www.elsevier.com/locate/procbio
Abstract
The performance of a submerged tubular membrane bioreactor (MBR) adopting two coarse bubble aeration (sparging) modes
is reported. In the first mode, air is injected to the membrane tube channels so that mixed liquor circulates within the bioreactor
(air-lift mode). In the second mode, the membrane lumen is subjected to intermittent sparging (air-jet mode). The performance
in each case was evaluated against primary municipal wastewater effluent (settled sewage). The flux was found to increase by 43%
when aeration was introduced to the air-lift module. No further flux increase was observed on increasing the gas flow from 1 to
10 l min 1. The air-jet module performance was constrained by clogging due to slow accumulation of sludge inside the lumen,
which was not completely ameliorated by the action of the air jet. On applying a periodic backflush to remove the accumulated
matter, the permeability attained from the air-jet aerator exceeded that of the air-lift module. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Activated sludge; Aeration; Fouling; Flux; Membrane bioreactor; Sparging
1. Introduction
Interest in the membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology for wastewater treatment has increased due to
increasingly stringent legislation, the opportunity for
water reuse/recycling membrane processes it presents,
and continuing advancement and decreased costs of
membrane technology. Advantages offered by MBRs
over conventional treatment technologies are well
known and have been recently reviewed [1].
The principal limitation of this process lies in membrane fouling which is mainly associated with the deposition of a filter cake or fouling layer onto the
membrane surface, thus limiting the permeate flux.
Membrane fouling leads to frequent cleaning and/or
replacement of membranes, which then increases operating costs. Various methods have been adopted to
control fouling during the operational cycle of the
MBR process, most of which in some way increase the
shear rate near the membrane solution interface and so
enhance mass-transfer. Since the bubbles generated by
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44-1234-750111x2542; fax: +441234-751671.
E-mail address: s.j.judd@cranfield.ac.uk (S.J. Judd).
0032-9592/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 2 - 9 5 9 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 9 1 - 6
916
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up for the submerged MBR (1) bioreactor; (2) air-jet module; (3) air-lift module; (4) pressurised
backwashing tank; (5) flow meter; (6) adjustment valve; (7) solenoid valve; (8) pressure gauge; (9) level sensor; (10) diffuser; (11) visualisation tube;
(12) prefilter.
assesses flux improvement by gas sparging for submerged MBRs specifically. This study aims to appraise
the effects of two types of air sparging applied to the
submerged MBR. In the first the air is intermittently
introduced as a jet from a sealed end of the membrane
module (air-jet mode). In the second air is introduced
as coarse bubbles into the membrane tube channels so
as to allow the mixed liquor to circulate in the bioreactor (air-lift mode). The efficacy of each aeration mode
was evaluated for an MBR challenged with a municipal
wastewater matrix.
Membrane
Raw material
Nominal pore
size
Module
Surface area
Length
Number of
tubes
Tube inner
diameter
Manufacturer
Air-lift module
(outside the bioreactor)
Polyethersulfone
0.2 mm
Polyethersulfone
0.2 mm
0.27 m2
0.48 m
20
0.32 m2
0.51 m
22
9.5 mm
9.5 mm
Milleniumpore (UK)
Milleniumpore (UK)
917
Fig. 2. Configuration of the tubular membrane module for the air-jet (a); and air-lift (b).
J20 =JT
vT
v20
Qg
(Qg + Ql)
918
Table 2
A series of resistance values for the air-lift and air-jet module
Module
Air-lifta
Air-jetb
Air-jetc
a
Resistances (1011m1)
Rm
Rc
Rf
RT
Rc/RT
Rc/(Rc+Rf)
5.1
7.7
3.0
0.6
53
Rc+Rf = 1.5
2.0
2.7
Rc+Rf =1.5
7.7
63.4
4.5
8
84
23
95
919
4. Conclusions
Two kinds of air sparging technology, the air-lift and
the air-jet, have been applied to enhance flux in a
submerged MBR. For the air-lift module, permeate flux
was found to increase by 43% when coarse bubble
aeration was employed. No further increase in flux was
observed as the gas flow was increased by up to a factor
of 10. This was attributed to the relatively small contribution of the cake layer resistance (Rc) to the overall
resistance causing flux decline (Rc + Rf). The air-jet
module suffered from clogging due to the gradual accumulation of biosolids inside the lumen over the operational period. However, provided clogging could be
prevented the flux was greater than that attained in the
air-lift module under otherwise comparable operating
conditions. Further work is needed to optimise design,
920
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by through a grant provided by KOSEF and sponsorship by Millenniumpore
Ltd, whose assistance the authors gratefully
acknowledge.
References
[1] Stephenson T, Judd S, Jefferson B, Brindle K. Membrane Bioreactor for Wastewater Treatment. London: IWA Publishing,
2000.
[2] Bouhabila EH, Ben-Aim R, Buisson H. Microfiltration of activated sludge using submerged membrane with air bubbling.
Desalination 1998;118:315 22.
[3] Gunder B, Krauth K. Replacement of secondary clarification by
membrane separation-results with plate and hollow fibre modules. Water Sci Technol 1998;38:383 93.
[4] Ueda T, Hata K, Kikuoka Y, Seino O. Effects of aeration on
suction pressure in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Water
Res 1997;31:489 94.
[5] Cabassaud C, Laborie S, Laine JM. How slug flow can improve
ultrafiltration flux in organic hollow fibers. J Membr Sci
1997;128:93 101.
[6] Ghosh R, Cui ZF. Mass transfer in gas-sparged ultrafiltration:
upward slug flow in tubular membranes. J Membr Sci
1999;162:91 102.
[7] Vera L, Delgado S, Elmaleh S. Gas sparged cross flow microfiltration of biologically treated wastewater, in: Proceedings
of the Membrane Technology in Environmental Management.
IAWQ, Tokyo, 1999. pp. 131 38.
[8] Chang I-S, Bag S-O, Lee C-H. Effects of membrane fouling on
solute rejection during membrane filtration of activated sludge.
Process Biochem 2001;36:855 60.
[9] Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater,
18th edition. APHA, AWWA, WEF. Washington DC, 1992.
[10] Cabassaud C, Laborie S, Durand-Bourlier L, Laine JM. Air
sparging in ultrafiltration hollow fiber: relationship between flux
enhancement, cake characteristics and hydrodynamic parameters. J Membr Sci 2001;181:57 69.
[11] Marcier M, Fonade C, Lafforgue-Delorme C. How slug flow can
enhance the ultrafiltration flux in mineral tubular membranes. J
Membr Sci 1997;128:103 13.
[12] Vera L, Villarroel R, Delgado S, Elmaleh S. Enhancing microfiltration through an inorganic tubular membrane by gas
sparging. J Membr Sci 2000;165:47 57.
[13] Chang I-S, Lee C-H. Membrane filtration characteristics in
membrane-coupled activated sludge system the effect of physiological states of activated sludge on membrane fouling. Desalination 1998;120:221 33.
[14] Chang I-S, Gander M, Jefferson B, Judd SJ. Low-cost membranes for use in a submerged MBR. Trans IChemE (Part B)
2001;79:183 8.
[15] Kim J-S, Lee C-H, Chang I-S. Effect of pump shear on the
performance of a crossflow membrane bioreactor. Water Res
2001;35:2137 44.
[16] Davies WJ, Le MS, Heath CR. Intensified activated sludge
process with submerged membrane microfiltration. Water Sci
Technol 1998;38(4 5):421 8.
[17] Maranges C, Fonade C. Flux enhancement in crossflow filtration
using an unsteady jet. J Membr Sci 1997;123:1 8.