Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Membrane Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/memsci

Evaluation of full-scale membrane bioreactor mixing performance and the effect

of membrane conguration
M.W.D. Brannock, Y. Wang, G. Leslie
UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 October 2009
Received in revised form
10 December 2009
Accepted 12 December 2009
Available online 22 December 2009
Keywords:
Mixing
Hydrodynamics
Residence time distribution
Membrane bioreactor
Energy

a b s t r a c t
The design and optimisation of MBR units require knowledge of the biokinetics, fouling potential and
mixing. Although the mixing within an MBR system is of critical importance to the performance, MBRs
are mainly designed on the basis of biokinetics and fouling potential of the treatment system while
assuming the hydrodynamic characteristics. One method to characterise the mixing is the residence
time distribution (RTD). In this work, tracer studies using lithium chloride were performed to acquire RTD
proles of two full-scale MBR systems with different membrane congurations (at sheet and hollow
bre). Analysis of the RTD proles indicated that that both MBRs, including their respective ltration
tanks, are very close to completely mixed. The mixing energy per volume of permeate used by the hollow
bre membrane vessel was lower than that of at sheet module MBR; both in terms of whole MBR energy
usage and membrane blower only energy usage. Hence, it is possible to conclude that the at sheet MBR,
per square metre of membrane, in this case, requires more energy to achieve a similar degree of mixing.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Optimisation of membrane bioreactors (MBR) requires detailed
understanding of the kinetics of biological nutrient removal (BNR),
ltration separation performance of the microporous membranes
and the hydraulic conditions in the bioreactor. Although MBR performance has been the subject of many investigations, the literature
is silent on the hydrodynamics of MBR design, particularly the
impact of membrane conguration on mixing conditions [1,2].
Consequently, the mixing within the MBR process has been an
insufciently understood aspect of MBR design [3,4].
The performance of a reactor is largely inuenced by the retention time of a reactant in the reactor vessel. The retention time
of the reactant is determined by the mixing in the reactor [5].
Many researchers have reiterated the importance of mixing in
achieving efcient conversion of reactants in wastewater treatment processes [57] and to provide sufcient shear to prevent
fouling of membranes [8,9]. One method to characterise the mixing is based on the concept of residence time distributions (RTDs).
The degree of mixing energy input and the bioreactor and membrane conguration affects the output response (or RTD) which
describes the mixing regime occurring in the system. A number of
authors have employed residence time distribution analysis in the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9385 6092; fax: +61 2 9385 5966.
E-mail address: g.leslie@unsw.edu.au (G. Leslie).
0376-7388/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2009.12.016

examination of membrane processes, however, not upon full-scale

MBRs [3,10,11]. Curlin et al. [12] conducted experiments to evaluate the effects of RTD and the degree of mixing on MBR performance
through the concentration of soluble biodegradable substances in
the efuent and found that the conversions at steady state were signicantly different depending on the degree of mixing. The most
commonly used CSTR model predicts higher substrate conversions.
However, their investigations were based on a 40 L bench scale MBR
and the existing non-ideal ow models.
Mixing is a key design consideration for membrane and wastewater processes, therefore the MBR RTDs obtained will provide
invaluable insight into MBR mixing and will make available an
important tool for the validation of the hydrodynamic models of
MBRs for use in design. Currently, many designers estimate the
RTD using compartmental (network-of-reactors) modelling while
making assumptions on the ow regime in each reactor [13].
Often compartmental modelling is unable to predict energy input
requirements and, as highlighted in this paper, does not always
approximate the MBR RTD successfully [14]. This emphasises the
need for a more thorough understanding of MBR hydrodynamics
either through tracer studies or more complex and fundamental
modelling such as computational uid dynamics modelling (CFD)
[7,15,16].
In this work, tracer studies using lithium chloride were performed to acquire RTD proles of two large scale MBR systems
with different membrane (at sheet and hollow bre) and bioreactor congurations (Fig. 1). The degree of mixing of both MBRs
was qualitatively described using tracer response curves and

102

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

Fig. 1. Overview of the process setup with sample points marked with letters: one of the two parallel process streams of Site 1 (FS) MBR (left)(1) bioselector, (2) swing aerobic
& anoxic zones, (3) aerobic zone, (4) membrane ltration vessel; Site 2 (HF) MBR (right)(1) anoxic zone, (2) aerobic zones, (3) membrane ltration zone, (4) de-aeration
zone.

quantitatively analysed using various indices (e.g. Peclet number).

The mixing energy of each plant was also evaluated with respect
to specic energy and power usage and velocity gradient [17]. The
effects of membrane congurations on mixing and mixing energy
requirement can then be assessed. Analysis of the RTD proles indicated that the hollow bre MBR was closer to completely mixed
conditions due to the higher power to volume ratio. The at sheet
membrane ltration vessels requires a larger volume due to the
larger size of membrane modules (i.e. lower packing density), while
the bioreactor of the at sheet MBR also required a larger volume due to operational parameters (simultaneous higher inuent
concentrations and higher sludge retention time). The energy (per
volume of permeate) required for the mixing of the hollow bre
membrane vessel was lower than that of at sheet module MBR
(see Table 5). Consequently, hollow bre module was more energy
efcient than at sheet module.

The theoretical mean residence time of a reactor, , often referred to

as the hydraulic retention time, is dened as the ratio of the reactor
volume (V) to the volumetric owrate (Q) (Eq. (3)).
=

V
Q

(3)

The second moment of the function E(t) is referred to as the variance,  2 , which describes the spread of the RTD curve where a
higher value indicates more spread:

2 =

s3 =
2.1. Residence time distribution (RTD)


0

C(t) dt

(1)

tm =

tE(t) dt
0

(5)

Other measures include, t50 which is dened as the time at which

50% of the tracer has exited from the reactor and tp is dened as
the peak concentration of the tracer [18].
The residence time distribution and its second and third
moments can also be represented in the normalised form to allow
comparison between MBRs with different mean residence times.
These are described by Eqs. (6)(9).
E () = tm E(t)

(2)

 2 =

(6)
2

( 1) E () d =

s 3 =

( 1) E () d =
0

Various measures can be used to quantitatively evaluate the form

of the residence time distribution curve. The rst being the mean
residence time (tm ), which is the rst moment of the E(t) function
and can be described by Eq. (2).

(t tm )3 E(t) dt

RTD can be used to assess the degree of mixing and ow patterns within any reactors. Analysis of the RTD prole can provide
information on the degree of nutrient conversion at different locations in the reactor and the effect of the use of hollow bre or at
sheet membrane congurations on the degree of mixing.
RTD proles may be measured by monitoring the evolution of
an inert tracer through the reactor. The residence time distribution
function, E(t), can be evaluated by dividing temporal variation of
tracer concentration in the membrane ltrate, i.e. C(t), by the total
mass of tracer injected in the feed (i.e. the area under the C(t) curve)
as shown by Eq. (1).
E(t) =

(4)

While the third moment of the residence time distribution curve is

the skewness, s3 , which describes the extent that the distribution
is skewed in one direction or the other (a higher positive value
indicates that the area of under the RTD is concentrated more on
the left):

2. Theory

C(t)

(t tm )2 E(t) dt

2
tm 2
s3
tm 3

(7)

(8)

where
=

t
tm

(9)

Burrows et al. [19] and Thirumurthi [20] have used various relationships between the hydraulic residence time (), peak time (tp )
and the mean residence time (tm ) to quantitatively assess the RTD
curves and the degree of plug ow, amount of dead zones and

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

the degree of short-circuiting. These are described by the following

relationships:
tp / for the Plug Flow Index: the system is closer to plug ow
conditions as this index moves closer to 1, and closer to complete
mixing as this index moves closer to 0.
tm / for the Dead Zone Index: the system possesses more dead
zones as the index approaches 0 (it may also indicate experimental error).
1 tp /tm for the Short-circuiting Index: the system has more
short-circuiting as the index approaches 1
These measures will be utilised for the analysis of our RTDs, however Smith et al. [21] has noted that these indices not accurate in
measurement of mixing characteristics such as dispersion. Smith
et al. [21] stated that the dispersion number, which is the inverse
of the Peclet number, Per is a more appropriate measure of dispersion. Therefore, the Peclet number is used to measure the degree
of dispersion where it is the ratio of the rate of transport due to
convection to the rate of transport from diffusion or dispersion (i.e.
the lower the value the more dispersion and the closer the system
is to complete mixing). The Peclet number can be used in a single
parameter model to describe the residence time distributions [22].
The Peclet number as evaluated from Eq. (10) is valid for a vessel
with a closed-closed boundary condition [22,23]. A closedclosed
boundary condition describes the scenario where there is no
axial dispersion or radial variation of tracer concentration either
upstream or downstream from the vessel being investigated. That is
the mixing conditions may be described as plug ow both upstream
and downstream of the tracer dosing and tracer sampling points.

tm

Per

 2 
Per 2

(1 ePer )

(10)

The Tanks-in-Series Model is another one parameter model of RTD

curves where it considers the real reactor to be a series of equalsized ideal stirred tanks [6]. The ow regimes, from completely
mixed ow (N = 1) to plug ow (N = ) can easily be account by
this model but of course it being a one parameter model it has
difculties describing complex ows. It is however a useful tool
for description of ow in that it provides a tangible measure. The
number of tanks in series, N, is simply calculated from the inverse
of the dimensionless variance.
2.2. Mixing energy analysis
Mixing energy usage was analysed with respect to specic
energy and power usage, i.e. the power per unit volume of vessel (PS,V ), power per unit area of membrane (PS,M ) and energy per
unit volume of permeate produced (PS,P ). These are summarised by
the following:


Pi
PS,V = 

Vi


PS,M =

AM


PS,P =

Pi

Pi

QP

(11)

(12)

(13)

where Pi is the power draw of the different motors (i.e. mixers,

blower or pumps) being considered, Vi are the volumes of the
vessels being considered, AM is the membrane area and QP is the
permeate owrate. These are similar to specic power or energy
requirement measures employed by Judd [4,24].

103

2.3. Average velocity gradient

The mixing effectiveness was also analysed with respect to the
average velocity gradient. Wang et al. [10] recently used the average
velocity gradient for comparison of mixing energy dissipation in
two pilot-scale MBRs. This not only takes into account the power
input and reactor volume, but also the viscosity of the liquid:
G=

 P 0.5

(14)

V

where G is the average velocity gradient, P is the power input (W), V

is the reactor volume (m3 ) and  is the dynamic viscosity (Pa s). The
efciency of the motors supplying the power input was assumed
to be 75%.
As the calculation of G incorporates a viscosity term and therefore this needs to be estimated for each site. Although sludge
viscosity is heavily site specic [25], the viscosity of the sludge mixture was estimated using the correlation presented by Rosenberger
et al. [26] which takes into account the local shear and mixed liquor
suspended solids:
 = e13.82X

0.41

 dw 0.23X 0.37
dy

(15)

where X is the mixed liquor suspended solids (g/L) and dw/dy is

the applied velocity gradient (s1 ). Eq. (15) was correlated using
the activated sludge samples taken from MBRs with different MLSS
concentrations ranging from 2.7 to 33 g/L at 21 1 C as measured
in MBRs by Rosenberger in 2002 [26]. In the calculation of the
viscosity the local velocity gradient should be used for dw/dy. However, since this quantity cannot be easily deduced the average
velocity gradient is used using Eq. (16). The viscosity of the sludge is
dependent on the average velocity gradient, therefore the solution
for G using Eqs. (14) and (16) is iterative.
 = e13.82X

0.41

G0.23X

0.37

(16)

The velocity gradient is related to the amount of energy required

to achieve a set level of average shear in a system. It is usually used
as a control measure in determination of the power requirements
of the system to produce the necessary shear for the optimisation
of reactor design. This method of analysis is frequently used in the
design of occulation processes [17,18]. The velocity gradient G is
a measure of the average velocity gradient in a uid; higher values will be observed near sources of momentum (e.g. inlets jets,
aerators, membrane surfaces and mixer blades) while signicantly
lower values will be observed elsewhere in the vessel [18]. However, it is possible to conclude that for a given owrate that a higher
average velocity gradient in an MBR will produce more transport
of momentum via dispersion than convection thus pushing the
system towards completely mixed conditions.
3. Methods
3.1. Full-scale MBR description
Two full-scale MBRs located in Australia were examined for this
work, one having hollow bre membranes and the other having at
sheet membranes (Fig. 1). Site 1 is a at sheet (FS) membrane MBR.
It is the primary sewage treatment plant (STP) for the local township and provides recycled water for the surrounding region. The
plant, which consists to process streams in parallel, is sized to treat
an average dry weather ow (ADWF) of 3.4 ML/day (1.7 ML/day
each stream) and is designed for nutrient removal via simultaneous nitrication/denitrication (SND) (Table 1). Site 2 is a hollow
bre (HF) membrane MBR and operates at large sewage treatment
plant (STP). It receives primary treated sewage from the STP and

104

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

Table 1
Operating process parameters of the two MBRs during each trial.
Parameters

Units

Site 1 (FS) MBR

Site 2 (HF) MBR

Average permeate owrate

Total volume of bioreactor vessels
Total volume of membrane ltration vessels
MLSS
Membrane type
Membrane area
Net membrane ux
Mixed liquor return owrate
Sludge age
Air owrate into bioreactor
Air owrate into membrane ltration vessel

ML/day
m3
m3
g/L

m2
L/m2 /h
m3 /h
days
Nm3 /h
Nm3 /h

1.09
852
392
11.3
Flat sheet
3835
11.8
461
16.6
109
992

1.10
435
36.0
5.0
Hollow bre
3200
14.3
433
9.9
419
918

produces recycled water for the site and local area. The plant is sized
to treat 2 ML/day of inuent and is designed for nutrient removal
so it possesses an anoxic zone, aerobic zone and an internal recycle.
The biological parameters of feed and efuent of both plants during
the tracer studies are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

the sample point positioned in the extremity of each membrane

ltration vessel.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Residence time distribution

3.2. Experimental procedure

The tracer study methodology employed obtained reproducible
results (see normalised RTD curves shown in Fig. 2), and almost
complete recovery of tracer (Table 4). Both MBRs appear to have an
overall mixing behaviour close to complete mixing, although the
Site 1 (FS) MBR appears to be not as close. It also shows steps in
the RTD curve which are due to the diurnal nature of the inuent;
the steps occur every 24 h while the permeate owrate is at its
lowest. This is due to the average ow being used in RTD derivation.
It does however produce artefacts in the RTD curve with highly
variable ows; Site 1 (FS) MBR permeate ow ranged 20180% of
the mean, while Site 2 (HF) MBR permeate ow ranged 60140% of
the mean
The index measures utilised by Burrows et al. [19] and Thirumurthi [20] indicate that the Site 1 (FS) MBR has a slightly lower
volume of dead zones and has a marginally lower amount of shortcircuiting. The Site 2 (HF) MBR appears to be closer to completely
mixed, possibly due to the greater mixing energy input per unit
volume (Table 5). However, as noted by Smith et al. [21] these measures may not be completely representative of RTD curve properties
as they are dependent either on single measurement point properties from RTD curve (i.e. tp ) or on properties which are prone to
experimental error (e.g.  which is calculated from the owrate and
reactor volume). The Peclet number and the number of tanks-inseries provide better measures of RTD curve properties as they are
both dependent on the integral properties tm and  2 .
Examining the Peclet numbers indicate that both MBRs have
large amount of dispersion (i.e. Pe < 5), according to Foglers [22]
criteria, and therefore deviate greatly from plug ow. The Peclet
number and number of completely mixed tanks in series (N) show
that in contrast to the Plug Flow Index measure the Site 1 (FS)
MBR is slightly closer to completely mixed conditions than Site

The tracer studies were carried out using a pulse input of lithium
chloride delivered at the MBR inlet (post-screening) with the tracer
response being measured in the permeate and other relevant sample points. Lithium chloride is commonly used for tracer studies of
wastewater processes due to its inert nature [5,7,27]. The amount
of tracer used corresponded to a bulk concentration of 1.5 mg Li+ /L
(i.e. mass of lithium divided by volume of the MBR). The bulk
concentration was comparable to that used by other researchers
who have investigated mixing in wastewater treatment processes
[5,10,15,2729]. This ensured that the tracer response is much
greater than the detection limit of the analysis technique and the
lithium ion background concentration. The Li+ concentration was
measured using ICP-AES (inductively couple plasma-atomic emission spectrophotometry) and had a detection limit of 0.008 mg Li+ /L
Dosing solutions were prepared with concentrations of 4060 g
Li+ /L and a maximum dosage volume of 25 L; this ensured a small
dosage volume, low dosage time yet at a small density difference
between the dosage solution and mixed liquor. The dosage solution was pumped at approximately 75 L/min over 20 s into the inlet
stream. For Site 2 (HF) MBR this is 0.02% of the HRT and for Site 1
(FS) MBR is 0.004% of the HRT. This enabled effectively instantaneous delivery of the tracer. To obtain reproducible results at both
sites, the tracer studies were undertaken with as many constant
process parameters possible. The intermittent inuent ow and the
switching on/off of the aeration were still experienced. The tracer
studies commenced at exactly the same time of the day. Sampling
was undertaken for four hydraulic residence times ensuring close
to 100% tracer recovery. The sample points are marked with letter
in Fig. 1 with Sample Point A being the combined permeate which
is used to derive the overall MBR RTD and Sample Point B being
Table 2
Average feed characteristics during each trial.
Site

COD (mg/L)

BOD5 (mg/L)

NH3 -N (mg/L)

SS (mg/L)

Site 1 (FS) MBR

Site 2 (HF) MBR

608
482

260
200

55.0
33.0

284
325

TDS (mg/L)
1175
749

Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3 )

Temp. ( C)

pH

384
247

24.4
22.1

7.3
6.9

Table 3
Efuent characteristics during each trial.
Site

COD (mg/L)

BOD5 (mg/L)

NH3 -N (mg/L)

NOX -N (mg/L)

SS (mg/L)

TDS (mg/L)

Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3 )

Temp. ( C)

pH

Site 1 (FS) MBR

Site 2 (HF) MBR

48.8
29.0

2.0
4.5

0.7
0.1

1.5
16.1

1.5
1.0

960
786

112
78

25.6
23.3

7.5
7.2

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

105

Fig. 2. Normalised residence time distribution (RTD) from the combined ltrate for the at sheet MBR at Site 1 (left) and the hollow bre MBR at Site 2 (right). The RTDs were
measured on two separate occasions.
Table 4
Quantitative RTD properties.
Site

Trial

Rec. (%)

 (h)

tm (h)

 2

s 3

tp (h)

tp /

tm /

(1 frame=t opbotrowsep=0
tp /tm )
colsep=0 >

Per

Site 1 (FS) MBR

1
2

99.7%
99.5%

27.5
27.5

31.3
31.4

0.882
0.897

1.75
1.79

3.33
3.92

0.121
0.142

1.14
1.14

0.894
0.875

0.388
0.334

1.13
1.11

Site 2 (HF) MBR

1
2

82.7%
96.0%

10.3
10.3

10.4
10.2

0.806
0.803

1.21
1.24

0.67
0.83

0.065
0.081

1.01
0.99

0.936
0.918

0.662
0.697

1.24
1.25

2 (HF) MBR (Table 4). This is likely due to the Site 1 RTD having a longer tail than the Site 2 RTD curve which decreases more
abruptly.
The degree of mixing within the membrane ltration vessels
was also assessed through measurement of tracer response at an
alternative location in the tank. Any large difference between tracer
response in permeate and other point would indicate a deviation
from complete mixing. The position measured for Site 1 (FS) was
the Top Left Deck, that is the permeate extracted from the top
deck closest to the membrane ltration inlet from the left membrane ltration vessel. The position measure for Site 2 (HF) was the
RAS, that is the return activated sludge owing from the membrane ltration vessel over a weir into the de-aeration vessel. These
points are indicated in Fig. 1 as Sample Point B.
The largest difference between the permeate response and Sample Point B response has been found to be 0.4% of the mean
residence time (Fig. 3). This translates to at most a lag time between
the two sample points, as a fraction of the membrane ltration vessel theoretical residence time, of 1.5% for Site 1 and 5% for Site 2.
If the system vessel was completely mixed this lag time would be
equal to 0% between any points in the vessel and if it was a plug
ow system it would be up to 100%. This indicates that the mixing energy from aeration and recirculated sludge is very close to
complete mixing for both MBR membrane ltration tanks.
4.2. Mixing energy
The mixing energy was determined for each MBR (Table 5). The
drivers of mixing are considered to be mechanical mixing, bioreTable 5
MBR power usage.
Parameters

Units

Site 1 (FS)
MBR

Site 2 (HF)
MBR

Powermixer
Powerbioreactor blower
Powermembrane vessel blower
Powerrecirculation pump
Powerpermeate/backwash pump
Powertotal

kW
kW
kW
kW
kW
kW

7.1
3.3
29.5
16.0

55.8

2.2
8.5
13.8
18.5
2.0
44.9

actor aeration, membrane vessel aeration, recirculation pumping,

permeate pumping and backwashing. The energy usage was calculated on the basis of motor runtimes and motor speeds. Power is
one of the most important contributors to the operating cost [30]. A
signicant proportion of the power cost is associated with aeration
which is not only required for biological process but also for agitation of the membranes. For both MBRs the calculated total energy
usage closely matched the energy drawn from the power grid (e.g.
Site 2 (HF) MBR calculated power usage was 44.9 kW).
Overall the Site 1 (FS) MBR bioreactor required higher mechanical mixer power input; this is due to the much larger bioreactor
and ltration vessel volumes. That is, more energy is required to
mix a larger volume. The bioreactor has a larger volume because of
the higher sludge retention time and the higher inuent concentrations. The ltration vessel requires a larger volume due to the
lower packing density of the membranes. Of note is that the Site 1
bioreactor does not require as much mixing via aeration as the Site
2 due to the simultaneous nitrication denitrication design. The
total mixing power (with or without recirculation pumps) required
for the bioreactor is roughly the same for each MBR even though
the Site 1 (FS) MBR has a much larger bioreactor volume.
Concentrating on the membrane ltration vessel itself, it is possible to see that energy usage due to aeration at the Site 1 (FS)
MBR is more than twice as high as for the Site 2 (HF) MBR for
the same permeate owrate. The Site 1 blower accounts for 53%
of the total power requirements and the Site 2 blower accounts for
31%; this is very close to the range of 3050% recently observed by
others [4,24,31]. Taking into account all direct or indirect energy
inputs (i.e. recirculation pumping, permeate pumping, backush
pumping and aeration) the Site 1 MBR uses one-third more energy.
These results are conrmed by the specic energy input measures (Table 6). The higher energy usage in permeate production
terms may be attributed again to the lower packing density of the
membranes. The Site 1 (FS) MBR does employ double decking, and
although more energy is required to pump air at a lower depth this
does in fact improve aeration efciency.
The 
total specic power input in terms
 of volume of vessel (PS,V
where
Pi = total MBR motor power;
Vi = total MBR volume) is
much lower for Site 1 (FS) MBR,
although the energy usage per
volume of permeate (PS,P where
Pi = total MBR motor power) is

106

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

Fig. 3. Comparison of residence time distributions obtained from specic sampling points within the at sheet MBR at Site 1 (left) and the hollow bre MBR at Site 2 (right).
Table 6
MBR specic power usage.
Parameters



PS,V (
Pi = membrane blower; Vi = Membrane VESSEL)

PS,V (
Pi = membrane blower, recirculation
 pump and membrane ltration pump; Vi = membrane vessel)
PS,V (
 Pi = total MBR energy usage; Vi = total MBR volume)
PS,P (
Pi = membrane blower)
PS,P (
Pi = membrane blower, recirculation pump and membrane ltration/backwash pump)
PS,P (
Pi = total MBR energy usage)
PS,M (
Pi = membrane blower)
PS,M (

Pi = membrane blower, recirculation pump and membrane ltration/backwash pump)

Units

Site 1 (FS) MBR

75.2

W/m

W/m3

116

W/m3

44.8

Site 2 (HF) MBR

235
584
95.3

kWh/m3

0.651

0.301

kWh/m3

1.00

0.748

kWh/m3

1.23

0.982

W/m2

7.69

5.78

W/m2

11.9

10.7

Table 7
MBR average velocity gradient.
Parameter
Membrane vessel average velocity gradient (membrane blower only)
Membrane vessel average velocity gradient (membrane blower and
return activated sludge pumping)
Overall MBR average velocity gradient (G)

signicantly higher (Table 6). This again is due to the larger bioreactor and ltration vessel.
This pattern is repeated for the specic energy usage of the ltration vessel itself, although the extra vessel volume is solely due to
the lower packing density of the membrane vessels. It appears that
Site 2 requires less energy (per unit volume of permeate produced)
for membrane ltration mainly due to the packing density of membranes. Apart from a higher membrane packing density the other
advantage of Site 2 is that it is able to operate at a higher ux. This
leads to efciency gains on a permeate production basis is lower
for the Site 2 (HF) MBR. The ability to operate at a higher ux is
heavily inuenced by the lower MLSS and the resultant higher viscosity. Site 2 does however use more energy per unit vessel volume
perhaps indicating that efciency gains can be made on a energy
usage per unit volume of vessel. However, in terms of mixing energy
required per unit area of membrane (PS,M ) Site 1 (FS) MBR uses a
third extra power using the membrane blower motor as a basis
and only 10% extra if all membrane ltration vessel motors are
accounted for.

4.3. Average velocity gradient

The use of the average velocity gradient may be more applicable
in measuring mixing effectiveness and therefore the energy usage
(on a vessel volume basis) as it accounts for viscosity. Depending
on the design of the MBR (mixing energy distribution and vessel
conguration), a higher overall MBR average velocity gradient may
move the reactor closer to complete mixing.

Units

Site 1 (FS) MBR

Site 2 (HF) MBR

s
s1

47.2
63.9

243.5
417.1

s1

33.0

101.2

The overall MBR average velocity gradient for the Site 2 (HF)
MBR is 5.2 times greater than for the Site 1 (FS) MBR (Table 7) which
is due to the lower MLSS at Site 2 (less than half of Site 1) and
therefore viscosity. This higher G factor translates into an earlier
peak in the RTD curve for Site 2, however the Site 1 RTD is, according
to the number of tanks in series and the Peclet Number, closer to
complete mixing than for Site 2. The average velocity gradient for
the ltration tank at Site 2 is also substantially greater than for
Site 1. While in the early research on pilot plant MBRs [10], the
G factor was evaluated using a constant viscosity for both MBRs,
hence the hollow bre MBR which requires less power input has a
lower overall MBR average velocity gradient.

5. Conclusions
The experimental methodology employed provided reproducible results with high recovery of tracer. The results show that
different MBR designs, both with respect to the bioreactor and
membrane ltration vessel, have differing effects on the RTD. Analysis of the RTD proles indicated that both MBRs are close to
complete mixing conditions, while Site 1 (FS) MBR is marginally
closer according to Peclet and the Tanks-in-Series measures. In
terms of energy usage per unit volume of permeate produced, the
Site 1 (FS) MBR has higher requirements. This is due to a number of factors. The at sheet membrane requires a larger volume
of ltration vessels due to the larger size of membrane modules
(i.e. lower packing density), while the bioreactor of Site 1 (FS)
MBR also requires a larger volume for higher inuent concen-

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

trations and higher sludge retention time. Therefore, the energy

per volume of permeate produced required for the complete mixing of the hollow bre MBR was lower than that of the at
sheet MBR. The at sheet membrane ltration vessels required
more than twice the membrane blower mixing energy per volume of permeate than the hollow bre membranes. Consequently,
hollow bre module was more energy efcient than at sheet
module.
6. Future work
It has been shown that the deciency of compartmental modelling is that it is unable to predict the behaviour of complex ows
observed in the bioreactor vessels of the MBR. In addition to this,
there is no possibility for compartmental modelling either to predict energy usage or to optimise its use. This is where application of
CFD to the design of MBRs would be of a great advantage. CFD is able
to predict the hydrodynamics and energy usage using the fundamental equations of uid dynamics. It does not require assumptions
with regard to reactor vessel hydrodynamics to be made. The RTDs

Nomenclature
List of symbols
AM
membrane area (m2 )
C
tracer concentration (mg/L)
E
dimensionless function of residence time distribution
dw/dy
applied velocity gradient (s1 )
G
average velocity gradient (s1 )
N
number of equal-size mixed ow reactors in series
P
Power input (W/kW)
Peclet number
Per
Pi
power draw of different motors (i.e. mixers, blower
or pumps) being considered (W/kW)
power per unit area of membrane (W/m2 )
PS,M
power per unit volume of permeate produced
PS,P
(kWh/m3 )
PS,V
power per unit volume of vessel (W/m3 )
Q
volumetric owrate (m3 /s)
permeate owrate (m3 /s)
Qp
s3
skewness of a tracer curve or distribution function
t
current time (s)
t50
the time at which 50% of the tracer has exited from
the reactor (s)
mean residence time (s)
tm
tp
peak time (s)
V
reactor volume (m3 )
volumes of the vessels being considered (m3 )
Vi
X
mixed liquor suspended solids (g/L)
Greek symbols

dynamic viscosity of uid (Pa s)

dimensionless time
2
variance of a tracer curve or distribution function

theoretical mean residence time/hydraulic retention time (HRT) (s)
Subscripts
i
the items being considered
M
membrane
P
permeate
V
volume of vessels

using dimensionless time units

107

presented here will also form part of the validation of a computational uid dynamics model of an MBR.
Acknowledgements
This project is proudly supported by the International Science
Linkages programme established under the Australian Governments innovation statement, Backing Australias Ability. This work
was also supported by the European Commission under the 6th
Framework Programme (AMEDEUS project, contract 018328). The
authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Sydney Water
and the South Australian Water Corporation during this project.
References
[1] A.N.L. Ng, A.S. Kim, A mini-review of modeling studies on membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment for municipal wastewaters, Desalination 212 (2007)
261.
[2] H. Fletcher, T. Mackley, S. Judd, The cost of a package plant membrane bioreactor, Water Research 41 (2007) 2627.
[3] T.J. Rector, J.L. Garland, S.O. Starr, Dispersion characteristics of a rotating hollow
ber membrane bioreactor: effects of module packing density and rotational
frequency, Journal of Membrane Science 278 (2006) 144.
[4] S. Judd, The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors
in Water and Wastewater Treatment, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Boston/London,
2006.
[5] M.R. Pena, D.D. Mara, G.P. Avella, Dispersion and treatment performance analysis of an UASB reactor under different hydraulic loading rates, Water Research
40 (2006) 445.
[6] O. Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering, Wiley, New York, 1999.
[7] O. Potier, J.P. Leclerc, M.N. Pons, Inuence of geometrical and operational
parameters on the axial dispersion in an aerated channel reactor, Water
Research 39 (2005) 4454.
[8] N. Ndinisa, A. Fane, D. Wiley, Fouling control in a submerged at sheet membrane system: Part Ibubbling and hydrodynamic effects, Separation Science
and Technology 41 (2006) 1383.
[9] T. Taha, W.L. Cheong, R.W. Field, Z.F. Cui, Gas-sparged ultraltration using horizontal and inclined tubular membranesa CFD study, Journal of Membrane
Science 279 (2006) 487.
[10] Y. Wang, K.W. Ong, M.W.D. Brannock, G.L. Leslie, Evaluation of membrane
bioreactor performance via residence time distribution: effects of membrane conguration and mixing, Water Science and Technology 57 (2008)
353.
[11] Q. Yang, A. Drak, D. Hasson, R. Semiat, RO module RTD analyses based on directly
processing conductivity signals, Journal of Membrane Science 306 (2007)
355.
[12] M. Curlin, M. Matic, M. Matosic, I. Mijatovic, Z. Kurtanjek, Effects of Hydraulic
Residence Time and Mixing on Wastewater Treatment in a Membrane Bioreactor, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly, Croatian Society of
Chemical Engineers, 2004, pp. 97104.
[13] J. Alex, R. Tschepetzki, U. Jumar, F. Obenaus, K.H. Rosenwinkel, Analysis and
design of suitable model structures for activated sludge tanks with circulating
ow, Water Science and Technology 39 (1999) 55.
[14] J. Alex, G. Kolisch, K. Krause, Model structure identication for wastewater
treatment simulation based on computational uid dynamics, Water Science
and Technology 45 (2002) 325.
[15] D. Olivet, J. Valls, M.A. Gordillo, A. Freixo, A. Sanchez, Application of residence
time distribution technique to the study of the hydrodynamic behaviour of a
full-scale wastewater treatment plant plug-ow bioreactor, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 80 (2005) 425.
[16] G.C. Glover, C. Printemps, K. Essemiani, J. Meinhold, Modelling of wastewater treatment plantshow far shall we go with sophisticated modelling tools?
Water Science and Technology 53 (2006) 79.
[17] S. Kawamura, Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities, Wiley, New
York, 1991.
[18] Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, McGraw-Hill,
Boston, 2003.
[19] L.J. Burrows, A.J. Stokes, J.R. West, C.F. Forster, A.D. Martin, Evaluation of different analytical methods for tracer studies in aeration lanes of activated sludge
plants, Water Research 33 (1999) 367.
[20] D. Thirumurthi, A break-through in the tracer studies of sedimentation tanks,
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 41 (1969) 405.
[21] L.C. Smith, D.J. Elliot, A. James, Characterization of mixing patterns in an anaerobic digester by means of tracer curve analysis, Ecological Modelling 69 (1993)
267.
[22] H.S. Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Prentice Educational
International, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.
[23] P.V. Danckwerts, Continuous ow systems: distribution of residence times,
Chemical Engineering Science 2 (1953) 1.
[24] S. Judd, The status of membrane bioreactor technology, Trends in Biotechnology
26 (2008) 109.

108

M.W.D. Brannock et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 350 (2010) 101108

[25] N. Rios, I. Nopens, V. de Schepper, T. Jiang, W. Verstraete, P. Vanrolleghem,

A rheological model for activated sludge in a side-stream MBR, in: IWA 4th
International Membrane Conference, IWA, Harrogate, UK, 2007.
[26] S. Rosenberger, K. Kubin, M. Kraume, Rheology of activated sludge in membrane
bioreactors, Engineering in Life Sciences 2 (2002) 269.
[27] L.C. Smith, D.J. Elliot, A. James, Mixing in upow anaerobic lters and its inuence on performance and scale-up, Water Research 30 (1996) 3061.
[28] R. Kjellstrand, A. Mattsson, C. Niklasson, M.J. Taherzadeh, Short circuiting in a
denitrifying activated sludge tank, Water Science and Technology 52 (2005)
79.

[29] M.R. Pena, D.D. Mara, A. Sanchez, Dispersion studies in anaerobic ponds: implications for design and operation, Water Science and Technology 42 (2000)
273.
[30] P. Cote, M. Masini, D. Mourato, Comparison of membrane options for water
reuse and reclamation, Desalination 167 (2004) 1.
[31] A. Garcs, W. De Wilde, C. Thoeye, G. De Gueldre, Operational Cost Optimisation
of MBR Schilde IWA 4th International Membrane Conference, IWA, Harrogate,
UK, 2007.