Performances of RO and NF processes for wastewater reuse: Tertiary treatment after a conventional activated sludge or a membrane bioreactor

Desalination ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 250 (2) ◽  
pp. 833-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthieu Jacob ◽  
Christelle Guigui ◽  
Corinne Cabassud ◽  
Hélène Darras ◽  
Gwenaelle Lavison ◽  
...  
2011 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Sahar ◽  
M. Ernst ◽  
M. Godehardt ◽  
A. Hein ◽  
J. Herr ◽  
...  

The potential of membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems to remove organic micropollutants was investigated at different scales, operational conditions, and locations. The effluent quality of the MBR system was compared with that of a plant combining conventional activated sludge (CAS) followed by ultrafiltration (UF). The MBR and CAS-UF systems were operated and tested in parallel. An MBR pilot plant in Israel was operated for over a year at a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) range of 2.8–10.6 g/L. The MBR achieved removal rates comparable to those of a CAS-UF plant at the Tel-Aviv wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for macrolide antibiotics such as roxythromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin and slightly higher removal rates than the CAS-UF for sulfonamides. A laboratory scale MBR unit in Berlin – at an MLSS of 6–9 g/L – showed better removal rates for macrolide antibiotics, trimethoprim, and 5-tolyltriazole compared to the CAS process of the Ruhleben sewage treatment plant (STP) in Berlin when both were fed with identical quality raw wastewater. The Berlin CAS exhibited significantly better benzotriazole removal and slightly better sulfamethoxazole and 4-tolyltriazole removal than its MBR counterpart. Pilot MBR tests (MLSS of 12 g/L) in Aachen, Germany, showed that operating flux significantly affected the resulting membrane fouling rate, but the removal rates of dissolved organic matter and of bisphenol A were not affected.


Membranes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 421
Author(s):  
Dimitra C. Banti ◽  
Michail Tsangas ◽  
Petros Samaras ◽  
Antonis Zorpas

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems are connected to several advantages compared to the conventional activated sludge (CAS) units. This work aims to the examination of the life cycle environmental impact of an MBR against a CAS unit when treating municipal wastewater with similar influent loading (BOD = 400 mg/L) and giving similar high-quality effluent (BOD < 5 mg/L). The MBR unit contained a denitrification, an aeration and a membrane tank, whereas the CAS unit included an equalization, a denitrification, a nitrification, a sedimentation, a mixing, a flocculation tank and a drum filter. Several impact categories factors were calculated by implementing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, including acidification potential, eutrophication potential, global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential and photochemical ozone creation potential of the plants throughout their life cycle. Real data from two wastewater treatment plants were used. The research focused on two parameters which constitute the main differences between the two treatment plants: The excess sludge removal life cycle contribution—where GWPMBR = 0.50 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 and GWPCAS = 2.67 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 without sludge removal—and the wastewater treatment plant life cycle contribution—where GWPMBR = 0.002 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 and GWPCAS = 0.14 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 without land area contribution. Finally, in all the examined cases the environmental superiority of the MBR process was found.


2001 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 203-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Adham ◽  
P. Gagliardo ◽  
L. Boulos ◽  
J. Oppenheimer ◽  
R. Trussell

The feasibility of the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process for water reclamation was studied. Process evaluation was based on the following: literature review of MBRs, worldwide survey of MBRs, and preliminary costs estimates. The literature review and the survey have shown that the MBR process offers several benefits over the conventional activated sludge process, including: smaller space and reactor requirements, better effluent water quality, disinfection, increased volumetric loading, and less sludge production. The MBR process can exist in two different configurations, one with the low-pressure membrane modules replacing the clarifier downstream the bioreactor (in series), and the second with the membranes submerged within the bioreactor. Four major companies are currently marketing MBRs while many other companies are also in the process of developing new MBRs. The MBR process operates in a considerably different range of parameters than the conventional activated sludge process. The preliminary cost evaluation has shown that the MBR process is cost competitive with other conventional wastewater treatment processes.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
Alaa K. Mohammed ◽  
Qusay Fathel ◽  
Safaa A. Ali

A membrane bioreactor (MBR) is one of the modifications to the conventional activated sludge process, since it is the combination of a membrane module and a bioreactor. In the present study, 100 liters lab-scale aerobic MBR was seeded with 1.5 Liter activated sludge and municipal wastewater from AL-Rustumiya municipal wastewater treatment station, two hollow fibers sample (MI,MII) manufactured in the University of Technology/ Chemical Engineering Department, were used as biomembranes. Trans membrane pressure TMP was studied and it was found that the optimum value of TMP was 10 cm Hg vacuum which gave optimum effluent flux 400 ml/hr for MI and 350 ml/hr for MII. The experimental work involves the effect of temperature 25, 35, 45°C on the performance of the MBR fibers sample (MI, MII) and its effect on biomass growth and removal efficiency of the COD, BOD. Both samples show good performance in 25°C.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document