Process Limits of Municipal Wastewater Treatment with the Submerged Membrane Bioreactor
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 131, Issue 3
Abstract
The submerged membrane bioreactor (SMBR) is a promising technology for wastewater treatment and water reclamation. This paper presents results from two pilot scale SMBR systems operating in parallel on municipal wastewater in San Diego, Calif. The SMBRs were operated to address the limitations and advantages of the SMBR process compared to conventional activated sludge processes. Minimal membrane fouling was observed throughout the year of testing with the exception of the process limitations. Both pilot units provided consistently high quality effluents throughout the study, even when operating at hydraulic retention times as low as 1.5 h. Two sets of experiments were conducted to identify different fouling conditions. The first experiments were conducted to explore operation at high suspended solids concentrations. The SMBR process experienced adverse performance at mixed liquor suspended solids concentrations greater than approximately . The second experiments explored operation at low mean cell residence time (MCRT). At an MCRT of days, membrane fouling was rapid. Chemical cleaning with sodium hypochlorite solution provided full recovery of the membrane permeability.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the Water Environment Research Foundation who providing funding for this work, Project No. 98-CTS-5. They would also like to acknowledge the City of San Diego for operational and lab support provided through out the project. In addition, they would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Jenkins for his contributions to this work. In addition, they would like to express their gratitude to Professor David Jenkins and Dr. Rion Merlo for their contributions to this work.
References
Adham, S., Gagliardo, P., Boulos, L., Oppenheimer, J., and Trussell, R. (2001). “Feasibility of the membrane bioreactor process for water reclamation.” Water Sci. Technol., 43(10), 203–209.
Cicek, N., Macomber, J., Davel, J., Suidan, M. T., Audic, J., and Genestet, P. (2001). “Effect of solids retention time on the performance and biological characteristics of a membrane bioreactor.” Water Sci. Technol., 43(11), 43–50.
Cicek, N., Winnen, H., Suidan, M. T., Wrenn, B. E., Urbain, V., and Manem, J. (1998). “Effectiveness of the membrane bioreactor in the biodegradation of high molecular weight compounds.” Water Res., 32(5), 1553–1563.
Cote, P., Buisson, H., Pound, C., and Arakaki, G. (1997). “Immersed membrane activated sludge for the reuse of municipal wastewater.” Desalination, 113(2–3), 189–196.
Gander, M., Jefferson, B., and Judd, S. (2000). “Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment: a review with cost considerations.” Sep. Purif. Technol., 18(2), 119–130.
Lee, J., Ahn, W. Y., and Lee, C. H. (2001). “Comparison of the filtration characteristics between attached and suspended growth microorganisms in submerged membrane bioreactor.” Water Res., 35(10), 2435–2445.
Lu, S. G., Imai, T., Ukita, M., Sekine, M., Higuchi, T., and Fukagawa, M. (2001). “A model for membrane bioreactor process based on the concept of formation and degradation of soluble microbial products.” Water Res., 35(8), 2038–2048.
Mourato, D., Thompson, D., Schneider, C., Wright, N., Devol, M., and Rogers, S. (1999). “Upgrade of a sequential batch reactor into a ZenoGem.” Proc., WEFTEC, New Orleans, 7–7.
Scholzy, W., and Fuchs, W. (2000). “Treatment of oil contaminated wastewater in a membrane bioreactor.” Water Res., 34(14), 3621–3629.
Seo, G. T., Lee, T. S., Moon, B. H., Choi, K. S., and Lee, H. D. (1997). “Membrane separation activated sludge for residual organic removal in oil wastewater.” Water Sci. Technol., 36(12), 275–282.
Sutton, P. M., Mishra, P. N., Bratby, J. R., and Enegess, D. (2002), “Membrane bioreactor industrial and municipal wastewater applications: Long term operating experience.” Proc., WEFTEC Chicago, 18–18.
Trussell, R. S., Adham, S., Gagliardo, P., Merlo, R., and Trussell, R. R. (2000). “WERF: Application of membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology for wastewater treatment.” Proc., WEFTEC, Anaheim, Calif., 26–26.
Ueda, T., Hata, K., Kikuoka, Y., and Seino, O. (1997). “Effects of aeration on suction pressure in a submerged membrane bioreactor.” Water Res., 31(3), 489–494.
vanDijk, L., and Roncken, G. C. G. (1997). “Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: The state of the art and new developments.” Water Sci. Technol., 35(10), 35–41.
Winnen, H., Suidan, M. T., Scarpino, P. V., Wrenn, B., Cicek, N., Urbain, V., and Manem, J. (1996). “Effectiveness of the membrane bioreactor in the biodegradation of high molecular-weight compounds.” Water Sci. Technol., 34(9), 197–203.
Wintgens, T., Gallenkemper, M., and Melin, T. (2002). “Endocrine disrupter removal from wastewater using membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration technology.” Desalination, 146(1–3), 387–391.
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 Sci. Technol., 21(4–5), 43–54.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 131 • Issue 3 • March 2005
Pages: 410 - 416
Copyright
© ASCE.
History
Received: Jun 6, 2003
Accepted: Jun 7, 2004
Published online: Mar 1, 2005
Published in print: Mar 2005
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.