Evaluation of Conventional Activated Sludge Compared to Membrane Bioreactors

Short Course on Membrane Bioreactors 3/22/06

R. Shane Trussell, Ph.D., P.E.

shane@trusselltech.com

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Introduction
Biological processes have become the preferred municipal wastewater treatment process Activated Sludge Process (ASP) has developed into a mature process over the past century Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process is relatively new to wastewater treatment with the concept of direct sludge filtration emerging four decades ago

Introduction
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Modified activated sludge process UF/MF membrane

Two configurations
External (EMBR) Submerged (SMBR)

Flow Schemes for the MBR and Conventional Activated Sludge Process
Conventional
Secondary Clarifier Aeration Basin
WASTE Microfiltration Tertiary Treated Wastewater
Backwash Water

Primary Treated Wastewater

Flow Schemes for the MBR and Conventional Activated Sludge Process
Conventional
Secondary Clarifier Aeration Basin
WASTE Aeration Basin Microfiltration Tertiary Treated Wastewater
Backwash Water

Primary Treated Wastewater (Equivalent to a 1-3 mm screen) WASTE

MBR

Tertiary Quality Wastewater

Submerged MBR (SMBR)

Q
Aeration Basin Effluent

WASTE Primary Treated Wastewater

QR = 3-5xQ
Solids Recycle Waste Activated Sludge

External MBR (EMBR)

Aeration Basin Effluent

Primary Treated Wastewater

Solids Recycle

QR = 20-30xQ
Waste Activated Sludge

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Process Design
MBRs combine activated sludge technology with membrane filtration to expand the normal operating region MBRs can be designed at higher MLSS concentrations because they are not affected by the limitations of gravity sedimentation for solid-liquid separation SMBRs are typically designed for MLSS concentrations 8-12 g/L

Advantages of High MLSS

SMBRs operate at 2 to >6 times ASP MLSS concentrations Higher MLSS concentrations translate into:
Longer SRT same HRT, or Shorter HRT same SRT

Longer SRT Designs

For a given HRT, the SMBR process can operate at 2 to >6 times the SRT of ASP Traditional SMBR design has been to operate at conventional HRTs with long SRTs (i.e. > 20 days) Long SRTs have the following advantages:
Complete nitrification can occur even in cold climates Reduced biological sludge production Complete oxidation of influent organics Possibility that slow growing microorganisms can degrade persistent organics

Shorter HRT Designs

In general, for a given SRT, the SMBR process can treat wastewater in 1/2 to 1/4 the HRT of ASP Short HRTs have the following advantages:
Reduce overall plant footprint Capital cost savings from reduced land and tank volume

Concept of shorter HRTs brings about one of the principle limitations of SMBRs compared to ASP
Minimum SRT

There is a minimum SRT where membrane fouling becomes rapid

A general design guideline is target the minimum SRT for nitrification plus an additional safety factor Some manufacturers have established their own lower limit at 12 days

Effect of SRT on Steady-State Fouling Rate

MCRT, d
10 4.0 5 4 3 2

3.5

HRT = 1 h
y = 1.661x2.1977 R2 = 0.9517

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

HRT = 4 h

1.0

0.5

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

F/M, g COD/g VSS.d

Process Design
Key difference is in solid-liquid separation
ASP is not sensitive to low SRTs and can successfully operate in a conventional mode SMBRs are sensitive to low SRTs and compact designs can result in increased membrane fouling rates

This difference in solid-liquid separation also makes pretreatment imperative

Fine screening is an absolute must in SMBRs The MBR community has been and is still learning how important reliable screening equipment is

Process Design
Higher MLSS concentrations influence the oxygen transfer efficiency Oxygen transfer from coarse bubble aeration required for membrane agitation needs to be considered

Krampe and Kauth, 2002

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Effluent Water Quality

Biological process applied to oxidize organics and remove nutrients Principle difference is solid-liquid separation mechanism Membrane provides a more consistent, higher quality effluent

Effluent Water Quality

Membrane provides an absolute barrier and effluent quality is no longer a concern. ASP Effluent TSS, mg/L Turbidity, NTU Total Coliform, #/100 mL BOD5, mg/L <30 2 to >10 10,000 to 100,000 <2 to 30 MBR Effluent ND (<2) <0.2 ND to 100 ND (<2)

Effluent Water Quality

MBR eliminates the need for monitoring sludge settleability as an operational parameter
Effluent quality is not dependent on operations Not necessary to determine TSS/VSS concentrations to maintain desired SRT Can use fixed waste rate SRT=V/QWAS

Effluent Water Quality

Public Health Benefit
membranes increase the distance between reclamation and the risk of microbial disease
pathogens are removed by size exclusion

not a highly selective chemical or photochemical reaction

pathogens can be rejected, not just reduced

Results from operating MBR plants:

Indigenous Coliphage
Primary Effluent Reactor #2 Reactor #2 (Non-Detect)
1.E+06 Start -up Period 1.E+05 New Membranes Reactor # 2

Reactor #1 Reactor #1 (Non-Detect) Tertiary

1.E+04 Repaired Integrity 1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00

1.E-01 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Hours of Operation

Effluent Water Quality

MBR Effluent Allows Modern Objectives to be Realized
Ideal for UV disinfection
All particulate matter and suspended solids that can interfere with UV have been rejected at membrane barrier High percent transmissivity (>70%) Dose of 80 mJ/cm2 adequate for MBR effluent, while 100 mJ/cm2 required for granular filtered wastewater

Ideal pretreatment process for reducing TDS

Suitable for direct feed to RO Chloramine residual is required

[Filmtec BW 30-4040, low pressure TFC RO membranes]

Net Operating Pressure 200 175 150 Net Operating Pressure, psi 125 100 75 50 25 0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 Tim e of Operation, h Temperature 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Aqua 2000 Bureau II Study

Plant shutdow n

Feed TDS = 1200 mg/L

11 weeks

5 0 2000

Temperature, C

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Peak Flows
Peak flows are well addressed in ASP, but can be troublesome for MBRs Membranes are designed for a certain throughput (design flux) MBRs are typically limited to a peaking factor of 1.5Q
Dependent on design flux (aggressive or conservative), temperature, and mixed liquor conditions

ASP is capable of sustaining larger peak flows (>2.5Q) for longer periods of time
Possible deterioration in effluent quality

Peak Flows
MBR designs for large peak flows consider the following solutions:
Additional membrane area for peak flow service Flow equalization tanks (frequently primary eff) Flux enhancing polymers or coagulant addition

Currently, the most conservative and cost effective solution is typically some kind of flow equalization Flux enhancing polymers and coagulant addition are showing great promise, but research on long-term effects is needed

Peak Flows
Peak flows will become less of a disadvantage for MBRs as membrane costs continue to decline and our understanding of conditions affecting membrane fouling increase

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Mixed Liquor Properties

Mixed liquor properties are important because they determine how easily a sludge can be filtered through a membrane, settled or dewatered Differences in solid-liquid separation apply different selective pressures
ASP requires a biology that flocculates and settles well to remain in the system MBRs retain all biomass, even single cells in the mixed liquor

Mixed Liquor Properties

Merlo et al. (2004) revealed some key findings comparing SMBR and ASP under steady state conditions for 2, 3, 4, 5, 10-d SRTs
SMBR has higher colloidal content SMBR has higher filament concentrations Both SMBR/ASP particle size distribution (excluding colloidal - i.e. >2 m) was controlled exclusively by mixing intensity, G

Particle Size Distribution ASP Hi vs. SMBR

0.6 0.5

CMAS Hi ASP

Frequency

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 2-4

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-20 20-40 40-100 100-2000

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-20

20-40

40-100

100-2000

SMBR

Characteristic Length, m

Outline Introduction Process Design Effluent Water Quality Peak Flows Mixed Liquor Properties Conclusions

Conclusions
SMBRs have advantages compared to ASP (compact, high quality effluent, high MLSS concentrations) SMBRs have disadvantages compared to ASP (low SRT limit, peak flow issues) Mixed liquor properties are different in SMBRs compared to the ASP because of the reactor conditions Engineers have been studying mixed liquor properties to improve the settleability of ASP Future of the SMBR process will be studying mixed liquor properties that improve filterability

Questions?