1

CONTENTS

PAGE NO

1. ABSTRACT 1

2. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY. 3

3. PRINCIPLES AND BACKGROUND. 7

3.1 MEMBRANE MATERIALS. 7

3.2 MEMBRANE FILTRATION. 8

3.3 DESIGN OF MBR SYSTEMS. 9

3.4 MEMBRANE CHARACTERISTICS. 11

3.5 FILTRATION AND CLEANING MODES. 14

4. CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATERS. 15

5. APPLICATIONS OF MBR IN INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER TREATMENTS. 18

6. MEMBRANE FOULING AND ITS MITIGATION. 26

7. CAPITAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS. 29

8. SUMMARY. 30

9. REFERANCES. 31
 2

1.ABSTRACT.
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) have attracted a significant attention of scientists and
engineers in the past two decades. Improvement of membrane technologies coupled with
experiences gained from application of membranes in different industrial processes have
opened a lots of opportunities in industrial Wastewater treatment. The solid-liquid
separation that is conventionally carried out in gravity-based clarifier is replaced by
membrane filtration in a MBR system thus combining the strength of biological treatment
processes and efficiency of membrane filtration. This and several other advantages have
made the MBR system ideally suited for treatment of strong industrial wastewater and
reclamation of water. By late 1990s many commercial application of MBR can be noted in
industries and each year this number is increasing rapidly. Researches on MBRs are
increasingly funded by municipal councils, industries, membrane and packaged
wastewater treatment plant manufacturers, which is a clear sign of popularity and potential
of MBR.

Here, an attempt has been made to explain MBR systems and their advantages and
drawbacks over conventional biological treatment systems. The implications of such
advantages on the design and operation of MBR are discussed. A number of case studies
from commercial applications and researches have been put forward to demonstrate the
forte, robustness and flexibility of MBR systems in treating different types of industrial
Wastewater. This is expected to give the reader a good understanding of MBR system,
which is considered as one of the best available technologies in the field of Wastewater
treatment.
 3

2. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY.

Researches on Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) was started early in 1960s. However,
commercial use of membrane in wastewater treatment remained limited primarily due to
low membrane flux, low permeability, limited membrane life and high cost of membrane.
From early 90’s due to active researches in the field of membrane technology, a new
generation of membranes evolved that dramatically overcame many of the above
limitations and the cost of membranes started to decline. This attracted a lot of attention to
commercial use of membranes in wastewater treatment. By then use of membranes in
other fields of industrial applications including water treatment was common and lot of
experiences already gained.

During the same time due to increased environmental awareness, effluent discharge
legislations were tightened in several countries. Limitations of conventional biological
processes in treating industrial wastewater to meet the discharge standards became more
apparent. This led to significant number of researches being directed to alternative
technologies and improvement of existing technologies. Consequently, researches on
MBR picked up and many of these were actively supported by industries. Initially, many
researches were focused on treating domestic/municipal wastewater using MBR. Later
and more recently, the possibility of using MBR in different types of industrial wastewater
treatment has gained much attention.
 4

MBR is a major attempt to increase the efficiency of conventional biological waste water
treatment processes by replacing the gravity-based clarifier (used to separate the active
biomass from the mixed liquor) by a membrane-aided pressure filtration process. The
underlying principle of removal of pollutants by biochemical reaction however remains
same in a MBR as in conventional systems. The schematic arrangement of a typical Waste
water treatment train using MBR is given below in Figure 1.

As a result of replacing the secondary clarifier by a pressure based membrane filtration

process several improvements can be achieved like:

1) The performance of solid-liquid separation efficiency is improved due to higher efficiency

of membrane filtration over gravity separation;
2) The sensitiveness of the separation process to the internal and external factors can be
reduced thereby improving the reliability of the system;
3) Control on several process related factors can be improved like sludge retention
time(SRT) or mean cell residence time, organic loading, waste sludge volume and
characteristics etc. that can improve the efficiency of the biochemical reaction process;
4) Removal of nutrients and refractory (biodegradation-resistant) substances can be
improved;
5) Complete removal of microorganisms and pathogens from effluent is possible that reduces
the disinfection requirement;
6) Less operation control during steady state condition as Well as rapid initial process start
up can be achieved;
7) The footprint of a traditional Wastewater treatment plant can be reduced by replacing
large (clarifier) tanks with compact membrane modules;
8) Better effluent quality from MBR easily lends itself to opportunities of reclamation and
recycling of wastewater.

Each of these improvements justifies the use of MBR in industrial wastewater treatment.
While the characteristics of raw domestic sewage are predictable, characteristics of
industrial wastewater vary widely and are often many times stronger. In addition,
intermittent and shock loading, unstable pH, high temperature, turbidity, colour, presence
of toxic and refractory substances is common with industrial wastewater. As a result,
 5

industrial wastewaters are much more difficult to treat and in many cases, large elaborate
treatment systems are required. Yet even with such systems, effluent quality (meeting
discharge standards) is not guaranteed. Therefore, MBR systems with higher efficiency
offer a better solution to industries.

Performance of gravity-based clarifiers is poised on the small difference in the specific

gravity of the flocculated biomass and the mixed liquor. As a result, these clarifiers are
highly sensitive to a number of internal and external factors, for example pH, temperature,
SRT, solid loading etc. which need strict operational control. This increases the cost of
operation and maintenance and decreases the reliability of the system.

On the other hand, membrane separation, which uses pressure filtration across a selective
membrane is a more reliable system and has been widely used in different fields of
engineering. Moreover, membranes can be tailored to suit particular application
conditions (e.g. higher temperature or turbidity) and performance can be stabilized even
when substantial variations of such conditions take place. This makes the MBR system
reliable and robust that is needed for industrial applications.

Better control on process related factors can be achieved during both design and
operational phases that improves the overall efficiency of the system. This will be
discussed in detail later. Operational control gives more opportunity to the operator to
tune the process according to the demand (like intermittent or shock loading, variation of
pH, temperature, increase in turbidity etc.).

MBRs have shown better performance concerning nutrient removal. Higher SRT or mean
cell residence time in the reactor promotes growth of slow-growing nitrifiers
(nitrosomonas and nitrobacter) that remove nutrient from wastewater. Higher SRT
provides more time to acclimatize and grow specifically cultured microorganisms, which
are required to treat refractory pollutants. Such is usually not possible in conventional
systems (using gravity-based clarifiers) as longer sludge age may give rise to rising sludge
problems.

Membranes can be selected for a wide range of solid separation that can remove all types
of bacteria and viruses. Therefore, pathogens can be completely retained and downstream
 6

disinfection requirements are reduced. This reduces the cost of plant construction,
operation and maintenance.

As design and operation of MBR is more predictable, it lends to more opportunities of

automation to avoid frequent manual intervention and observation. During steady state
conditions, MBR can practically operate on complete automation.

Due to highly efficient separation efficiency, the time and seeding requirements of a
typical MBR is much less during the initial and start up after shutdowns. This is quite
important for industries as delay in start up of the treatment system may hold up
production.
Industries are sometimes located in areas where land is at premium. In these cases
compact systems are desirable for lowering the capital expenditure. Replacing large
clarifiers with compact membrane modules saves space that leads to further saving in
structure and overall construction cost. Future expansion of the treatment plant is
comparatively easier with MBR than conventional systems due to the same reason.

Overall improvement of the treatment efficiency due to MBR leads to better reclamation
and recycling opportunity for industrial wastewater. Often, high water demand, water
shortage and high cost of water are perpetual issues with many industries. Moreover, in
many countries new legislation requires the industry to recycle a major part of its water.
Better effluent quality from MBR requires less downstream treatment of the effluent to
make it reusable. In industrial context, this is of major significance in terms of waste
management and legal requirements making it a prime reason for use of MBR in industrial
wastewater treatment.
 7

3. PRINCIPLES AND BACKGROUND.

3.1 MEMBRANE MATERIALS.

Membranes are made from either organic polymers or ceramic materials. Polymers offer
the advantage of low cost production but may contain natural variations in pore size, and
are prone to fouling and degradation. Ceramic membranes offer excellent quality and
durability but are economically unfeasible for large scale operations, although they may
be well suited for industrial applications (Scott and Smith, 1996). All of the commercial
MBR manufacturers use polymeric MF membranes. Table 1 lists the most common types
of polymer materials used to construct membranes. Polymeric membranes are
manufactured in several forms, the most common types for MBR are hollow fiber and
plate and frame. Hollow fiber membranes are extruded into long fibers and joined into
bundles, called modules. The modules are submerged in the wastewater and permeate is
drawn into the center of the fiber by an applied vacuum. Plate and frame modules are
made from large membrane sheets loaded into cassettes. Permeate is drawn through the
membrane due to an applied pressure differential. Thin layer polymeric membranes may
be laminated to a thicker porous surface to provide additional strength and support (Fane,
1996).

Polymer Membrane Materials and Characteristics

 8

3.2 MEMBRANE FILTRATION.

Filtration is defined as the separation of two or more components from a fluid stream. In
conventional usage, it usually refers to the separation of solid or insoluble particles from a
liquid stream. Membrane filtration extends this application further to include the
separation of dissolved solids in liquid streams, and hence membrane processes in water
treatment are commonly used to remove various materials ranging from salts to
microorganisms. Membranes processes can be categorized in various, related categories,
three of which are: their pore size, their molecular weight cut-off; or the pressure at which
they operated. As the pore size gets smaller or the molecular weight cut-off decreases, the
pressure applied to the membrane for separation of water from other material generally
increases.

In the Figure 1, pressure driven membrane processes from micro-filtration to reverse

osmosis are specified with the respective pore size. The separation involved in the micro-
filtration (MF) can deal with removal of particulate or suspended material ranged in size
from 0.1 to 10 µm. On the other hand, ultra-filtration (UF) is usually used to recover
macro-molecules in the 0.01 to 0.1 µm range. Whereas nano-filtration (NF) can deal with
removal of particulate 0.001 to 0.01 µm. Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are capable of
separating materials less than 0.001 µm. The operation of RO requires very high pressure
sometimes as high as 150 bar in order to overcome the osmotic pressure; whereas the
hydrodynamic pressure required to include flow through micro-filtration and ultra-
filtration membranes are generally in the region of o.1 to 10 bar.
 9

3.3 DESIGN OF MBR SYSTEMS.

Design of an efficient MBR system pivots on the design of a suitable membrane system.
In addition, the effect of changes in the (biochemical) process parameters (like organic
and hydraulic loading, sludge age, sludge recycling etc.) due to change in the solid-liquid
separation system need to be considered in the reactor design and other unit processes
.The effect of these factors on the design of a MBR is discussed in the next sections.

Today, there are different variants to MBR system in commercial use including
proprietary types. MBR is developed both for suspended growth and attached growth
processes. With more researches and several membrane manufacturers competing for the
market, more variants are evolving. The two most common types are discussed below.

Submerged MBR (SMBR) is by far the most common type of MBR in which the
membrane modules are directly installed in the activated sludge reactor vessel, Figure 2.
The permeate or effluent is sucked out of the membrane module with the help of a
permeate pump and the suspended solids fall back into the basin. Sludge wasting is done
directly from the reactor. SMBRs are very popular because of their compactness and low
energy requirement. However, SMBRs need more membrane area and are more suitable
for wastewater with good filterability.

In External Membrane (also called Cross flow or Side stream) MBR, the membrane
modules are located outside the reactor basin, Figure 3. In this system, the mixed liquor
 10

from the reactor is pumped into the external membrane module. External MBRs are also
commercially used in industries as these require less membrane area compared to
submerged MBRs and work better for high strength wastewater with poor filterability.
However, these MBRs consume more energy and need additional space and manifolds.

Choice of a particular system configuration depends upon the application requirement and
there is no clear-cut rule for selection. Designers should use engineering judgment to
choose a particular configuration after considering all the factors related to the application.
Table l shows the key differences between the Submerged and External Membrane
Bioreactors that should be considered in adopting a configuration.

COMPARISION BETWEEN SUBMERGED AND EXTERNAL

CONFIGURATIONS.

Submerged MBR External MBR

Suitability Low strength waste water High strength waste water

with good filterability
Membrane flux Lower Membrane flux
Transmembrane pressure Lower TMP is required
(TMP)
Power requirement Less power is required per
m2 of waste water treated
with poor filterability
Higher Membrane flux
Higher TMP is required
More power is required per
m2 of waste water treated
 11

Sensitivity Less sensitive to variations in More sensitive to variations in

waste water characteristics waste water characteristics

Membrane area requirement More area is required Less area is required

Economics Less expensive at lower More expensive at lower waste
waste water influent rate water influent rate

Membrane backwashing & More frequent backwashing Less frequent backwashing &
cleaning & cleaning required cleaning required

Operation Less operational flexibility More operational flexibility

Extension of capacity Difficult to extend Easier to extend

Different membrane configuration can be used in MBRs. Hollow fibre and tubular
membranes are commonly used in MBRs. These are operated in cross flow mode. Flat
sheet membranes are also used for commercial MBR systems. When submerged hollow
fibre or tubular membranes are used, permeate is obtained by means of a dead-end
filtration. Membranes are usually assembled in compact modules containing several units
of individual membrane units. In packing the membranes within the module, care should
be taken that the membranes are not packed too densely that may hinder the mixed liquor
circulation along the surface of the membranes vis-a-vis render higher dead volume zones
of low flow circulations (Case Study 1). For submerged MBRs, several modules are
installed in rows in the reactor vessel. The modules can be oriented vertically or
horizontally and are supported by frames and other holding devices.

3.4 MEMBRANE CHARACTERISTICS.

Predominantly Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes are used for MBRs as these membranes
achieve some sort of balance among effluent quality, energy requirement and membrane
clogging for treatment of wastewater. Microfiltration membranes allows more solids in
the effluent, and Nano filtration (NF) or Reverse Osmosis (RO) membranes requires
much more energy and will be subjected to frequent clogging. However, researches with
MBRs using Microfiltration or Nano filtration membranes have been noted.
Microfiltration membranes used in MBRs typically have a pore size of 0.2-0.6 micro
meter and are manufactured from inorganic and organic polymeric compounds.
 12

Membrane life can vary Widely depending mainly upon operating conditions, membrane
material and configuration, and maintenance. Manufacturers generally provide some
guidelines on the usable life of membranes, which should be taken into consideration
during design. Generally useful life of submerged membranes is about 5 years while that
for external membranes is about 7 years after which, irreversible fouling and physical
damages start to deteriorate the membranes permanently.
Membrane area can be determined from the following empirical relationships:

Calibrated charts showing the relationship between membrane permeability and

transmembrane pressure (TMP) or flux and TMP can be obtained from the manufacturer.
However, the charts should be used with care as behavior may differ for actual wastewater
due to differences in tested conditions and field conditions. Effect of following factors
should also be taken into account:
1) Membrane outage during backwashing and membrane cleaning;
2) Operational conditions (e.g. shock loading, temperature and pH variation, solid loading
etc.);
3) Dead volumes (unutilized membranes areas due to hindered circulation of feed along the
surface of membranes) due to packing density and membrane diameters;
4) Progressive deterioration of membrane with age;
5) Physical damages.
In absence of any detail calculation, nominal membrane area calculated from
manufacturer’s charts should be increased by 60-80% to take into account effect of the
above factors.

Higher flux would require higher TMP and during the initial part flux increase is directly
proportional to the TMP (straight line portion). Thereafter, further increase in TMP does
not increase the flux proportionally due to pronounced membrane clogging. From
 13

practical point of view, design and operation of membranes should be limited to the linear
portion of relationship. Generally for SMBRs, flux is obtained in the range of 20- 50
L/m2-h at a operative TMP of 25-60 kPa as compared to 80-130 L/m2-h at a TMP of
about 200 kPa for external membranes, depending on the several factors like mixed liquor
characteristics, operating conditions, type of membrane etc. Cross flow, velocities are
maintained between 0.3-0.6 m/s.
This parameter permeability is used to assess the performance of the operating membrane
system and must be related to the operating temperature. During operation the membrane
must process flow variations according to the dry weather flow and rain weather flow
conditions. The permeability at a given time defines the condition of the membrane in
operation. Comparisons can be drawn between the operating permeability at different
times and under different conditions. If the temperature is relatively constant, the effect of
peak loads can be directly seen on the membrane performance and the associated
recovery. In the long term, permeability from different periods of time can be correlated
via a standard temperature (15°C) and the durability and longevity of the membrane can
be interpreted. Permeability is also used to establish the effect of cleaning on the
membrane, be it chemical based or time/process based. Through the latter membrane
filtration process can be optimized. For a system operating at constant flow (constant flux)
the permeability is used to establish the onset of required cleaning. The biological process
as well as the processing conditions also reflects on the measured permeability. The
permeability is a membrane characteristic and should not be confused with filterability
which is sludge characteristic.

The temperature of the water also plays an important role in the assessment of the
membrane performance because of the changes in the viscosity of permeate and
concentrate (biomass in the MBR). The pores of the membrane are very small and the
viscosity of water increases with decreasing temperature, the driving force or TMP needed
to achieve the required flux will increase, thus reducing the permeability. To avoid the
confusion of relating data at different temperatures, all data should be corrected to a
standard temperature of 20°C. It must be noted that the permeability depicted in all
graphical representations measured on any MBR plant is the permeability at the operating
process temperature at the time of the data sample.
 14

3.5 FILTRATION AND CLEANING MODES.

The method of extracting permeate from the bioreactor is referred to as the ‘process’
mode, this mode is interrupted with in situ cleaning modes which vary depending on the
membranes are often aerated with coarse bubbles to keep the solids from building up
around the membrane.

Some membranes require a ‘relaxation’ mode to stabilize the surface solids’ flux before
being returned to the process mode. This relaxation mode is a simple stop of the permeate
flow for a short period of time; the membranes, which are basically elastic in nature, then
return to their original relaxed state. During relaxation the aeration of the membranes
often remains on to assist the renewal of the biomass solids in the vicinity of the
membrane surface, and also has the effect of scouring the surface of the membrane thus
removing any solids build up. Other membranes utilize the so called ‘back pulse’ mode.
After a process mode period of operation the permeate produced exits the system via clean
in place tank. This tank stores enough permeate to allow the membrane to be flushed for a
short period in the opposite direction of the process filtration. The latter has the effect of
flushing the membrane surface of solids build up and fouling before being returned to
process modes. This modes are showed below.
 15

4. CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS.

Major sources of industrial wastewaters include the food processing, pulp and paper, textile,
chemical, pharmaceutical, petroleum, tannery, and manufacturing industries. Characteristics
of industrial wastewaters can usually be represented by the basic parameters, including
chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids
(SS), ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N), heavy metals, pH, colour, turbidity, and biological
parameters. Although characteristics of industrial wastewaters strongly depend on the type
of industrial wastewaters and industrial processes, the typical characteristics of industrial
wastewaters can be summarized, as shown in Table 1. Despite the substantial variation in
results, these data provide a useful guideline for MBR system design and act as a starting
point for waste minimization.

Compared with municipal wastewater, industrial wastewaters usually have a high organic
strength and extreme physicochemical nature (e.g., pH, temperature, salinity), and contain
synthetic and natural substances that may be toxic to or inhibit biological treatment
processes. Municipal wastewater is characterized by low organic strength (250–800 mg
COD/L) whereas industrial operations often generate strong (>1000 mg COD/L) to
extremely strong wastewaters. Extremely strong wastewaters, with COD concentrations that
may even exceed 200 g/L, are generated in olive mills and the textile and beverage
production industries. Furthermore, most industrial wastewaters have non neutral pH (Table
1), and some industrial wastewaters (e.g., from petroleum refining, textile processing, leather
processing, and food conservation) have high salt concentrations. In general, extreme pH
and salinity may give rise to difficulties in the biological treatment of industrial waste
streams. Inhibition of many microorganisms and de-flocculation of sludge flocs were
frequently encountered problems when wastewater treatment systems were operated under
these conditions. In addition, industrial wastewaters may contain a large variety of
potentially inhibiting or toxic compounds (e.g., aromatics, phenols, chlorinated or
fluorinated compounds, volatile organic compounds [VOC], heavy metals, surfactants,
biocides). Some of the toxic compounds may be mostly inert to biodegradation and may
require additional physicochemical treatment, either as pre or post-treatment depending on
their effects on the biological process (e.g., heavy metals). Other compounds may be
persistent to biodegradation under the conditions encountered in most wastewater treatment
processes, and in some cases the combination of physicochemical treatment with biological
treatment could be beneficial.
16
17
 18

5. Applications of MBR in Industrial Wastewater Treatments.

5.1 FOOD INDUSTRY WASTEWATERS

The constituents of food industry wastewaters are often difficult to predict due to the
differences in chemical oxygen demand (COD) and pH in effluents from food products
and the seasonal nature of food processing and post-harvesting. Nevertheless, a review of
literature showed that wastewaters from the food industry are generally biodegradable
and nontoxic, and have high concentrations of COD and suspended solid (SS).

Because MBRs are capable of treating high organic strength and high SS content
wastewaters, attempts were made to evaluate their effectiveness for food processing
wastewaters (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, the MBR systems have been used in the
treatment of wastewaters from field crop processing (sauerkraut, sugar, wheat, maize,
soybean, oil), seafood, the dairy industry (whey, ice cream), and the winery industry
(winery, brewery, distillery). The applications covered laboratory, pilot, and full-scale
studies. The early applications usually utilized external anaerobic MBR (An MBR)
systems. This is not surprising, considering the fact that they feature advantages over
aerobic ones in not only higher organic loading rate and energy efficiency, but also less
sludge yield and production of biogas used as fuel. High COD removal (usually > 90%)
was achieved with organic loading rates (OLRs) in the range of 2–33 kg COD/m3/day,
comparable with ones of the existing high-rate anaerobic systems (4–50 kg
COD/m3/day).67 On the other hand, external An MBRs have some drawbacks, such as
the high energy requirement for membrane fouling control, high COD concentration in
treated effluent, and process instability in treatment. This situation called for the
implementation of submerged aerobic MBRs. As shown in Table 2, many studies on
submerged aerobic MBRs have assessed for food processing wastewater treatments in
recent years. While operated at relatively low biomass concentrations and OLRs,
excellent effluent quality was achieved, facilitating the subsequent reuse without further
polishing.

A key step in the recent MBR development for food industry wastewater treatments was
the idea of submerged An MBR. A submerged An MBR system named “KSAMBR” was
 19

developed by Kubota Membrane Technology Inc. in the last decade, and has been
successfully applied for food and beverage wastewater treatments in 15 full-scale plants
(14 in Japan, 1 in North America as of August 2008).The permeate from KSAMBR was
subjected to aerobic treatment to obtain high-quality effluent. The main features of
KSAMBR include stable operation, only one third or one-fifth footprint requirement,
providing 3–5 times the biomass concentration of the conventional digesters. However, as
a patented technology, membrane fouling control measures involved in the KSAMBR
process were not mentioned in the reports.

Based on the information summarized in Table 2, it seems that An MBR technology is a

great promising technology for food processing wastewater treatments. It is anticipated
that more full-scale An MBR systems will be in operation in the near future.

Table 5.1 Summary of MBR performance for treatment of food industrial

wastewaters.

Type of waste Configuration Reactor Feed Effluent COD COD removal

water volume (m3) COD (g/l) (mg/l) efficiency
Wheat starch External 2000 - - 78 %
waste

Soybean External 3.0 1.4 300 78 %

processing
wastewater

P MAIZE External 2610 15 400 97 %

Processing
effluent
Ice cream External 0.01 13.33 - >95 %
industry

Dairy industry Submerged 0.06 2.163-2.604 65-87 97-98 %

wastewater
 20

5.2 PULP AND PAPER WASTEWATERS.

The pulp and paper industry is responsible for large discharges of highly polluted
wastewaters, which caused slime growth, thermal impacts, scum formation, colour
problems, loss of aesthetic beauty, and the increased amount of toxic substances in the
environment. Depending on the type of the pulping processes, various toxic chemicals
such as resin acids, unsaturated fatty acids, diterpene alcohols, juvaniones, and
chlorinated resin acids are generated in the pulp- and paper-making process, providing a
significant challenge for traditional biological treatment but rendering alternative
treatment technologies such as the MBR desirable. Meanwhile, the pulp and paper
industry has been obliged to substantially reduce wastewater discharge due to the
implementation of stringent regulations. For this purpose, MBR processes are being
adopted in the treatment of pulp and paper wastewaters to obtain high quality effluent to
meet a stringent discharge limit or for sustainable reclamation and reuse.

The typical applications are summarized in Table 3. Based on the data shown in Table 3,
the MBR systems can typically remove 82–99% of COD, almost 100% of suspended
solids at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 0.12–2.5 days. The high COD removal
efficiency compares favorably to the values obtained with conventional activated sludge
processes. For instances, it was found that the MBR was superior to the conventional
activated sludge (CAS) system in COD, suspended solids, and toxicity removal. In
another comparison, MBR was found to have the highest COD removal among
sequencing batch reactor (SBR), ultrafiltration (UF), SBR+UF, and MBR processes for
newsprint white water treatment.

Pulp and paper wastewaters have a high temperature (50–70◦C). Therefore, thermophilic
treatment was preferred for saving energy and operational costs on precooling and
postheating process water prior to and after biological treatment. Several studies have
been conducted to compare the performances of thermophilic treatment with mesophilic
treatment.The results showed that thermophilic treatment can provide comparable
permeate quality. A recent study indicated that thermophilic and mesophilic treatments
were technically feasible but the former faced more serious challenge of membrane
fouling.
 21

TABLE 5.2 Summary of MBR performance for treatment of pulp and paper industry
wastewaters

Type of waste Configuration Reactor Feed COD Effluent COD removal

water volume (mg/l) COD efficiency
(m3) (mg/l)
kraft-bleach External 0.015 40 16 61 %
plant effluent
Evaporator External 5.0 17800 12000 93 %
condensate

Mechanical External 0.01 5520 - 48-58 %

newsprint mill
white water
Synthetic-kraft External 0.008 1014 - >99 %
pulp mill
condensate
Kraft pulp mill Submerged 0.004 5120 152 87-97 %
foul
condensates

It appears that submerged AnMBR technology has a bright future for pulp and paper
effluent treatment to recover energy and achieve closed cycle operation. Future
researchers should focus on the control of membrane fouling in thermophilic and
mesophilic submerged An MBRs. Considering the rapid development in bio-refining or
bioenergy in pulp and paper mills, submerged An MBR technology is anticipated to play
an important role for energy recovery from wastewaters.

5.3 PHARMACEUTICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

The pharmaceutical industry generates process wastewaters containing a wide-ranging

class of compounds with substantial variability in structures, function, behaviour , and
activity.Contaminant concentrations in pharmaceutical wastewater are typically in the
range of 2000–40000 mg/L COD, 10000–20000 mg/L SS. It is estimated that
approximately half of the pharmaceutical wastewaters produced worldwide are discarded
 22

without specific treatment. The presence of certain pharmaceuticals in ground and surface
waters is a serious environmental issue. Pharmaceutical wastewaters have been reported
posing specific problems for the traditional approaches, such as CAS, due to the fact that
contained organic chemicals are structurally complex and resistant to biological de-
gradation. Effective treatment solution is therefore desirable.

A great concern of pharmaceutical wastewater treatments is the pharmaceutical removal.

Recent studies on pharmaceutical wastewater treatments have demonstrated that
elimination of high to medium polar pharmaceuticals in municipal WWTPs is often
insufficient. The performance of pharmaceutical removal in MBR systems differed from
one study to another. As shown in Table some reported complete or very high removal of
certain pharmaceuticals while some others obtained opposite results. The performance
would depend very much on the type of pharmaceuticals, and a general trend in
pharmaceutical removal could not be inferred. However, it is worth noting that there are
several potential measures to improve the removal efficiency.

TABLE 5.3 Summary of MBR performance for treatment of pharmaceutical

wastewaters.

Type of waste Configuration Reactor Feed COD COD

water volume (m3) (g/l) removal
efficiency
Hospital Submerged 0.015 0.048–0.277 >80 %
wastewater
Chemical Submerged 12 5.79–58.79 >99%
synthesis
based
pharmaceutical
wastewater
Cytostatic drug External 0.02 2.3 90%
wastewater
Pharmaceutical Submerged 0.017 0.85-1.855 95 %
wastewater
 23

For example, certain compounds have been shown to be removed more efficiently by
reducing the sludge loading rate (SLR) or increasing the HRT. Increasing SRT results in a
reduction of the SLR. This enables populations of slower growing bacteria to develop and
also serves to increase the potential for the acclimatization of the population to the
compounds encountered. Another important measure is bio-augmentation. Saravanane
and Sundararaman applied an MBR system to treat pharmaceutical wastewater containing
a cephalosporin derivative, and achieved enhanced degradation through bio-
augmentation. MBRs implementing special microorganisms may service as potential
contenders among present pharmaceutical wastewater treatment processes.

Despite the increasing research activities in this field, there is still a paucity of full-scale
practice applications reported. The gap between bench scale studies and full-scale
applications has to be bridged by corroborating the small-scale results with scale-up pilot
plant studies.

5.4 LANDFILL LEACHATE.

Leachate is a high organic matter and ammonium nitrogen–strength wastewater formed

as a result of percolation of rainwater and moisture through waste in landfills. The
chemical composition of leachate is dependent on the age and maturity of the landfill site.
In general, in fresh leachate from young landfills (the acid-phase landfills), the
concentrations of organic compounds are very high, whereas in mature leachate from old
landfills (the methanogenic-phase landfills), the levels of organic matter are substantially
lower.

Recently, many studies have intensively focused on the treatment of leachate by using
MBRs. Pilot- and full-scale aerobic and anaerobic MBR systems have been used. MBR
systems appear to be very effective when applied to young leachates, but their efficiency
decreased with an increased leachate age. In addition, MBR has shown moderate NH+ 4 -
N removal although high NH4+-N concentration in the influent has inhibition effect on
activated sludge. This is probably due to a relatively high sludge retention time (SRT)
used in MBR systems that promotes the growth of nitrifying bacteria. Furthermore, some
studies have demonstrated that simultaneous nitrification-de nitrification could occur in
MBR systems.
 24

Because MBR system alone could not achieve sufficient organic and nitrogen removal
treatment schemes used for landfill leachate treatment usually consist of a combination of
MBR and physicochemical treatment units. As an example an effective removal of
leachate contaminants by using stripping followed by flocculation, MBR and reverse
osmosis treatment.

TABLE 5.4 Summary of MBR performance for treatment of landfill leachate

Type of waste Configuration Reactor Feed COD COD removal

water volume (m3) (g/l) efficiency
Landfill leachate Submerged 50 0.5-1.5 38%

Medium-age Submerged 0.005 8 60-76%

landfill
leachate
Old landfill External 0.06 10.084 7.29%
leachate
Diluted landfill Submerged 0.165 2.2 77%
leachate
Fresh landfill External 0.05 15-41 90%
leachate

5.5 OTHER INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS.

MBR systems have also been used for the treatment of less common kinds of industrial
wastewaters, such as wastewaters from the chemical industry, the laundry and bathing
process, the explosives process, the toilet, the optoelectronic industry, the thin-film
transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) industry, coke plants, and bactericide
wastewaters. These studies are summarized in Table below.
 25

TABLE 5.5 Summary of MBR performance for treatment of other industrial

wastewaters

Type of waste Configuration Reactor Feed COD Effluent COD COD

water volume (m3) (g/l) (mg/l) removal
efficiency
Coke Submerged 0.0115 1.4-3.02 243 87.9 %
wastewater
Explosives external 0.0012 0.357 10.5 97.2%
process
wastewater
Bathing Submerged 1.5 0.126-0.322 < 40 34-85%
wastewater
Laundry Submerged - 0.7 60 90%
wastewater
Bactericide Submerged - 2.2 < 100 90-98%
wastewater

The common objective of wastewater treatments is to minimize contaminants in water for

the subsequent discharge or reuse. An important concern associated with biological
treatments of such wastewaters is their toxicity to microorganisms. However, wastewaters
containing toxic compounds can still be biologically degraded provided that appropriate
precautions are taken. This can include pre-treatment to remove the inhibitors prior to
biological treatments, acclimation of the biomass by a gradual increase in the inhibitor
concentration, and provision of a sufficiently high SRT. MBR systems may have an
advantage over other biological systems because the biomass can be retained even if an
inhibitor upsets the treatment system. Because toxic substances rarely cause cell death,
biological treatments would only be temporarily impaired. As long as such wastewaters
are amenable to MBR treatment, in theory, significant contaminants removal could be
achieved.

As shown in table the efficiencies of MBR systems were always satisfactory. A COD
removal efficiency of over 85% was usually achieved with an effluent COD of less than
250 mg/L. Moreover, there was a preliminary economic analysis for the case of
electroplating wastewater treatment with an MBR system from these studies it is clear
that for different types of waste water MBRs should be preferred not only for economical
reasons but also for efficiency in the removal of organic matter and nutrients, provided
that a proper design and pre-treatment are involved.
 26

6. MEMBRANE FOULING AND ITS MITIGATION.

Membrane fouling represents one of the most challenging issues constraining the more
extensive applications of MBRs. Briefly, membrane fouling could be caused by pore
plugging/clogging by colloidal particles, adsorption of soluble compounds and bio
fouling, deposition of solids as a cake layer during a long-term operation. Generally MBR
is designed to operate at constant flux, and a three-stage transmembrane pressure (TMP)
profile characterized as an initially short-term rapid TMP rise (stage 1) followed by an
extended slow TMP rise period (stage 2) and a transition to a rapid TMP rise (stage 3)
was frequently observed..

All the parameters involved in the design and operation of MBR processes affect
membrane fouling. These factors can be classified into four categories: feed
characteristics, biomass characteristics, membrane characteristics, and operational
conditions. Some factors have direct effects on membrane fouling whereas others
determine the biomass characteristics and affect membrane fouling in turn.

6.1 Mitigation of MBR Fouling.

Some common methods for controlling the fouling includes following:

 Membrane backwashing.
 Reducing flux.
 SRT (sludge retention time) control
 Physical and chemical cleaning.

All the membrane systems installed have the capacity to be cleaned with chemicals. The
chemicals often used are: sodium hypochloride (NaOCl), sodium hydroxide (NaOH),
citric acid, oxalic acid, hydrochloric acid (HCl), and detergents or combinations of these.
The use of the chemicals depends strongly on the fouling and the type of membrane.

The cleaning processes can be split into two distinct categories: maintenance clean (MC)
and intensive clean (IC). The MC is as suggested a preventative clean carried out with low
chemical concentrations but a higher cleaning frequency, thus prolonging the time
between IC. The IC is simply a cleaning procedure established to return the membrane
back to its original permeability after a long period in operation. The chemical
 27

concentrations used and the contact time are higher and longer respectively, hence
intensive.

All the above mentioned modes of operation are carried out automatically with the
exception of the IC, where some manual supervision is needed. The combinations of the
modes and the MC and/or IC vary greatly depending on the membrane supplier, the feed
flow conditions, the season (summer or winter) and more so the performance of the
bioreactor.

One unique and significant method to control membrane fouling in MBRs is the
development of a forward osmosis MBR (FOMBR).

Figure. Schematic diagram of FOMBR

If we compare with the MF or UF process, the FO is a concentration-driving process and

it has the advantages of much higher rejection at a lower/no hydraulic pressure, and it has
a lower membrane fouling propensity. An FOMBR for typical strength wastewater
treatment developed by Achili is shown in above figure. The system utilized a submerged
FO membrane module inside a bioreactor. Through osmosis, water is transported from the
mixed liquor across a semipermeable membrane and into a draw solution (DS; NaCl
solution) with a higher osmotic pressure. To produce potable water, the diluted DS is
treated in an RO unit and the by product is a reconcentrated DS for reuse in the FO
process. If we compare FOMBR with conventional MBR, the FOMBR gives higher
sustainable flux and lower membrane fouling as well as better COD removal. So we can
 28

say that the FOMBR system is a low-fouling alternative to the conventional MBR
process.

Optimization of reactor and module design was also found advantageous to membrane
fouling control. With respect to aeration, bubbling requirements for MBRs are typically
split into fine bubbles for aeration and larger coarse bubbles for fouling control. In this
respect, Phattaranawik designed a bubble-size transformer (BST) comprising converging
channels and a tube-bank unit was used to coalesce fine bubbles into coarse bubbles.
Bubble diameters and bubbling velocities were found to increase after the
transformations, and thus result in a significant reduction in membrane fouling. Another
significant attempts to apply rotary disk type UF membrane in MBR systems were made
by Lu et al. It was found that such system worked well with a high sludge concentration
and highly viscous fluid. The studies confirmed that rotary disk–type UF membrane can
be successfully used in MBR systems with low membrane fouling.

In brief, besides the conventional membrane fouling control strategies, some new
strategies have been explored, providing more options for effective membrane fouling
control in industrial wastewater treatment.

It is worth noticing that application of the previously mentioned membrane fouling

control strategies represents the involvement of the operational, cost, energy, and
manufacturing issues in the MBR systems. In principle, the expenses are minor compared
with the benefits coming from the significant reduction in membrane fouling.
 29

7.CAPITAL,OPERATION AND MAITENANCE COSTS.

The overall costs of MBR systems are represented by the sum of the capital, operation,
and maintenance costs. The capital costs mainly include costs of membranes, tanks, and
plant equipment. Other capital costs, such as the costs of land, civil engineering, and other
electrical equipment and construction, are very location specific and therefore difficult to
assess and compare. The operation costs are mainly costs of energy demand, sludge
treatment and disposal, and chemical usage for membrane cleaning. The maintenance
costs mainly refer to costs of depreciation of assets and membrane replacement. For a
full-scale MBR system, these costs strongly depend on the configuration of the reactor,
the membrane modules, the nature (concentration) of the effluent, and the pursued extent
of treatment.
 30

8.SUMMARY

The MBR concept is similar to conventional biological wastewater treatment except for
the separation of the activated sludge and treated wastewater. In the MBR system this
separation is done by membrane filtration whereas in the conventional system is done by
secondary clarification. The treatment in the MBR system provides a high degree of
treatment in terms of suspended solids and organic matter removal. Also the process can
be run in a nitrification/ de-nitrification mode to remove nitrogen compounds, and can be
combined with the use of a coagulant for phosphorus removal.

The research and commercial applications of the MBR technology for industrial
wastewater treatments are rapidly advanced around the world. The application areas cover
a wide range of industrial wastewaters, which include food processing, pulp and paper,
textile, tannery, landfill leachate, pharmaceutical, oily and petrochemical, and other types
of industrial wastewaters.

But Most of the research studies done on industrial wastewater treatments with MBRs has
been confined to bench experiments. Full-scale studies spanning long-term operations
have been limited. Many times, bench testing doesn’t accurately predict full-scale results.
Attempts should be made to bridge the gap between success at laboratory-scale studies
and full-scale applications.
 31

REFERANCES.

 Judd, S. (2006). The MBR book: Principles and applications of membrane

bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment. London, England: Elsevier.
 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 Res. 43, 1489–1512.
 Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., and Fane, T.A.G. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors
used in wastewater treatment. J. Memb. Sci. 284(1–2), 17–53.
 Chang, I.S., Le Clech, P., Jefferson, B., and Judd, S. (2002). Membrane fouling in
membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Eng. 128, 1018–1029.
 Shariati, F.P., Mehrnia, M.R., Salmasi, B.M., Heran, M., Wisniewski, C., and
Sarrafzadeh, M.H. (2010). Membrane bioreactor for treatment of pharmaceutical
wastewaters. Desalination 250, 798–800.
 Rajesh Banu, J., Anandan, S., Kaliappan, S., and Yeom, I.-T. (2008). Treatment of
dairy wastewaters.
 Lo, I.M.C. (1996). Characteristics and treatment of leachates from domestic landfills.
Environ. Int. 22, 433–442.
 Tatsi, A.A., Zouboulis, A.I., Matis, K.A., and Samaras, P. (2003). Coagulation
flocculation pre-treatment of sanitary landfill leachates. Chemosphere 53, 737–744.
 Zhang, Y., Ma, C., Ye, F., Kong, Y., and Li, H. (2009). The treatment of wastewater
of paper mill with integrated membrane process. Desalination 236, 349–356.
 Defrance Lt and Jaffrin M4Y4 (1999). Comparison between filtrations at fixed
transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: application to a membrane
bioreactor used for Wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science 152, 203-
2lO.
 Paul M. S. (2006) Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment:
Applicability and Selection of Optimal System Configuration. Courtesy of WEFTEC
2008, Originally published Oct. 2006, (Water Environment Federati0n’s Annual
Technical Exhibition and Conference -WEFTEC).[ This presents the effect on life of
submerged membrane and extemal membrane due to irreversible fouling and
physical damages and discusses on trans membrane pressure].
 Stacy scott. Application of Membrane Bioreactor Technology to waste water
treatment and reuse.
 32

 Chang, C.Y., Chang, J.S., Vigneswaran, S., and Kandasamy, J. (2008).

Pharmaceutical wastewater treatment by membrane bioreactor process—a case study
in southern Taiwan. Desalination 234, 393–401.
 Phattaranawik, J., Fane, A.G., Pasquier, A.C.S., and Bing, W. (2007). Membrane
bioreactor with bubble-size transformer: Design and fouling control. Environ. Energy
Eng. 53, 243–248.
 Guo, J.F., Xia, S.Q., Wang, R.C., and Zhao, J.F. (2008). Study on membrane fouling
of submerged membrane bioreactor in treating bathing wastewater. J. Environ. Sci.
20, 1158–1167.
 Achilli, A., Cath, T.Y., Marchand, E.A., and Childress, A.E. (2009). The forward
osmosis membrane bioreactor: A low fouling alternative to MBR processes.
Desalination 239, 10–21.
 Katayon, S., Megat Mohd Noor, M.J., Ahmad, J., Abdul Ghani, L.A., Nagaoka, H.,
and Aya, H. (2004). Effects of mixed liquor suspended solid concentrations on
membrane bioreactor efficiency for treatment of food industry wastewater.
Desalination 167, 153–158.
 Stephenson, T., Brindle, K., Judd, S., and Jefferson, B. (2000). Membrane
bioreactors for wastewater treatment. London, England: IWA.
 Zoh, K.D., and Stenstrom, M.K. (2002). Application of a membrane bioreactor for
treating explosives process wastewater. Water Res. 36, 1018–1024.
 Amr M. Abdel_Kader. A REVIEW OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR)
TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR APPLICATIONS IN THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS .( Eleventh International Water Technology Conference,
IWTC11 2007 Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt )
 33

Specific advantages of MBR systems in the treatment of industrial

wastewaters include the following.
• Slower growing organisms, such as nitrifying bacteria and those capable of degrading
complex organics, can be readily maintained in MBRs.
• Largely unencumbered control of the SRT provides optimum control of the microbial
population and flexibility in operation. Provides opportunity to consider design/operation
of bioreactor at very short or very long SRT (e.g., 1 day or less, or greater than 30 days) as
process requirements dictate versus concerns for achieving a flocculant biomass. A short
SRT maximizes biomass production and its organic content which if the biomass is
anaerobically processed, maximizes digester gas production and therefore its energy
value. A long SRT favors aerobic digestion of bio-solids, which may be attractive under
certain circumstances.
• High mixed liquor concentrations in the reactor allow wastewaters to be treated
efficiently at long SRTs, minimizing biomass yield.
• More compact biological reactors are possible.
• Non-biodegradable compounds tend to be discharged with the sludge rather than with
the treated water.
• Rapid initial process start up due to retention of all microbial seed material.
• Particulate, colloidal and higher molecular weight organics are retained for a period
equivalent to the reactor SRT versus the liquid contact time or hydraulic retention time
(HRT), providing maximum opportunity for biological degradation of these compounds.
• Eliminates concern for changing biomass settling characteristics (e.g., filamentous
growth) and associated cost implications (e.g., polymer addition, chlorine addition to
control filaments).
• Can be readily configured to achieve biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal if
required. Ideal process configuration to promote removal of certain metals through
external chemical addition, and retention of resulting salts and hydroxides.
• MBR systems can operate largely unattended except for occasional routine performance
checks and maintenance of mechanical components.
• Represents an attractive technology for upgrading and/or expanding an existing
activated sludge system plagued by clarifier performance problems or excessive
 34

operational needs, or where site constraints dictate against addition of new structures.
Ideal first step in producing water for reuse through reverse osmosis.