Membrane Bioreactors

Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) for Wastewater Treatment
1. INTRODUCTION
The technologies most commonly used for performing secondary treatment of
municipal wastewater rely on microorganisms suspended in the wastewater to treat it. Although
these technologies work well in many situations, they have several drawbacks, including the
difficulty of growing the right types of microorganisms and the physical requirement of a large
site. The use of microfiltration membrane bioreactors (MBRs), a technology that has become
increasingly used in the past 10 years, overcomes many of the limitations of conventional
systems. These systems have the advantage of combining a sus-pended growth biological
reactor with solids removal via filtration. The membranes can be designed for and operated in
small spaces and with high removal efficiency of contaminants such as nitrogen, phosphorus,
bacteria, bio-chemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids. The membrane filtration
system in effect can replace the secondary clarifier and sand filters in a typical activated sludge
treatment system. Membrane filtration allows a higher biomass concentration to be maintained,
thereby allowing smaller bioreactors to be used.
Membrane bioreactors are able to provide the benefits of biological treatment with a
physical barrier separation. Compared to conventional treatment processes, membranes are
able to provide better quality effluent with a smaller, automated treatment process.
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGG., GMIT
Page 1
2. APPLICABILITY
For new installations, the use of MBR systems allows for higher wastewater flow or
improved treatment performance in a smaller space than a conventional design, i.e., a facility
using secondary clarifiers and sand filters. Historically, membranes have been used for smallerflow systems due to the high capital cost of the equipment and high operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Today however, they are receiving increased use in larger systems. MBR
systems are also well suited for some industrial and commercial applications. The high-quality
effluent produced by MBRs makes them particularly applicable to reuse applications and for
surface water discharge applications requiring extensive nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus)
removal.
3. ADVANTAGES
The retention of all suspended matter and most soluble compounds within the
bioreactor leads to excellent effluent quality capable of meeting stringent discharge
requirements and opening the door to direct water reuse.
The possibility of retaining all bacteria and viruses results in a sterile effluent,
eliminating extensive disinfection that would be required otherwise and eliminate the
corresponding hazards related to disinfection by products.
It results in more compact systems than conventional processes significantly reducing
plant footprint making it desirable for water recycling applications.
The process is more compact than a Conventional Activated Sludge process (CAS),
skipping three (3) individual processes of the conventional scheme. The feed
wastewater only needs to be screened (1-3 mm) just prior to removal of larger solids
that could damage the membranes.
In addition it is easier to operate and maintain.
It has a higher Nitrogen Removal rate than any other treatment process.
Finally, it has a comparatively low sludge yield; thereby reducing the IOM cost of
sludge handling.
4. MEMBRANE
Page 2

During MBR wastewater treatment, solid-liquid separation is achieved by
Microfiltration (MF) or Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes. A membrane is simply a twodimensional material used to separate components of fluids usually on the basis of their relative
size or electrical charge. The capability of a membrane to allow transport of only specific
compounds is called semi-permeability (sometimes also permselective). This is a physical
process, where separated components remain chemically unchanged. Components that pass
through membrane pores are called permeate, while rejected ones form concentrate or
retentate.
Fig 1:Structure of membrane unit
4.1 MEMBRANE TYPES

4.1.1 Plate and Frame The plate and frame membranes consist of two flat sheets of
membrane material, usually an organic polymer, stretched across a thin frame. The space
between the membrane sheets is placed under vacuum in order to provide the driving force for
filtration. Several plates are arranged in a cassette to allow for increased surface area and
convenient modular design. The membrane cassette is immersed in the mixed liquor and the
separation flow is from outside-in. For example, Kubota membranes have air induced liquid
cross-flow along the plates. This creates turbulence and hinders cake formation and subsequent
fouling. The organic polymer, polyethylene for example, has the required flexibility to move
slightly in the cross-flow to allow three-dimensional dynamic forces to reduce cake formation.
The cross-flow of air also acts to dissolve oxygen to and mix the contents of the reactor.
Page 3

4.1.2 Hollow fibre Hollow fibre membranes consist of long strands, or fibres, of hollow
extruded membrane. They are most often of organic polymer construction and are applied
much the same as plate and frame membranes. The fibres are mounted to a supporting structure
that serves as a manifold for permeate transport as well as an air delivery system. Similar to the
plate and frame modules, air induced liquid cross flow prevents excessive cake formation and
increases the lifespan of the membrane.
Fig 2:Hallow fiber membrane
Fig 3:Flat Plate membrane
4.1.3 Tubular As the name implies, tubular membranes are hollow tubes with the membrane
placed on the surface of the tube. Below the membrane surface is a supporting structure with
high porosity. In most cases, tubular membranes are made of inorganic material such as
ceramic and have a metal oxide membrane surface to provide a small nominal pore size.
Tubular membranes have a different separation driving force than the previous two. Rather
than vacuum pressure, the material to be separated flows along the membrane at high velocity
under pressure. The velocity provides a transverse force to drive the water through the
membrane while leaving the larger diameter particles behind. A tubular membrane could be
used in the outside-in arrangement with the feed water flowing along the centre of the tube and
the permeate passing to the outside walls, or the inside-out arrangement where the influent
travels along the centre of the tube and travels axially outward.
Fig 4: Tubular membrane
Page 4
5. MEMBRANE CHARACTERISTICS
Membrane treatment is an advanced treatment process that has become increasing
popular over the past ten years. Membrane processes have been understood but underutilized
since the 1960s due to high capital costs. Recent developments in membrane manufacturing
have enabled the production of better quality membranes at a reduced price. Compared with
increasing conventional water treatment costs, membrane treatment is now considered
economically feasible.
5.1 Filtration processes
There are six commercially used membrane separation processes; Microfiltration (MF),
Ultrafiltration (UF), Nanofiltration (NF), Reverse Osmosis (RO), Dialysis, and Electrodialysis
(ED). Membrane processes can be classified based on membrane separation size and
mechanism, membrane material and configuration, or separation driving forces used.
Membrane processes utilize set terminology to discuss membrane performance. The rate of
fluid transfer across the membrane is referred to as the flux, and has units of kg/mh.The
pressure experienced across the membrane is referred to as the trans-membrane pressure
(TMP). The fluid that passes through the membrane is the permeate, while the flow retained by
the membrane is the retentate.
Separations based on membrane pore size include MF (0.1- 0.2 m),UF (0.002 0.1
m), and NF (0.0001 0.001 m). The ranges are not strictly defined and some overlap exists.
These three types of filtration rely on a sieving action to remove particulate matter. All four
varieties of membranes rely on hydrostatic pressure differences to drive the separation process.
Microfiltration or Ultrafiltration is the most commonly used membrane size in wastewater and
Page 5

MBR treatment. Microfiltration is able to remove protozoa, bacteria and turbidity, while UF
has the added benefit of virus removal).
5.2 Membrane materials
Membranes are made from either organic polymers or ceramic materials. Polymers
offer the advantage of low cost production but may contain natural variations in pore size, and
are prone to fouling and degradation. Ceramic membranes offer excellent quality and durability
but are economically unfeasible for large scale operations, although they may be well suited for
industrial applications (Scott and Smith, 1996). All of the commercial MBR manufacturers use
polymeric MF membranes. Table lists the most common types of polymer materials used to
construct membranes. Polymeric membranes are manufactured in several forms, the most
common types for MBR are hollow fiber and plate and frame.
TABLE 1: Polymer Membrane Materials and Characteristics
Material
Advantages
Disadvantages
Polypropylene
Low cost
No chlorine tolerance
High pH range tolerance
Expensive cleaning
Polyvinylidene fluoride
High chlorine tolerance
Chemicals required
Cannot sustain pH>10
Polyether Sulphone and
Simple cleaning chemicals

Chlorine tolerance
Brittle material requires
Polysulphone
Reasonable cost
support or flow inside to
Polyacrylonitrile
Low cost, typically used for
outside
Less chemically resistant than
Cellulose Acetate
UF membranes
Low cost
PVdF
Narrow pH range
Biologically active
5.3 Membrane integrity

Monitoring membrane integrity is necessary for all processes. Membrane breakage or
Degradation can lead to the loss of physical separation and possible contamination of the
effluent. Membrane integrity can be monitored by particle counters or pressure decay testing
(PDT). PDT is the preferred method due to its reliability and increased accuracy. In PDT the
Page 6

membrane module is pressurized to a high pressure and monitored for leaks, the PDT is
sensitive enough to detect the breakage of a single fibre.
5.4 Membrane fouling
Membrane fouling is the largest concern in the design of membrane and MBR systems.
Membrane fouling can be due to particulate build-up, chemical contamination or precipitation.
Particulate fouling occurs as matter in the wastewater collects on the surface of the membrane.
As the layer builds up the membrane pores can be blocked reducing the flux through the
membrane and increasing the TMP. Particulate matter can foul membranes by either plugging
or narrowing the pores or through the formation of a cake layer on the surface. Membrane
fouling can be controlled through the use of periodic maintenance back-flushing and chemical
cleans in place (CIP). Back-flushing is completed by reversing the flow of air or water through
the membrane to unclog the pores. If the membrane is heavily fouled a chemical clean may be
necessary. Sodium hydroxide and surfactant solution is the most common chemical used for
cleaning, but other chemicals such as citric acid, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, or aluminium
bifluoride may be used depending on manufacturers guidelines. Long term fouling due to the
precipitation of manganese of silica has been observed in some instances, but can generally be
reversed with cleaning.
In membrane bioreactors several additional steps are taken to reduce fouling due to the
high suspended solids in the retentate. Coarse bubble aeration is introduced at the bottom of
hollow fiber membranes and travels vertically along their length. This has a two-fold purpose
of aerating the wastewater and vibrating the membrane fibers to remove particulate matter,
increasing the time between cleanings. The membranes are operated near critical flux to
minimize fouling and in a periodic fashion, with a back-flush every 5 to 15 minutes.
6. MBR SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS

MBR systems can be classified into two major categories according to the location of
the membrane component.
6.1 Submerged or Immersed MBR

In the submerged MBR process, the membrane is submerged directly in the aeration
tank. By applying low vacuum or by using the static head of the mixed liquor, effluent is
driven through the membrane leaving the solids behind.
Page 7
6.2 External / Sidestream MBR

In the external MBR, the mixed liquor is pumped from the aeration tank to the
membrane at flow rates that are 20-30 times the product water flow to provide adequate shear
for controlling solids accumulation at the membrane surface. The high cost of pumping makes
EMBR system impractical for full scale municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Fig 5:Immersed membrane bioreactor
Fig 6:sidestream membrane bioreactor
Page 8

TABLE 2 Comparison of External and Internal Membrane Based MBR System
Configuration.
Comparative Factor
Membrane area
Requirement
Space or Footprint
Requirements
External MBR Systems
Internal MBR Systems
Characterized by higher flux and Lower flux but higher membrane

therefore lower membrane area packing density (i.e., membrane
area per unit volume).
requirement.
Higher flux membranes with
bioreactor operating at higher VSS
concentration
and
skidded
assembly construction, results in,
compact system.
Higher membrane packing density

and operation at bioreactor VSS
concentration of 10 g/l or greater
translates to compact system.
Bioreactor and
Membrane Component Bioreactor can be designed and Design and operation of bioreactor
Design and Operation operated under optimal conditions and membrane compartment or tank
including
those
to
achieve are
not
independent.
High
Dependency
biological N and P removal, if membrane tank recycle required
required.
(e.g., recycle ratio 4) to limit tank
VSS concentration build-up.
Membrane Performance
Consistency
Recovery of Membrane
Performance
Membrane Life or
Replacement
Requirements
Less susceptible to
wastewater
and
characteristics.
changing
biomass
More susceptible to changing

wastewater
and
biomass
characteristics requiring alteration
in membrane cleaning strategy
and/or cleaning frequency.
Off-line cleaning required every

1 to 2 months.
Simple,
automated procedure normally
requiring less than 4 hours.
Off-line recovery cleaning required

every 2 to 6 months. A more
complex
procedure
requiring
significantly more time and manual
activity, at least on occasion may be
required (i.e., physical membrane
cleaning).
Results to-date imply an operating

life of 7 years or more can be
achieved with polymerics prior to
irreversible fouling. Operating life
of ceramics much longer.
Results to-date imply an operating

life of 5 years may be possible prior
to irreversible fouling and/or
excessive
membrane
physical
damage.
Page 9
Full Scale Application

Status
Economics
Conventional membrane based

systems have a very long track
record. Few non- conventional
systems in operation in the U.S.
Full scale application widespread in

the
U.S.
Non-conventional designs translate Power and capital cost advantage at

to comparable power costs. higher wastewater feed rates.
Comparable capital cost at least at
lower wastewater feed rates (e.g.,
approaching 1893 m3/day).
7. DESIGN FEATURES
7.1 Pre-treatment
To reduce the chances of membrane damage, wastewater should undergo a high level of
debris removal prior to the MBR. Primary treatment is often provided in larger installations,
although not in most small to medium sized installations, and is not a requirement. In addition,
all MBR systems require 1- to 3-mm-cutoff fine screens immediately before the membranes,
depending on the MBR manufacturer. These screens require frequent cleaning. Alternatives for
reducing the amount of material reaching the screens include using two stages of screening and
locating the screens after primary settling.
7.2 Membrane Location
MBR systems are configured with the membranes actually immersed in the biological
reactor or, as an alternative, in a separate vessel through which mixed liquor from the biological
reactor is circulated.
7.3 Membrane Configuration
MBR manufacturers employ membranes in two basic configurations: hollow fiber
bundles and plate membranes. Siemens/U.S.Filters Memjet and Memcor systems, GE/Zenons
ZeeWeed and ZenoGem systems, and GE/Ionics system use hollow-fiber, tubular membranes
configured in bundles. A number of bundles are connected by manifolds into units that can be
Page 10

readily changed for maintenance or replacement. The other configuration, such as those
provided by Kubota/Enviroquip, employ membranes in a flat-plate configuration, again with
manifolds to allow a number of membranes to be connected in readily changed units. Screening
requirements for both systems differ: hollow-fibre membranes typically require 1- to 2-mm
screening, while plate membranes require 2- to 3-mm screening.
7.4 System Operation
All MBR systems require some degree of pump-ing to force the water flowing through
the membrane. While other membrane systems use a pressurized system to push the water
through the membranes, the major systems used in MBRs draw a vacuum through the
membranes so that the water outside is at ambient pressure. The advantage of the vacuum is
that it is gentler to the membranes; the advantage of the pressure is that throughput can be
controlled. All systems also include techniques for continually cleaning the system to maintain
membrane life and keep the system operational for as long as possible. All the principal
membrane systems used in MBRs use an air scour technique to reduce buildup of material on
the membranes. This is done by blowing air around the membranes out of the manifolds. The
GE/Zenon systems use air scour, as well as a back-pulsing technique, in which permeate is
occasionally pumped back into the membranes to keep the pores cleared out. Backpulsing is typically done on a timer, with the time of pulsing accounting for 1 to 5 percent of
the total operating time.
7.5 Downstream Treatment
The permeate from an MBR has low levels of suspended solids, meaning the levels of
bacteria, BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus are also low. Disinfection is easy and might not be
required, depending on permit requirements.
The solids retained by the membrane are recycled to the biological reactor and build up
in the system. As in conventional biological systems, periodic sludge wasting eliminates sludge
buildup and controls the SRT within the MBR system. The waste sludge from MBRs goes
through standard solids-handling technologies for thickening, dewatering, and ultimate
disposal. Hermanowicz et al. (2006) reported a decreased ability to settle in waste MBR
sludges due to increased amounts of colloidal-size particles and filamentous bacteria. Chemical
addition increased the ability of the sludges to settle. As more MBR facilities are built and
operated, a more definitive understanding of the characteristics of the resulting biosolids will be
Page 11

achieved. However, experience to date indicates that conventional biosolids processing unit
operations are also applicable to the waste sludge from MBRs.
7.6 Membrane Care
The key to the cost-effectiveness of an MBR system is membrane life. If membrane life is
curtailed such that frequent replacement is required, costs will significantly increase.
Membrane life can be increased in the following ways:
Good screening of larger solids before the membranes to protect the membranes
from physical damage.
Throughput rates that are not excessive, i.e., that do not push the system to the
limits of the design. Such rates reduce the amount of material that is forced into the
membrane and thereby reduce the amount that has to be removed by cleaners or that
will cause eventual membrane deterioration.
Regular use of mild cleaners. Cleaning solutions most often used with MBRs
include regular bleach (sodium) and citric acid. The cleaning should be in accord
with manufacturer-recommended maintenance protocols.
7.7 Membrane Guarantees

The length of the guarantee provided by the membrane system provider is also important in
determining the cost-effectiveness of the system. For municipal wastewater treatment, longer
guarantees might be more readily available com-pared to those available for industrial systems.
Zenon offers a 10-year guarantee; others range from 3 to 5 years. Some guarantees include cost
prorating if replacement is needed after a certain service time. Guarantees are typically
negotiated during the purchasing process. Some manufacturers guarantees are tied directly to
screen size: longer membrane warranties are granted when smaller screens are used.
8. WORKING THEORY
Normally, systems are built with two different compartments.
The first section is the screening stage where the wastewater enters the unit. In this area;
heavy solids are first separated subsequently traversing to another compartment which houses
Page 12

the membranes. The initial screening is of high importance, as the larger molecules (scum and
grit) will not trap the surface of the membrane and lead to fouling.
In the second compartment, the biological process takes place involving vigorous
agitation, coming from air bubbles generated from a blower system. This acts to scour and
clean the surface of the membrane to prevent buildup of material on the and also to provide
sufficient oxygen concentration for biological action that supports growth of bacteria
Depending on how the system is designed to ensure efficient air to water oxygen transfer, the
household MBR is capable to support up to 4000ppm of MLSS level while large-scale
industrial wastewater treatment plant bioreactor scan handle up to 20000ppm.
A complete unit usually comes equipped with a backflush system whereby discharged
wastewater will now move counter flow from the permeate side back again to the system to
dislodge trapped material accumulating on the surface During this process, air scouring will
still continue to run to help increase removal efficiency.
Fig 7: Working theory
Page 13
Fig 8: Schematic diagram of the Membrane Bioreactor
9. WATER RECLAMATION
The use of MBR technology for reclamation is a rapidly expanding application. MBR
technology is well suited for reuse treatment due to its small footprint and relatively easy
operation. Small MBR systems can be designed to pull wastewater directly from the sewer at
the remote points of reuse, eliminating the need for large central treatment plants and
redistribution. MBR effluent is ideal for further treatment by reverse osmosis. The high quality
of the MBR permeate allows increased RO flux with reduced fouling. Following RO treatment
the water generally meets or exceeds all drinking water standards and may be even higher in
quality than virgin water. Despite the high water quality public acceptance within the US is
difficult. Studies have suggested that a hierarchy of acceptable use exists.
Page 14

Treatment Reuse Hierarchy:
1. Forest Irrigation
2. Forage Crop Irrigation
3. Food Crop Irrigation
4. Park and Garden Irrigation
5. Livestock Watering
6. Cooling
7. Industrial Cleaning
8. Industrial Process
9. Fishery Use
10. Recreational Water Supplies
11. Public Grey Water
12. Public Drinking Water
In many cases the public fears are unfounded or irrational as de-facto reuse of
drinking water supplies occurs already, often with less treatment than direct reuse designed
systems. In areas with ample water supplies the reuse of economic cost of wastewater reuse
cannot usually be justified. In areas with water scarcity such as Singapore, which relies on
Malaysia to supply its water the reuse of water is highly accepted. Reused water is sold under
the name NeWater and all wastewater treatment plants are being retrofitted with MF, RO and
UV systems for production.
Page 15

TABLE 3: Typical MBR Effluent Quality
S.NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PARAMETERS
BOD
TSS
Ammonical nitrogen as
NH3-N
Nitrogen as TKN
Fecal coliform count
pH
UNITS
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
VALUES
<2
<1
<0.5
mg/l
MPN/100ml
<1
<2
6.8-7.8
10. APPLICATIONS OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR:

10.1 Applications in municipal wastewater treatment
MBR systems were initially used for municipal wastewater treatment, primarily in the
area of water reuse and recycling. Compactness, production of reusable water, and trouble-free
operation made the MBR an ideal process for recycling municipal wastewater in water and
space limited environments. the development of less expensive submerged membranes made
MBRs a real alternative for high flow, large scale municipal wastewater applications. Over
1,000 MBRs are currently in operation around the world with approximately 66% in Japan, and
the remainder largely in Europe and North America. Out of these installations, about 55% use
submerged membranes while the rest have external membrane modules.
10.2 Applications in industrial wastewater treatment
High organic loadings and very specific and difficult to treat compounds are two major
characteristics of industrial waste streams that render alternative treatment techniques such as
the MBR desirable. Since, traditionally wastewater with high COD content was treated under
anaerobic conditions, initial attempts of MBR applications for industrial wastewater were in the
field of anaerobic treatment.
10.3 Applications in fields of landfill leachate, sludge digestion, And human excrement
In addition to municipal and industrial wastewater treatment, MBRs have been utilized
in a number of other areas. One such area is the treatment of landfill leachates. Landfill
Page 16

leachates usually contain high concentrations of organic and inorganic compounds.
Conventionally, the treatment of leachates involves a physical, biological, or membrane
filtration process (or a combination of them). MBR systems have been successfully utilized
with an additional treatment step for inorganics and heavy metal removal, such as reverse
osmosis (RO). Several industrial scale plants, combining a MBR and a reverse osmosis system,
are presently operated.
The MBR system was also used in the treatment of human excreta in domestic
wastewater. These applications, also known as night soil treatment systems, were typified by
the high strength of the waste and the need for on-site treatment. The
MBR system replaced a rather complex set of treatment systems which incorporated
denitrification, coagulation, filtration, and activated carbon treatment. Another application of
the MBR is in the area of sludge treatment. Conventionally, sludge stabilization in wastewater
treatment plants is achieved by a single pass, anaerobic digester. Since the HRT and the SRT
are identical in these systems, the capacity is limited and long solid retention times are required
for effective solids destruction.
10.4 Nitrate removal in drinking water
Denitrification and removal of natural organic matter are two main treatment
requirements for drinking water. Nitrate is the most common groundwater contaminant in
North America and world-wide. Nitrate is a stable and highly soluble nitrogen species, easily
transported and accumulated in groundwater systems. These properties, coupled with increased
anthropogenic discharges of nitrogen containing compounds from point and non-point sources,
have resulted in elevated nitrate concentrations in ground and surface waters. Non-point
sources may have a larger impact on ground water and are associated with agricultural and
livestock practices and residential septic tank effluents.
Nitrates can be removed either biologically or by physicochemical treatment techniques
such as reverse osmosis, ion exchange, and electrodialysis. Natural organic matter can be
treated biologically or through activated carbon adsorption. Biological removal of nitrates and
organic matter is receiving more attention due to the complete conversion of nitrate into
nitrogen gas and relative ease of operation (Falk 2002). Conventional physico-chemical
treatment methods only concentrate nitrate into solutions which still require disposal. In typical
biological denitrification processes, however, post treatment processes such as sand filtration,
activated carbon adsorption, and disinfection are required to remove biological entities and
Page 17

excess organic matter and colour. The number of post-treatment processes can be significantly
reduced by using a MBR for biological denitrification. All biological entities as well as some
dissolved organic matter will be retained in the bioreactor while long denitrifying culture
retention times and short hydraulic retention times can be maintained.
11. LIMITATIONS
The primary disadvantage of MBR systems is the typically higher capital and operating
costs than conventional systems for the same through-put.
O&M costs include membrane cleaning and fouling control, and eventual membrane
replacement.
Energy costs are also higher because of the need for air scouring to control bacterial
growth on the membranes. In addition, the waste sludge from such a system might have
a low settling rate, resulting in the need for chemicals to produce biosolids acceptable
for disposal (Hermanowicz et al. 2006). Fleischer et al. 2005 have demonstrated that
waste sledges from MBRs can be processed using standard technologies used for
activated sludge processes.
Page 18
12. CONCLUSION
The membrane bioreactor technology has great potential in wide ranging applications including
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment, groundwater and drinking water abatement,
solid waste digestion, and odour control.
The technical feasibility of this process has been demonstrated through a number of pilot and
bench scale research studies. Full scale systems are operational in various parts of the world
and substantial growth in the number and size of installations is anticipated for the near
future.
The MBR process is already considered as a viable alternative for many waste treatment
challenges and with water quality issues firmly placed into the forefront of public debate, ever
tightening discharge standards and increasing water shortages will further accelerate the
development of this technology.
Agricultural activities and related industries constitute a potential source of pollution to the
environment. Waste from intensive livestock operations and wastewater generated by the food
processing industry are two streams characterized by high organic and nutrient strength.
Multiple treatment processes are normally required to ameliorate the waste to levels
acceptable for on-site reuse or direct discharge to surface water.
MBRs offer a proven alternative due to their ability to handle high organic loadings and wide
fluctuations in flow and strength. Activated sludge scrubbing may also be able to be
incorporated into these systems for odour control and air pollution management.
High quality effluent produced by the MBR would provide pathogen and bacteria control and
assist the facility in complying with strict environmental regulations. It would also allow
extensive process optimization through internal water recycle and significantly reduce
dependence to municipal waste treatment facilities or to the availability of crop land for waste
application.
13. REFERENCES
Page 19

Adham, S., P. et al. 2001. Feasibility of the membrane bioreactor process for water
reclamation. Water Science and Technology 43(10): 203-209.
BCC. (2011). Membrane bioreactors: global markets. BCC Report MST047C. March
2011.
Fane, A. G. (1996) Membranes for Water Production and Wastewater Reuse.
Desalination., 106, 1.
George Crawford et al (2001) The Evolution of Membrane Bioreactor System Designs
for Wastewater Treatment. IWA Sept 2001.
Gupta, K.et al. (1994) Membrane Biological Reactor System for Treatment of Oily
Wastewaters. Water Environment Research, 66 (2), pp.133-139.
Page 20

Membrane Bioreactors

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Membrane Bioreactors

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) for Wastewater Treatment

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGG., GMIT