1

Workshops Session 3.1

Water Reuse
Tuesday - February 25, 2014
2
Membrane Technology in Wastewater
Reclamation / Reuse
TorOve Leiknes, Gary Amy

KAUST King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
WDRC Water Desalination and Reuse Center
(torove.leiknes@kaust.edu.sa)
Workshops Session 3.1
Water Reuse
Tuesday - February 25, 2014
Outline
The evolution of wastewater treatment (WWT)
Brief history of membrane technology applied to WWT
Changing paradigms of advanced WWT
Key aspects of MBR technology
Pros and cons of MBR technology
Key challenges in MBR technology
The potentials of membranes in advanced WWT
Summary
Conventional wastewater treatment:
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Membranes in WWT
50 years evolution:

GAC RO
Sand filter
AS
Air stripping
Sludge
treatment
Recarbonation
GAC RO
Sand filter
AS
Air stripping Air stripping
Sludge
treatment
Recarbonation
MF/UF RO
AS
Sludge
treatment
Pre-treatment
MF/UF RO
AS
Sludge
treatment
MF/UF RO
AS
Sludge
treatment
Sludge
treatment
RO
MBR
Pre-treatment
1. For tertiary treatment
2. Process optimization
3. Replace conventional treatment
4. Membrane bioreactors
5. ?
Membranes and wastewater:
End of 1960s:
- UF: for municipal wastewater, sludge separation in AS (1969)

1970s and 1980s:
- MF/UF of industrial wastewater (f.ex. textile industry, oily wastewater,
separation of metals, organic compounds)
- In connection with separation in anaerobe digestion

1990s:
- Membrane bioreactor concepts
- Submerged MBR becomes state-of-the-art
Application distinction:
Municipal / industrial
Membranes and wastewater:
Why the interest in MBR developments?
1989: Proto type of current MBR solutions, Yamamoto et.al.
Flux: ~3-9 LMH
Sludge: 10-11 kg/m
3
TMP: P ~ 1.33 bar
Energy: 0.007 kWh/m
3
Treatment efficiencies:
- 93 - 95% COD
- 94 - 99% TOC
- no SS

(Gander et al., 2000)
MBR is a proven technology:
Yamamoto, 2009:

Evolution of development and
implementation of membrane
technology (MBRs) in WWT.

Global trends / markets:

In < 15 yrs from 1 to ~ 500 mill USD
Advanced WWT:
The driving factor for the
growth of this market is
waster stress
Non-conventional water sources (impaired water quality)
Need to recycle and reuse wastewater
The concept of fit for purpose
Stricter environmental regulations worldwide
Need for new advanced WWT technologies
Sustainable wastewater management practice
Why the interest of
membranes in advanced
WWT?
Changing paradigms
The status of the global water resources is changing
There is an increasing demand for water
Water scarcity is becoming a daily reality for millions
Many factors are affecting both quality and availability
In some regions non-conventional / impaired quality water
sources are becoming the norm
There is a need for new and efficient treatment
technologies
The concept of fit for purpose treatment options?
Sustainable water management solutions are required for
the future
The result, changing paradigms in WWT
Changing paradigms
Advanced wastewater treatment
Changing paradigm a shift from CAS to MBR
Wastewater is a resource!
WWT can be a resource factory
The water itself! wastewater reclamation / reuse
Constituents in the water (i.e. phosphorus, nutrients etc.)
Energy (i.e. heat, bio-gas etc.)
Product formation (i.e. bio-polymers etc.)
Basic principles of MBRs:
Replacing sedimentation in
CAS with membrane
filtration for the separation
of biomass from the
aqueous phase.
Principle of an AS-MBR process:
http://www.thembrsite.com/feature_reducing_energy_demand.php
MBR technology
Biological process Membrane process
Aeration
Feed characteristics
Hydraulics
Membrane module
Biomass characteristics:
- Floc structure
- EPS (free/bound)
Bulk characteristics:
- viscosity
Membrane fouling:
- reversible / irreversible
Clogging:
- membrane channels
- aeration system
Aerobic phase
Mass transfer
Air scouring
Cleaning
Retention times:
- Hydraulic (HRT)
- Solids (SRT)
Flux / TMP
Fouling
Cleaning
Membrane characteristics
- pore size / surface properties
Module configuration
- Geometry / dimensions
Composition of feed
Treatment requirements
- Nutrient removal
- End use of treated water
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Interactions,
Fouling
Process parameters
biological
membrane
hydrodynamics

Interaction between the biological
and membrane processes

Membrane fouling is a major
problem - biofouling

Fundamentals and key aspects of MBR technology:
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
5
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
5
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
2
0
1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
a
p
e
r
s


publication year
scientific publications 1983-2010
55% published in 2006-2009
biofouling is a major problem

but what is biofouling?
What is biofouling?
Is it the biofilm itself or constituents of
the biofilm?
How significant is the floc structure?
How significant is the EPS? Bound vs.
free?
What is the composition of the EPS?
Which is more important,
polysaccharides proteins?
How should it be measured / reported or
quantified?
Does composition / structure change?
How dynamic is biofouling?
Can it be removed?
Biofilm fingerprinting?
Is quorum sensing a key phenomenon?
How sensitive is the biofilm interaction
to stress?
Behavior
Response
Impact
Why the concern on biofouling?
Advanced water treatment = energy water - energy nexus
Example USA:
3% of total electricity generated is
consumed for water and wastewater
treatment
by 2016, water treatment is expected
to consume >100 million kWh / day
increase of 30% from 1996 levels
60-75% of the energy required is
consumed in the aeration processes
more stringent requirements = more
energy demands
MBRs are considered energy intensive
MBRs aeration demands:
38 % - membrane air scouring
35 % - aerobic biological process
Source
www.gewater.com
Biofouling mitigation and control
Key MBR issues:
The key issues of MBRs:

High aeration demands (e.g. energy)
Membrane fouling, biofouling in particular
Design of membrane filtration units
Changes in biological treatment processes
Membrane cleaning

What are the MBR advantages / disadvantages?
MBR cons
Commonly expressed concerns about MBRs:

MBRs are too energy demanding
Plants are expensive, high investment costs
Complicated operations, membrane maintenance / cleaning
Need more skilled personnel
Membrane life-time and replacements
Does not eliminate the need for advanced post-treatment (e.g. RO)

MBR energy
Biofouling mitigation and control by:

- choice of operating modes (e.g. aeration)
- improved module and reactor designs (e.g. CFD)
Aeration in MBRs:
Membrane module operation air scouring
Bioprocess operation oxygen for aerobic degradation
Coarse bubbles - membrane operation
Fine bubbles - bioprocess operation
Can represents 70-80% of the
energy demands!
Anoxic Aerobic
Pre-treated
wastewater
Sludge recirculation
Permeate
Air
MBR aeration
Biological needs:
Objective:
Oxygen transfer for aerobic
degradation
Practice:
Fine bubble diffusers
Challenge:
Change in fluid viscosity
Poorer masstransfer efficiencies,
more energy
High operating costs
Change in biomass
characteristics?

Membrane needs:
Objective:
Generate crossflow hydrodynamic
conditions
Generate high shear stress on surface
Remove deposition on membrane surface
Practice:
Continuous aeration for air scouring
Intermittent aeration (on/off cycles)
Relaxation techniques (no production
during aeration)
Challenge:
High specific aeration demands
High operating costs

MBR aeration
- Same fundamental Monod kinetics apply
- Process must be designed for oxygen necessary to degrade both organic
matter and to convert NH
4
to NO
2
/NO
3
as required
- Determines oxygen transfer rate (OTR)
Challenge:
- Parameters in OTR equation affected by high SS concentrations
- Particularly viscosity and the -factor
- Correlations have been proposed
where is viscosity (kg/(m s))
x is the correlation exponential
MBR: MLSS of 12 g/L -value of 0.6
CAS: MLSS of 3-5 g/L -value of 0.8
Consequence higher aeration demand
MBR aeration
Impact of aeration on aerobic process (modeling):
Deterministic including biofouling products into the ASM models for
activated sludge
Aspects included:
- affect of aeration on the behavior of SMP and EPS
- biomass associated products (BAP), best observed in endogenous respiration conditions
- uptake associated products (UAP), which are released during the consumption of a substrate
MBR aeration
EPS / SMP behavior as a function of SRT
Modeling Y
obs
as a function of SRT
20-40 days optimal SRT for
minimizing foulant species
MBR aeration
P. Cote et al. Desalination 288 (2012) 145151
Before After
Significance of aeration:
- reduced sludging
- reduced fouling
- more efficient systems
Tremendous efforts in R&D
have reduced aeration
demands, increased
efficiencies, yet aeration is
still one of the key energy
issues in MBRs.

Example GE Zenon
- Influence of aeration mode
MBR module designs:
- Influence of module design
- Impact on module design
(open vs, closed)
- Air loads
- Choice of aeration cycling
- Impact on hydraulics
Example: modeling a full-scale plant, FS modules
(EUROMBRA project)
MBR module designs:
Resulting biofouling
behavior?
Photographs of
fouled flat-sheets
Computed shear-stress
distribution (0-4 N/m
2
)
- insights into the air distribution within a module
- shear stress distribution on the surface of the flat-sheet membranes
(EUROMBRA project)
Example: CFD modeling of aeration, FS modules
MBR module designs:
Improved module design and performance
Less fouling
Less energy consumption
MBR developments:
In summary;

Great steps and achievements have been accomplished in
making MBR a viable advanced wastewater treatment option.
Stipulated average annual
growth rates
Large regional difference
China and Middle East key
future markets
Region
Annual growth
(% / year)
N. America 15 %
Middle East 25 %
Europe 10 %
Asia Pacific 10 %
China 20 %
J apan 10 %
Total 20 %
Market prediction growth rates:
MBR pros
Commonly expressed benefits of MBRs:

Consistently high effluent water quality
Competitive to advanced tertiary WW treatment
Small foot-print, compact treatments plants
Modular, can be scaled to any treatment plant size
Well-suited for retrofitting / upgrading
Produces high quality water well-suited for reclamation / reuse

MBR pros
Effluent water quality:

What can be achieved by MBR processes?
Effluent BOD <5 mg/L
Effluent TSS <5 mg/L
Total Phosphorus <1 mg/L
Total Nitrogen <8 mg/L (lower if DN)
Ammonia <1 mg/L
Turbidity <0.4 NTU
Bacteria up to 6 Log Removal
Viruses up to 3 Log Removal
COD, TSS, N, P
Example of removal efficiencies:
Example of hygienic capacity compared with CAS:
Organism Size (um)
Enteric Virus 0.025
0.075
Coliform Bacteria 1 3
Cryptospoidium
occyst
3 8
Giardia cyst 7 - 14
1,00E+00
1,00E+01
1,00E+02
1,00E+03
1,00E+04
1,00E+05
1,00E+06
1,00E+07
1,00E+08
1,00E+09
1,00E+10
Coliforme Esch.-Coli
C
F
U

p
e
r

1
0
0

m
l
Influent
Effluent CAS
Effluent MBR
Guide value
Hygienic parameters
MF / UF
(Brepols. 2010)
No need for additional disinfection
MBR pros
Compound MBR Rejection (%) CAS Rejection (%)
Estrone 94 99 88 98
17--Estradoil 96 100 91 98
17--Ethinylestradiol 82 94 60 100
Bisphenol A 93 100 83
Nonylphenol 81 -
(Hegemann et al., 2002; Zuhlke et al., 2003; Clara et al., 2004)
Comparing MBRs capacity to remove emerging compounds of
concern compared with CAS e.g. EDCs:
MBR pros
MBR pros
Costs / energy consumption:
Example GE Zenon; drop in relative membrane costs, increased capacity
P. Cote et al. Desalination 288 (2012) 145151
The costs of MBRs have dropped drastically through commercialization
Extensive R&D efforts have increased unit capacities
Energy to operate systems keeps dropping.
Costs
Capacity
Investment cost, new and retrofitted WWTPs
1989 - 2006
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Treatment Capacity, MLD
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

c
o
s
t
,

E
U
R

p
e
r

P
E
CAS
CAS with tertiary treatment
MBR
Cost function (all WWTPs)
Comparison of CAS MBR
Erftverband, Germany
(Brepols, 2009)
Investment costs
Energy consumption,
(~ 0,9 kWh/m
3
)
MBR pros
Example Nordkanal, Germany:
MBR pros
MBR footprint compared to CAS:
energy consumption < 0,7
kWh/m
3
can be achieved
Case study -
Heenvliet WWTP,
The Netherlands
(EUROMBRA project)
MBR pros
Retrofit / upgrade:
MBR
MBR status
MBRs, a proven technology!
Competitive for tertiary treatment requirements
BAT for wastewater reuse / recycling
MBR
Large scale installations
Retrofitting / upgrading
Package plants
MBR vs. CAS-TF?
Principle: MBR CAS-TF
Bioreactor with MF/UF Clarifier Bioreactor clarifier MF/UF
Case study: (P. Cote et al. Desalination 167 (2004) 1-11)
Process performance:
- Suspended Solids: both below detection limit
- Physical barrier on microorganisms: both
- MBR has higher MLSS conc., better control of SRT, more diversified biomass
giving overall improved removal of COD/SOCs
- MBR has enhanced TN removal
- Phosphorous removal similar in both
- MBR better than CAS-TF
MBR vs. CAS-TF
Comparison of plant size, capital costs, O&M costs, Total life-cycle costs:
Size defined by HRT and plant surface area:
MBR
CAS-TF
MBR
CAS-TF
HRT MBR 75% (small plants) to 50% (large plants) < CAS-TF

Land space MBR is about 50% of CAS-TF
MBR vs. CAS-TF
Costs 1. capital. 2. O&M, 3. life-costs
1.
2.
3.
1. capital: MBR < CAS < CAS-TF
- eliminating secondary clarifiers
- reduced size of aeration tanks
- reduced footprint
- all offset added costs for the
membrane system and fine screens
2. O&M: CAS < CAS-TF < MBR
- CAS-TF/MBR similar, 20-30% >CAS
- MBR >CAS-TF mainly from
membranes air scouring
3. life-costs: CAS < MBR < CAS-TF
- (20 years, 6% interest rate, 2.5% inflation rate)
- membrane filtrated wastewater compared
to CAS, adds 5-20% on total life-cost
depending on plant size
MBR post-treatment
Post-treatment
What if the water quality after MBR / CAS-TF is not enough?
pretreatment to NF/RO
AOP advanced oxidation processes
mineralization and water stability
ensuring water hygiene
Post-treatment options:
MBR post-treatment
Potentials of MBR / CAS-TF with post-treatment:
Removal of unregulated compounds:
Emerging disinfection by-products (DBPs) (e.g., NDMA)
Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs):
Steroidal hormones (e.g., estrone)
Bisphenol A
Pharmaceutical active compounds (PhACs) and other emerging organic
contaminants
analgesics, antiepileptics, lipid regulators, antibiotics
flame retardants, 1,4-dioxane

MBR post-treatment
DOC removal during Pilot-Scale MF/RO and MF/NF (Drewes, 2003)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Tertiary effluent
mean
NF-90 NF TFC-S RO TFC HR RO TFC HR
full-scale
D
O
C

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.43 0.34 0.24 0.16
Composition?
TOC < 1.0 mg/L
but 1 mg/L = 1,000 g/L = 10
6
ng/L!
MBR post-treatment
Rejection of Pharmaceuticals / EDCs with MF/RO (Drewes, 2003)
445
15
65
40
35
115
100
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
<10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
c
a
r
b
a
m
a
z
e
p
i
n
e
d
i
c
l
o
f
e
n
a
c
g
e
m
f
i
b
r
o
z
i
l
i
b
u
p
r
o
f
e
n
k
e
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
n
n
a
p
r
o
x
e
n
p
r
i
m
i
d
o
n
e
n
g
/
L
Scottsdale tertiary effluent
Scottsdale tertiary effluent
after MF/RO
1
8.9
186
0.17 0.06
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
NP/OP Total APEO Total APEC
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
RO-Feed
RO (TFC-XLE) permeate
WR-199A
Pharmaceuticals: full-scale MF/RO
EDCs: pilot-scale MF/RO
MBR post-treatment
Comparing NF vs. RO as a post-treatment option:
Rejection of hydrophilic non-ionic organics
Rejection of hydrophilic ionic organics
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
100 150 200 250
Molecular weight (Da)
R
e
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
ESNA
RO-XLE
NF ESNA
RO - XLE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N
a
p
r
o
x
e
n
d
ic
l
o
f
e
n
a
c
i
b
u
p
r
o
f
e
n
m
e
c
o
p
r
o
p
k
e
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
n
g
e
m
f
ib
r
o
z
il
P
r
i
m
id
o
n
e
R
e
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
J o/k=1.3
DI
J o/k=1.3
EfOM
TFC-HR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N
a
p
r
o
x
e
n
d
ic
l
o
f
e
n
a
c
i
b
u
p
r
o
f
e
n
m
e
c
o
p
r
o
p
k
e
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
n
g
e
m
f
ib
r
o
z
il
P
r
i
m
id
o
n
e
R
e
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
J o/k=2.4
DI
J o/k=2.4
EfOM
TFC-SR2
N/A
DI
EFOM
DI
EFOM
MWCO = 100 Da vs. 400 Da
Summary
In a changing world with water scarcity reclamation / reuse of
wastewater is becoming a necessity
Changing paradigms of advanced wastewater treatment
MBRs are a realistic, viable solution to advanced treatment
for high quality effluents treating water of impaired quality
CAS cannot meet current standards for wastewater reuse
MBR has been shown to be a better solution than CAS-TF
MBRs with post-treatment can provide very high effluent
qualities well suited for multiple reuse purposes
Treatment scheme can remove unregulated emerging
contaminants of concern
The technology is available, advancement in regulations and
policies are needed
46
Part II
47
Looking towards future MBR solutions in
wastewater reclamation / reuse
TorOve Leiknes, Gary Amy

KAUST King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
WDRC Water Desalination and Reuse Center
(torove.leiknes@kaust.edu.sa)
Workshops Session 3.1
Water Reuse
Tuesday - February 25, 2014
Outline
Rethinking MBR systems
Looking for new MBR solutions for wastewater reuse
New trends and directions
Coupling alternative biological processes with membrane
separation technologies
Overview of novel MBR systems being developed
Where is MBR development headed?
Summary
Statement:
MBRs, is a proven technology!
Competitive for tertiary treatment requirements
Competitive for for wastewater reuse / recycling
MBR developments
Rethinking MBRs
1. MBR reactor designs 2. Biological processes 3. Novel / hybrid solutions
Overall reactor designs and
hydraulics CFD
Membrane module designs
Improved air-scouring
systems (e.g. less energy)
Alternative filtration unit
design / operation
Improved hydrodynamics
Biofouling mitigation
- new membrane materials
- anti fouling surfaces
- quorum sensing
Using alternative biological
process
Biofilms vs. suspended
Aerobic vs. anaerobic
Nutrient removal
Removal efficiency of
emerging contaminants
Biological product formation
(e.g. biogas, biopolymers)
Implementing microalgae
systems
Coupling MBRs with other
unit processes: coagulation,
adsorption, AOP etc.
Alternative membrane
separation systems: NF,
FO/PRO, MD, MABR etc.
Potentials of algae MBR
solutions
Integrated systems
1. MBR reactor designs:
Large-scale CFD vs. modules: (Example Nordkanal plant, EUROMBRA project)
Impact of inlet design / construction
Impact of additional mixers
1. MBR reactor designs:
Enhanced membrane filtration reactor design:
I. Ivanovic & T.O. Leiknes, The biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) - a review, Desalination and Water Treatment, 2012, 37 (1-3), 288-295
?
Completely mixed reactor (CM-MR)
CM with sludge hopper (SH-MR)
modified SH-MR (MSH-MR)
BF-MBR
- one step system
- membrane unit for enhanced
particle removal
- alternative fouling control
strategies
1. MBR reactor designs:
Performance of alternative membrane reactors:
General:
Separation factor (Ks) increased; CM-
MR SH-MR MSH-MR

Fouling rate decreased drastically

CM-MR
SP-MR
MSP-MR
Operation:
TMP to express fouling rate;
CM-MR SH-MR MSH-MR

Lowest fouling rate for MSH-MR

Why?
1. MBR reactor designs:
Impact of colloidal fraction on membrane filtration:
Inlet
Example of PSD analysis:

Zones in MSH-MR unit
Reduction in colloidal fraction correlates with improved performance!
Summary:
1. External membrane reactor should be designed as an enhanced particle
separation unit (with focus on colloidal material)
2. Reactor design will affect composition of water around the membrane and thus
fouling rates and overall performance
3. Potential to reduce air scouring for sustainable operation, i.e. energy
1. MBR reactor designs:
AS - fouling BF - fouling
Understanding membrane fouling:
AS: BF:
24 hours
168 hours
312 hours
Applying CLSM techniques
Estimates biofouling
porosity / hydraulic
resistance
Understanding biofouling in MBR
systems will be an ongoing activity
in all future developments as a
function of operating conditions
and system design!
2. Biological processes:
Can the biology be done differently? Comparing aerobic and anaerobic processes:
Pros and cons:
anaerobic low sludge production
anaerobic potentially net energy balance
aerobic higher kinetics, nutrient removal
plus, plus
(Veolia)
2. Biological processes:
Matching the biological treatment to the reuse purpose
Agricultural reuse
Crops for human consumption
Crops for animal feed
Urban landscaping (e.g. parks)
Recreational (e.g. golf courses)
Water needs:
- plant nutrients / fertilizers
- emerging compounds of
concern
- water hygiene / risk
- environmental impacts
Industrial reuse
Cooling water
Process water
Water needs:
- low TDS
- ultra-pure water
- water stability
- tailored properties
Potable reuse
Direct reuse
Indirect reuse (e.g. aquifer
recharge, reservoirs)
Water needs:
- meet drinking water
standards
- emerging compounds of
concern
- water hygiene / risk
- disinfection by products
- nutrient removal
Anaerobic / Aerobic Anaerobic
Anaerobic - MBR
2. Biological processes:
H. Ozgun et al. / Separation and Purification Technology 118 (2013) 89104
Alternative An-MBR flow schemes:
An-MBR
2. Biological processes:
Adapted from: H. Lin et al. / Desalination 314 (2013) 169188

Comparing:
Well suited for high strength wastewater
Energy aspects; low requirement net production (e.g. biogas)
Still relatively low fluxes, biofouling more of a challenge than in MBR
Full commercial large-scale systems still not available
Pros and cons:
Effluent
Influent
Excess sludge
Gas collection
Air
(recycle)
Aerobic BF
Anaerobic BF/AS
Anaerobic / Aerobic - MBR
2. Biological processes:
Systems integration:
One-stage (upflow)
Multiple biological processes
Multiple use of aeration
Integrated solids management
Energy recovery
Maximizing biological processes
with membrane separation
3. Novel / hybrid solutions:
Membrane distillation MBR (MD-MBR)
Examples of novel processes being developed:
http://www.desalination.biz/news/magazine
_article.asp?id=5145&title=
Principle:

Water vapor is extracted
from the wastewater and
condensed on the permeate
side.
System developments:
Relatively high temperature in biological
reactor thermophilic bacteria
Application to wastewater treatment has
been limited
Mainly laboratory scale results found in
literature
R&D phase at small scale
Potential of concept is acknowledged

3. Novel / hybrid solutions:
MD-MBR case study:
Phattaranawik et.al. Desalination, doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.02.075
System status:
No wastewater
treatment to
date
R&D phase at
small scale
Overall summary:
Very high quality effluent achieved
Low fluxes
Need waste-heat for economic
operation
Membrane integrity an issue
3. Novel / hybrid solutions:
Forward osmosis MBRs (FO-MBR)
Concept principle:
A. Achilli et al. / Desalination 239 (2009) 1021

J.-J. Qin et al. / Water Science & TechnologyWST 62.6 (2010) 1353-1360

Study comparing MBR with FO-MBR:
3. Novel / hybrid solutions:
Forward osmosis MBRs (FO-MBR)
System status:
No full-scale commercialization to date
R&D phase at small scale
Challenges in FO-MBR development:
Choice of draw solution and applicability to wastewater reclamation
Competitive fluxes compared to other membrane processes
Although on average less, membrane fouling is still an issue
Waste management
FO-MBR potentials:
Very high effluent qualities, f.ex. 99% TOC and 98% NH
4
+
-N removal
efficiencies
Less membrane fouling, easier cleaning by backwashing
3. Novel / hybrid solutions:
Membrane aerated bioreactors (MABR)
Treatment concept:
Principle:
Gas permeable membrane supplies oxygen directly to the
biofilm no bubbles, optimal mass transfer, less energy
Biofilm stratification provides both aerobic and anaerobic
zones allowing flexible bioreactor designs
Efficient simultaneous nitrification / denitrification
Potential biological conversions of recalcitrant emerging
contaminants (e.g. pharmaceuticals)
Combined aerobic and anaerobic reactor
Gas transfer membranes (e.g. oxygen)
Minimization of energy for aeration
Selection of specialized biomass for desired
conversions
DO COD
Air
Water flow
Biofilm
Gas permeable membrane
Air
Water flow Biofilm
DO COD
System status:
No commercialization to date
R&D phase at small scale
Summary
A better understanding of fouling
mechanisms
interactions (biology/membranes)
Improved membrane module designs
novel solutions
enhanced by CFD analysis
Integrated systems
AS-MBR, biofilm-MBR, anaerobic-MBR, etc.
hybrid solutions
More energy efficient
Improved robustness and life-time
Steps towards standardization
Where is MBR development headed
?
67