I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor
has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged
within the text.
I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my
research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In
addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the
thesis.
________________________
(Asmita Shrestha)
Signature of Student
Date: 01 08 2013
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my principal supervisor, Dr.
Wenshan Guo, for her continuous guidance, support, discussion, suggestions,
understanding and encouragement and for taking me on as her masters student by
believing on me. Without her guidance and suggestions this study would not be
possible. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, A/Prof. Huu Hao Ngo, for his
valuable comments, suggestions, guidance and help throughout the research.
I am very grateful to Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology (FEIT), UTS
for providing a laboratory for my experimental works as well as nice environment for
my study without which it would not be possible. My special thanks to University
Graduate School for providing Thesis completion equity grant. I would like to thank all
the UTS staff for all the administrative and other supports.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Tien Thanh Nguyen, the senior technical
officer of Environmental Engineering Laboratory, FEIT Mr. Mohammed Johir and my
dear friend Ms Sima Adabju for all their help and support during my laboratory set up
and experiments. I would also like to thank all my fellow graduate students of UTS and
my good friends for the good time we shared together at UTS.
I would also like to thank all the Authors and researchers that I have listed in the
reference section of this thesis. Their materials were really valuable and useful for this
thesis writing.
Last but not least, I am grateful to my family for their unconditional love, courage,
support and understanding. Without them these accomplishments would not have been
possible. I am indebt to my husband Suman and our Daughter Sneha, who have given
me continuous encouragement, love and support in all the way. I have no words to
thank my beautiful daughter Sneha, who bear to stay at childcare for long hours when I
was busy in my study.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of Original Authorship... ii
Acknowledgement...... iii
Table of Contents.... iv
List of Abbreviations..... vii
List of Figures..... ix
List of Tables...... xii
Abstract.......... xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.....1
1.1 Background of the Study...... 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study......... 3
1.3 Outline of the Thesis..... 3
References. 100
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOB
AOP
BF-MBR
BNR
BOD
CAS
C/N
CFMF
COD
CP
CSTR
DNA
DO
DOC
EPS
FBR
FC
FS
GAC
h
HDPE
HF
HRT
H2SO4
J
KE
KET
LDPE
MBBR
MBBR-MF
MBR
MF
MLSS
MLVSS
NaClO
NaHCO3
NaOH
NF
NH4-N
NOB
NOM
O3
OLR
OUR
PAC
PAO
PB
PCL
PE
PG
PO4-P
PS
PTSE
PUF
PVA
RBC
RC
RM
RO
RP
RT
S
SBF
SBR
SBR
SMBR
SMP
SRT
SSMBR
SVI
T
TMP
TN
TOC
TP
TSS
UASB
UCT
UF
UTS
UV
VFA
PT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Dead end filtration
Figure 2.2 Cross flow filtration
Figure 2.3 Configuration of MBR system; (A) Submerged MBR and (B) Side stream
MBR configuration
Figure 2.4 Factors influencing fouling in membrane processes (Le-cleach et al., 2006,
Chang et al., 2002)
Figure 2.5 Biomass growth systems in wastewater treatment systems (Jianlong et al.,
2000)
Figure 2.6 Typical diagram for MBBR and fixed bed bioreactor
Figure 2.7 The physical appearances of the media used in attached growth processes
Figure 2.8 Schematic diagram of attached growth process
Figure 3.1 Polyethylene (PE) carriers
Figure 3.2 Flat sheet membrane module
Figure 3.3 Experimental arrangements of (A) MBBR and (B) MBBR-MF
Figure 3.4 Flow chart of the research activities
Figure 3.5 PE carriers acclimatization tank
Figure 3.6 Laboratory setup of MBBR
Figure 3.7 Laboratory setup of MBBRMF system
Figure 4.1 Biomass growth in PE carriers (at different (A) filling rates and (B) aeration
rates)
Figure 4.2 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different filling rates
Figure 4.3 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different aeration rates
Figure 4.4 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different HRTs
Figure 4.5 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different PE carrier filling rates
ix
Figure 4.6 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different aeration rates
Figure 4.7 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different HRTs
Figure 4.8 Average DO consumption rate variation of the attached biomass on PE
carriers at different carrier filling rates, aeration rates and HRTs.
Figure 4.9 Correlation between the kinetic energy and (A) PE carrier filling rates and
(B) aeration rates.
Figure 4.10 PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.11 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.12 NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.13 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.14 TN removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.15 DOC removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rate
Figure 4.16 COD removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates.
Figure 4.17 PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.18 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.19 NH4-N removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.20 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.21 TN removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.22 DOC removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.23 COD removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.24 PO4-P removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.25 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.26 NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.27 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.28 TN removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.29 DOC removal efficiency at different HRTs
x
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Health and environmental effects of nutrients
Table 2.2 Constituents present in domestic wastewater (Henze et al., 2002)
Table 2.3 Australian treated wastewater discharge standards (EPA, 2005)
Table 2.4 Different types of treatment processes used in wastewater treatment
Table 2 5 Advantages and disadvantages of MBR technology (Melin et al., 2006)
Table 2.6 Different types of attached growth systems (Odegaard, 1999)
Table 2.7 Characteristics of media used in the attached growth processes
Table 2.8 Characteristics data for the four different carriers used (Odegaard et al., 2000)
Table 3.1 Characteristics of synthetic wastewater
Table 3.2 Characteristics of PE carriers
Table 3.3 Characteristics of membrane
Table 3.4 Experimental conditions to determine effect of different aeration rates and
HRTs in nutrient removal from wastewater
Table 4.1 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different filling rates of PE Carrier
(aeration rate = 4.5 L/min, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
Table 4.2 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different aeration rates (carrier
filling volume = 20%, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
Table 4.3 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different HRTs (carrier filling
volume = 20%, aeration rate = 4.5 L/min)
Table 4.4 Calculation of total kinetic energy
Table 4.5 Comparison of organic and nutrient removal between MBBR and MBBRMF
Systems at different filtration fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h, membrane
area: 0.2 m2)
Table 4.6 Rc, Rp, Rm and RT at different permeate fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h,
membrane area: 0.2 m2)
Table A1. pH, DO and T in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8
mL/ min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
xii
Table A2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8
mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
Table A3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
Table B1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different aeration rates ( flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table B2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different aeration rates (flow rate; 8
mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table B3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
aeration rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table C1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table C2. MLSS and MLVSS of MBBR at different HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table C3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table D1. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates
(aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
Table D2. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different aeration rates (PE carrier
filling rate; 20%, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
Table D3. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different HRTs (PE carrier filling rate;
20%, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
Table E1. Total membrane resistance at different fluxes
Table E2. DOC, COD, PO4-P and NH4-N removal efficiency in MBBRMF at
different HRTs
xiii
ABSTRACT
Wastewater treatment technology has been improved and modified to get higher
removal efficiency and to meet the stringent effluent regulations. However, from a
worldwide perspective, wastewater treatment process is facing many challenges,
especially nutrients removal, thereby resulting in the serious concern for enhancement
and modification of the existing wastewater treatment processes to achieve better
removal efficiency. Nutrient and organic removal from wastewater is becoming an
important priority for wastewater treatment plants due to the detrimental impact of these
components on the receiving bodies. Therefore my research study aims to evaluate a
moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system for effective nutrient and organic removal
from municipal wastewater which has promising prospects in terms of achieving high
nutrient removal efficiency by reducing the operating cost. This study puts forward a
systematic study on the effect of polyethylene (PE) carriers filling rates, the influence of
aeration rate and different hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the organic and nutrient
removal from municipal wastewater using continuously operated MBBR system in
order to determine the optimum operating condition. To further verify the feasibility of
MBBR system operated at optimum condition, this system was combined with a
membrane filtration system to investigate the performance of the combined system in
terms of organic and nutrient removal efficiency. My research activities during my
research period were mainly focused on literature review in this field and lab scale
investigations. This report compiles introduction of the study, literature review,
materials and methodologies used, all the specific experimental results, findings and
conclusion drawn from the whole study period.
xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
It is expected that the Australian population in the major cities will increase by 35%, or
4.5 million people, by the year 2030 (ABS, 2006) and the water used by that population
will be 62% of all water extracted. The wastewater produced by the increasing
population and the huge economical cost for the treatment of this wastewater will be the
major problem in future. In early stage, when the population was very few, waste
generated by them was limited and they dumped those wastes directly into natural water
bodies to purify naturally by dilution and natural bacterial breakdown. With the
urbanization and the changing life style, the production of domestic and industrial
wastewater has been increased. The harmful constituents also have been discharged
together with the generated wastewater directly into the natural water bodies and have
affected the surrounding environment, human health and aquatic lives. Hence, in order
to prevent natural water bodies from pollution, basic wastewater treatment facilities
have been introduced to reduce organics, nutrients and other harmful constituents and
help to prevent environmental pollution.
It is a known fact that nutrients are very essential for the development of all the living
beings and plants. However, use of excess amount of these elements can cause adverse
effects. For example, excess nutrient discharge in natural water bodies affects the
aquatic lives, enhances eutrophication process and increases oxygen demand in the
receiving water bodies while excess nutrient to human being may cause different types
of health problems. The eutrophication in water bodies occurs due to discharge of
wastewater produced by human daily activities, which contains high concentration of
nitrogen and phosphorous. Therefore, it is a pressing issue on improving treatment
technology capable to achieve higher removal efficiency of nutrient, organic matter and
other harmful constituents. Standalone biological wastewater treatment systems such as
conventional activated sludge systems (CAS), Aerated lagoons have been able to treat
these harmful constituents, but at the expense of huge economical cost to achieve the
desired effluent water quality particularly at medium to large wastewater treatment
facilities. Similarly, in order to withstand in the present competitive market, membrane
1
bioreactor (MBR) process efficiency has been widely used due to its high treated water
quality and high productivity. However, the sludge production from solid retention time
(SRT) control, chemical waste from the membrane cleaning, membrane fouling, the
membrane life span are the main hindrance in the MBR application (Broeck et al., 2012;
Pal et al., 2012; Phattaranawik et al., 2011; Galil et al., 2009)
Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology is one of the best options to overcome
these problems. At present, there are more than 500 large scale wastewater treatment
plants in 50 different countries all over the world based on MBBR processes in
operation. The technology has become popular in the field of wastewater treatment
because of its many advantages such as high capacity, high efficiency, relatively small
footprints compared with the conventional treatment systems. It also has capacity to
withstand the challenges of wastewater industry such as retrofitting the old treatment
plants, producing less sludge as a result of high biomass retention time, minimizing
process complexities and operators, eliminating the need of backwashing, and so on.
MBBR is a continuous flow process where higher concentration of active biomass can
be maintained for biological treatment without increasing the reactor size. The system is
mainly based on the aeration and special designed carriers to provide a surface
colonized by bacteria (Rahimi et al., 2011). The bioreactor provides favourable
condition to the microorganisms which are responsible for the sufficient removal and
conversion of harmful constituents from the wastewater. Aeration rate and carrier filling
rate play vital role to provide satisfied treatment efficiency (Jing et al., 2009). Odegaard
et al. (2000) stated in their study that the MBBR can be loaded with biofilm carrier up
to 70% of the reactors effective volume thus significantly reducing the required
footprint and allows carriers to move easily. However, experience has shown that
mixing efficiency decreased at higher percentage fills (Weiss et al., 2005) and the
performance efficiency of the reactor could vary with different types of biofilm carrier
used (Guo et al., 2010). As the biofilm carrier packing rate, aeration rate and hydraulic
retention time (HRT) have influence on the organics and nutrient removal efficiency,
and at the same time also increase the cost and energy consumption, it is an imperative
requirement to carry out a systematic study on the effect of carrier filling rates, aeration
rates and HRTs on the treatment efficiency in continuous MBBR system.
performance in terms of nutrient and organic removal efficiency. The literature review
is also integrated and related with the results of this research where relevant. The
materials, description of methodologies used for the study and the analytical methods
are presented in Chapter 3 under the title Materials and Methodology. Equations for
velocity measurement and circulation of kinetic energy for moving media, equations for
membrane resistance calculation, procedure for measurement of biomass growth on the
moving media and the procedure for the membrane module cleaning are also presented
in this chapter. The results obtained from the laboratory experiments are presented and
discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion focuses on the nutrient and organic removal
efficiency achieved from MBBR at different filling rates of PE carriers, different
aeration rates and HRTs so as to determine the optimum operating condition. The
evaluation of MBBR-MF are also included in Chapter 4. Conclusions of this research
and recommendations for future research are given in Chapter 5. References and
Appendices are included at the end of this thesis.
and human health. The ecosystem starts degrading in faster rate and the pollution affects
the ecosystem negatively. Some of the environmental and health effects of nutrient are
listed in Table 2.1.
In the scenario of limited source of appropriate water for drinking, farming, cleaning
etc. and raising problem of wastewater production and management, treating the
wastewater properly before it reaches the water bodies so that it will not hinder human
health and give extra burden to the surrounding environment and ecosystem is the main
alternative to support and preserve the limited water resources.
Nitrogen
Nitric acid
Phosphorus
References
Agency for
Toxic
Substances and
Disease
Registry, 2004;
Erisman et al.,
2011;
Camargo et al.,
2006
Cisneros et al.,
2010
Coats et al.,
2011;
EPA, 2007
Examples
Pathogenic bacteria, virus and
worm eggs
Effects
Risk when bathing and
eating shellfish
Fish death, odours
Nutrients
Nitrogen, phosphorus,
ammonium
Eutrophication, oxygen
depletion, toxic effect
Metals
Toxic effect,
bioaccumulation
Other inorganic
materials
Thermal effects
Hot water
Changing living
conditions for flora and
fauna
Hydrogen sulphide
Aesthetic inconveniences,
toxic effect
Radioactivity
Toxic effect
accumulation.
Other organic
materials
All countries and regions have their own wastewater discharge standard and the treated
wastewater effluent has to meet with increasingly stringent discharge standard. Table
2.3 lists the Australian discharge standards of treated wastewater into the aquatic
ecosystem (EPA, 2005).
Discharge limits
Aquatic Ecosystem
Fresh Water
Marine
6.5-9
15
10
10
10
>6
>6
20
10
20
10
5
5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.0044
1
0.005
0.005
0.0001
0.0001
0.15
0.015
0.005
0.07
0.0001
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.80
0.3
0.3
0.000001
0.000004
0.003
0.003
to fill this gap of demand and supply in an economical ways. Some of these
technologies are described in this section.
Wastewater can be treated by physical, biological, and chemical treatment methods in
different steps; preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary. In preliminary treatment
stage, all the big particles like grit, rags, leaves which can damage the equipments are
removed. From the primary treatment stage, floating and settleable materials in
wastewater are removed by sedimentation process or by adding some chemicals to
enhance the removal of suspended and dissolved solids. In secondary treatment stage,
biological and chemical processes are used to remove most of the organic matters from
the wastewater. From the tertiary treatment stage, residual suspended solids and other
constituents that cannot be removed by secondary treatment are removed by using an
additional combination of physical and chemical processes (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
The type and order of treatment vary from one treatment plant to another according to
the wastewater type.
The advantages and disadvantages of some of the treatment technologies used in
wastewater treatment are described, including, but not limited to, in Table 2.4. Some of
these technologies are relatively easy, reliable and economical to construct and operate.
However, some of these simple and low cost treatment technologies may be unreliable
for the systems that require frequent inspections and constant maintenance to ensure
smooth operation. For this reason, and also because of the land requirements for
biologically based technologies, many communities prefer mechanically-based
technologies, which tend to require less land and permit better control of the operation.
However, these systems generally have a high cost and require more skilled personnel
to operate them.
10
Advantages
Disadvantages
Adsorption
Flotation
Chemical
oxidation
Produces no significant
wastes except Fenton,
reduced operation and
monitoring costs, compatible
with post treatment monitored
natural attenuation and can
even enhance aerobic and
anaerobic biodegradation of
residual hydrocarbons.
11
References
Coagulation/
Flocculation
Air Stripping
12
Chemical
Precipitation
EPA, 1998
Biological treatment
Aerobic
treatment
13
Anaerobic
treatment
Membrane
Technology
14
Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
(AOPs)
Membrane
bioreactor
(MBR)
15
Relatively expensive to
install and operate, required
frequent monitoring and
maintenance, limitations
imposed by pH,
temperature and pressure
requirements to meet the
membrane tolerance, less
efficient oxygen transfer
due to high MLSS
concentration.
Moving bed
biofilm
reactor
(MBBR)
16
broken or of low quality (Guo et al., 2010). Therefore it is very important to make sure
that the membranes used in the system pass the membrane reliability tests. The removal
efficiency of the membranes depends on its pore size and the performance of these
membranes can impact by the cake layer formation on and within the membrane surface
by the deposition of contaminants during the filtration process.
The principal of MF is physical separation. MF is used for the removal of larger
particles. Generally, the membrane pore size for MF is 0.1 10 m. MF membranes can
remove most of the bacteria and can be implemented in many different water treatment
processes when particles with a diameter greater than 0.1 m needs to be removed from
a liquid. MF is also used as pretreatment for another membrane process like UF, NF or
RO (Renou et al., 2008). For complete removal of viruses, UF is required. The pores of
UF membrane can remove particles of 0.001 0.1 m from fluids. In UF process,
suspended solids and solutes of high molecular weight are retained, while water and
solutes of low molecular weight can pass through the membranes. UF offers higher
removals of solids than MF, but operates at higher pressures. UF in combination with
NF or RO in wastewater treatment can be a suitable treatment method which can
remove suspended solids and minimize the membrane fouling problems. UF membranes
have asymmetrical "skinned" surface structure and depth fouling does not occur with
this type of membrane, resulting in high and consistent membrane productivity
(Tchobanoglous et al., 1998). MF and UF can be used as the pre treatment process
before RO treatment in order to prevent the RO membrane from fouling problem due to
the suspended solids present in feed water.
In the previous few years, a revolution has been made in conventional wastewater
treatment technology by combining the membrane separation technology and
conventional bioreactor technology which has most promising prospect in terms of high
quality effluent generation and led to a new focus on wastewater treatment. MBR is one
of this technology which not only removes the organic and nutrient from the wastewater
but also remove the biological pollutants such as bacteria, pathogens and viruses. It
contributes to very compact systems working with high biomass concentration and
achieving a low sludge production and high organic carbon removal with an excellent
effluent quality. This technology has become more popular, abundant, and accepted in
recent years for the treatment of many types of wastewaters mostly for BOD and
18
nutrient removal, whereas the CAS process cannot cope with either composition of
wastewater or fluctuations of the wastewater flow rate (Sutherland, 2010; Radjenovic et
al., 2008). MBR have been widely applied at pilot or full scale on industrial wastewater
treatment.
19
laboratory simulated emulsified oily wastewater and factory wastewater over 95% and
the fouled membrane could be cleaned by using conventional cleaning methods.
UF is generally used in industrial and water reuse areas which can separate particles
smaller than 0.1 m and the pathogens that cannot be separate by MF. Generally the
function of MF and UF are similar but UF is considered as more efficient than MF to
separate pathogens and suspended and colloidal particles from liquid. UF are combined
with other conventional treatment processes in order to increase the removal efficiency
of the system and helpful to remove microbial contaminants, turbidity, dissolved
organic matter etc. present in the wastewater. Mohammadi et al. (2005) studied the
treatment of the wastewater by UF-powdered activated carbon (UF-PAC) and their
experimental results showed that UF is better than the conventional biological method
and UF-PAC is better than UF. They used PAC in feed circulation loop for the UF
system with a concentration of about 0.1% in their experiment which improved water
quality and increased permeation flux. Their results showed that the wastewater treated
by UF-PAC has a removal efficiency of 94, 93, 100, 99 and 43% of chemical oxygen
demand (COD), TOC, total suspended solid (TSS), PO4 and Cl respectively.
The main problem in UF membranes are they start fouling with the accumulation of
organic materials on or within the pores of the membrane which reduce the filtration
capacity and the permeability of the membrane (Jarusutthirak et al., 2001). Because of
this problem, the operating costs of UF process become higher and impact its increasing
application in the field of wastewater treatment and reuse.
relatively high energy. Using new membrane techniques, like transfer flow modules,
creates the possibilities of a more widespread application. MBR technologies provide
the potential for reuse wastewater generated from industries or municipalities and
decrease in sludge production. Since the use of CAS process in wastewater treatment
has some disadvantage like lack of footprint, problem in secondary sedimentation due to
excess filamentous bacteria growth in the sludge, MBR can withstand these problems
and capable to produce high quality treated water and also can be reused (Drews, 2010;
Aryal et al., 2009). The MBR combines suspended growth unit responsible for the
biodegradation of the waste compounds and the membrane filtration module for the
physical separation of the treated water from the mixed liquor using a porous membrane
that helps to retain high microbial concentration in the reactor and increase the
biological operation capacity of the reactor. The MBR process was introduced by the
late 1960s, as soon as commercial scale UF and MF membranes were available (Leclech et al., 2006). The original process was introduced by Dorr-Olivier Inc. and
combined the use of an activated sludge bioreactor with a cross flow membrane
filtration loop (Smith et al., 1969). Although the research on MBR technology began
only few decades ago, it has developed quite rapidly and become one of the important
technologies in wastewater treatment process. Up to this date, MBR systems have
mostly been used to treat industrial wastewater, domestic wastewater and specific
municipal wastewater. Requirement of higher removal of organic matters, suspended
solids, nutrient and harmful bacteria from the wastewater and the requirement to meet
the strict effluent discharge quality in terms of nutrient and micropollutants, the main
cause for the eutrophication and decrease the water quality in the receiving water
bodies, are the important issues in the present wastewater treatment processes (Ersu et
al., 2008; Kraume et al., 2005). MBR technology have become a most promising
process to overcome these issues and the nutrient removal from the wastewater and
several studies have been focused on nutrient removal from wastewater using MBR
(Galil et al., 2009; Ersu et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2008; Kraume et al., 2005; Song et al.,
2004; Adam et al., 2002; Lesjean et al., 2002).
The advantages and disadvantages of the MBR are listed in the Table 2.5.
21
Table 2.5 Advantages and disadvantages of MBR technology (Melin et al., 2006)
Advantages
Disadvantages
22
The breakthrough for the MBR came in 1989 with the idea of Yamamoto and coworkers to submerge the membranes in the bioreactor which allowed the MBR to grow
faster (Sutherland, 2010). Until then, MBRs were designed with the separation device
located external to the reactor (side stream MBR) and relied on high trans-membrane
pressure (TMP) to maintain filtration. The resultant submerged membrane bioreactor
(SMBR) used two orders of magnitude less energy than the side stream version. In
submerged configurations, aeration is considered as one of the major parameters on
process performances both in hydraulic and biological. Aeration maintains solids in
suspension, scours the membrane surface and provides oxygen to the biomass, leading
to a better biodegradability and cell synthesis.
In MBR, membrane separation is carried out in two ways: 1) vacuum driven membranes
immersed directly into the bioreactor, which operates in a dead-end mode in submerged
MBRs and 2) pressure driven filtration in side stream MBRs (Radjenovic et al., 2008).
Submerged MBR configuration is very common and effective for wastewater treatment
because it consumes significantly less energy for the operations compared to side
stream MBR. The configuration of submerged and side stream MBR is shown in Figure
2.3 (A) and (B) respectively.
23
(A)
(B)
Figure 2.3 Configuration of MBR systems: (A) submerged MBR and (B) side-stream
MBR configuration
Both configurations need a shear over the membrane surface to prevent membrane
fouling with the constituents of mixed liquor. In side stream MBR, this shear is
provided through pumping while in immersed MBR aeration is employed to provide
shear. Fouling is more pronounced in side stream MBR module due to its higher
permeate flux.
There are different types of membrane materials; polymeric (polyethylene,
polyethersulfone, polysulfone, polyethylene, polyethersulfone, polysulfone), ceramic
and metallic. Polymeric and ceramic membranes are mainly used while metallic
membrane filter has very specific applications which do not relate to MBR technology.
These membrane materials must be formed in such a way as to allow water to pass
through it (Judd, 2007). There are five principal membrane configurations currently
employed in practice, namely hollow fiber (HF), spiralwound, plate-and-frame (i.e.
Flat sheet (FS), plated filter cartridge and tubular.
In HF module, large amounts of HF membranes of size 0.8 mm - 1.5 mm fine screen
make a bundle, and the ends of the fibers are sealed in epoxy block connected with the
outside of the housing. The water can flow from the inside to the outside of the
membrane and also from the outside to the inside, depends on the production of
different manufacturers. These membranes can work under pressure and vacuum
(Radjenovic et al., 2008).
24
The spiral-wound configuration is mostly used for the NF and RO process. The
membranes are wound around the perforated tube through which permeate goes out.
Many membrane modules can be installed together in series or parallel in plants with
high capacity. Plate-and-frame membrane modules comprise of FS membranes with
separators and/or support membranes. A fine screen of 2 mm 3 mm is usually
employed for FS membrane systems. The pieces of these sheets are clamped onto a
plate. The water flows across the membrane and permeate is being collected through
pipes emerging from the interior of membrane module in a process that operates under
vacuum. Plated filter cartridge and tubular membrane configuration modules are not
widely used as the other three modules. Typically, tubular membranes are
predominantly used for side stream configurations (Radjenovic et al., 2008).
The MBR process can be configured in many different ways depending on projectspecific nutrient removal objectives. The commercial significance of this technology is
considerable, with applications in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
becoming increasingly widespread. The market value of MBR technology was
approximately US $ 217 million in 2005, rising at an average annual growth rate of
10.9% that shows the MBR technology is growing significantly faster than the other
advanced wastewater treatment technologies (Judd, 2007). The MBR technology is
becoming more cost effective because of the decrease in cost of membrane and
membrane process and becoming more environmental friendly. The main driving factor
for the advancement of technological development, innovation and implementation of
membrane bioreactor technology in wastewater treatment to this extent is legislation
and the need of the industries which are working in this field. However, higher
operational costs due to membrane aeration, membrane fouling and the requirement of
chemicals for membrane cleaning which are harmful for the environment are the main
barriers in the widespread application of membrane bioreactor technology in wastewater
treatment (Drews, 2010)
Membrane pore clogging and sludge cake formation on membranes can be attributed to
the membrane fouling. Membrane fouling leads to decline in permeate flux or increase
in TMP, necessary to frequent membrane cleaning and replacement (Baek et al., 2009).
Therefore, for the economical and efficient operation of membrane process, it is
becoming very important to take a remarkable step on membrane fouling control.
Membrane fouling mechanism can be described as (Guo et al., 2012; Meng et. al.,
2009):
1. Adsorption of solutes or colloids within/on membranes,
2. Deposition of sludge flocs onto the membrane surface,
3. Formation of a cake layer on the membrane surface,
4. Detachment of foulants attributed mainly to shear forces,
5. Biological fouling and
6. Pore blocking.
Membrane flux and TMP are the best indicators of membrane fouling; membrane
fouling occurs during an increase in TMP to maintain a particular flux or during
decrease in flux when the system is operated at constant pressure (Guo et al., 2012).
Under constant flux operation, TMP increases to compensate for the fouling. On the
other hand, under constant pressure operation, flux declines due to membrane fouling.
The TMP jump is believed to be the consequence of severe membrane fouling. The
sudden TMP jump is not only due to the local flux effect, but also caused by the sudden
change of biofilm or cake layer structure (Zhang et al., 2006). A more recent
investigation also confirmed that the sudden TMP jump is closely related to the sudden
increase in the concentration of EPS at the bottom of the cake layer, which might be
attributed to the death of bacteria in the inner of cake layer (Hwang et al., 2008). Thus,
to control membrane fouling, occurrence of TMP jump must be minimized.
Generally, membrane fouling can be classified as:
a. Removable and irremovable fouling
The removable fouling can be removed easily by physical processes such as
backwashing. The irremovable fouling cannot be removed by physical measures but by
27
chemical cleaning. The removable fouling and reversible fouling are the same. The
removable fouling is caused by loosely attached foulants or the cake layer formed on the
surface of the membrane while irremovable fouling is caused by pore blocking and
strongly attached foulants during filtration. The irreversible fouling is a perpetual
fouling and cannot be removed by any measures (Chang et al., 2002).
b. Biofouling, organic fouling and inorganic fouling
Biofouling is the deposition, growth and metabolism of undesirable bacteria cells or
flocs on the surface of the membranes, which has stimulated a significant concern in
membrane filtration processes. Biofouling is a major problem for low pressure
membranes like UF and MF because must foulants (microbial flocs) in MBRs are much
larger than the membrane pore size. The deposition of biopolymers (proteins and
polysaccharides) on the membranes causes the organic fouling. Due to small size, the
biopolymers can be deposited onto the membranes more readily due to the permeate
flow, but they have low back transport velocity due to lift forces in comparison to large
particles (colloids and sludge flocs) (Meng et al., 2009). The inorganic fouling can be
formed through two ways; chemical precipitation and biological precipitation. In
general, membrane fouling in MBRs is mainly governed by biofouling and organic
fouling rather than inorganic fouling, although all of them take place simultaneously
during membrane filtration of activated sludge (Meng et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2002).
All the parameters involved in the design and operation of membrane processes have an
influence on membrane fouling. The factors affecting membrane fouling can be
classified into four groups: membrane characteristics, biomass characteristics, feed
water characteristics and operating conditions as shown in Figure 2.4 below (Le-clech et
al., 2006; Chang et al., 2002). There are also some membrane fouling constituents
which determine the severity of fouling and technique needed to be used to control it.
These fouling constituents can be organic or inorganic particles which form a cake layer
on the membrane surface or microbiological organisms which can stick to the
membrane surface and hence produce biofouling. Some of these factors have a direct
influence on fouling while others enhance the fouling propensity. Therefore it is very
important to fully understand the biological, chemical and physical phenomena
occurring in membrane operation to evaluate fouling propensity and mechanisms.
28
Biomass
Operating condition
Configuration
MLSS
Configuration
Material
EPS
CFV
Hydrophobicity
Floc structure
Aeration
Porosity
Dissolved matter
HRT/SRT
Pore size
Floc size
TMP
water will be conditioned chemically to limit chemical precipitation within the units.
Back flushing with water and /or air is the most commonly used methods to improve the
membrane performance by moving colloidal particles and cell waste away from
membrane pores into the mixed liquor and eliminate the accumulated materials from
membrane surface. Chemical treatment is used to remove constituents that are not
removed during back washing (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
Several investigations have been performed to remove the membrane fouling and to get
more detailed information about it (Aryal et al., 2009; Baek et al. 2009; Metzger et al.,
2007; Le-clech et al., 2006; Jacquemet et al., 2005). Control of fouling is of utmost
importance. It can be reduced by maintaining turbulent conditions, operating at subcritical flux and /or by the selection of a suitable fouling resistance membrane material
(Liang et al., 2012). Chang (2011) did the critical review of previous researches and
concluded that the submerged hollow fiber membrane modules are effective membrane
module design for the MBR applications. However, the cost efficiency of the system
depends on the membrane properties, fiber diameter and configurations, aeration types
and the cassette design. For the long term stable operation of the membrane, it is
necessary to do the regular maintenance and recovery chemical cleaning of the
membranes. Sombatsompop et al. (2006) evaluated the biofouling phenomenon in
suspended and attached MBR systems during their research and found that MLSS
concentrations play vital role in the fouling process. They concluded that the membrane
fouling increased with increase in MLSS concentration and it is affected by the design
of operating system i.e. reactor with and without the media. They found out the attached
growth reactor has lower fouling and prolong filtration compared to the suspended
reactor due to the difference in particle size distribution of biomass between the two
reactors. Kim et al. (2008) conducted the experiment to control the membrane fouling
by changing the depth of membrane module in SMBR and concluded that if the
membrane module is elevated vertically to the upper zone of the reactor where MLSS
concentration is lower compared to the lower zone of the reactor, the membrane fouling
can be reduced and total nitrogen removal efficiency can also be improved. Park et al.
(2010) also carried out the experiment to reduce the membrane fouling by using a
vertically oriented hollow fiber membrane module equipped with a simultaneous
upward and downward air sparging. In this study, two different membrane air sparging
configurations; simultaneous upward and downward and single upward air sparging
30
were used to compare the fouling propensity in terms of TMP increasing rate,
membrane permeability decreasing rate, irreversible fouling coefficient and fouling
resistance values. This research concluded that the dual header vertically oriented HF
membrane module with simultaneous up and downward air sparging configuration was
more efficient than the single upward air sparging configuration in terms of reduced
membrane fouling rate and enhanced membrane permeability which means reduction in
the operating cost.
However, many researches have been done from more than decades in membrane
fouling and many advanced information have been achieved in this area, membrane
fouling in MBR is still complicated to understand because of its complex characteristics
and some of its phenomena which are difficult to understand. This complex nature of
membrane fouling cannot be explained by any single technique (Meng et al., 2010).
Improved aeration reduced MLSS concentration in the bioreactor, membrane
backwashing and improved membrane modules are some of the processes that have
been done to control membrane fouling. It is very important to carry out further research
in membrane fouling in order to expand the use of membrane technology in wastewater
treatment.
anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic conditions to remove nutrient. For nitrogen removal
aerobic-anoxic condition is favorable while alternating anaerobic-aerobic condition is
better for the phosphorous removal. Attached growth treatment technology has become
popular and promising method for the nutrient removal. Many successful researches
have been done using this technology for the successful biological nutrient removal
from different types of wastewater. Nowadays, specially designed biomass carriers such
as plastic media or polyurethane foam have been used in wastewater treatment process
to enhance the nutrient removal efficiency.
2NO2- + O2
2NO3-
Nitrification process requires adequate oxygen, long SRT, low food to microorganism
ratio, adequate temperature and pH. It reaches the maximum rate at dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentration of 1 mg/L or more, pH between 6.5 - 7.0, and temperature between
30C - 35C.
32
Carbon, oxygen, pH, nitrate concentration and temperature play a major role in the
denitrification process. Optimum condition for denitrification occur at pH between 7
8.5, temperature between 5C 30C and DO less than 0.5 mg/L, while readily
biodegradable COD is used as a source of organic carbon.
synthesis and energy transport. Normally, an anoxic reactor followed by anaerobic and
aerobic reactor is used for the phosphorus removal. Adam et al. (2002) carried out the
MBR bench scale pilot plant in parallel to the conventional plant under the similar
operation condition and their study showed that the MBR can remove phosphorus
effectively.
Phosphorus removal in wastewater is achieved mostly by phosphate accumulating
organism (PAO) which can store phosphorus within its cell. PAO store volatile fatty
acid (VFA) as intracellular products. For the biological phosphorus removal, VFA in
wastewater in anaerobic condition and DO in aerobic condition is required (Fuhs et al.,
1975).
concentration, which enables stability under high organic and hydraulic loading, very
high sludge residence time, lower sensitivity to toxic effects, and easier adaptation to
feed pollutants. In addition, the compact size of these systems drastically reduces the
capital cost while operating cost is minimal in cases where natural aeration takes place
(trickling filters and RBCs) (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). Disadvantages are a larger land
requirement, poor operation in cold weather, and potential odor problems. There are
many variations and combinations of these processes, sometimes referred to as hybrids
that use the attached growth process in combination with other technologies
(Sombatsompop et al., 2006). The biomass growth systems can generally be classified
as shown in Figure 2.5.
Biomass in wastewater
Suspended growth
Dispersed growth
Lagoons
Flocculated growth
Activated sludge
Anaerobic sludge
Blanket reactor
Attached growth/Biofilm
Trickling filter
Rotating biological contactor
Biological activated sludge
anaerobic
Hybrid growth
Fluidized bed reactor
Expanded bed reactor
Immersed media systems
Porous support systems
Carriers activated sludge
Figure 2.5 Biomass growth systems in wastewater treatment systems (Jianlong et al.,
2000).
Attached growth processes can be classified into two groups with regard to the carrier
status as; fixed bed and moving bed reactors. The moving bed reactors are defined as
the biomass growth on small carrier materials that move along with water in the reactor
(e.g. Rotating biological contactor). In the fixed film systems the media are held in
place, allowing the wastewater to flow over the bed (such as trickling filters). Figure 2.6
35
best illustrates these two types of reactors. In most cases, drains under the media collect
the effluent and either send it back through the filter or send it on for further treatment.
Different types of attached growth systems for wastewater treatment are summarized in
Table 2.6.
Effluen
Influe
MBBR
Effluen
Influe
Fixed bed bioreactor
Figure 2.6 Typical diagram for MBBR and fixed bed bioreactor.
The attached growth bioreactor using specific materials is an alternative process to
overcome from the problem of fouling in MBR (Ngo et al., 2006). Combining a biofilm
reactor with membrane separation of the suspended solids may help to reduce the effect
of membrane fouling by high biomass concentrations (Leiknes et al., 2001). Biological
processes often required large land area due to the requirement for high HRT. They also
require high energy input for aeration and sludge management that is another problem
with these processes. Attached growth biofilm can form aerobic zone, anoxic zone and
anaerobic zone along the direction of mass transfer, providing a favourable environment
for simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. It could be presumed that the biofilm
can improve the total nitrogen removal in aerobic phase and inhibit the transfer of
nitrate into the anaerobic phase. As a result, simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus
removal could be resolved in a single tank (Yang et al., 2010).
36
Comments
High surface area for biofilm attachment
Require low power for operation
Not volume effective
High surface area for biofilm attachment
Mechanical failure
High surface area for biofilm attachment
Simultaneous biological treatment and
suspended solid removal
Poor distribution of the load on the hole carrier
Simultaneous biological treatment and
suspended solid removal
Need backwashing
Highest volumetric rate for carbon and
nitrogen removal
Stability for shock loading
Hydraulic instability, expensive
Good mixing capacities and enhanced mass
transfer
Good oxygen transfer,
Auto-regulation of biofilm thickness
Simple distribution of liquid flow that enable
raw unsettled wastewater to be treated directly.
No need for high rate effluent recirculation and
concomitant pumping energy
Maximize biomass concentration in reactor
Increase cost to the system due to added
support medias.
Loukidou et al. (2001) concluded on their experiment that the attached growth biofilm
treatment method can be an attractive another option to the CAS process for the
effective biological removal of carbon and nitrogen content from sanitary landfill
leachate. Khan et al. (2011) studied the performance of attached and suspended growth
process in membrane bioreactor. They found the presence of small bio particles having
a higher microbial activity and the growth of complex biomass captured within the
suspended sponge carrier resulted in improved total nitrogen and total phosphorus
removal efficiency in an attached growth membrane bioreactor. Attached growth
bioreactors having specific materials like sponge, polyethylene sheet has been used to
modify biological processes and to obtain effective nutrient removal efficiencies.
37
38
39
Polyethylene
beads (PB)
PVA-gel
Tezontle grains
Sand
Polyethylene
granule (PG)
Cylindrical
polypropylene (CP)
Poly propylene
Polyethylene Ball
HDPE grains
LDPE grains
BioPortzTM
WD-f10-4 bioMTM
Polyethylene
sheet (PS)
KaldnesTM K1
KaldnesTM K3
polypropylene
cubes
Natrix C10/10
Figure 2.7 The physical appearance of the media used in attached growth processes
40
Sponges (S)
polyurethane
SESSIL
Polyethylene tape
Loofa sponge
Shape
Size
Specific Surface
area (m2/g)
PB
Beads
0.9 mm
2.5410-3
PG
Granules
3 mm
1.2210-3
CP
Cylindrical
Int. 3 mm
Ext 4 mm
Length 5 mm
5.8110-3
PS
Sheet
11 cm
1.9410-3
Cubic
151515 mm
0.91
K1
Cylindrical
10 mm
Length 7mm
5.010-3
K3
Cylindrical
10 mm
Length 7 mm
0.510-3
Spherical
4 mm
BioPortzTM
Cylindrical
20 mm
Length 20 mm
0.5810-3
poly propylene
Cylindrical
granules
0.3510-3
Polyethylene Ball
Circular
10 mm
Length 7 mm
0.3210-3
WD-F10-4bioMTM
Cylindrical
25 mm
0.910-3
10 mm
Length 10 mm
20.5 mm
Length 18.2 mm
2.7710-3
Cylindrical
20 mm
Length 15 mm
0.910-3
Ceramic spheres
Spherical
Outer 20 cm
inner 18 cm
Length 18 cm
1.03210-3
Tezontle grains
Cylindrical
3.25 mm
1.2110-3
HDPE grains
Granules
3.0 mm
1.17710-3
LDPE grains
Granules
4.5 mm
0.75510-3
Polypropylene grains
Granules
3.5 mm
1.00110-3
Cubes
252525 mm
1.10210-3
PVA-gel beads
Flocor
RMP-HSP
PVC plastic
tubes
Nonwoven hollow
cylinder
Polyurethane cubes
Cylindrical
Cylindrical
0.1510-3
41
Polyethylene tape
SESSIL
Loofa sponge
Tapes
30150 mm
1.09810-3
Cylindrical
Length 36.25 cm
Natrix C 10/10
Cylindrical
31-36 mm
Length 32 mm
0.3110-3
Circular
3.0 mm
820 m-1
Cubes
555 mm
Sand
Polyether foam cube
The biofilm carrier should provide a suitable larger internal surface area and good
surface texture for quick biomass growth and to hold biomass against shear and
sloughing (Chaudhary et al., 2003). The design of biofilm carrier is important due to
requirements for good mass transfer and nutrients to microorganisms. The key
parameters of the biofilm carriers are its shape and the percentage of the tank filled with
it (Robescu et al., 2009). For the effective growth of biofilm and its performance in a
reactor we need to take special care while we design the specific surface area of the
carrier and the filling fraction of the carrier in the reactor (Odegaard et al., 2000). The
specific surface area of the carrier reflects the amount of surface area available for
biofilm development per unit volume of the carrier on a bulk volume basis. The reactor
specific surface area equals the specific surface area of the carrier multiplied by the
fraction of the total reactor volume that the carrier occupies (bulk volume basis) (Weiss
et al., 2005).
The attachment of microorganism to the surface and the subsequent growth of the
biofilm community depend upon the surface of the biofilm carriers that are rougher,
more hydrophobic, and coated with surface-conditioning films (Vayenas, 2011). Sponge
has been considered as a reasonable attached growth media because it can act as a
mobile carrier for active biomass resulting in improved organic and nutrient removal as
well as reduces fouling of the membrane by reducing the cake layers formed on the
surface of the membrane and retain microorganisms by incorporating a hybrid growth
system (Guo et al., 2009; Ngo et al., 2006).
42
Biofilm media
Liquid inflow
Biofilm layer
Liquid outflow
43
The bacteria in the biomass layer grow and some will die. The dead bacteria lose its
sticky characteristics and it is removed from the biomass layer by the action of the
moving liquid while the fixed bacteria within the media are very stable and active.
Denitrification can be achieved in the attached growth system in the lower parts of the
system where anoxic conditions exist (Ngo et al., 2006). In an aqueous environment,
microorganisms attach to wet surfaces, multiply, and embed themselves in a slimy
matrix composed of the EPS they produce, forming a biofilm. Attached cells metabolize
prevailing energy and carbon substrates, consume electron acceptors, grow, replicate,
and produce more insoluble extracellular polymers, predominantly polysaccharides,
thus accumulating a viable biofilm community. As the microorganisms grow, the
thickness of the biofilm layer in the carrier increases that results the consumption of
diffused oxygen and the metabolization of adsorbed organic matter before it can reach
the microorganisms near the carrier face. These results the microorganisms near the
carrier face enter into an endogenous phase of growth and lose their ability to cling to
the carrier surface. The liquid flow then washed away the biofilm from the carrier, and a
new biofilm layer starts to grow (Vayenas, 2011).
44
MBBR has been successfully applied to full-scale treatment of municipal and industrial
wastewaters (Pal et al., 2012). Specially designed biomass carriers having high specific
surface area, surface roughness, high durability, strength and porosity is one of the
important parts of MBBR. In MBBR system, the biofilm helps to maintain high
biomass age which gives favorable conditions for the specific slowly growing bacteria
(nitrifiers) (Rahimi et al., 2011). Many studies carried out for nutrient removal from
wastewater using MBBR found that MBBR technique is very useful to meet the recent
stringent rules of nutrient discharge limits. In this technique, simultaneous nitrification
and denitrification is possible in the continuously aerated bioreactor by introducing
biofilm carrier in the reactor. For example, Guo et al. (2010) did experiment on the
MBBR using Polyurethane foam (PU) cubes with different sizes as carrier and got
100% phosphorus removal. Similarly, Chu et al. (2011) investigated the performance of
MBBR using PU foam and biodegradable polymers including polycaprolactone (PCL)
as biofilm carriers separately and found that MBBR filled with PU carriers gave good
removal of TOC and ammonium (90% and 65% removal efficiency) while MBBR filled
with biodegradable PCL carriers are good for TN removal (58% removal efficiency).
Research to optimize wastewater treatment units has been demanding because of the
strict environmental standards to be faced in coming future. Integrated MBR with
MBBR is the most popular treatment configuration (Guo et al., 2008). MBR system is
widely used in the wastewater treatment by the improvements in membrane stability
and cost effectiveness. However, MBR is facing problem of membrane fouling which
lead to decrease in membrane performance by the deposition of foulants on the
membrane surface resulting decrease in flux and membrane area. From researches and
study, MBBR or addition of specially designed media in the MBR is proven as one of
the best option to minimize these problems and enhance the nutrient removal efficiency.
The use of media for attached growth in the MBR system become popular in the field of
biological nutrient removal from different types of wastewater. Khan et al. (2011)
carried out an experiment using suspended and attached growth MBR for nutrient
removal from synthetic wastewater and they concluded that the attached growth MBR
has higher efficiency for the nutrient removal compared to the suspended growth MBR.
Guo et al. (2009) investigated the effect of different sponge sizes on a submerged MBR
for improved nutrient removal from wastewater and concluded that the system is
effective for high nutrient removal. Similarly, Leiknes et al. (2007) investigated the
45
of largest surface area. The maximum denitrification rate with methanol as carbon
source was 55 gN/m3.h (17 C). They achieved around 90% removal of inorganic and
total nitrogen when the process reached the optimal operating condition. The
comparison between two carriers of different specific area showed that the carrier with
the largest surface area is better for the full scale nitrification of leachate.
Ngo et al. (2006) developed a study to further enhance the performance of a novel
attached cultures sponge bioreactor and emphasize the approaches towards making an
alternative system that is compact, cost effective and low maintenance in a wide range
of applications. For this study, they used a laboratory scale attached cultures sponge
bioreactor consisting of a number of trays and selected the sponge type, shape and the
sponge tray inclination very specifically. Each tray was designed to hold sponge of
different shapes like semi circular, semi hexagonal and triangular. The sponge was
reticulated, flexible polyester polyurethane sponge having unique three dimensional,
uniform open cell structures. They used two types of wastewater: one was synthetic
wastewater and the other was biologically treated sewage effluent from a water
reclamation plant. The synthetic wastewater was fed to an influent channel that flows
under gravity onto the surface of the sponge bioreactor which was placed at different
inclination angles (0, 30, 45, 60 and 90). The suitable sponge type and shape for the
system was selected through the investigation on biomass growth onto the sponge at a
predetermined flow rate. The biologically treated wastewater was fed into the sponge
bioreactor system through the collection tank. This system was designed to run the trays
at a 10 inclination. The performance of this system was evaluated in terms of total
nitrogen, ammonia, ortho-phosphate and chemical oxygen demand. The results showed
that the highest NH4-N removal was about 90% in 18 days operation with an effluent
concentration of less than 0.04 mg/L. The COD removal efficiency varied in the range
of 20 - 100%. This study concluded that the selected triangular shaped sponge with a
sponge type of 70 - 90 cells/in2 and designated slope of sponge tray at 10 led to the
highest pollutant removal.
Yang et al. (2010) studied the biological nutrient removal in a sequencing batch moving
bed membrane bioreactor. They added carriers in the reactor instead of activated sludge
in order to advance the nutrient removal efficiency. For this study, they used a 30 L
reactor and divided the reactor into two parts with a volume ratio of 4:1 using a piece of
47
clapboard having bores in it. In the bigger part of the reactor, they filled 30% of the
volume of the reactor with a new kind of non-woven carriers having density 0.27 g/cm3
and specific surface area 900 m2/m3. To avoid the carriers accumulating around the
membrane module, they put the hollow fiber membrane made of polypropylene with a
pore size of 0.1m and the filtration area 0.4m2 in the small part of the reactor. They
run the system continuously for about 5 months. They inoculated the system with
activated sludge taken from the secondary settlement tank of municipal wastewater
treatment plant and fed synthetic wastewater contained 400 mg COD/L, 30 mg NH4N/L and 4 mg PO4-P/L. The water was fed into the reactor in the anaerobic phase and
the discharging of water occurred in aerobic phase. This study showed good
performance on organic substance and nitrogen removal. The TN, ammonium nitrogen
and COD removal efficiencies were averaged at 82.6%, 95.6% and 93.5% respectively.
The total phosphorus removal was closely correlated with the length of aerobic and
anaerobic phase. The average TP removal efficiency reached to 84.1% when both
aerobic and anaerobic phases were operated at HRT of 2 hours (h). This study showed
that the sequencing batch operation mode was beneficial for improving membrane
fouling since filamentous bacteria was restrained in the reactor.
Guo et al. (2009) developed a study to investigate the performance of three different
sizes of reticulated polyester urethane sponge (S28-30/45R, S28-30/60R and S28-30/90R)
coupled with continuous aerated submerged membrane bioreactor to improve the
phosphorus and nitrogen removal, improving membrane fouling and enhancing
permeate flux. Synthetic wastewater containing glucose, ammonium sulphate,
potassium dihydrogen phosphate and trace nutrients was used in the experiment. 10% of
the volume of the reactor was filled with the sponge. The sponge submerged membrane
bioreactor was inoculated with sludge from the local wastewater treatment plant and
adapted to synthetic wastewater. The three different sizes of sponge were evaluated
depending upon the removal efficiencies of NH4-N, PO4-P, DOC, COD and biomass
concentration. The result of this experiment showed that the denser the sponge, the
more biomass can grow on the sponge. All three sizes of sponge performed well to
remove DOC, PO4-P whereas S28-30/45R and S28-30/60R can remove more than 99%
NH4-N from wastewater. The single size sponge submerged membrane bioreactor gave
good results in terms of organic and nutrient removal. Also mixed sponge in
conjunction with hollow fiber submerged membrane bioreactor and non-woven
48
improve the nitrification rate in the system. They also evaluated the system for
improved nitrogen removal in SSMBR using S60R sponge. They examined three
filtration fluxes (10, 15 and 20 L/m2.h) under pH values of 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5 and 8.
They maintained the MLSS of suspended growth at 10 g/L and used sponge volume of
10%. The result showed the more than 96% DOC removal efficiency when the filtration
flux and pH varied in the range of 10 - 20 L/m2.h and 5 - 8 respectively. While optimum
ammonium removal (100%) was achieved at pH of 6 - 7 and filtration flux of 10 and 20
l/m2h and more than 91% phosphorus removal was obtained at pH range of 6 - 7 at all
filtration flux range.
Odegaard et al. (2000) analyzed the influence of carrier size and shape on the
performance of moving bed biofilm process related to highly loaded plants working in
municipal wastewater. For this experiment, they used a pilot plant with one moving bed
bioreactor and a linked settling tank, operated in parallel on the same wastewater. They
carried out the comparison test at various COD loads using carriers of different size and
shape having same density and analyze the results on the basis of volumetric removal
rate as well as area removal rate. In the first part of the experiment, three parallel lines
each consisting of one moving bed reactor and one linked settling tank, were used. The
reactors were 20 L capacity for line 1 and 2 and 30 L capacity for line 3. The surface of
the settling tank was 0.068 m2 for line 1 and 2 and 0.102 m2 for line 3. The moving bed
bioreactors were filled with three different types of carriers (KMT, AWT and ANOX,
characteristics are described in the Table 2.8 below) made of high density polyethylene
having density 0.95 g/cm3. In the first period of the experiment of first part, all three
reactors were filled with different carriers with same filling fraction (60%) in order to
give same volumetric load while in the second period the filling fraction was varied to
give same effective area load at constant flow. Comparison of two kaldnes carriers K1
and K2 was carried out in the second part of the experiment using the same plant. The
two lines were operated in three periods at close to constant flow and the same
volumetric loading rate in each period. The filling fraction was 70% in both reactors.
50
Table 2.8 Characteristics data for the four different carriers used (Odegaard et al., 2000)
Specific
surface area
KMT
carrier K1
KMT
carrier K2
AWT
carrier
ANOX
carrier
Estimated
surface area
(mm2/piece)
total: 670
effective: 490
total: 3465
effect.: 1910
total: 2200
effect.: 1500
total: 10000
effective: 7700
1030
159
203
24
Bulk carriers
(number/liter)
Specific surface
area(m2/m3)
total: 690
total: 550
total: 450
effective: 500 effective: 315 effective: 310
total: 240
effective: 190
From this study, they concluded that the organic surface area loading rate (g COD/m2.d)
is the main component for the removal of organic matter in municipal wastewater using
moving bed biofilm reactor. The comparison test at various COD loads using carriers of
different size and shape having same density showed no significant variation. They also
concluded that the residence time of the bioreactor has only an influence at long
residence times and hydrolysis plays a major role. In short residence times, hydrolysis
play a minor role and the reactor should be designed for the removal of easily
biodegradable soluble organic matter. In order to increase the settleability of the
biomass in high rate system, there is a need of enhanced settling by coagulation or
alternative separation techniques.
Quan et al. (2012) demonstrated the MBBR performance for nutrient removal efficiency
from synthetic wastewater at different packing rates (20, 30 and 40%) of cubic shaped
PUF carriers. Their experimental results indicated that the PUF packing rate had a bit
influence on the COD removal and got 81% COD removal efficiency on average while
the ammonium removal and the biofilm structure had a high effect with the different
packing rates and COD loading rates. From this experiment, they proved that higher the
packing rate higher will be the ammonium removal efficiency. They achieved 96.3%
ammonium removal efficiency in 40% of the reactor packing rate at a HRT of 5 h while
only 37.4% ammonium removal efficiency at 20% of the reactor packing rate.
Chu et al. (2011) investigated the performance of MBBR for the removal of organics
and nitrogen from wastewater with a low C/N ratio using the two different materials as
51
a carrier for their research, namely PUF and biodegradable polymer PCL particles. This
study demonstrated the MBBR with PUF had good results in the TOC and ammonium
removal, 90% and 65%, compared with 72% and 56% for reactor filled with PCL
carriers at an average HRT of 14 h. This is because of the higher attached
microorganism on the PUF enhanced the nitrifiers to reside. The MBBR with
biodegradable PCL carrier showed good performance in terms of TN removal (59%
with PCL carriers and 14% with PU carriers) as these carriers are an effective substrate
providing reduced power for denitrification. However, the high cost of the
biodegradable PCL is the drawback for its application as external carbon source and
biofilm media.
Shore et al. (2012) examined the use of MBBR with BioPortzTM as carriers for tertiary
ammonia treatment in high temperature (35 45 C) industrial wastewater in their
experiment and found that the system was successful to remove more than 90% of the
influent ammonia from synthetic and industrial wastewater. At 45 C, nitrification could
not be sustained for more than 24 h. However, the MBBR was recovered within two
weeks once the temperature was lowered to 30 C. In this experiment they also
investigated the effect of temperature on the biomass in the reactor and they found
biomass reduction with increasing temperature, however values were not statistically
significantly different following the increase in reactor temperature. Therefore, they
mentioned the decrease in biomass may be decrease in bioavailable substrates which
affect the growth and some detachment of the heterotrophic organisms in the biofilm.
Kermani et al. (2008) evaluated MBBR filled with FLOCOR RMP in terms of
organics and nutrient removal efficiency from synthetic wastewater which showed that
the MBBR could be used as an ultimate and efficient option for the total nutrient
removal from municipal wastewater. In their study, they applied MBBR in series with
anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic units in four separate reactors and operated continuously
at different nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates. At the optimum condition (500 mg
COD/L, 62.5 mg NH4-N/L and 12.5 mg PO4-P/L), close to complete nitrification
99.72% of ammonium removal efficiency occurred in the aerobic reactor. Most of the
biodegradable organic matter was consumed during the denitrification process in the
anoxic reactor. The experiment showed that the system was a very effective process for
almost complete organic and nutrient removal, with average soluble COD, TN and TP
52
removal efficiencies of 96.9, 84.6 and 95.8% respectively during optimum operating
conditions.
Nguyen et al. (2011) used sponge tray bioreactor for wastewater treatment at different
operating conditions. In their experiment, they investigated the effect of different
organic loading rate (OLR), flow velocity and HRT on the performance of sponge tray
bioreactor. They use 0.6, 1.2, 2.4 and 3.6 kg COD/m3 sponge day OLR and concluded
that the optimal OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day was the most appropriate OLR in
terms of high COD and nutrient removal. They achieved more than 92% organic carbon
removal efficiency at OLR of 1.2 and 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day while the system
removed less than 86% at OLR of 0.6 and 3.6 kg COD/m3 sponge day. Similarly, at
OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day, the system could eliminate 56% of PO4-P and
40.2% NH4-N and 41.9% TN while these removal efficiencies decreased at other OLR.
Using the optimal OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day, Nguyen et al. (2011) also
investigated the effect of different flow velocities (4, 8, 20, 28 and 40 mL/min) and
concluded that the flow velocity has no significant effect on DOC removal as the
system could successfully achieve more than 90% of DOC removal at all the flow
velocities. However, it affects the PO4-P, TN and NH4-N removal. They achieved high
PO4-P, TN and NH4-N (87.4%, 54.8% and 52.9% respectively) removal efficiency at 28
ml/min flow velocity. Therefore, they concluded that 28 mL/min flow velocity is
optimum for higher pollutant removal and reducing membrane fouling. They conducted
experiments to investigate the effect of HRT on the performance of sponge tray
bioreactor using optimal OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day and Flow velocity of 28
ml/min at four different HRTs of 40, 80, 120 and 180 min. The result showed that at
increasing HRT, the system could give better performance in terms of reducing
membrane fouling and nutrient removal. They also concluded that at high HRT, there is
a chance of biomass growth in the sponge. From this experiment, they concluded that
the simple and compact sponge tray bioreactor system could remove nutrients and
organics efficiently from wastewater and to achieve excellent performance, the system
needs to operate at the optimal OLR flow velocity and HRT which helps to provide
suitable conditions for biomass growth on the sponge media.
Jing et al. (2009) did an experiment on the carrier effects on oxygen mass transfer
behavior by varying the suspended carrier filling rate and aeration rate to seek the
53
optimal operating conditions under which MBBR can be run at high efficiency and with
low power expense. In this experiment, they used a reactor of 2 L capacity and bio
carriers of model WD-f10-4 bioMTM having a specific surface area of 900 m2/m3 and a
density of 0.96 0.98 g/cm3 to investigate the effect of carrier filling rate and intensity
of aeration on the volumetric oxygen mass transfer (KLa) coefficient by the dynamic
oxygen dissolution method. They found that within the fluidizable flow rate, the
efficiency of oxygen mass transfer increased with the carrier filling rate and KLa reached
its highest when the carrier filling rate was 40% while it decreased by two fold when the
carrier filling rate was only 10%. They also found the increasing KLa trend with an
increase in aeration intensity but high aeration rate was not favorable for reactor
operation. Through their investigation, they concluded the aeration intensity of 0.3 m3/h
and the carrier filling rate of 30 - 50% is the favorable condition for the better oxygen
mass transfer effect and higher oxygen transfer efficiency. They also concluded that the
possible mechanisms that can account for carrier effect on oxygen mass transfer are the
changes in the gas-liquid interfacial area. They applied this experimental conclusion to
the NH4-N removal performance of the coking plant wastewater in MBBR for its proof
in practical performance and found satisfactory result with NH4-N removal efficiency of
93%.
Levstek and Plazl (2009) evaluated the effect of carrier type on nitrification in moving
bed biofilm process using two different types of carriers fundamentally different in size,
shape and structure. One of the carriers they used was a cylindrical high density
polyethylene ring shaped carrier (AnoxKaldnes, K1 carrier) and the other was a
spherical polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) gel bead shaped carrier (Kuraray, PVA-gel carrier).
For this investigation they used two separate continuously aerated lab scale continuous
stirred tank reactors (CSTR); one with 7.3 L capacity and the 37% volume of this
reactor was filled with K1 carrier taken from an oxic reactor of an industrial scale pilot
plant while the other reactor having 3.54 L capacity and the 9.6% volume of the reactor
was filled with PVA-gel bead carrier taken from an oxic reactor of the semi - industrial
scale pilot plant used for nitrogen removal. They operated the both reactors in the same
conditions and supplied synthetic wastewater which contains only ammonium,
phosphate and growth minerals. They used the carrier filling ratios less than the
recommended ratio by the manufacturers to achieve good mixing of carriers so that
there is the proper distribution of substrates to the biofilm in the reactor. They operated
54
the system continuously for six months at temperature of 20 1 C and oxygen was
maintained at 8.0 5 mg/L. Form this operation they achieved 93% nitrification
efficiency and average total biomass concentration in the reactor was 1.12 0.14 gTS/L
in reactor filled with K1 carrier while the nitrification rate was 86.5% and average total
biomass concentration in the reactor was 0.83 0.36 gTS/L in reactor filled with PVAgel bead carrier. Their experimental results showed that the process with PVA-gel
beads, however, had a lower carrier filling rate than that of K1 carriers, about the same
maximal nitrification rate were achieved from both systems. They concluded that the
reason for this appears to be the higher effective specific surface area of about 2,534
m2/m3 for PVA-gel beads versus the effective surface area of about 500 m2/m3 for the
K1 carrier. From their investigation they found the different carrier types does not affect
the concentration of the autotrophic biomass and nitrification rate in an attached growth
process.
Marques et al. (2008) demonstrated attached biomass growth and substrate utilization
rate in MBBR using synthetic wastewater and polyether form cubes of size 555 mm
and density of 0.65. They developed their study using 3.8 L MBBR filled with a
maximum content of polyester foam (0.13% by volume) and 2 L/min air was supplied
in the reactor. From their study they found that the biomass growth in the polyether
foam was quite fast most probably by the mechanism of entrapment of biomass flocks
instead of the attachment of microorganisms on the surface. In their experiment they
found the system saturation about 30 h of continuous operation. They also found the
increase in substrate utilization rate with the organic load due to the high biomass to
carrier ratios, whose maximum value was about 0.8 kg biomass/kg inert carrier. Form
this study they concluded that MBBR can withstand about 2 times the volumetric
organic loads experienced by the other modalities of activated sludge reactor processes
and by using MBBR the area required for the treatment process can be reduced and also
the capacity of the existing conventional plants can be increased by introducing inert
carriers in the system.
55
56
Concentration (mg/L)
280
Ammonium sulfate((NH4)3SO4)
72
13.2
Trace nutrients
0.368
5.07
0.275
0.44
1.45
0.391
0.42
1.26
Yeast extract
30
Polyethylene
Shape
Circular
Diameter
Specific surface area
4.5cm
6.22 cm2
Density
0.613 g/cm3
Weight
1.226 g
57
Characteristics
Module
M70
Membrane material
PVDF
Membrane configuration
Flat sheet
Dimension
10.511.522.5 cm
Pore size
0.14 m
Surface area
0.2 m2
Manufacture
58
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Experimental conditions
Firstly, this study put forward a systematic study on the effects of PE carriers filling
rate, aeration rate and HRT on nutrient removal in a continuous MBBR system.
Afterwards, the system was combined with a MF membrane module to investigate the
performance of the combined system and evaluate the membrane fouling phenomenon.
In order to achieve these tasks, an acrylic reactor with a working volume of 12 L was
used. A sketch of the laboratory scale experimental setup is shown in figure 3.3 (A) and
(B) respectively.
59
(A)
(B)
Figure 3.3 Experimental arrangements of (A) MBBR and (B) MBBR-MF
The laboratory scale experiment was conducted in four different sets of experiments.
The flow chart in Figure 3.4 describes the order of different activities and their
interrelation which were carried out during the research time.
60
Experimental investigation
Experimental
PE carrier
acclimatization
Laboratory operations
Effect of hydraulic retention time in nutrient
removal from municipal wastewater
using MBBR
Conclusion
Figure 3.4 Flow chart of the research activities
The acclimatization of PE carriers is one of the essential components to provide
preferably active biomass growth on the carriers so that this biomass can perform well
in the wastewater treatment process. Therefore, about one month prior to starting
experiment in the reactor, the PE carriers were acclimatized in a separate aeration tank
(30 L) filled with synthetic wastewater and activated sludge from a wastewater
treatment plant in Sydney. Figure 3.5 shows the aeration tank used for the PE carriers
acclimatization in the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) laboratory. Everyday,
10 L synthetic wastewater was added in the aeration tank and pH was maintained to 7
by adding sulphuric acid (H2SO4) or sodium carbonate anhydrous (NaHCO3) to support
the microbial growth. MLSS in the tank was maintained to 8 - 10 g/L. The PE carriers
were acclimatized after 25 days. The acclimatization of these PE carriers was
determined by observing the biomass growth rate on the surface of PE carriers at every
5 days interval.
61
Carrier filling
Aeration
HRT
DO concentration
MLSS
No.
rate (%)
rate (L/min)
(h)
(mg/L)
(g/L)
10
4.5
25
7.41-9.50
0.25- 0.45
20
4.5
25
3.43-5.54
0.25-0.20
30
4.5
25
3.26-4.76
0.20-0.25
40
4.5
25
2.33-3.07
0.20-0.15
20
2.5
25
3.54.0
0.150.30
20
4.5
25
3.04.8
0.150.30
20
6.0
25
3.754.16
0.150.30
20
4.5
25
3.04.8
0.150.30
20
4.5
12
3.35-3.66
0.10-0.20
20
4.5
3.28-4.19
0.10-0.30
20
4.5
3.6-4.24
0.10-0.30
20
4.5
2.5-3.64
0.30-0.40
After 20 days of continuous operation of MBBR at each HRT, the MBBR was then
connected with the membrane filtration tank. The effluent discharged from the MBBR
was introduced into the membrane filtration tank from the top of the tank. The
membrane filtration process was conducted without any relaxation or backwash
procedure. Permeate was pumped out using a pump at constant flux. The flow rate of
synthetic wastewater into MBBR and permeate flux into membrane filtration tank was
maintained same at all the time. Pressure transducer with online data acquisition was
used to monitor the TMP of the membrane. Figure 3.6 shows the pictures of a
laboratory setup for the MBBR and Figure 3.7 shows a picture of the laboratory setup of
MBBR-MF system.
63
control pump
MBBR unit
Pressure sensor
Air supply system
Flat sheet membrane module
64
(1)
Where, m is the mass of an object and v is velocity of the object. Velocity of an object
can be obtained from the following equation;
v = d / T ...
(2)
To measures the wet mass of a carrier coated with biofilm layer, ten pieces of PE
carriers were randomly taken from the reactor and the mass of each piece was
measured. The average wet mass of a carrier was calculated to be 3.52 ( 0.21) g. The
mean velocity of a moving carrier at each operating condition was obtained by
multiplying the circulation frequency (Fc) by the circulation distance (circulating
distance per circulation) of a carrier respectively. The circulation distance of moving
carriers was fixed at 20 cm and the circulating frequency to travel 20 cm distance by the
carriers were observed five times and then the average value was taken as the
circulating frequency. The total kinetic energy (KET) is the sum of the kinetic energy of
all carriers in the reactor which can be obtained by the following formula (Lee et al.,
2006);
KET = KEn...
(3)
Where, n is the total number of PE carriers in the reactor. These numbers are 252, 504,
756 and 1008 PE carriers at the filling fractions of 10, 20, 30 and 40% by volume of the
reactor respectively.
(4)
RT= Rm + Rc + Rp
(5)
66
In equation (4) flux (J) is inversely proportional to flow resistance (RT). Assuming
constant TMP, less water is filtered with increasing resistance to flow (RT).
Where,
J
= Permeation flux
PT = Transmembrane pressure
RT
Rm
Rc
Rp,
= The resistance caused by pore plugging and/or solute adsorption onto the
membrane pore and surface.
Rc = RT - (Rm + Rp)...
(6)
Rm = PT/ (. J)...
(7)
Rp = RT Rm Rc
(8)
After completion of every cycle, the fouled membrane was taken out from the reactor
and submerged into distilled water and total resistance (RT = Rc + Rm + Rp) was
calculated by changing the flux. Then the membrane was cleaned with the distilled
water giving a gentle shake so that the deposited cake layer from the membrane surface
can be washed out. The washed membrane was again submerged into the distilled water
and membrane resistance and pore block resistance (Rm + Rp) was calculated by
changing the flux. Finally the membrane was cleaned with chemicals (sodium
hydroxide (NaOH), citric acid and sodium hypochlorite (NaClO)). The membrane
resistance (Rm) was calculated by submerging the clean membrane inside the distilled
water and the water was withdrawn through the membrane at different fluxes at least for
1 h at each flux. The pressure was measured through the pressure gauge.
67
68
adsorbed enough foods (nutrient and organic matters) and DO from the wastewater and
at the same time prevented the loss of the microorganisms from the carriers enhancing
growth of thin layer of biomass in the carriers and improved the nutrient and organic
removal efficiency. At 30 and 40% filling rates, due to the larger number of PE carriers,
the carriers moved slowly in the reactor and a dense layer of biomass was formed
around the carrier surface. These dense layer of biomass obstructed DO, nutrient and
organic matters to penetrate inside the carriers. As a result the nutrient and organic
removal efficiency at 30 and 40% filling rate was decreased. The attached biofilm layer
in PE carrier at different filling rates and aeration rates are shown in Figure 4.1 (A) and
(B) respectively. The average biomass concentration on PE carriers at different
percentages of filling rates is shown in Figure 4.2. At 20% carrier filling rate the
average biomass growth rate was 15.7 mg/g while the growth rate were 10.6, 22.4 and
24.4 mg/g at 10, 30 and 40% carrier filling rates, respectively. At 20% filling rate the
carriers moved uniformly and helped prevent the accumulation of excess biomass on the
surface of the carriers as well as loss of biomass due to collision of the carries. Thus, the
biomass in the carriers could consume the more organics and nutrients in the presence
of adequate DO level and their removals were the highest compared with the 10, 30 and
40% filling rates.
Figure 4.3 shows the relation between biofilm concentration on the PE carriers and
aeration rates. At a low aeration rate (2.5 L/min), DO concentration in reactor decreased
which enhanced the ratio of sloughing on biofilm growth and biomass was washed out
from the reactor. At the same time, nitrification process also affected because of low
DO. Meanwhile, there was more friction among the biofilm carriers because of the high
turbulence induced by the high aeration rates (6 L/min). Therefore, the PO4-P uptake
rate and nitrification rate declined at a higher aeration rate (6 L/min). Although it was
observed that the NH4-N removal was the highest at the aeration rate of 2.5 L/min, the
4.5 L/min aeration rate achieved the best TN and PO4-P removal. According to the
experimental results, it was concluded that the aeration rate of 4.5 L/min was favorable
for the growth of active and effective microorganisms in PE carriers and gave higher
nutrient and organic removal from wastewater.
Figure 4.4 demonstrated the biomass concentration on PE carriers at different HRTs.
The biomass concentration on PE carriers increased when the OLR of feed water
70
increased. In other word, the biomass concentration on the carriers increased with
decreasing HRT of MBBR. The results showed that when the HRT was decreased from
25 h to 2 h (increased OLR from 0.33 to 4.14 kg COD/m3.d), the biomass concentration
on PE carriers was increased from 15.7 to 21 mg/g and the carriers were fully covered
with the biofilm. This increased biomass concentration on the carriers enhanced the
organic and nutrient removal from the system.
(A)
(B)
Figure 4.1 Biomass growth in PE carriers
(at different (A) filling rates and (B) aeration rates)
71
Biomass concentration
(mg/L)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Biomass concentration
(mg/g)
Figure 4.2 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different filling rates
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
0
Biomass concentration
(mg/g)
Figure 4.3 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different aeration rates
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
HRT (h)
Figure 4.4 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different HRTs
72
This research was completely focused on the attached biofilm and its growth on the PE
carriers provided in the reactor. To evaluate the contribution of attached biomass on the
organic and nutrient removal from the system, the MLSS concentrations of suspended
biomass in the reactor (with none retained in the PE carriers) were measured every day,
which was remained around 0.15 0.32 g/L in all the cases. The MLSS concentration in
the reactor was lower at higher packing rates and aeration rates, whereas the MLSS
concentration increased with increasing OLR. Average biomass growth rate and
average nutrient and organic removal efficiency at different operating conditions are
summarized in the Table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 4.1 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different filling rates of PE Carrier
(aeration rate = 4.5 L/min, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
PE carrier
filling
volume
(%)
DOC
COD
PO4-P
NH4-N
removal removal removal removal
efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
MLSS
(g/L)
Biomass
growth
rate in
carriers
(mg/g)
10
93.0
75.7
56.8
49.5
0.22
10.6
20
95.8
91.4
65.9
66.1
0.25
15.7
30
95.4
86
40.5
59.5
0.25
22.4
40
93.2
79.5
30.2
70.5
0.21
24.4
Table 4.2 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different aeration rates (carrier
filling volume = 20%, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
Biomass
growth
rate in
carriers
(mg/g)
Aeration
rate
(L/min)
DOC
removal
efficiency
(%)
COD
removal
efficiency
(%)
PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)
NH4-N
removal
efficiency
(%)
2.5
95.1
93.1
27.6
74.8
0.305
17.8
4.5
95.8
91.4
65.9
66.1
0.25
15.7
6.0
94.1
87.3
47.3
68.5
0.22
16.4
MLSS
(g/L)
73
Table 4.3 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different HRTs (carrier filling
volume = 20%, aeration rate = 4.5 L/min)
Biomass
growth
rate in
carriers
(mg/g)
HRT (H)
DOC
removal
efficiency
(%)
COD
removal
efficiency
(%)
PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)
NH4-N
removal
efficiency
(%)
25
95.8
91.4
65.9
66.1
0.25
15.7
12
93.7
86.7
40.2
64.1
0.18
15.5
94.2
80.8
51.9
65.8
0.19
15.4
94.6
90.3
57.6
71.5
0.22
18.6
96.0
91.4
81.8
71.2
0.39
21.0
MLSS
(g/L)
In addition, OUR tests of the suspended biomass taken from the reactor and the attached
biomass on the PE carriers were conducted periodically. As oxygen plays an important
role in nitrogen and phosphorus removal, DO consumed by the biomass should be
monitored. The results exhibited that the higher the DO consumption rate, the more
efficient of the bacterial biodegradation could be achieved. Guo et al. (2007) also
demonstrated this type of results in their experiment. The average DO consumption rate
of suspended biomass on wastewater were around 19.7, 13.8 and 22.9% at different
carrier filling rates, different aeration rates and HRTs, respectively. The average DO
consumption rate of the attached biomass on PE carriers at different carrier filling rates,
aeration rates and HRT were around 49, 52.6 and 98%, respectively. That means the
contribution of microbial activity from the attached biomass on the PE carriers was
much stronger than the suspended biomass on the wastewater. All these parameters
indicated that the removal efficiency achieved by the system was mainly due to the
attached growth biomass on the PE carriers. The trends of DO consumption rates at
different operating conditions are displayed in Figure 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8, respectively.
74
100
DO concentration (%)
95
10% filling
20% filling
30% filling
40% filling
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (min)
Figure 4.5 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different PE carrier filling rates
100
DO concentration (%)
2.5 L/min
4.5 L/min
6 L/min
95
90
85
80
75
70
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (min)
Figure 4.6 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different aeration rates
75
DO concentration (%)
100
25 h
12 h
8h
5h
2h
90
80
70
60
50
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (min)
Figure 4.7 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different HRTs
100
filling rate
DO concentration (%)
90
aeration rate
HRT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
Time (min)
20
25
30
the KET will be. However, for better removal efficiency, there must be a optimum KET
for the biofilm carriers which can protect the healthy microbial community. From this
experiment, we determined 4.5 L/min aeration rate at 20% carrier filling rate gave
optimum condition to obtain the best removal efficiencies.
Table 4.4 Calculation of total kinetic energy
252
Total kinetic
energy, KET
(x 10-2 Joule)
1.949
0.192
504
3.255
0.152
756
3.073
0.100
1008
1.785
0.103
504
0.945
0.192
504
3.255
0.244
504
5.303
-2
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Number of
carriers (n)
Total KE (X 10 J)
-2
Total KE ( X 10 J)
Velocity of PE
carriers, V
(M/Sec)
0.210
500
1000
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1500
Remarks
y = 1.240x - 2.206
2
R = 0.997
(A)
(B)
Figure 4.9 Correlation between the kinetic energy and (A) PE carrier filling rates and
(B) aeration rates
78
79
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10% carriers
30% carriers
11
20% carriers
40% carriers
13
15
17
19
21
Time (Days)
20
30
40
Figure 4.11 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
acclimate into the new environment. After day 16 at 20% carrier filling rate, the NH4-N
removal efficiency increased to 75% and became constant while it was still fluctuating
at 10, 30 and 40% carrier filling rates. As the carriers moved freely and uniformly
throughout the reactor at 20% carrier filling rate, the nitrifiers got favorable condition to
grow more inside the biofilm and got enough oxygen for the nitrification. Figure 4.13
shows the average NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates.
Similarly, as demonstrated in Figure 4.14, in terms of TN removal efficiency, it was
49.3% at 20% filling rate while it was 39.8, 36.5 and 52.7% at 10, 30 and 40% filling
rates respectively. Although at 40% filling volume, TN removal was achieved higher
compared to at other filling rates, the TN removal at 20% filling rate was quite uniform
and the PO4-P removal was not removed effectively at 40% filling volume. Therefore,
from the experimental results, the 20% carrier filling rate was considered as an effective
10% carriers
30% carriers
20% carriers
40% carriers
11
13
Time (Days)
15
17
19
21
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
Figure 4.13 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
81
10% carriers
30% carriers
80
20% Carriers
40% carriers
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
11
13
Time (Days)
15
17
19
21
82
100
10% carriers
20% carriers
98
30% carriers
40% carriers
96
94
92
90
88
86
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
Time (Days)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
10% carriers
30% carriers
30
20
20% carriers
40% carriers
10
0
0
10
15
20
Time (Days)
Figure 4.16 COD removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Therefore, it is important to provide suitable aeration rate for the stable operation of
MBBR.
reactor which led to sufficient transfer of DO, nutrient and organic components.
90
2.5 L/min.
80
4.5 L/min.
6 L/min.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time (Days)
Figure 4.17 PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2.5
4.5
90
2.5 L/min
4.5 L/min
6 L/min
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time (Days)
85
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
2.5
4.5
80
2.5 L/min
70
4.5 L/min
6 L/min
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time(Days)
Figure 4.21 TN removal efficiency at different aeration rates
COD removals were more than 85% (Figure 4.23), which demonstrated that the
presence of sufficient DO (4 mg/L) did not affect the organic removal efficiency even at
the different aeration rates. Rahimi et al. (2011) also demonstrated this in their
experimental study.
2.5 L/min.
98
4.5 L/min.
6 L/min.
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time (Days)
Figure 4.22 DOC removal efficiency at different aeration rates
100
2.5 L/min.
4.5 L/min.
6 L/min.
95
90
85
80
75
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time (Days)
87
increased.
100
25h
12h
8h
5h
2h
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time (Days)
88
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25
12
HRT (h)
89
25h
80
12h
8h
5h
2h
70
60
50
40
30
20
1
11
13
Time (Days)
15
17
19
38
57
91.2
228
80
12h
8h
5h
2h
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
11
Time (Days)
13
15
17
19
91
100
25h
12h
8h
5h
2h
95
90
85
1
9
11
Time (Days)
13
15
17
19
100
25h
12h
8h
5h
2h
90
80
70
60
1
11
13
15
17
19
Time (Days)
92
of 12 L/m2.h. The average concentration of NO2-N and NO3-N on the feed water was
0.01 and 1.7 mg/L respectively. After MBBR-MF treatment process from, the
concentration of NO2-N and NO3-N increased to 0.23 and 5.8 mg/L respectively. These
results indicated the nitrification process occurred in the treatment system.
When comparing the removal efficiencies after the MBBR treatment and after the
MBBR-MF treatment, it was observed that the organic removal efficiency was quite
similar but the nutrient removal efficiency was quite different. The comparative results
are tabulated in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Comparison of organic and nutrient removal between MBBR and MBBR
MF systems at different filtration fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h, membrane area:
0.2 m2)
Flux
(L/m2.h)
DOC
COD PO4-P
NH4-N
NH4-N
5.0
93.7
86.7
40.2
64.0
94.7
95.0
38.9
73.6
7.5
94.2
80.8
51.9
65.8
94.4
89.5
31.4
76.6
12.0
94.6
90.3
57.6
71.4
95.0
90.3
38.7
77.6
30.0
96.0
91.4
81.8
71.1
96.0
89.0
86.0
72.1
membrane resistance was around 0 to 1.51011 m-1 during 20 days of operation and
there was no sign of rise in membrane resistance even after 20 days of operation while
there was a sudden rise in membrane resistance (from 0 to 5.31011 m-1) only after 3
days of operation at the flux of 30 L/m2.h. This could be because of high amount of
suspended solids accumulated on the reactor due to increase in OLR with increased flux
and its accumulation on the membrane surface. This accumulated solid in turn formed a
cake layer onto the membrane surface as shown in Figure 4.32. From these
experimental results, it was observed that permeate flux plays determining role in
membrane resistance control. It has been also demonstrated by Nguyen et al., 2012;
Johir et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2006 in their research based on MBR.
6.E+11
5.E+11
Flux 5 L/m2.h
Flux 12 L/m2.h
Flux 30 L/m2.h
4.E+11
3.E+11
2.E+11
1.E+11
0.E+00
0
10
12
Time (Days)
14
16
18
20
Figure 4.31 Effect of permeate flux on total membrane resistance (aeration rate: 1.35
m3/m2.h, membrane area: 0.2 m2)
Figure 4.32 Cake layer formations on the surface of flat sheet membrane module
95
(m-1)
% of RT
(m-1)
% of RT
(m-1)
% of RT
(m-1)
5.0
5.38E+10
35.63
5.76E+10
38.15
3.96E+10
26.22
1.51E+11
7.5
1.49E+11
53.91
8.76E+10
31.74
3.96E+10
14.35
2.76E+11
12.0
2.79E+11
54.23
1.96E+11
38.08
3.96E+10
7.70
5.15E+11
30.0
3.88E+11
73.16
1.03E+11
19.37
3.96E+10
7.47
5.30E+11
Flux
(L/m2.h)
Membrane
resistance (Rm)
Total
resistance
(RT)
Cake layer
resistance (Rc)
96
97
The key findings during the study of the determination of optimum aeration rate follow
as below:
The different aeration rates influenced the biofilm development on the carriers,
its stability on the carriers and movement of the carriers throughout the reactor.
At higher aeration rate (6 L/min), the biomass on the carriers was easily washed
off due to the stronger turbulence.
At lower aeration rate (2.5 L/min), the thick biomass layer was formed on the
carriers which were not effective and did not enhance the nutrient removal
efficiency. It was because thick biofilm layers could block the micro channels in
the biofilm through which substrate diffusion took place. Thus, the substrate
diffusion was reduced and caused a reduction in removal efficiency.
Following findings were extracted from the study of the effect of different HRTs on
nutrient removal from MBBR:
HRT had significant effect on nutrient removal. The NH4-N and PO4-P removal
increased with decreased HRT.
The low HRT enhanced the high nitrification process in the system and gave
higher NH4-N removal efficiency mianly due to the development of higher
density of nitrifiers on the PE carriers.
The results of OUR for suspended biomass on the reactor and the attached biomass on
the PE carriers at different operating conditions demonstrated that the microbial activity
by the attached biomass on the PE carriers was stronger than the suspended biomass on
the wastewater. These findings indicated that the removal efficiency achieved by the
system was because of the attached biomass layer developed on and inside the PE
carriers.
Similarly, the experiment on the MBBRMF at different fluxes was conducted to
evaluate nutrient and organic removal efficiency. From the experimental results it was
found that the organic and nutrient removal particularly NH4-N removal after MBBR
MF system was significantly higher compared to treatment after MBBR. Therefore, it
was concluded that the MBBRMF is suitable for the higher organic and nutrient
removal efficiency. At the same time, it was also observed that the flux had a strong
effect on membrane fouling or membrane resistance. It was noticed that with the
98
increased flux, membrane fouling also increased. Therefore, the system should operate
at an optimum flux condition which helps to reduce the membrane fouling and increase
the membrane life.
99
REFERENCES
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2006. Water Account Australia. Report no.
4610.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Commonwealth of Australia.
http://www.abs.gov.au.
Adam, C., Gnirss R., Lesjean, B., Buisson, H. and Kraume, M. (2002). Enhanced
biological phosphorus removal in membrane bioreactors. Water Science and
Technology, 46 (4-5)281-286. IWA publishing.
Adam, C., Kraume, M., Gnirss, R. and Lesjean, B. (2003). Membrane bioreactor
configurations for enhanced biological phosphorus removal. Water Science
Technology Water Supply, 3 (56), 237244.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2004). ToxFAQs for Ammonia.
Division of Toxicology, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public
Health Service: Atlanta, GA.
Amokrane, A., Comel, C., and Veron, J. (1997). Landfill leachates pretreatment by
coagulation-flocculation. Water Research, 31, 2775-2782.
Andersson, S., Nilsson, M., Dalhammar, G. and Rajarao, G. K. (2008). Assessment of
carrier materials for biofilm formation and denitrification. Department of
Environmental Microbiology, School of Biotechnology, KTH, AlbaNova
University Center, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. VATTEN 64: 201207. Lund.
APHA, AWWA, and WEF, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Aryal, R., Lebegue, J., Vigneswaran, S., Kandasamy, J. and Grasmick, A. (2009).
Identification and characterisation of biofilm formed on membrane bio-reactor.
Separation and Purification Technology, 67, 8694.
Bae, B., Jung, E., Kim, Y., and Shin, H. (1999). Treatment of landfill leachate using
activated sludge process and electron-beam radiation. Water Research, 33, 26692673.
Bae, J.H., Cho, K.W., Bum, B.S., Lee, S.J., and Yoon, B.H. (1998). Effects of leachate
recycle and anaerobic digester sludge recycle on the methane production from
solid waste. Water Science and Technology, 38, 159-168.
Baek, S.O., and Chang, I.S. (2009). Pretreatments to control membrane fouling in
membrane filtration of secondary effluents. Desalination, 244, 153-163.
Broeck, R.V.D., Dierdonck, J.V., Nijskens, V, Dotremont, C. Krzeminski, P., Graaf,
J.H.J.M.V.D., Lier, J.B.V., Impe, J.F.M.V. and Smets I.Y. (2012). The influence
of solids retention time on activated sludge bioflocculation and membrane fouling
in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Journal of Membrane Science, 401402, 4855.
100
Camargo, J.A. and Alonso, A. (2006). Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic
nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: A global assessment. Reiew article,
Environment International, 32, 831849.
Ceen, F., and Aktas, O. (2001). Effect of PAC addition in combined treatment of
landfill leachate and domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fedbatch and
continuous-flow reactors. Water SA, 27, 177-188.
Ceen, F., and Aktas, O. (2004). Aerobic co-treatment of landfill leachate with domestic
wastewater. Environmental Engineering Science, 21, 303-312.
Chang, I.S., and Lee, C.H. (1998). Membrane filtration characteristics in membrane
coupled activated sludge system The effect of physiological states of activated
sludge on membrane fouling. Desalination, 120, 221-233.
Chang, I.S., Le Clech, P., Jefferson, B. and Judd, S. (2002). Membrane Fouling in
Membrane Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 1019-1029.
Chang, S. (2011). Application of submerged hollow fibre membrane in membrane
bioreactors: Filtration principles, operation and membrane fouling. Desalination,
283, 31-39.
Chaudhary, D.S., Vigneswaran, S., Ngo, H.H., Shim, W.G. and Moon, H. (2003).
Biofilter in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Korean Journal Chemical
Engineering, 20(6), 1054-1065.
Chen, W. and Liu, J. (2012). The possibility and applicability of coagulation-MBR
hybrid system in reclamation of dairy wastewater. Desalination, 285, 226231.
Chon, K., Shon, H.K. and Cho, J. (2012). Membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration
hybrid system for reclamation of municipal wastewater: Removal of nutrients,
organic matter and micropollutants. Bioresource Technology.
Chu, L. and Wang, J. (2011). Comparison of polyurethane foam and biodegradable
polymer as carriers in moving bed biofilm reactor for treating wastewater with a
low C/N ratio. Chemosphere, 83, 6368.
Cicek, N. (2003). A review of membrane bioreactor and their potential application in
the treatment of agricultural wastewater. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 45,
6.37-6.46.
Cisneros, R. Bytnerowicz, B., Schweizer, D., Zhong, S., Traina, S. and Bennett, D.H.
(2010). Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for people and
ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental Pollution, 158,
3261-3271.
Coats, E.R., Watkins, D.L. and Kranenburg, D. (2011). A Comparative Environmental
Life-Cycle Analysis for Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater: Biological
versus Physical/ Chemical Processes. Water Environmental Research, 83, 750.
101
Drews, A. (2010). Review: Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors Characterisation, contradictions, cause and cures. Journal of Membrane Science,
363, 128.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority), 910-R-07-002. (2007). Advanced
Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water and Watersheds.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority). (2005). Environmental Protection (Water
Quality) Policy Version 3 South Australia.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority), EPA 832-F-00-018 (1998).Wastewater
Technology Fact Sheet Chemical Precipitation. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Water.
Erisman, J.W., Galloway, J., Seitzinger, S., XBleeker, A. and Bahl, K.B. (2011).
Reactive nitrogen in the environment and its effect on climate change. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 281290.
Ersu, C. B., Ong, S.K., Arslankaya, E. and Brown, P. (2008). Comparison of
recirculation configurations for biological nutrient removal in a membrane
bioreactor. Water Research, 42(67), 16511663.
Feng, S., Zhang, N., Liu, H., Du, X., Liu, Y. and Lin, H. (2012). The effect of COD/N
ratio on process performance and membrane fouling in a submerged bioreactor.
Desalination, 285, 232238.
Fu, Z., Yang, F., Zhou, F. and Xue, Y. (2009). Control of COD/N ratio for nutrient
removal in a modified membrane bioreactor (MBR) treating high strength
wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 100, 136141.
Fuhs, G.W. and Chen, M. (1975). Microbiological basis phosphate removal in the
activated sludge process for the treatment of wastewater. Microbiology Ecology, 2
(2), 119-138.
Galil, N.I., Malachi, K.B.D. and Sheindorf Chaim. (2009). Biological nutrient removal
in membrane biological reactors. Environmental Engineering Science, 26 (4),
mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2008.0234.
Guo, H., Wyart, Y., Perot, J., Nauleau, F. and Moulin, P. (2010). Low-pressure
membrane integrity tests for drinking water treatment: A review. Water Research,
44, 41-57.
Guo, W. S., Ngo, H. H., Dharmawan, F. and Palmer, C. G. (2010). Roles of
polyurethane foam in aerobic moving and fixed bed bioreactors. Bioresource
Technology, 101 (5), 1435-1439.
Guo, W.S., Ngo, H.H. and Li, J. (2012). A mini-review on membrane fouling.
Bioresource Technology.
102
Guo, W.S., Ngo, H.H., Palmer, C.G., Xing, W., Hu, A.Y.J., and Listowski, A. (2009).
Roles of sponge sizes and membrane types in single stage sponge submerged
membrane bioreactor for improving nutrient removal from wastewater for reuse.
Desalination, 249, 672-676.
Guo, W.S., Ngo, H.H., Vigneswaran, S., Xing, W., Goteti, P. (2008). A novel sponge
submerged membrane bioreactor (SSMBR) for wastewater treatment and reuse.
Separation Science and Technology, 43, 273285.
Guo, W.S., Vigneswaran, S., Ngo, H.H. and Xing, W. (2007). Experimental
investigation on acclimatized wastewater for membrane bioreactors. Desalination,
207, 383-391.
Henriksson, K. and Tenfalt, O. (2011). Measurements of Hydrolysis in Moving Bed
Biofilm Reactor Carriers - Evaluation by means of Oxygen Uptake Rate
Measurements. Masters Thesis, Water and Environmental Engineering,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lund University.
Henze, M. (2008). Biological wastewater treatment: principles modeling and design.
Edited by Henze, M., Loosdrecht, M.C.M.V., Ekama, G.A., and Brdjanovic, D.
ISBN: 9781843391883. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Henze, M., Harremoes, P., La Cour Jansen J., and Arvin E. (2002). Wastewater
treatment: biological and chemical processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (3).
Hwang, B.k., Lee, W.N., Yeon, K.m., Park, P.K., Lee, C.H., Chang, I.S., Drews, A.,
and Kraume, M. (2008). Correlating TMP increase with microbial characterstics in
the bio-cake on the membrane surface in a membrane bioreactor. Environmental
science and technology, 42(11), 3963-3968.
Jacquemet, V., Gaval, G., Rosenberger, S., Lesjean, B., and Schrotter, J. C. (2005).
Towards a better characterisation and understanding of membrane fouling in water
treatment. Desalination 178, 13-20.
Jarusutthirak, C. and Amy, G. (2001). Membrane filtration of wastewater effluents for
reuse: effluent organic matter rejection and fouling, Water Science Technology,
43, 225.
Jianlong, W., Hanchang, S. and Yi, Q. (2000). Wastewater treatment in a hybrid
biological reactor (HBR): effect of organic loading rates. Process Biochemistry,
36, 297303.
Jing, J.Y., Feng, J. and Li, W.Y. (2009). Carrier effects on oxygen transfer behaviour in
a moving bed biofilm reactor. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 4,
618-623.
Jiuhui, Q. (2008). Research progress of novel adsorption processes in water
purification: A review. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20, 113.
103
Johir, M.A.H., Vigneswaran, S., Sathasivan, A., Kandasamy, J. and Chang, C.Y.
(2012). Effect of organic loading rate on organic matter and foulant characteristics
in membrane bio-reactor. Bioresource Technology 113, 154160.
Judd, S. (2007). The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends Biotechnology,
26(2), 109116.
Kermani, M., Bina, B., Movahedian, H., Amin, M.M. and Nikaein, M. (2008).
Application of moving bed biofilm process for biological organics and nutrients
removal from municipal wastewater. American Journal of Environmental Sciences,
4 (6), 675-682.
Khan, S.J., Ilyas, S., Javid, S., Visvanathan, C. and Jegatheesan, V. (2011).
Performance of suspended and attached growth MBR systems in treating high
strength synthetic wastewater. Bioresource technology, 102, 5331-5336.
Kim, H.G., Jang, H.N., Kim, H.M., Lee, D.S., Eusebio, R.C., Kim, H.S. and Chung,
T.H. (2010). Enhancing nutrient removal efficiency by changing the internal
recycling ratio and position in a pilot-scale MBR process. Desalination, 262, 50
56.
Kim, J.Y., Chang, I.S., Shin, D.H. and Park, H.H. (2008). Membrane fouling control
through the change of the depth of a membrane module in a submerged membrane
bioreactor for advanced wastewater treatment. Desalination, 231, 3543.
Kraume, M., Bracklow, U., Vocks, M. and Drews, A. (2005). Nutrients removal in
MBRs for municipal wastewater treatment. Water Science Technology, 51 (6-7),
391-402.
Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., and Fane, T.A.G. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors used
in wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 284, 17-53.
Lee, W.N., Kang, I.J. and Lee, C.H. (2006). Factors affecting filtration characteristics in
membrane coupled moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Research 40, 1827 1835.
Leiknes, T. and Odegaard, H. (2001). Moving bed biofilm membrane reactor (MBB-MR): Characteristics and potentials of hybrid process design for compact wastewater
treatment plants. Proceedings, Engineering with Membranes, Granada, Spain.
Leiknes, T. and Odegaard, H. (2007). The development of a biofilm membrane
bioreactor. Desalination, 202, 135-143
Lesjean, B. Gnirss, R. and Adam, C. (2002). Process configurations adapted to
membrane bioreactors for enhanced biological phosphorous and nitrogen removal.
Desalination, Volume 149, (13), 217-224.
Levstek, M. and Plazl, I. (2009). Influence of carrier type on nitrification in the movingbed biofilm process. Water Science & Technology, 59 (5). IWA Publishing.
104
Li, S.R., Cheng, W., Wang, M. and Chen, C. (2011). The flow patterns of bubble plume
in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 23 (4), 510-515.
Lianga, S., Zhao, T., Zhang, J., Sun, F., Liu, C. and Song, L. (2012). Determination of
fouling-related critical flux in self-forming dynamic membrane bioreactors:
Interference of membrane compressibility. Journal of Membrane Science 390
391, 113 120.
Loukidou, M.X., and Zouboulis, A.I. (2001). Comparison of two biological treatment
process using attached growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachate treatment.
Environmental Pollution, 111, 273-281.
Mandal, T., Maity, S., Dasgupta, D., and Datta, S. (2010). Advanced oxidation process
and biotreatment: Their roles in combined industrial wastewater treatment.
Desalination, 250, 8794.
Marques, J.J., Souza, R.R., Souza, C.S. and Rocha, I.C.C. (2008). Attached biomass
growth and substrate utilization rate in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Brazilian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 25 (04) 665-670.
Mekala, G.D., Davidson, B., Samad, M. and Boland, A.M. (2008). Wastewater Reuse
and Recycling Systems: A Perspective into India and Australia. IWMI Working
Paper 128. International Water Management Institute.
Melin, T., Jefferson, B., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., Wilde, W.D., Koning, J. D., Graaf,
J.V.D., and Wintgens, T. (2006). Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater
treatment and reuse. Desalination, 187,271282.
Meng, F., Chae, S.R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H.S., and Yang, F. (2009). Recent
advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane fouling and membrane
material. Water Research, 43, 1489-1512.
Meng, F., Liao, B., Liang, S., Yang, F., Zhang, H. and Song, L. (2010). Morphological
visualization, componential characterization and microbiological identification of
membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Journal of Membrane
Science, 361, 114.
Meng, F., Yang, F., Shi, B., and Zhang, H. (2008). A comprehensive study on
membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors operated under different
aeration intensities. Separation and purification Technology, 59, 91-100.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment & reuse. 4th edition,
McGraw Hill.
Metzger, U., Le-Clech, P., Stuetz, R.M., Frimmel, F.H., Chen, V. (2007).
Characterisation of polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of
different filtration modes. Journal of Membrane Science, 301, 180189.
Mohammadi, T. and Esmaeelifar, A. (2005).Wastewater treatment of a vegetable oil
factory by a hybrid ultrafiltration-activated carbon process. Journal of Membrane
Science, 254, 129137.
105
Moon, J., Kang, M-S., Lim, J-L., Kim, C-H. and Park, H-D. (2009). Evaluation of a
low-pressure membrane filtration for drinking water treatment: pre-treatment by
coagulation/sedimentation for the MF membrane. Desalination, 249, 271284.
Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., and Xing, W. (2008). Applied Technologies in Municipal Solid
waste landfill leachate Treatment. Faculty of engineering & Information
Technology, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, university of
Technology Sydney, Australia.
Ngo, H.H., Nguyen, M.C., Sangvikar, N.G., Hoang, T.T.L., and Guo, W.S. (2006).
Simple approach towards a design of an attached-growth sponge bioreactor
(AGSB) for wastewater treatment and reuse. Water Science Technology, 54, 191197.
Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Phuntsho, S. and Li, J. (2011). A new sponge tray
bioreactor in primary treated sewage effluent treatment. Bioresource Technology,
102 (9), 5444-5447.
Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Listowski, A. and Li, J. (2012). Evaluation of
sponge tray-membrane bioreactor (ST-MBR) for primary treated sewage effluent
treatment. Bioresource Technology, 113, 143147.
Odegaard, H. (1999). The moving bed biofilm Reactor. Igarashi, T., Watanabe, Y.,
Asano, T., and Tambo, N. Water environmental engineering and reuse of water,
Hokkaido press, 250-305.
Odegaard, H., Gisvold, B. and Strickland J. (2000). The Influence of carrier size and
shape in the moving bed biofilm process. Water Science and Technology, 41(4-5),
383391 IWA Publishing.
Pal, L., Kraigher, B., Humar, B.B., Levstek, M. and Mulec, I.M. (2012). Total bacterial
and ammonia-oxidizer community structure in moving bed biofilm reactors
treating municipal wastewater and inorganic synthetic wastewater. Bioresource
Technology, 110,135143.
Park, H.D., Lee, Y.H., Kim, H.B., Moon, J., Ahn, C.H., Kim, K.T. and Kang, M.S.
(2010). Reduction of membrane fouling by simultaneous upward and downward
air sparging in a pilot-scale submerged membrane bioreactor treating municipal
wastewater. Desalination, 251, 7582.
Phattaranawik, J. and Leiknes, T. (2011). Extractive biofilm membrane bioreactor with
energy recovery from excess aeration and new membrane fouling control.
Bioresource Technology, 102, 23012307.
Poyatos, J. M., Munio, M. M., Almecija, M. C., Torres , J. C., Hontoria , E. and Osorio,
F. (2010). Advanced Oxidation Processes for Wastewater Treatment: State of the
Art. Water Air Soil Pollutant, 205, 187204.
106
Quan, F., Yuxiao, W., Tianmin, W., Hao, Z., Libing, C., Chong, Z., Hongzhang, C.,
Xiuqin, K. and Hui, X.X. (2012). Effects of packing rates of cubic-shaped
polyurethane foam carriers on the microbial community and the removal of
organics and nitrogen in moving bed biofilm reactors. Bioresource Technology,
117, 201207.
Radjenovic, J., Matosic, M., Mijatovic, I., Petrovic, M., and Barcelo1, D. (2008).
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) as an advanced wastewater treatment technology.
Spain Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, 5( S/2), 37101.
Rahimi, Y., Torabian, A., Mehrdadi, N., Rezaie, M.H., Pezeshk, H. and Bidhendi,
G.R.N. (2011). Optimizing aeration rates for minimizing membrane fouling and its
effect on sludge characteristics in a moving bed membrane bioreactor. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 186, 10971102.
Renou, S., Givaudan, J.G., Poulian, S., Dirassouyan, F. and Moulin, P. (2008). Landfill
leachate treatment: Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 150,
468-493.
Robescu, D., Calin, A., Robescu, D. and Nasaramb, B. (2009). Simulation of attached
growth biological wastewater treatment process in the mobile bed biofilm reactor.
Proceeding of the 10th WSEAS international conference on mathematic and
computers in biology and chemistry. Bucharest, Romania.
Rubio, J., Souza, M.L. and Smith, R.W. (2002). Overview of flotation as a wastewater
treatment technique. Minerals Engineering, 15, 139155.
Sharrer, M.J., Tal, Y., Ferrier, D., Hankins, J.A. and Summerfelt, S.T. (2007).
Membrane biological reactor treatment of a saline backwash flow from a
recirculating aquaculture system. Aquacultural Engineering, 36 (2), 159-176.
Shore, J.L., MCoy, W.S., Gunsch, C.K. and Deshusses, M.A. (2012). Application of a
moving bed biofilm reactor for tertiary ammonia treatment in high temperature
industrial wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 112, 5160.
Show, K.Y. and Tay, J.H. (1999) Influence of support media on biomass growth and
retention in anaerobic filters. Water Research, 33(6), 1471-1481.
Smith, C.V., DiGregorio, D. and Talcott, R.M. (1969). The use of ultrafiltration
membranes for activated sludge separation, in: Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Sombatsompop, K., Visvanathan, C. and Aim, R.B. (2006). Evaluation of biofouling
phenomenon in suspended and attached growth membrane bioreactor systems.
Desalination, 201, 138149.
Song, K.G., Cho, J., Ko, E.T. and Alan, K.H. (2004). Characteristics of nitrogen and
phosphorous removal in a sequencing anoxic/anaerobic membrane bioreactor
(SAM) process. 4th IWA World Water Congress, Marrakech, Morocco.
107
108
109
Appendix A
pH, DO, T, MLSS, MLVSS, COD, DOC, NH4-N, PO4-P and TN data for MBBR at
different PE carrier filling rates
110
Table A1. pH, DO and T in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates ( flow rate; 8
mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
pH
7.35
6.65
4.80
6.78
6.92
6.67
6.68
6.31
6.58
6.55
5.38
5.12
4.67
4.87
4.77
4.69
4.64
4.63
4.51
4.66
4.80
4.80
4.88
4.75
4.75
5.53
DO (mg/L)
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.28
9.07
8.58
8.57
7.96
7.41
7.48
5.54
5.24
5.08
5.11
4.24
4.08
4.04
3.43
4.36
4.76
5.22
5.24
4.72
4.61
4.29
3.42
T (C)
20.30
21.40
21.00
20.40
21.70
22.20
22.00
21.60
22.30
21.10
21.60
21.10
20.90
20.60
19.90
20.50
20.50
22.00
22.40
22.3
22.40
22.40
20.50
19.80
19.90
22.30
Days
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
30
32
37
40
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
57
5.42
3.26
21.70
60
5.15
5.33
5.22
4.80
5.22
3.91
4.78
3.07
2.99
2.71
2.67
2.54
2.38
2.36
20.80
20.30
20.70
21.20
19.20
19.60
19.70
61
65
67
69
70
73
75
4.52
2.33
20.10
80
Remarks
10% PE carrier filling
rate by volume of
reactor
111
Table A2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates (flow rate;
8 ml/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
MLSS (g/L)
MLVSS (g/L)
Days
1.30
0.70
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.25
1.30
0.70
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.15
0.35
0.20
0.70
0.30
0.30
0.00
0.05
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.55
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.35
0.35
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.20
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
30
32
37
39
40
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
65
67
69
70
73
75
77
80
Remarks
10% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor
20% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor
30% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor
40% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor
112
Table A3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
DOC
COD
PO4-P
NH4-N
TN
removal removal removal removal removal
efficency efficency efficency efficency efficency
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
96.11
94.07
93.45
91.90
91.34
94.22
93.99
92.36
91.64
94.12
95.03
95.31
95.79
95.89
96.10
96.65
96.80
95.22
94.97
96.17
95.56
97.92
97.97
95.18
92.87
95.61
95.15
95.09
95.17
96.16
93.74
90.41
90.23
92.84
91.89
94.71
94.58
73.50
61.35
68.90
81.70
84.75
81.36
83.88
87.17
87.04
89.29
91.92
92.24
96.36
91.98
92.20
81.34
95.07
83.53
85.71
80.40
87.30
86.27
93.20
88.10
87.30
83.94
86.45
88.05
79.60
75.81
69.44
78.46
86.64
86.40
65.48
81.30
79.84
28.38
84.52
73.89
56.63
50.00
44.30
35.14
45.72
44.82
62.15
63.96
68.63
67.08
67.83
66.08
63.16
76.17
29.81
31.05
43.92
57.99
55.75
47.99
30.50
15.97
41.99
40.75
54.42
49.70
36.86
25.34
33.96
30.09
25.32
22.26
24.76
23.72
6.25
67.68
72.13
47.37
56.41
65.79
47.31
38.98
44.44
54.29
54.02
50.46
55.37
72.85
77.14
76.47
81.06
72.00
66.67
66.67
54.29
50.89
59.09
57.79
25.74
48.10
60.59
75.61
68.45
73.00
72.73
60.61
61.54
68.42
70.81
70.00
73.13
55.48
54.39
64.46
42.70
50.33
56.64
33.71
24.11
31.34
9.56
25.44
34.22
41.00
63.35
61.63
57.81
61.60
55.48
56.79
57.05
42.70
35.14
23.01
33.71
6.60
38.80
31.34
27.64
36.12
48.10
34.50
18.59
61.46
68.33
70.72
53.48
73.05
Days
1
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
28
30
32
37
39
40
41
46
48
50
53
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
65
67
69
70
73
75
77
80
Remarks
10% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
20% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
30% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
40% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
113
Appendix B
pH, DO, T, MLSS, MLVSS, COD, DOC, NH4-N, PO4-P and TN data for MBBR at
different aeration rates
114
Table B1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different aeration rates( flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
pH
5.10
3.84
4.73
4.48
4.25
4.64
4.25
4.43
3.99
4.01
4.08
4,.17
4.02
4.11
4.04
4.19
4.40
4.14
3.90
4.14
DO(mg/L)
4.16
4.12
3.96
3.75
4.04
4.00
4.15
4.23
4.12
3.97
3.95
3.78
3.88
4.00
3.90
3.77
3.57
3.53
3.54
3.50
T (C)
22.80
22.80
23.30
21.50
22.50
20.60
18.80
22.00
20.30
20.80
21.40
22.00
21.50
21.10
20.60
21.00
20.70
20.90
20.10
20.80
Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
14
15
18
20
21
22
25
27
30
32
34
35
39
40
Remarks
6 L/min aeration rate
115
Table B2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different aeration rates (flow rate; 8
mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
MLSS (g/L)
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.05
0.10
0.25
MLVSS (g/L)
0.15
0.35
0.25
0.05
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.45
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.25
0.55
0.35
0.10
0.20
0.70
Days
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
25
26
28
30
32
34
35
37
40
Remarks
at 6 L/min
at 2.5 L/min
116
Table B3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
aeration rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
DOC
removal
efficency
(%)
COD
removal
efficency
(%)
PO4-P
removal
efficency
(%)
NH4-N
removal
efficency
(%)
TN
removal
efficency
(%)
87.59
93.85
94.38
95.34
94.28
95.46
94.56
94.29
94.37
94.20
94.47
94.19
95.03
95.51
95.11
95.03
95.72
95.69
94.73
94.82
85.45
86.67
86.03
85.71
86.22
88.21
88.89
88.79
88.05
88.89
90.87
90.39
90.95
90.83
91.91
92.14
94.74
95.28
96.41
98.21
65.31
56.45
54.17
49.62
44.28
44.80
37.73
38.83
39.49
42.12
40.36
30.74
26.85
21.45
22.01
33.24
29.79
25.00
21.93
24.47
35.71
70.89
70.89
70.89
68.35
70.89
74.68
75.95
75.95
70.89
70.89
73.33
73.33
76.00
75.34
75.34
76.00
75.48
77.22
75.32
5.11
49.13
45.07
43.40
41.53
47.56
48.69
50.18
51.33
40.99
37.75
24.92
27.08
43.19
15.37
13.57
15.83
21.64
25.85
28.96
Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Remarks
6 L/min
2.5 L/min
117
Appendix C
pH, DO, T, MLSS, MLVSS, COD, DOC, NH4-N, PO4-P and TN data for MBBR at
different HRTs
118
Table C1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different HRTs ( aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
pH
DO(mg/L)
T (C)
Days
4.07
3.76
3.67
3.72
3.70
3.55
4.08
3.99
3.89
4.19
4.11
4.13
4.04
4.25
4.30
4.22
4.15
4.22
4.07
4.30
3.85
3.78
4.35
4.16
4.10
3.90
4.01
3.99
4.00
3.25
3.99
4.59
4.05
4.19
4.29
4.13
4.16
4.10
3.90
4.10
4.13
3.66
3.41
3.35
3.48
3.40
3.58
3.50
3.47
3.40
3.56
3.44
3.28
3.61
3.85
4.06
4.23
4.13
4.00
4.18
4.13
4.19
4.15
4.17
4.24
4.13
3.76
3.60
3.75
3.96
3.71
4.16
3.64
2.23
2.54
2.64
2.54
2.54
2.50
2.66
2.54
2.64
21.60
21.30
21.70
21.40
21.60
20.40
21.00
21.20
21.70
22.60
23.20
21.80
21.10
20.90
20.90
21.10
21.60
22.30
21.90
21.80
21.50
22.10
22.50
22.30
22.60
23.00
23.00
23.70
21.90
22.40
22.10
22.30
22.60
21.80
21.60
22.80
22.30
22.60
23.00
21.50
21.60
1
5
6
7
8
10
15
20
35
40
41
44
50
54
55
60
63
65
70
75
79
80
85
90
92
95
97
99
100
102
105
107
110
112
115
118
120
122
125
127
130
Remarks
12 h
8h
5h
2h
119
Table C2. MLSS and MLVSS of MBBR at different HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min,
PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
MLSS (g/L)
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.35
MLVSS (g/L)
0.55
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.15
0.55
0.35
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.25
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.30
Days
1
5
7
9
15
21
25
35
40
41
47
51
55
61
63
65
75
79
80
85
87
90
92
95
97
100
102
105
107
110
112
115
118
120
122
125
127
130
Remarks
12 h
8h
5h
2h
120
Table C3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
DOC
COD
removal removal
efficiency efficiency
(%)
(%)
93.49
93.84
94.86
95.00
92.66
93.12
94.58
94.51
93.06
95.16
95.38
93.78
94.01
92.68
94.37
94.12
94.29
94.22
95.52
94.87
94.10
93.92
94.31
93.82
95.32
95.32
94.88
94.57
94.90
95.66
95.27
95.42
96.77
96.81
96.37
96.78
96.81
76.47
82.72
80.00
92.00
86.09
92.15
89.88
91.57
93.55
75.08
72.09
83.08
75.20
84.15
86.07
80.82
87.57
87.37
87.57
89.37
89.43
90.95
89.80
91.32
91.63
90.91
90.79
91.02
73.08
67.06
65.00
69.51
70.51
75.86
74.19
75.08
74.13
PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)
49.25
48.59
50.93
46.38
41.16
20.36
29.33
41.87
33.33
50.84
42.00
45.94
56.09
52.17
45.99
45.95
55.22
63.32
63.32
58.96
55.36
53.42
63.32
58.96
55.36
53.42
55.67
57.93
53.42
90.23
92.44
90.99
84.94
82.00
81.61
83.61
83.65
NH4-N
TN
removal
removal
efficiency efficiency
(%)
(%)
62.50
56.67
65.05
71.05
68.23
68.13
60.53
71.67
65.00
78.31
56.46
59.72
67.74
67.86
53.70
56.60
70.64
71.46
71.46
63.95
72.76
73.08
71.46
63.95
72.76
73.08
75.86
76.11
73.08
67.06
65.00
69.51
70.51
75.86
74.19
75.08
74.13
46.22
45.82
44.95
53.91
45.75
56.57
50.27
61.28
45.13
62.57
37.52
35.98
52.11
57.09
46.93
50.08
63.13
65.28
65.28
54.41
62.30
64.38
61.08
53.08
60.68
59.31
75.86
76.11
59.62
62.70
60.92
64.07
65.32
75.86
74.19
75.08
74.13
Days
1
5
7
9
11
13
15
18
20
41
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
80
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
107
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125
Remarks
12 h
8h
5h
2h
121
Appendix D
NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates, aeration rates
and HRTs
122
Table D1. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates
(aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
NO2-N (mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.57
0.01
1.05
0.00
0.39
0.01
0.35
0.00
0.39
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
NO3-N (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
2.70
17.80
2.80
6.70
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.20
1.10
2.20
2.00
2.80
2.00
3.30
1.60
3.20
1.20
3.20
1.70
2.90
0.70
11.90
1.10
7.30
1.40
3.90
1.60
4.00
1.10
3.20
0.90
3.20
2.40
3.10
1.70
4.20
1.40
3.10
1.50
24.30
1.30
9.60
2.50
5.60
1.10
5.20
2.00
4.80
2.00
5.30
1.60
5.60
1.90
6.20
1.40
4.70
1.20
10.70
1.80
5.90
1.90
8.80
2.00
10.90
2.30
4.90
1.90
5.90
2.30
7.20
2.30
7.20
1.90
7.10
Days
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
30
32
39
40
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
56
57
60
61
65
67
69
70
73
75
77
80
Remarks
10% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
20% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
30% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
40% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor
123
Table D2. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different aeration rates (PE carrier
filling rate; 20%, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
NO2-N (mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
NO3-N (mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
1.00
7.90
1.90
4.40
1.50
4.90
1.00
4.90
1.00
4.80
1.00
4.20
1.40
4.80
1.40
2.00
1.90
4.80
1.50
5.60
1.90
6.40
0.60
7.70
0.50
7.30
2.60
6.40
1.00
9.60
1.60
10.40
2.10
10.80
2.00
9.90
1.20
9.00
1.10
8.10
Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Remarks
6 L/min
2.5 L/min
124
Table D3. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different HRTs (PE carrier filling rate;
20%, aeration rate; 4.5 L/ min)
NO2-N (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.29
0.00
0.26
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NO3-N (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
1.50
4.70
1.70
4.10
1.20
3.90
1.00
4.30
1.20
3.80
0.90
4.80
1.40
4.30
1.40
4.60
1.20
4.20
0.90
6.40
1.60
6.50
1.20
6.70
1.80
4.80
1.80
5.90
1.70
5.60
1.70
3.70
1.80
4.60
1.30
4.10
1.90
3.40
1.90
3.10
1.90
3.90
1.90
3.40
2.30
3.30
2.30
5.00
2.00
4.40
2.30
4.00
1.90
4.70
1.90
4.60
1.70
4.90
1.90
4.40
1.90
4.00
1.80
5.10
1.90
4.70
Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
18
20
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
59
80
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
107
109
111
113
115
117
Remarks
12 h
8h
5h
2h
125
Appendix E
Total membrane resistance (RT), DOC, COD, PO4-P and NH4-N data for MBBRMF
system at fluxes
126
7.5
12
30
RT
x10 (m-1)
0.61
0.90
0.90
1.12
1.01
1.19
0.61
0.26
0.50
1.15
2.09
3.07
3.82
3.96
0.21
0.42
0.56
0.67
1.28
5.15
6.44
0.19
3.77
5.30
11
Days
Remarks
1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
127
Table E2. DOC, COD, PO4-P and NH4-N removal efficiency in MBBR-MF at different
HRTs
DOC
removal
efficiency
(%)
COD
removal
efficiency
(%)
PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)
NH4-N
removal
efficiency
(%)
Days
95.64
94.52
94.07
93.49
93.70
94.92
94.08
94.83
95.26
93.38
94.06
94.43
94.01
95.08
94.78
94.82
94.60
95.57
95.07
96.27
95.74
96.17
94.51
96.39
95.48
95.15
94.28
94.84
94.19
88.08
88.43
84.15
93.61
93.61
93.20
92.10
87.04
90.94
91.32
92.24
92.00
85.20
89.50
92.20
39.16
38.82
40.63
42.64
42.31
37.58
32.00
42.50
35.26
34.45
31.42
30.74
21.55
23.20
55.36
48.97
62.45
33.56
33.78
84.59
83.50
91.00
66.67
69.23
63.93
63.33
83.46
86.18
83.33
73.46
76.13
74.64
83.00
79.25
75.07
74.75
85.31
79.50
74.29
70.71
77.05
65.03
77.50
74.12
1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Remarks
12 h
8h
5h
2h
128
Appendix F
Figure of all the equipments used in this experiment
129
133
Figure F9. GFC Whatmans 1.2 m filter paper, and syringe filters (0.45 and 1.20)
134