Simulation of Long-Term Performance of an Innovative Membrane-Aerated Biofilm Reactor
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 146, Issue 6
Abstract
Researchers have observed that the biofilm nitrification rate (NR) in membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) systems did not deteriorate at low winter temperatures. Using the pilot data, the temperature impacts were studied in two different approaches. A close-to-unity temperature coefficient () and a constant half-velocity constant () were obtained from the semiempirical kinetic-based approach, indicating that the bulk concentration, rather than temperature, was determining the biofilm NR. The pilot performance was also simulated in GPS-X 7.0 using all typical kinetic values from scientific literatures except the hydrolysis rate constant. A lower hydrolysis rate constant () was used to match the data during calibration and it should be considered as a lumped effect of the pilot conditions. While the temperature effects on biological kinetics are well established, they were masked by the dynamic changes in the MABR biofilm. The apparently weak impact of temperature on the biofilm NR distinguishes the MABR technology as a novel solution for nitrification intensification. The two simulation approaches are proved effective as tools for the process design.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request.
1.
Chicago demo process data June 15 final_2016. Xlsx: this is the pilot data and data analysis;
2.
Chicago demo GPS-X Part 1: this is the simulation of the pilot when the number of membrane modules is 64 (the number of modules cannot be dynamically simulated; therefore, the simulation of pilot was divided into two simulation periods, one for 64 modules and the other for 48 modules);
3.
Chicago demo GPS-X Part 2: this is the simulation of the pilot when the number of modules is 48;
4.
simulation data analysis.xlsx: this file contains the simulation results from Files 2 and 3, data analysis and most figures;
5.
batteryDfeedfinal.xlsx: this is the feed to Battery D of O’Brien WRP and main operational conditions of this battery during the simulation period and was mainly obtained from the plant data file with some parameters estimated for simulation purposes; and
6.
Chicago demo GPS-X input.xlsx: this file contains all the simulation results of Battery D and all other inputs from the pilot, which serves as the input for the pilot simulation, and was split into two data files, which were used for the pilot simulation in Files 2 and 3.
References
Adams, N., Y. Hong, J. Ireland, G. H. Koops, and P. Côté. 2014. A new membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) for low energy treatment of municipal sewage, 1–5. Singapore: Singapore International Water Week.
Antoniou, P., J. Hamilton, B. Koopman, R. Jain, B. Holloway, G. Lyberatos, and S. Svoronos. 1990. “Effect of temperature and pH on the effective maximum specific growth rate of nitrifying bacteria.” Water Res. 24 (1): 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(90)90070-M.
APHA (American Public Health Association). 2005. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 21st ed. Washington, DC: APHA.
Aybar, M., G. Pizarro, J. P. Boltz, L. Downing, and R. Nerenberg. 2014. “Energy-efficient wastewater treatment via the air-based hybrid membrane biofilm reactor (hybrid MfBR).” Water Sci. Technol. 69 (8): 1735–1741. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.086.
Delatolla, R., N. Tufenkji, Y. Comeau, A. Gadbois, D. Lamarre, and D. Berk. 2012. “Effects of long exposure to low temperature on nitrifying biofilm and biomass in wastewater treatment.” Water Environ. Res. 84 (4): 328–338. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143012X13354606450924.
Dong, B., J. Tan, Y. Yang, Z. Pang, Z. Li, and X. Dai. 2016. “Linking nitrification characteristics and microbial community structures in integrated fixed film activated sludge reactor by high-throughput sequencing.” Water Sci. Technol. 74 (6): 1354–1364. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.312.
Downing, L. S., and R. Nerenberg. 2008. “Effect of oxygen gradients on the activity and microbial community structure of a nitrifying membrane-aerated biofilm.” Biotechnol. Bioeng. 101 (6): 1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22018.
Houweling, D., Z. B. Long, J. Peeters, N. Adams, P. Côté, G. Daigger, and S. Snowling. 2018. “Nitrifying below the ‘washout’ SRT: Experimental and modelling results for a hybrid MABR/activated sludge process.” In Proc., Water Environment Federation, 1250–1263. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Hwang, J. H., N. Cicek, and J. Oleszkiewicz. 2009. “Effect of loading rate and oxygen supply on nitrification in a non-porous membrane biofilm reactor.” Water Res. 43 (13): 3301–3307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.04.034.
Hydromantis Environmental Software Solutions. 2019. GPS-X version 8.0 technical reference manual (2019). Hamilton, ON, Canada: Hydromantis Environmental Software Solutions.
Knowles, G., A. L. Downing, and M. J. Barrett. 1965. “Determination of kinetic constants for nitrifying bacteria in mixed culture, with the aid of an electronic computer.” J. Gen. Microbiol. 38 (2): 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-38-2-263.
Kunetz, T. E., A. Oskouie, A. Poonsapaya, J. Peeters, N. Adams, Z. Long, and P. Côté. 2016. “Innovative membrane-aerated biofilm reactor pilot test to achieve low-energy nutrient removal at the Chicago MWRD.” In Proc., 89th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conf. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Lackner, S., A. Terada, H. Horn, M. Henze, and B. F. Smets. 2010. “Nitritation performance in membrane-aerated biofilm reactors differs from conventional biofilm systems.” Water Res. 44 (20): 6073–6084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.074.
Martin, K., and R. Nerenberg. 2012. “The membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR) for water and wastewater treatment: Principles, applications, and recent developments.” Bioresour. Technol. 122 (Oct): 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.110.
Martin, K., S. Sathyamoorthy, D. Houweling, Z. Long, J. Peeters, and S. Snowling. 2017. “A sensitivity analysis of model parameters influencing the biofilm nitrification rate: Comparison between the aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) and Integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) process.” In Proc., Water Environment Federation, 257–265. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Metcalf and Eddy. 2014. Wastewater engineering: Treatment and resource recovery. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ødegaard, H. 2006. “Innovation in wastewater treatment: The moving bed biofilm process.” Water Sci. Technol. 53 (9): 17–33. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.284.
Okey, R. W., and O. E. Albertson. 1989. “Evidence for oxygen-limiting conditions during tertiary fixed-film nitrification.” J. (Water Pollut. Control Fed.) 61 (4): 510–519.
Painter, H. A., and J. E. Loverless. 1983. “Effect of temperature and pH value on the grow-rate constant of nitrifying bacteria inactivated sludge process.” Water Res. 17 (3): 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(83)90176-8.
Peeters, J., Z. Long, D. Houweling, P. Côté, G. T. Daigger, and S. Snowling. 2017. “Nutrient removal intensification with MABR: Developing a process model supported by piloting.” In Proc., Water Environment Federation, 657–669. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Peeters, J., G. Vicevic, G. H. Koops, and P. Côté. 2014. A new solution for energy neutrality based on conventional biological pathways, 1–5. Singapore: Singapore International Water Week.
Pöpel, H., and A. Fischer. 1998. “Combined influence of temperature and process loading on the effluent concentration of biological treatment.” Water Sci. Technol. 38 (8–9): 129–136. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1998.0799.
Rieger, L., S. Gillot, G. Langergraber, T. Ohtsuki, A. Shaw, I. Takacs, and S. Winkler. 2013. Guidelines for using activated sludge models. London: International Water Association Publishing.
Rittmann, E. B., P. J. Boltz, D. Brockmann, T. G. Daigger, E. Morgenroth, H. K. Sorensen, I. Takacs, M. van Loosdrecht, and A. P. Vanrolleghem. 2018. “A framework for good biofilm reactor modelling practice (GBRMP).” Water Sci. Technol. 77 (5): 1149–1164. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2018.021.
Salvetti, R., A. Azzellino, R. Canziani, and L. Bonomo. 2006. “Effects of temperature on tertiary nitrification in moving-bed biofilm reactors.” Water Res. 40 (15): 2981–2993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.05.013.
Semmens, M. J., K. Dahm, J. Shanahan, and A. Christianson. 2003. “COD and nitrogen removal by biofilm growing on gas permeable membranes.” Water Res. 37 (18): 4343–4350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00416-0.
Shanahan, J. W., and M. J. Semmens. 2004. “Multipopulation model of membrane-aerated biofilm.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (11): 3176–3183. https://doi.org/10.1021/es034809y.
Stewart, P. S. 2003. “Diffusion in biofilms.” J. Bacteriol. 185 (5): 1485–1491. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.185.5.1485-1491.2003.
Sunner, N., Z. Long, D. Houweling, A. Monti, and J. Peeters. 2018. “MABR as a low-energy compact solution for nutrient removal upgrades: Results from a demonstration in the UK.” In Proc., Water Environment Federation, 1264–1281. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Syron, E., and E. Casey. 2008. “Membrane-aerated biofilms for high rate bio-treatment: Performance appraisal, engineering principles, scale-up, and development requirements.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (6): 1833–1844. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0719428.
Tchobanoglous, G., and F. Burton. 1991. Wastewater engineering: Treatment, disposal, and reuse. 3rd ed., P1334. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Underwood, A., C. McMains, D. Coutts, J. Peeters, J. Ireland, and D. Houweling. 2018. “Design and startup of the first full-scale membrane aerated biofilm reactor in the United States.” Proc., Water Environment Federation, 1282–1296. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.
USEPA. 1993a. Method 350.1: Determination of ammonia nitrogen by semi-automated colorimetry: Revision 2.0. Cincinnati: USEPA.
USEPA. 1993b. Method 353.2: Determination of nitrate-nitrite nitrogen by automated colorimetry: Revision 2.0. Cincinnati: USEPA.
USEPA. 1999. Method 1664, revision A: N-hexane extractable materia (HEM; oil and grease) and silica gel treated N-hexane extractable materia (SGTHEM; non-polar material) by extraction and gravimetry. Cincinnati: USEPA.
Wang, R. C., F. Xiao, Y. Wang, and Z. Lewandowski. 2016. “Determining the optimal transmembrane gas pressure for nitrification in membrane-aerated biofilm reactors based on oxygen profile analysis.” Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 100 (17): 7699–7711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7553-1.
Young, B., R. Delatolla, K. Kennedy, E. Laflamme, and A. Alain Stintzi. 2017. “Low temperature MBBR nitrification: Microbiome analysis.” Water Res. 111: 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.12.050.
Zhu, S., and S. Chen. 2002. “The impact of temperature on nitrification rate in fixed biofilm biofilters.” Aquacult. Eng. 26 (4): 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(02)00022-5.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
©2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 7, 2019
Accepted: Dec 3, 2019
Published online: Apr 6, 2020
Published in print: Jun 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Sep 6, 2020
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.