Comparison of inorganic and organic membranes 5 Mechanical

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Kang et al. (2000); 2 Park et al. (1999); 3 Alcohol fermentation Synthetic Lab scale Comparison of inorganic and organic membranes 5 Mechanical 42,000 b Study effect of PAC on membrane fouling 4.5

Choo and Lee (1996a); 4 Alcohol (distillery) Lab scale Study membrane fouling 4 Mechanical 22,600 Exceeded 97 1.5 to 2.1 c

liters (L)

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C

42,000

3 to 3.5 2000 to 3000 55 7.5 to 7.9

3 to 3.5 2000 to 3000 55

1.5 to 4.5

55

53 to 55

days days

13

13

15

4.2 L total gas/day Tubular hydrophobic PP Microdyne, Germany micrometers daltons External m2 L/m day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm
2 2

4.2 L total gas/day Tubular zirconia skin and carbon support Tech-Sep, France 0.14

2.8 L total gas/day Polymeric flat plate DDS, Denmark 0.1 20,000 DDS, Denmark

0.2

External 0.0129

External 0.017

External 0.034 0 to 840; c

0.0113

0.6

0.6

Used membrane cleaned with hypochlorite and rinsed with ultra-pure water prior to the next run. Digestor broth to UF via a positive displacement pump. TMP regulated using a back pressure valve. Back flushing arrangement provided, using HCL, 90 sec every 2 hours. Short term study (10 days) with PAC in reactor at concentration of 5 g/L. Batch microfiltration studies performed using digester contents at different PAC dosages. PAC addition improved flux and treatment performance. MLVSS decreased from 3000 to less than 500 mg/L observation attributed to cell lysis due to mechanical shear from membrane process pump. Observed large amount of biomass attached to membrane surface. Severe membrane fouling due to attached biomass and precipitation of inorganics.

43

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd).

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a b

Units

Choo and Lee (1998); 5 Alcohol (distillery) Lab scale Study hydrodynamics of biosolids during cross-flow filtration 4 Mechanical

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Yoon et al. (1999); 6 Sainbayar et al. (2001); 7 Alcohol fermentation Synthetic Bench scale Study membrane fouling 5 Mechanical 42,600 90 to 95 Lab Scale b 4.5 Mechanical

Hall et al. (1995); 8 Kraft bleach plant Pilot scale c 15 (MBR); 5 (UASB)

liters (L)

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C

35,000

c c 4.0 7600 to 15,700 55 35

1.5 1000 to 3200 53 to 55 7.8 to 8.0

2 to 7 2800 to 5000 55 7.3 to 7.7

days days a 6.0

1.0

Fluoropolymer sheets, flat plate DDS, Denmark micrometers daltons 20,000 External m2 L/m day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm kg/cm
2 2 2

Tubular zirconia skin and carbon support Tech-Sep, France 0.45

Polymeric flat plate Akzo Nobel, Germany 0.2

Polymeric tubular Zenon, Canada

10,000 External 0.011 a External 0.006 b 0.5 and 1.2 2.15 External

0.0168

0.5 to 1.25

0.5 to 3.0

0.6

0.5 and 1.0 1.7

pH not controlled . No solids wasted. Permeate flux typically 1200 to 4800 L/m2 d dictated by time since membrane cleaned and membrane cleaning procedure. Fouling due to inorganic precipitates. To compare filtration characteristics of PP (strongly hydrophobic) and modified PP (hydrophilic) membranes. Centrifugal pump used to feed UF. Flux typically 2 to 3 L/m2.day with modified PP providing 13.5 % flux improvement. Objective was to compare performance of UASB, anaerobic MBR and membrane ultrafiltration systems for AOX removal. Bioreactor volume includes process piping volume. Anaerobic MBR achieved highest performance.

44

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd).

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a b c

Units

Onysko and Hall (1993); 9 Dechlorinated kraft mill effluent Lab scale a

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Fakrul-Razi (1993); 10 Fakrul-Razi (1994); 11 High strength industrial Brewery Lab scale Assess performance 120 Lab scale Assess performance 120

Fakrul-Razi and Noor (1999);12 Palm oil mill effluent Lab scale Assess performance 50

liters (L)

15

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C

AOX 60 to 255 AOX 50 to 60

16,680 to 43,040 Greater than 98 4.5 to 9.5

46,200 to 84,010 b 12.1 to 19.7 31,500 to 38,3000 Approximately 35 6.8 to 7.4 3.64 to 3.98 58.8 to 83.3 0.26 to 0.29 L CH4/g COD removed at STP

39,910 to 68,310 92 to 94 14.2 to 21.7 50,760 to 56,600 35 6.3 to 7.8 2.82 to 3.15 76.9 to 161.3 0.24 to 0.28 L CH4/g COD removed at STP

7600 to 15,700 35 Buffered wastewater pH 6.8 to 7.2

19,900 to 25,750 35 6.5 to 7.2 3.65 to 4.30 94 to 167 0.28 to 0.31 L CH4/g COD removed at STP

days days

0.94

Polymeric tubular Zenon, Canada micrometers daltons 10,000 External m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm kg/cm
2 2

10,000 External

10,000 External

200,000 External

Average 1.16 2.15 2.3

1 to 2 1.7

1.5

Objective was to assess MBR for removal of AOX. Positive displacement pump used to feed UF. Membrane cleaned off-line. COD removal 96 to 99 percent, higher at lower OLRs. Positive displacement pump used to feed UF. Membrane flow and pressure controlled using valve on concentrate return line. Positive displacement pump used to feed UF. Membrane flow and pressure controlled using valve on concentrate return line.

45

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd).

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2 micrometers daltons 0.1 200,000 External 0.024 0.18 to 1.6; c 10,000 External External External 0.1 to 0.4 0.1 Days Days 15 to 100 0.347 to 0.745 L total gas/g COD removed Polysulphone liters (L) mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C Units Lai et al. (1999); 13 Palm oil mill effluent Lab scale Derive performance and kinetic information 50 58,000 to 85,000 83 to 98; c 1.5 to 6.5 12,681 to 30,460 Approximately 35 Approximately 7 Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Fakhrul-Razi (1995); 14 Yuntao et al. (1998); 15 High strength industrial Synthetic organic Lab scale Assess performance 120 84,010 b 1 to 19.7 38,000 Approximately 35 6.9 to 7.3 3.23 to 4.30 58 to 555 0.26 to 0.34 L Ch4/g COD removed at STP Total 0.5 Lab scale two-phase system Compare to conventional anaerobic system c 1500 to 7000 Greater than 95 5 to 10 35 Yuntao et al. (2000); 16 Paper mill black liquor Lab scale two-phase system Compare to conventional anaerobic system c Greater than 1500 Greater than 70 3 to 6 35

1 to 1.5

Other information a b c c a Single-phase pump used to feed UF. COD removal decreased as OLR increased. Operating permeate flux restored to 1.25 L/m2day by chemical cleaning after 30 days of operation. Data fit kinetic models over OLR studied. b COD removal 96 to 99 percent, higher at lower OLRs. Positive displacement pump used to feed UF. Membrane flow and pressure controlled using valve on concentrate return line. c Acid phase and methane phase reactors working volume respectively, 1.65 and 3.6 L. Membrane located between acid and methane phase.

46

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Choate et al. (1983); 17 Wheat Flour Full scale; a Improve performance

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Butcher (1989); 18 c; 19 Wheat Flour d Full scale; b Improve performance 1130 to 2000; b Lab and pilot scale; d Develop ADUF process 50 to 3000 Mechanical and/or by concentrate return 3500 to 37,000 77 to 97 5.0 to 15.0 10,000 to 50,000 35

c; 20 e Full scale; e Improve performance of anaerobic systems 80,000 to 2,610,000 Concentrate return 8000 and 15,000 95 and 97 3.0 and 6.0 10,000 to 30,000 and 23,000 30 and 35

liters (L)

377,000 (each compartment) Gas recirculation

mg/L % kg COD/m day mg/L C

3

17,000 82 to 91

20,000 65 to 78; b 2.0 to 2.4 10,000

36 6.8

days days

4.5 6 100 m3 total/day Tubular polymeric Abcor, USA 1000 to 2150 m3 total/day; b

0.8 to 3.3

1.3 and 5.2

Tubular polymeric Bintech or Membratek, South Africa 18,000 20,000 to 80,000 External 144 to 288; b 0.44 to 9.6 0.4 to 3.5 1.5 to 2.0

Tubular polymeric Bintech or Membratek, South Africa 20,000 to 80,000 External

micrometers daltons External m

2

144 Design 1.04; a

L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm

2

200 and 688 1.8 and 1.6

6.9 a b

3.4 to 5.0

5.0 to 4.5

c d e

Retrofitted 1 compartment of 3 completely-mixed digester (with internal gravity separation) with a coupled UF membrane system. Subsequently mixed-liquor from each compartment pumped to membrane systsem alternatively for 8 hour periods. Oil in feed decreased membrane flux. Membranes cleaned on average 1 time per month with caustic soda and hypochlorite. Updated information from plant discussed by Choate et al. (1983). Information based on operation from April 1980 to July 1986. Expanded from 1130 to 2000 m3 in 1985 and UF membrane system doubled in size. Approximately 30 % of effluent is directly from gravity separation zone in digester compartments. Membrane life almost double expectation of 3 years. Pilot and full scale results summarized from experience with ADUF process in South Africa from Ross et al. (1990, 1992, 1994), Strohwald and Ross (1992), and Ross and Strohwald (1994). Brewery, wine distillery and malting. Membrane system coupled to complete mix reactor or clarigester (i.e., suspended growth reactor with internal clarification). Egg processing and maize processing. Membrane system coupled to clarigester. All data reported for egg and maize processing, respectively.

47

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2 a mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C liters (L) Units Anderson et al. (1986); 21 Synthetic Laboratory scale; a Assess performance a Mechanical 3500 to 104,000 to complete system 98 to 99 for complete system; a Methanogenic 1 to 12.2 Methanogenic 4000 to 17,500 35 for complete system Acidogenic 3 to 4, methanogenic 7.0 to 7.5 Acidogenic 0.7 to 1.9, methanogenic 2.9 to 7.7 Methanogenic 0.25 to 0.30 L CH4/g COD removed at STP Polyethylene micrometers daltons 90 200,000 a External 0.048 b 2.4 to 3.2 200,000 External 0.048 Approximately 10,000 External 0.47 to 0.87; d 0.5 to 1.6; d Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Ince et al. (1993); 22 Anderson et al. (1996); 23 Brewery Brewery; c Pilot scale Pilot scale Assess performance Derive performance and kinetic information 120 120 Mechanical 80,000 to 90,000 97 to 99 Up to 28.5 Up to 50,000 35 to 37 6.9 to 7.2 2.5 to 4.2 Mechanical 80,000 to greater than 90,000 99; c Above 30 Up to 51,000 35 to 37 6.9 to 7.2 2.5 to 4.2 Jones and Hall (1986); 24 Wheat starch Pilot scale Derive process information 303 Concentrate return 10,900 to 16,000 Approximately 96 6 to 12; d 6000 to 30,000 Approximately 35 6.8 to 7.2

days days

O.28 to 0.38 m3 CH4/kg COD removed Fluoropolymer tubular Patterson Candy, England

O.28 m3 CH4/kg COD removed; c Fluoropolymer tubular Patterson Candy, England

O.29 m3 total gas/kg COD removed; d Polyethersulfone flat plate Dorr Oliver, USA

2.1 to 2.4

0.7 to 1.1 Maximum 4.2

Other information a b c d a Suspended growth acidogenic reactor plus suspended growth methanogenic reactor with internal membrane. Acidogenic and methanogenic reactor volume respectively, 2.5 and 10 l. Acidogenic reactor COD removal 10 to 23 %. A membrane lined methanogenic reactor with 5 mm gap between membrane reactor wall. In-situ scraping of membrane controlled biofilm build-up. Membrane thickness either 5 or 25 mm (i.e., information not clear). Studied flux with different biomass. Acidogenic and methanogenic biomass flux respectively, 0.03 to 0.08 and 0.01 to 0.03 L/m2day, decreasing with increasing TSS concentration. Effluent TSS after membrane step less than 100 mg/L. b Variable speed membrane feed pump. Membrane cross-flow velocity and TMP controlled by flow and pressure regulators. Flux dependent on cross-flow velocity, TMP and biomass concentration, varied between 1.0 and 4.8 L/m2day. Membranes cleaned with NaOH and hypochloride solutions at unstated frequency. c Glucose added to feed after OLR of 20 kg/m3day achieved. COD removal no lower than 99 %, under steady state conditions. Calculated SRTs for each of 4 steady state conditions ranged from 58 to 480 days. Operating period was 15 months. Variable speed membrane feed pump. d Feed rate and thus OLR limited by membrane permeate rate. Methane gas content 77 %. Membrane modules fed by air powered diaphragm pump. Membrane plates added towards end of 105 day study. Membranes cleaned typically once every 15 to 20 days with dilute caustic solution. Certain membrane information derived from Dorr-Oliver operating manual or Li and Corrado, 1986.

48

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a b c d

Units

Sutton et al. (1983); 25 Whey permeate Pilot scale Assess performance

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Li and Corrado (1986); 26 Sutton (1986a, 1986b); 27 Cheese whey permeate Wheat starch Full scale; b Demonstrate performance 37,850 Concentrate return through eductors 59,790 Greater than 99 7.0 to 9.1 29,500 Approximately 35 6.8 to 7.2 7.5 50 O.3 m3 CH4/kg COD removed at STP Polyethersulfone flat plate Dorr Oliver, USA Pilot scale Assess performance 303 Concentrate return 35,175 Greater than 99 Approximately 8.2 VSS 22,400 Approximately 35 6.8 to 7.1 30 O.29 m3 CH4/kg COD removed at STP Polyethersulfone flat plate Dorr Oliver, USA

Kataoka et al. (1992); 28 Domestic sewage Pilot scale; d Assess bacterial populations UASB 1600

liters (L)

189 Concentrate return

mg/L % kg COD/m day mg/L C days days

3

Approximately 30,000 to 60,000 95 to 97 7.5 to 16.3 Approximately 33,000 Approximately 35 6.8 to 7.2 1.9 and 7.4 25 and 50 O.3 m3 CH4/kg COD removed at STP Polyethersulfone flat plate Dorr Oliver, USA

490 to complete system 83 for complete system d

d d

System - 18 l CH4/kg COD removed at STP Polysulfone and PVA

micrometers daltons m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm

2

Approximately 10,000 External 0.47; a 0.5 to 1.6; a

Approximately 10,000 External 10.7 0.5 to 1.5; b Up to 6.1

Approximately 10,000 External 0.47 0.5 to 1.6; c

15,000 External 100

0.7 to 1.1 Maximum 4.2 a

Up to 2.8 Maximum 3.5 0.7 b

0.7 to 1.1 Maximum 4.2 c d

kg/cm2

Certain membrane information derived from Dorr-Oliver operating manual. Membrane module fed by air powered diaphragm pump. System was a full scale demonstration plant. Certain information derived from Dorr-Oliver operating manual. Certain information derived from Dorr-Oliver operating manual. Membrane module fed by air powered diaphragm pump. Hydrolization reactor plus UASB reactor coupled to external UF module for methane fermentation. Loading rate to UASB 2.8 kg BOD/m3day. Hydrolization reactor temperature and pH respectively, 35C and 6. UASB operated at ordinary temperature.

49

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure m2 L/m day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm kg/cm2
2 2

Units

Kataoka et al. (1992); 29 Municipal sewage Pilot scale; a Assess bacterial populations

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Kataoka et al. (1992); 30 Grethlein (1978); 31 Soybean processing Sanitary Pilot scale; b Assess bacterial populations Total 2140 Laboratory scale; c Assess system feasibility 106 Tank contents recycle and concentrate return BOD 270 BOD 85 to 93 c

Kayawake et al. (1991); 32 Heat treat liquor Lab scale Assess performance 200 Mixed-liquor recirculation 9230 to 10,630 79 to 83 4.5 to 19.4 MLVSS 10,200 to 21,400

liters (L)

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C days days

353 to complete system 90 for complete system a

1357 to complete system 72 for complete system 2.0 (BOD basis)

a a 5 for hydrolization reactor

30 Acidogenic 6.0, methanogenic 7.5 Acidogenic 0.14 to 0.15, methanogenic 0.28 to 0.29 201 L CH4/kg COD removed at STP Polysulfone and PVA 6.5 to 7.2

35 to 38 7.7 to 8.1 0.58 to 2.02

System - 11 L CH4/kg COD removed at STP a

2.98 L/day

Approximately 0.42 m3 total gas/kg COD fed Ceramic tubular Kubota, Japan

micrometers daltons a Hydrolization reactor internal, FBR - external a 15,000 External 50 10 to 40 External Approximately 0.007; c 0.7 to 1.06; c 0.15 to 1.22; c

0.1

Internal, d 1.06 d 0.2 to 0.3

0.35 to 1.35; c

6.7; d

Other information a c d a Hydrolization reactor coupled to UF module, plus FBR coupled to MF membrane module for methane fermentation. Hydrolization reactor and FBR volumes respectively, 500 and 660 l. Loading rate to FBR 1.1 kg BOD/m3day. Hydrolization reactor temperature and pH respectively, 30C and 5.5 to 6.5. FBR operated at ordinary temperature. MOC, MW exclusion or pore size, and surface area of membrane coupled to hydrolization reactor and FBR respectively, polyacrylonitrile and polyethylene, 13,000 and 0.1 micrometers, and 0.94 and 54 m2. b Two-phase (acidogenic plus methanogenic) PBR coupled to UF membrane. c Laboratory system modeled a septic tank coupled to external membrane. Claimed rate of BOD reduction in septic tank was 24 mg/Lday. Variable stroke positive displacement membrane feed pump operated in cyclical fashion 2 to 3 min on 1 min off which aided performance. Used flat sheet and tubular RO membrane modules. Membrane data for flat sheet modules. d Tubular membrane submerged in the bioreactor. Membrane module backwashed with nitrogen gas and at times process gas, every 30 to 60 min for 30 sec. TMP created by suction. Stabilized flux ranged from 80 to 200 L/m2day.

50

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Hogetsu et al. (1992); 33 Wool scouring Pilot scale; a Assess effectiveness of membrane filtration 4500

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Kiriyama et al.(1992 and 1994); 34 Nagano et al. (1992); 35 Distillery; c Filtered (20 m) municipal wastewater solids Demonstration scale two-phase Pilot scale anaerobic system; b Derive performance information Assess performance b Process gas 5500 Mixed-liquor recirculation 30,700 to 50,100; c Greater than 95 2.2 to 10.2 Maximum 20,000

Bailey et al. (1994); 36 Synthetic Lab scale; d d Approximately 9 By feed 5000 98 to 99

liters (L)

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C days days

a 25 to 95; a 5 to 50 (TOD basis)

b b b

6000; d

35 and 55 8 to 8.6

25 3.5 to 5.0 25.4 to 445

37 6.8 to 7.2

0.2 to 0.3 m3 total gas/kg removed Polyacrylonitrile hollow fiber

107 to 467 L CH4/kg VSS reduced Polymeric

0.28 to 0.34 m3 CH4 /kg COD fed Polysulfone . Woven polyester tube Schweiz Seidengazefabriek, Germany

micrometers daltons
2

13,000 External

8000 External 3.8 and 4.3

2,000,000 External 12 Approximately 480

3.1 1.5 to 1.0 for 1st 40 days, decreased to 0.7 after 210 days

L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm

2

0.6

2.2 to 3.6

1.5 2.0 to 2.2 0.6 to 1.5 a b c 1.5

2 to 2.5

kg/cm2

c d

PBR coupled to membrane module with concentrate return to PBR or discharged as blowdown. Wastewater TOD and BOD respectively, 102,400 and 27,900. TOD removal higher under mesophilic conditions and decreased with increasing OLR. Membrane flushed with hot water (30 to 40C) periodically. Oxalic acid cleaning after 210 days did not restore flux. First stage MBR (i.e., solids hydrolization reactor) 8850 l. Second stage UASB reactor (volume 76,700 L) treated municipal wastewater filtrate and permeate from first stage MBR. UASB effluent treated in BAF. Added backwash solids from BAF to first stage MBR in some experiments. Reduction of VSS in MBR up to 76 percent. Complete system treated up to 240 m3/day of degritted municipal wastewater. Wastewater from distillation of wheat and sweet potatoes. Feed VSS 12,600 to 17,400 mg/L. Short term (i.e., 17 days) study of UASB reactor with membrane filtration of diffuse solids layer at top of reactor. Improve effluent quality from UASB. TSS at top of UASB increased from 1 to 6 g/L over study period. Diatomaceous earth precoat applied to membrane filter.

51

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Cadi et al. (1994); 37 Synthetic starch Laboratory scale a

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Harada et al. (1994); 38 Okamura (1994); 39 Synthetic with high particulate Kraft mill evaporator condensate; c COD Lab scale Pilot scale, c Assess performance 10 Mechanical 5000 Greater than 98 1.5 to 2.5 Approximately 15,000 35 b 2 to 5 19,200 92 38.5 9400 52 6.9 to 7.0 0.5 0.36 to 0.47 m3 total gas/kg COD fed c 5000

Kitamura et al. (1996); 40 Distillery Lab scale Assess performance 300

liters (L)

Total system volume 6.5 to 7.5 Concentrate return

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C days days

460 to 9700 78 to 87 1.9 to 24.2 MLVSS up to 38,000 35 7 0.25 to 5.63 45 to 52 0.3 m3 CH4/kg COD removed Ceramic SCT, France

d d d MLVSS 5000 to 16,000 36 to 38 Approximately 7 2.3 to 7.0 0.4 to 0.6 m3 total gas/kg VS present; d DDS, Holland

Polysulfone flat plate UF-3000PS, Toso, Japan

micrometers daltons

0.2 3,000,000 External External 0.02 b 0.8; b External 0.22 20,000

m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2

a a 2 to 2.5

0.4 to 1.6

0.5

Derived performance information over a range of HRTs and OLRs. Two membrane modules, each 0.2 m2, one operating and one standby. Permeate flux varied from 0.1 to 0.6 dictated by bioreactor VS and TMP. Membrane module cleaned periodically with 2 % NaOH at 60C. SMP major soluble COD in reactor but not much in permeate (i.e., retained COD). 2,100 mg NaHCO3/L was added to feed to provide alkalinity. Membrane process pump operated intermittently. Flux stabilized at approximately 500 L/m2day after approximately 70 days with water flush for cleaning done every 7 to 10 days. Membranes replaced with new ones after approximately 70 days. Condensate pretreated to remove inhibitive sulphur compounds. PBR coupled to UF membrane module for biomass retention and recycling. Organic plate type inorganic tubular membrane modules operated with no further information provided. Feed COD concentration information unclear but exceeded 50,000 mg/L. Achieved up to 80 % removal of feed volatile acids. Feed volatile acid loading rate from 2 to 13 kg/m3day. UF membrane cleaned by water flushing only. This was not sufficient to prevent membrane fouling. Diluted feed by factor of 2.6 to 2.8 with water to prevent ammonia inhibition. Gas production decreased when process failed due to excessive biomass wasting. As membrane fouled, increased wasting of biomass to reduce bioreactor liquid volume.

52

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2 Tubular PVDF mg/L % kg COD/m day mg/L C
3

Units

Brockman and Seyfried (1996 and 1997); 41 Potato starch Pilot scale; a

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Ghyoot and Verstraete (1997); 42 Elmaleh and Abelmoumni (1997and 1998); 43 Primary municipal wastewater Acetic acid sludge Pilot scale Lab scale Improve digester performance Study membrane filtration 10 Concentrate return 2000 as TOC Exceeded 95 as TOC

Chung et al. (1998), 44 Synthetic starch Lab scale two-phase system; d d

liters (L)

120 Mixed-liquor recirculation 33,000 a 2.5 to 6.0 a 40,200; b 29 to 54 0.9 to 1.2 22,000 to 35,000 as TS 35

10,000 to 15,000 d Acidogenic 2.5 to 7.5 Up to 10,000

35 8.5 0.4 to 13.8 c 0.7 m3 total gas/kg TOC fed Tubular zirconia skin and carbon support . 0.05 to 0.2; c

days days

20 0.08 to 0.16 m3 CH4/kg COD fed Ceramic

Acidogenic 25 and methanogenic 35 d Acidogenic 4

micrometers daltons

0.1

0.1

0.6

External

External 0.05 b 4.5

External c

Internal d

1.0

Other information a b c d a Complete mix reactor followed by clarifier and membrane feed/concentrate tank. Membrane operated batch-wise with concentrate produced returned to reactor intermittently. Claimed performance at 6 to 7 kg COD/m3day not as good as other reactor configuration (e.g., PBR). Activity decreased due to sludge pumping to membrane module. Struvite precipitation observed. b Feed TS 44 g/L and VS 22 g/L. Membrane filtration of 20 L reactor contents performed every other day and permeate discarded. Membrane component of MBR reduced activity of biomass with respect to biogas production. c No solids wasted over 330 day study. Membrane module fitted with different filtration elements for performance testing. Flux determined over wide range of TMP and linear velocities. Use of helical baffles in membrane tube allowed flux of over 4000 L/m2day at TMP approximately 1 kg/cm2. d Membrane located in acidogenic reactor. Compare performance to conventional two-phase system. At COD loading of 5 kg COD/m3day, COD conversion to organic acids was 34 to 50 %. ORP controlled in acidogenic reactor to prevent sulphate reduction and methane formation. Membrane flux varied between 0.08 and 0.38 L/m2day at MLSS of 3800 mg/L. Membrane unit backwashed periodically with air to prevent fouling.

53

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Yushina and Hasegawa (1998); 45 Soybean Processing Pilot scale; a a

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Wen et al. (1999); 46 Beaubien et al. (1996); 47 Municipal Synthetic; acetate solution Lab scale; b Obtain application information 17.7 By the feed Lab scale Evaluate impact of biological and physical-chemical parameters Working volume 9; c By feed concentrate return c 65 to greater than 95; c c 2200 to 25,000 35 7 1 30

Madokoro et al. (1999);48 d Pilot scale; d Obtain application information 1670 Mechanical and process gas 59,500 86 18.7 57,000 55 6.5 20 to 25

liters

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C days days

1300 to 1350 a 3 to 3.5

98 to 2600 97; b 0.5 to 12.5 16,000 to 21,500; b

Approximately 30 Acidogenic 6.0, methanogenic 7.5 Acidogenic 0.14, methanogenic 0.28 a Polysulphone and PVA capillary Chiyoda, Japan

12 to 27 4 and 6; b 150 0.13 to 0.42 m3/m3 of reactor volume/day at 53 to 66% CH4 Hollow fibre polyethylene Mitsubishi Rayon, Japan 0.03 Internal 0.3 120 to 240; b

Ceramic flat plate 0.2 c External 0.2 2; c

Polyethylene flat plate Kubota, Japan 0.4 Internal 2.4 100

micrometers daltons m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2 a 15,000 External 50

0.02 to 0.70

0.34; c

0.01 to 0.03

Operated acidogenic plus methanogenic PBRs followed by membrane module (System B), and acidogenic PBR followed by membrane module plus methanogenic PBR (System C). To compare conventional and MBR anaerobic systems. Acidogenic and methanogenic PBRs EBV respectively, 540 and 1600 L. Solids captured in membrane returned to preceding PBR. COD removal in system B and C respectively, 78 and 92 %. Total gas production System B and C respectively, 2.35 and 3.06 m3/day at STP. System B provided superior performance. Cylindrical reactor (sludge zone) with expanded section on top to reduce TSS to membrane module. Fine fibers located at top of cylindrical section to prevent solids washout at high HLR. HRT is value in sludge zone. MLSS includes suspended biomass and that attached to fine fibers. COD removal approximately 88% at lower temperatures. Membrane suction pump operated intermittently. Membrane module removed periodically and cleaned with tap water and 5% NaClO. Working volume includes membrane filtration unit. COD removal dictated by F/M. Membrane linear velocity and TMP varied over short term test periods to develop membrane performance information. Membrane chemically cleaned between tests. Macerated, screened kitchen refuse diluted and treated in two-stage (i.e., acid plus methane) thermophilic system with membrane located in methanogenic reactor. Process gas used to scour membrane plates. Citric acid solution (10,000 mg/L) used to soak membrane cartridge for 4 hours approximately once every 3 months.

54

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Yilang et al. (1999 and 2002); 49 Food processing Pilot scale Assess performance

liters (L)

400 a

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Lee et al. (2001c); 50 Kim et al. (2002); 51 Piggery Primary municipal wastewater sludge; c Pilot plant scale two-phase system; Pilot scale b Improve performance of Recovery of volatile fatty acids acidogenic phase Acidogenic 3000; b Total system volume 76 Mechanical 5000 to 6000 b Mechanical c c 0.6 to 7.5 as TOC c Acidogenic 20, methanogenic 35 Acidogenic 6 to 7 Acidogenic 1 to 2 Methanogenic reactor 0.32 m3 CH4/kg COD removed Mixed esters of cellulose 0.5 35 0.3 to 4 10

Hernandez et al. (2002); 52 Diluted molasses Lab scale; d Improve performance of UASB reactors 5 By the feed

mg/L % kg COD/m3day mg/L C days days

2000 to 15,000 70 to 95; a 2 to 4.5 6000 to 8000 35 6.8 to 7.2 0.6 and 4.2

0.3 to 13; d

20 2 to 5

a Polymeric flat plate micrometers daltons m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2 a 20,000 to 70,000

Ceramic 1.0 External

d 10 and 100; d Internal 0.051 and 0.056 480 to 2400; d

Internal in acidogenic reactor Total 0.64; a a 0 to 960; b

0.4

0.4

0 to 0.01

Authors claim reactor was completely mixed. COD removal decreased with increasing OLR. Gas production (approximately 50 to 250 L/day) increased with increasing OLR. Membrane module flushed each day with permeate and chemically cleaned every 10 days with 0.5 % NaOH. Membrane module consisted of 8 plates, with membranes of different pore size. Fluxes ranged from approximately 0.4 to 1.7 L/m2day after long term operation (i.e., 110 days) and multiple (i.e., 10) chemical cleanings. Membrane with smallest MW exclusion performed best in long term. Authors state membrane flux decreased with time. Methanogenic reactor was UASB with plastic media in upper section having total volume of 3000 l. Complete system COD removal 50 to 80 percent. Membrane located in mechanically mixed acidogenic reactor. Stainless steel prefilter (63 m pore size) prior to membrane used to improve membrane performance. Flux decreased with time but restored to 89% of clean membrane with NaOH and HCl cleaning. Feed was coagulated (polyaluminum and ferric chloride), primary municipal wastewater sludge. Mean feed TOC 1.82 g/l, TS 5600 mg/L and VSS 3960 mg/L. TS in bioreactor 33.8 g/L at HRT 0.5 days. Converted organics to over 40 % volatile fatty acids. Four UASB reactors operated each containing membrane cartridges. UASB hydraulic loading rate 2.5 to 4.5 m/h. The 10 and 100 m cartridges were composed of respectively, polypropylene and fiberglass. Cleaned filtration cartridges by backpulsing with tap water. Operating permeate flux dictated frequency of backwash, bioreactor OLR and cartridge pore size. Irreversible cartridge fouling occurred within 90 days.

55

Table 1. Anaerobic MBR System Design and Performance Information (Contd)

Parameter Wastewater System Objectives Bioreactor volume Mixing method Feed COD COD removal OLR MLSS Temperature pH HRT SRT Gas production Membrane MOC Manufacturer Pore size MW exclusion Membrane location Surface area Operating permeate flux Linear velocity of the mixed liquor in membrane tube/channel TMP Inlet pressure Outlet pressure Other information
a

Units

Stuckey and Hu (2003); 53 Synthetic municipal wastewater Lab scale Evaluate various operating parameters; a

Reference, Entry No. and Reported Information Baek and Pagilla (2003); 54 Fuchs et al. (2003); 55 Municipal primary effluent c Lab scale Compare aerobic versus anaerobic MBRs Working volume 10 (each) Mechanical Bench scale Obtain application information 7; c Mechanical 5,800 to 64,600 Up to 97 6 to 20; c 55,000 to 60,000 30

Minami et al. (1991); 56 Kraft mill evaporator condensate, d Pilot scale; d Assess performance 5000

liters (L)

mg/L % kg COD/m day mg/L C days days

3

430 Up to 93; a

84 (soluble) 55 to 68 0.03 to 1.64 (soluble COD)

5,400 (TOC basis) 85 to 90 (TOC basis) 8.5 to 10.5 (TOC basis) d 53

MLVSS approximately 3000 35 7.0 0.13 to 1.33

1010 to 7120 32 6.5 0.5 to 2 19 to 233

a micrometers daltons Internal m2 L/m2day m/s kg/cm2 kg/cm2 kg/cm2 a Both 0.1 a Both 0.4

Tubular PVDF PCI, U.S. 0.1 200,000 External 0.10 b

0.1 to 0.35 L CH4/g COD removed at STP Ceramic; Al2O3 0.2 External 0.13 120 to 240 2 to 3

1.08 m3 CH4/kg TOC fed Polysulfone Kurita, Japan 2,000,000 External

0 to 0.7

Parallel operating MBRs with different membranes. Membrane A; hollow fiber, polyethylene, hydrophilic. Membrane B; Kubota, polyethylene, hydrophilic. Gas sparging at 5 L/min prevented cake layer formation. Sparging rate 0.5 L/min. Permeate pressure, flow and pump control. PAC addition improved COD removal and flux. Effluent COD down to 30 mg/L at HRT of 0.13 days. Five, sequential experimental runs completed over period of 166 days after 100 day initial operating period. Steady state conditions not necessarily achieved. Membrane operated at TMP required to ensure permeate rate exceeded feed rate. Expressed concern that membrane process pump shear may have caused biomass decay. Artificial, slaughterhouse and sauerkraut brine wastewaters. Bioreactor volume includes membrane filtration loop. OLR for industrial wastewaters ranged from 6 to 8 kg COD/m3day. Membrane filtration performance not optimized. Condensate pretreated to remove oils and sulphur compounds. Upflow PBR coupled to UF membrane for microbial retention. Membrane concentrate returned to PBR resulting in liquid phase TSS up to 9.4 g/L. This study represents a follow-up to bench scale studies reported by Yamaguchi et al. (1990)

56

Table 2. Operating Conditions and Performance Results During Anaerobic MBR Treatment of Wheat Starch Wastewater (Adapted from Table 1, entry 27)

Operating Condition or Performance Parameter1

Reactor SRT, days Volumetric Loading, kg/m3.day Reactor Volatile Suspended Solids, mg/L Feed Values, mg/L BOD5 COD TSS Effluent Values, mg/L BOD5 COD TSS
1

Value
30 8.2 22,400

15,463 35,175 13,300 74 270 < 10

All values are means during operation under equilibrium conditions.

57

APPENDIX A National and International Researchers Contacted

Individual Graham Anderson and Tom Donnelly Dr. Bhattacharyya Trevor Bridle Chris Buckley Herve Buisson Peter Cartwright John Collins George Crawford Chris Davis Genevieve Gesan-Guiziou Bob Hickey Xia Huang Ferdinand Klegraf Carl Koch Stefan Krause Yelte Lanting Chung-Hak Lee S-M Lee Eberhard Morgenroth Krishna Pagilla Dr. Pirbazari Roger Pujol Bruce Rittman Jan Schipper Ed Schroeder Steven Sliss Dr. M. Soto David Stensel Michael Stenstrom Tom Stephenson Makram Suidan Vincent Urbain R.T. van Houten Andre van Niekerk Dr. Veerapaneni Willy Verstraete Marc Wichern and Karl-Heinz Rosenwinkel Prof. Kazuo Yamamoto Institution/Research Organization University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY ESI Ltd., Burswold, Australia University of Natal, Durban, South Africa Anjou Recherche, Maisons-Laffitte, France Cartwright Consulting, Minneapolis, MN Ondeo-Nalco, Naperville, IL CH2M-Hill, Toronto, Canada Australian Water Association, Artarmon, Australia LRTL INRA, Rennes, France Ecovation, Lansing, Michigan Tsinghua University, Beijing, China VA Tech Wabag, Kulmbach, Germany Greeley & Hansen, Philadelphia, PA Darmstadt University, Darmstadt, Germany Biothane, Camden, NJ Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea Water Environment Research Center, Korean Institute of Science & Technology, Seoul, South Korea University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL University of Southern California,Los Angeles, CA Lyonnnaise-Des-Eaux, Paris, France Northwestern University, Evanstown, IL IHE Delft, Delft, The Netherland University of California Davis, Davis, CA Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada University of A Coruna, Galiza, Spain University of Washington, Seattle, WA University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH FAIRTEC, Gargenville, France TNO, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Golder Associates, Johannesburg, South Africa Black & Veatch, Kansas City, KS University Gent, Gent, Belgium University of Hannover, Hannover, Germany University of Tokyo

58

Commercial MBR System and/or Membrane Suppliers Contacted

Individual John Arnold Bill Bonkoski Francis Brady Steve Churchouse Al Cocci Brad Culkin Poul Ejner Willy Gils Torsten Hackner Matt Kuzma Bernie Mack Francis McKeever Masashi Moro Uri Papouktchiev David Pearson Tony Robinson
a b

Company and Location Toray Membrane America, USA Zenon Environmental, Canada Koch Industries, USA Aquator Groupa, England ADI Systemsa, Canada New Logic International, USA Bioscan A/S, Denmark Waterleau Global Water Technology, Belgium Hans Huber AG, Germany US Filter, USA Ionics Corporationb, USA Aqua Aerobics, USA Kubota, Japan Norit Americas, USA PCI/ITT Industries, USA Wehrle Environmental, England

Kubota licensee. Mitsubishi licensee

59

APPENDIX B Nomenclature List ABR ADUF AOX BAF BOD CBOD DO EBV EPS FBR F/M HLR HRT MARS MBR MF MLSS MLVSS MOC MW NF OLR ORP PAC PBR PP PVA PVC PVDF RO SEM SMP SRT SS STP TAP TMP TOC TOD UASB UF VS VSS anaerobic baffled reactor anaerobic digestion ultrafiltration adsorbable organic halogen biological aerated filter biochemical oxygen demand carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand dissolved oxygen empty bed volume exocellular polymer substances fluidized bed reactor food to mass ratio hydraulic loading rate hydraulic retention time membrane anaerobic reactor system membrane biological reactor microfiltration mixed-liquor suspended solids mixed-liquor volatile suspended solids materials of construction molecular weight nanofiltration organic loading rate oxidation reduction potential powdered activated carbon packed bed reactor polypropylene polyvinyl alcohol polyvinyl chloride polyvinyl difluoride reverse osmosis scanning electron microscope soluble microbial products solids retention time suspended solids standard temperature and pressure technical advisory panel transmembrane pressure total organic carbon total oxygen demand upflow anaerobic sludge blanket ultrafiltration volatile solids volatile suspended solids

60

WASTEWATER UTILITY Alabama

Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Board

Union Sanitary District West Valley Sanitation District

Iowa
Ames, City of Cedar Rapids Wastewater Facility Des Moines Metro Wastewater Reclamation Authority Iowa City, City of

Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners

WERF SUBSCRIBERS

Colorado
Boulder, City of Colorado Springs Utilities Littleton/Englewood Water Pollution Control Plant Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver

New York
New York City Department of Environmental Protection Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority/ Sewer District

Alaska
Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility

Arizona
Gila Resources Glendale, City of, Utilities Department Mesa, City of Peoria, City of Pima County Wastewater Management

Kansas
Johnson County Unified Wastewater Districts Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, City of

North Carolina
Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities Durham, City of Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County Orange Water & Sewer Authority

Connecticut
The Mattabasset District New Haven, City of, WPCA

District of Columbia
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

Kentucky
Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

Arkansas
Little Rock Wastewater Utility

Florida
Broward, County of Fort Lauderdale, City of Gainesville Regional Utilities JEA Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority Orange County Utilities Department Orlando, City of Reedy Creek Improvement District Seminole County Environmental Services St. Petersburg, City of Stuart Public Utilities Tallahassee, City of Tampa, City of Toho Water Authority West Palm Beach, City of

Louisiana
Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans

Ohio
Akron, City of Butler County Department of Environmental Services Columbus, City of Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Summit, County of

California
Calaveras County Water District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Contra Costa Water District Crestline Sanitation District Delta Diablo Sanitation District Dublin San Ramon Services District East Bay Dischargers Authority East Bay Municipal Utility District El Dorado Irrigation District Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Fresno Department of Public Utilities Irvine Ranch Water District Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Livermore, City of Lodi, City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles County, Sanitation Districts of Napa Sanitation District Orange County Sanitation District Palo Alto, City of Riverside, City of Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Francisco, City & County of San Jose, City of Santa Barbara, City of Santa Rosa, City of South Bayside System Authority South Coast Water District South Orange County Wastewater Authority Sunnyvale, City of

Maine
Bangor, City of Portland Water District

Maryland
Anne Arundel County Bureau of Utility Operations Howard County Department of Public Works Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Oklahoma
Tulsa, City of

Massachusetts
Boston Water & Sewer Commission Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District

Oregon
Clean Water Services Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Water Environment Services

Michigan
Ann Arbor, City of Detroit, City of Holland Board of Public Works Lansing, City of Owosso Mid-Shiawassee County WWTP Saginaw, City of Wayne County Department of Environment Wyoming, City of

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, City of University Area Joint Authority, State College

Georgia
Atlanta Department of Watershed Management Augusta, City of Clayton County Water Authority Cobb County Water System Columbus Water Works Fulton County Gwinnett County Department of Public Utilities Savannah, City of

South Carolina
Charleston Commissioners of Public Works Mount Pleasant Waterworks & Sewer Commission Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District

Minnesota
Rochester, City of Western Lake Superior Sanitary District

Tennessee
Cleveland, City of Knoxville Utilities Board Murfreesboro Water & Sewer Department Nashville Metro Water Services

Hawaii
Honolulu, City and County of

Missouri
Independence, City of Kansas City Missouri Water Services Department Little Blue Valley Sewer District

Illinois
American Bottoms Wastewater Treatment Plant Greater Peoria Sanitary District Kankakee River Metropolitan Agency Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago North Shore Sanitary District Wheaton Sanitary District

Texas
Austin, City of Dallas Water Utilities Denton, City of El Paso Water Utilities Fort Worth, City of Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Houston, City of San Antonio Water System Trinity River Authority

Nebraska
Lincoln Wastewater System

Nevada
Henderson, City of

New Jersey
Bergen County Utilities Authority

WERF SUBSCRIBERS

Utah
Salt Lake City Corporation

STORMWATER UTILITY California

Los Angeles, City of, Department of Public Works Monterey, City of San Francisco, City & County of Santa Rosa, City of Sunnyvale, City of

Black & Veatch Boyle Engineering Corporation Brown & Caldwell Burns & McDonnell CABE Associates Inc. The Cadmus Group Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Carollo Engineers Inc. Carpenter Environmental Associates Inc. CDS Technologies Inc. Chemtrac Systems Inc. CH2M HILL Damon S. Williams Associates, LLC David L. Sheridan, P.C. Dewling Associates, Inc. Earth Tech Inc. Eco-Matrix Ecovation Environmental Engineers International EMA Inc. The Eshelman Company Inc. Finkbeiner, Pettis, & Strout Inc. Freese & Nichols, Inc. ftn Associates Inc. Fuss & ONeill, Inc. Gannett Fleming Inc. Golder Associates Inc. Greeley and Hansen LLC Hazen & Sawyer, P.C. HDR Engineering Inc. HNTB Corporation HydroQual Inc. Infilco Degremont Inc. Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems Insituform Technologies Inc. Institute for Environmental Technology & Industry, Korea Jacobson Helgoth Consultants Inc. Jason Consultants Inc. Jordan, Jones, & Goulding Inc. KCI Technologies Inc. Kelly & Weaver, P.C. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Komline Sanderson Engineering Corporation Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, LLP Limno-Tech Inc. Lombardo Associates Inc. Malcolm Pirnie Inc. McKim & Creed MEC Analytical Systems Inc.

Metcalf & Eddy Inc. MWH New England Organics Odor & Corrosion Technology Consultants Inc. (OCTC) Oswald Green, LLC PA Government Services Inc. Parametrix Inc. Parsons Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan R&D Engineering/Conestoga Rover & Associates The RETEC Group RMC, Inc. (Raines, Melton & Carella) R.M. Towill Corporation Ross & Associates Ltd. Royce Technologies SAIC Maritime Technical Group Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Stantec Consulting Group, Inc. Stormwater Management, Inc. Synagro Technologies, Inc. Tetra Tech Inc. Trojan Technologies Inc. URS Corporation Veolia Water NATC Wade-Trim Inc. Weston Solutions Inc. Woodard & Curran WRc/D&B, LLC WWETCO, LLC Zoeller Pump Company

Virginia
Alexandria Sanitation Authority Arlington, County of Fairfax County Virginia Hampton Roads Sanitation District Henrico, County of Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Loudoun County Sanitation Authority Lynchburg Regional WWTP Prince William County Service Authority Richmond, City of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority

Colorado
Boulder, City of

Georgia
Griffin, City of

Iowa
Cedar Rapids Wastewater Facility Des Moines Metro Wastewater Reclamation Authority

Kansas
Overland Park, City of

Washington
Edmonds, City of Everett, City of King County Department of Natural Resources Seattle Public Utilities Sunnyside, Port of Yakima, City of

Kentucky
Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

Maine
Portland Water District

Minnesota
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District

Wisconsin
Green Bay Metro Sewerage District Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Racine, City of Sheboygan Regional Wastewater Treatment Wausau Water Works

North Carolina
Charlotte, City of, Stormwater Services

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, City of

Tennessee
Chattanooga Storm Water Management

Washington
Seattle Public Utilities

INDUSTRY
American Electric Power ChevronTexaco Energy Research & Technology Company The Coca-Cola Company Dow Chemical Company DuPont Company Eastman Kodak Company Eli Lilly & Company Merck & Company Inc. ONDEO Services Procter & Gamble Company PSEG Services Corp. RWE Thames Water Plc Severn Trent Services Inc. United Water Services LLC

Australia
South Australian Water Corp. Sydney Water Corp. Water Corp. of Western Australia

STATE
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Calif. Urban Drainage & Flood Control District, Colo.

Canada
Greater Vancouver Regional District Toronto, City of, Ontario Winnipeg, City of, Manitoba

CORPORATE
ADS Environmental Services The ADVENT Group Inc. Alan Plummer & Associates Alden Research Laboratory Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. AquateamNorwegian Water Technology Centre A/S BaySaver Inc. BioVir Laboratories, Inc.

Mexico
Servicios de Agua y Drenaje de Monterrey, I.P.D.

New Zealand
Watercare Services Limited

Singapore
Singapore Public Utilities Board

United Kingdom
Yorkshire Water Services Limited

Note: List as of 7/1/04

Board of Directors
Chair James F. Stahl County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Vice-Chair Vernon D. Lucy ONDEO Degremont Inc. Secretary William J. Bertera Water Environment Federation Treasurer Karl W. Mueldener Kansas Department of Health & Environment Mary E. Buzby, Ph.D. Merck & Company Inc. Dennis M. Diemer, P.E. East Bay Municipal Utility District Jerry N. Johnson District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Richard D. Kuchenrither, Ph.D. Black & Veatch Alfonso R. Lopez New York City Department of Environmental Protection Richard G. Luthy, Ph.D. Stanford University John T. Novak, Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Lynn H. Orphan Kennedy/Jenks Consultants J. Michael Read HDR, Inc. James M. Tarpy Nashville Metro Water Services Murli Tolaney MWH Executive Director Glenn Reinhardt

Research Council
Chair John Thomas Novak, Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Vice-Chair Glen T. Daigger, Ph.D. CH2M HILL Robert G. Arnold, Ph.D. University of Arizona, Tucson Robin L. Autenrieth, Ph.D. Texas A&M University William L. Cairns, Ph.D. Trojan Technologies, Inc. James Crook, Ph.D. Water Reuse Consultant Geoffrey H. Grubbs U.S. EPA Mary A. Lappin, P.E. Kansas City Water Services Department Keith J. Linn Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Drew C. McAvoy, Ph.D. Procter & Gamble Company Margaret H. Nellor, P.E. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Spyros Pavlostathis, Ph.D. Georgia Institute of Technology Steven M. Rogowski, P.E. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District of Denver Peter J. Ruffier Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Michael W. Sweeney, Ph.D. EMA Inc. George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D. Tchobanoglous Consulting Gary Toranzos, Ph.D. University of Puerto Rico

Stormwater Technical Advisory Committee

Chair Robert E. Pitt, Ph.D., P.E., D.E.E. University of Alabama Vice-Chair Ben Urbonas, P.E. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Christine Andersen, P.E. City of Long Beach, California Gail B. Boyd URS Corporation Larry Coffman Prince Georges County Brian Marengo, P.E. City of Philadelphia Water Department A. Charles Rowney, Ph.D. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. James Wheeler, P.E. U.S. EPA

WERF

Product Order Form

As a benefit of joining the Water Environment Research Foundation, subscribers are entitled to receive one complimentary copy of all final reports and other products.Additional copies are available at cost (usually $10).To order your complimentary copy of a report, please write free in the unit price column.WERF keeps track of all orders.If the charge differs from what is shown here, we will call to confirm the total before processing.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name Organization Title

________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address

________________________________________________________________________________________________
City Phone State Fax Zip Code Country Email

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Stock # Product Quantity Unit Price To t a l

Method of Payment:

(All orders must be prepaid.)

Postage & Handling VA Residents Add 4.5% Sales Tax Canadian Residents Add 7% GST TOTAL

q C h e ck or Money Order Enclosed q Visa q Mastercard q A m e rican Express ______________________________________________________

Account No. Signature Exp. Date

______________________________________________________

S h ip p in g & Ha n dli n g:
Amount of Order
Up to but not more than:

To Order (Subscribers Only):

Canada & Mexico
Add: $8.00 8.00 8.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 21.00 28.00 35.00
Add 20% of order

United States
Add:

All Others
Add:
50% of amount 40% of amount

on to www. 7 Logthe Product werf.org and click on Catalog. o e: (703) 684-2470 ( Phx:n(703) 299-0742. Fa WERF Attn: Subscriber Services 635 Slaters Lane Alexandria, VA 22314-1177

$20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

More than $200.00

$5.00 * 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 8.00 10.00 12.50 15.00

Add 20% of order

To Order (Non-Subscribers):
Non-subscribers may be able to order WERF publications either through WEF (www.wef.org) or IWAP (www.iwapublishing.com).Visit WERFs website at www.werf.org for details.

* m i n i mum amount for all orders Note: Please make checks payable to the Water Environment Research Foundation.

Water Environment Research Foundation 635 Slaters Lane, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314-1177 Phone: 703-684-2470 Fax: 703-299-0742 Email: werf@werf.org www.werf.org WERF Stock No. 02CTS4

Sept 04