See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221737301

Specific energy consumption of membrane bioreactor (MBR) for sewage

treatment

Article  in  Water Science & Technology · January 2012

DOI: 10.2166/wst.2012.861 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

58 3,444

3 authors, including:

Jacob Hendrik Josph Maria van der Graaf Jules van Lier
Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
112 PUBLICATIONS   1,212 CITATIONS    430 PUBLICATIONS   9,211 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MMWWRR 2017 - 1st symposium on Microbial Methods for Waste and Water Resource Recovery View project

D-SHIT (D-SHIT, or Domestic Slurry Hydraulics In Transport.) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jules van Lier on 18 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 380 © IWA Publishing 2012 Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012

Specific energy consumption of membrane bioreactor

(MBR) for sewage treatment
Pawel Krzeminski, Jaap H. J. M. van der Graaf and Jules B. van Lier

ABSTRACT
Pawel Krzeminski (corresponding author)
This paper provides an overview of current electric energy consumption of full-scale municipal MBR
Jules B. van Lier
installations based on literature review and case studies. Energy requirements of several MBRs were Department of Water Management,
Section Sanitary Engineering,
linked to operational parameters and reactor performance. Total and specific energy consumption Delft University of Technology,
Stevinweg 1,
data were analysed on a long-term basis with special attention given to treated flow, design capacity, PO Box 5048,
2600 GA Delft,
membrane area and effluent quality. The specific energy consumption of an MBR system is
The Netherlands
dependent on many factors, such as system design and layout, volume of treated flow, membrane E-mail: p.krzeminski@tudelft.nl

utilization and operational strategy. Operation at optimal flow conditions results in a low specific Jaap H. J. M. van der Graaf
Witteveen þ Bos,
energy consumption and energy efficient process. Energy consumption of membrane related van Twickelostraat 2,
PO Box 233,
modules was in the range of 0.5–0.7 kWh/m3 and specific energy consumption for membrane 7400 AE Deventer,
aeration in flat sheet (FS) was 33–37% higher than in a hollow fibre (HF) system. Aeration is a major The Netherlands

energy consumer, often exceeding 50% share of total energy consumption. In consequence, coarse
bubble aeration applied for continuous membrane cleaning remains the main target for energy
saving actions. Also, a certain potential for energy optimization without immediate danger of
affecting the quality of the produced effluent was observed.
Key words | energy consumption, energy efficiency, full-scale, membrane bioreactor (MBR), operation,
performance

INTRODUCTION

A membrane bioreactor (MBR) combines biological waste-
water treatment with a membrane separation step. MBR
technology is rapidly developing with an increasing
number of applications and increasing capacity. At present
the number of MBR installations exceeds 800 installations
in Europe alone. The MBR technology is now regarded as
mature and various authors denominate MBR as the best
available technology for industrial but also municipal waste-
water treatment (Kraume & Drews ; Lesjean et al. ).
However, despite these developments, energy demand and
related costs issues are, together with the membrane fouling
issues, major drawbacks that restrict further expansion.
High aeration rates for frequent membrane cleaning
remain a challenge in terms of energy consumption and
optimization of MBRs (Judd ; Verrecht et al. ).
To research the specific energy requirements of MBRs
and elucidate where possible future energy consumption
reduction can be achieved, extensive research on the
specific energy consumption in several full-scale MBR
doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.861
plants was performed. This paper provides an overview of
current electric energy consumption of full-scale municipal
MBR installations based on literature review and four case
studies. Moreover, operational processes associated with
aspects of energy are also investigated in this study.
Literature review
In the past 50 years, developments in MBR technology
resulted in an energy demand reduction from about
5.0 kWh/m3, needed for the first side-stream MBRs,
to 1.0 kWh/m3 in 2001–2005 and very recently to about
0.5 kWh/m3 for the present Zenon submerged MBRs (Buer &
Cumin ). The energy requirement of the first tubular
side-stream MBR installations was reported to be typically
6.0–8.0 kWh/m3 (Van Dijk & Roncken ), mainly due to
energy intensive cross-flow pumping of the liquid. The intro-
duction of the submerged membranes concept reduces the
pumping energy requirement to 0.007 kWh/m3 of permeate
 381 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
compared with values exceeding 3.0 kWh/m3 required for
the side-stream mode (Visvanathan et al. ). The sub-
merged concept allows reduction of average power
consumption to 2.0 kWh/m3 of treated water (Ueda et al.
) compared with 3.0–4.0 kWh/m3 for a side-stream MBR.
In 2003, Cornel et al. () investigated the energy con-
sumption of two full-scale municipal MBRs with and
without a separate membrane tank. The one with mem-
branes submerged in the aeration tank consumed about
1.0 kWh/m3 and the one with separate membrane tank
about 2.5 kWh/m3. In 2005, STOWA and Global Water
Research Coalition published the State of the Science
Report (STOWA ) on MBRs for municipal wastewater
treatment in which energy consumption was reported to
be in the range of 1.5–2.5 kWh/m3. Also Krause ()
reported the specific energy consumption of MBR plants
to be in the range of 0.8–2.2 kWh/m3. During the period
of 2001–2006 the energy consumption of European MBRs
was notably reduced from 2.0 to less than 1.0 kWh/m3,
mainly due to membrane module development and optimiz-
ations in process operation (Giesen et al. ). Other
authors (Van der Roest et al. ; Lesjean & Luck )
also observed improvement in energy efficiency and
reported the energy demand for full-scale municipal MBR
installations to be about 0.9–1.0 kWh/m3. Further improve-
ment is possible, as the theoretical energy consumption for
a municipal MBR with a separate membrane tank was esti-
mated to be 0.8 kWh/m3 (Krause & Cornel ).
Information on energy demand of full-scale MBR plants
published in peer-reviewed journals is limited. However, a
considerable number of references can be found in other
non-peer-reviewed publications. Typical energy demand
values for MBR systems are reported to be in the range of
0.8–1.4 kWh/m3, but a wide range of energy consumption
figures are reported in the literature (Lazarova et al. ).
For example, the energy usage of seven German full-scale
municipal MBRs was reported to be: 0.7, 0.8, 1.0, 1.0, 1.2,
1.6 and 1.8 kWh/m3 (Palmowski et al. ). A summary
of the energy requirements for various municipal MBRs is
provided in Table 1 while Figure 1 presents histograms sep-
arated on the basis of membrane configuration (Figure 1(a))
and flow rate (Figure 1(b)).
Conventional activated sludge systems vs. membrane
bioreactors
The energy consumption of membrane bioreactors is often
compared with conventional activated sludge (CAS) waste-
water treatment systems and is reported to be 30–50%
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
(STOWA ; Lazarova et al. ), 75–90% (Van Bentem
et al. , ) or 10 to 100% superior to CAS energy con-
sumption (Livingstone et al. ). The difference arises from
the fact that the authors compared different MBR concepts
and CAS plants with specific design and operational charac-
teristics. For example, Mizuta & Shimada () analysed
electric energy consumption at 985 Japanese municipal
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and reported con-
sumption of CAS system to be between 0.3 and 1.9 kWh/
m3. Whereas the former value is beyond the potential of cur-
rent MBRs, the latter one is easily achievable in most well-
operated full-scale MBRs. However, also, much lower
energy consumption values for CAS systems are reported.
The CAS energy demand, expressed per volume of treated
wastewater, widely ranges, being 0.1–0.2 kWh/m3 (Gnirss
& Dittrich ), 0.2–0.3 kWh/m3 (Ueda et al. ),
0.3 kWh/m3 (Yang et al. ), 0.4 kWh/m3 (Van Bentem
et al. ), 0.5 kWh/m3 (Judd ), 0.4–0.6 kWh/m3
(Cornel et al. ) and 0.9–2.9 kWh/m3 for industrial appli-
cations (Cummings & Frenkel ).
Due to intensive membrane aeration rates required to
manage membrane fouling and clogging, MBR energy con-
sumption was three times higher even when compared
with CAS systems combined with advanced treatment tech-
niques (Gnirss & Dittrich ). However, the gap was
significantly reduced in recent years. Nowadays, the MBR
energy requirement is comparable with CAS with tertiary
treatment (Brepols et al. ), yet still 10–30% higher
(Van Bentem et al. , ). It should be noted, however,
that a fair comparison of MBR systems with CAS systems is
only possible when similar effluent quality is produced.
Meaning, a direct comparison between MBR and even
CAS with sand filtration is not appropriate.
Nevertheless, Krause & Dickerson () and Krause
et al. () clearly stated that operation of a full-scale
municipal MBR, with a total energy demand at the same
range as a CAS process having an energy requirement of
0.5 kWh/m3, is possible provided a new mechanical
cleaning process (MCP) and optimized PLC programming
are used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MBR plant description
Four full-scale MBR installations treating mainly municipal
wastewater in The Netherlands were investigated and
assessed. The selected MBRs include plants equipped with
 382
|

P. Krzeminski et al.
Table 1 Energy consumption of various municipal MBR installations

Energy
Membrane Capacity Dry weather Rain weather Start of Period of consumption
Installation type [P.E.] flow [m3/d] flow [m3/d] operation analysis [kWh/m3] Reference

Schwagalp (DE) FS/Hubert 780 100 156 2003 N.A. 1.40 (Judd )

|
Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
Park Place (US) HF/Memcor N.A. 610 890 2003 N.A. 1.10 (Fatone et al. )
METU Ankara (TR) FS/Hubert 2,000 144 N.A. 2005 N.A. 1.0–2.0 (∼1.4) (Komesli & Gokcay )
Grasse Roumiguières (FR) HF/Zenon 24,000 6,250 N.A. 2007 N.A. 0.47–2.2 (Lazarova et al. )
Glessen (DE) HF/Zenon 9,000 2,000 6,500 2008 N.A. 0.90 (Brepols et al. )
Rodingen (DE) HF/Zenon 3,000 300 3,200 1999 2001 2.0–2.4 (Cornel et al. ; Brepols et al. )
Markranstadt (DE) HF/Zenon 12,000 2,700 4,320 2000 2001–2003 0.8–1.5 (Giesen et al. ; Cornel & Krause
(∼1.36) ; Pinnekamp )
Knautnaundorf (DE) FS/Hubert 900 113 432 2002 2002–2003 1.3–2.0 (Judd ; Giesen et al. ; Fatone
et al. )
Cauley Creek (US) HF/Zenon N.A. 9,464 18,930 2002 2003 1.59 (Pellegrin & Kinnear )
Brescia-Verziano (IT) HF/Zenon 46,000 12,000 42,500 2002 2003–2005 0.85 (Giesen et al. ; Fatone et al. ;
Wallis-Lage and Levesque )
Monheim (DE) HF/Zenon 9,700 1,820 6,900 2003 2003–2005 1.00 (Giesen et al. )
Viareggio (IT) HF/Zenon 24,000 5,250 6,000 2005 2006 <0,60 (Fatone et al. )
Nordkanal-Kaarst (DE) HF/Zenon 80,000 16,000 45,000 2004 2004–2005 0.4–0.9 (∼0.9) (Judd ; Giesen et al. ; Fatone
et al. ; Wallis-Lage & Levesque
; Brepols et al. ; Engelhard &
Lindner ; Judd )
Seelscheid (DE) FS/Kubota 11,500 8,544 11,000 2004 2004–2005 0.9–1.7 (∼1.5) (Giesen et al. ; Pinnekamp ;
Wallis-Lage & Levesque )
Pooler (US) HF/Zenon N.A. N.A. 11,400 2004 2005 1.74 (Pellegrin & Kinnear )
Schilde (BE) HF/Zenon 10,000 5,520 8,500 2004 2005–2006 0.62–0.64 (Wallis-Lage & Levesque ; Fenu

Water Science & Technology

et al. ; Garcés et al. )
Fowler (US) HF/Zenon N.A. N.A. 9,500 2004 2005–2007 4.23 (Pellegrin & Kinnear )
Varsseveld (NL) HF/Zenon 23,150 6,000 18,120 2005 2005–2009 0.75–1.0 (Giesen et al. ; Van Bentem et al.
; Van Bentem et al. )
Westbury (UK) FS/Kubota 4,700 4,150 5,008 2002 2006–2007 1.98 (Ryan )
Dundee (US) FS/Kubota N.A. 2,990 5,700 2005 2006–2007 0.66–1.23 (Stone & Livingston )
Heenvliet (NL) FS/Toray 3,300 912 2,400 2006 2006–2009 0.7–1.2 (Mulder ; Mulder et al. ;

|
65.2
Mulder et al. )
(continued)

|
2012
383 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs) Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012

flat sheet (FS) and hollow fibre (HF) membranes submerged

in the separate filtration tank along with plant equipped

(Wallis-Lage & Levesque ; Tao

with side-stream externally placed tubular (MT) membranes.
A description of the investigated plants is presented in

(Pellegrin & Kinnear )

(Pellegrin & Kinnear )
(Pellegrin & Kinnear )
Table 2.
Heenvliet, Varsseveld and Ootmarsum MBRs were
monitored in respect to energy consumption, operation
(Livingstone )

and performance. However, for Ootmarsum WWTP, the

et al. )

presented energy consumption values are for the entire

(Koch )
(Judd )
(Judd )
Reference

treatment plant, the MBR plus the CAS with sand filter.
Due to lack of installed electricity measurement devices,
available energy data are limited to the total energy for the
WWTP and energy for aeration purposes only. Hence, the
1.3–3.0 (∼0.7)
consumption

extensive analysis of the Ootmarsum MBR system is not

0.54–0.55

1.59–1.95
[kWh/m3]

0.8–1.0

feasible and only total plant consumption can be con-

Energy

1.16
1.82
1.61
1.43

sidered. Therefore, Ootmarsum MBR will not be discussed

in terms of energy consumption and for the comparison
2007–2009
2008–2009
2008–2009
2008–2010
2009–2010

studies another tubular installation, namely MBR Terneu-

Period of
analysis

zen, will be used.

2010
2007

2010

Data collection, processing and analysis

operation
Start of

2006
2004
2006
2007
2003

2010
2006

2008

This analysis was performed based on the data collected by

the Waterboards at each location. The energy consumption
data, reported as kWh, are based on the electric power con-
Rain weather

sumed at each investigated location. The specific energy

flow [m3/d]

consumption data are reported as specific electricity con-

45,500
15,142

27,000
23,000

62,880
7,600

4,500
N.A.

sumption per volume of treated wastewater and expressed

as kWh/m3. Additionally, parallel to the energy consump-
tion study, plant performances were monitored and
Dry weather
flow [m3/d]

analysed in respect of their potential indirect relation with

15,250

12,900
23,000

35,000
5,700
6,057

2,300

energy consumption. The performance of the MBR plants

N.A.

was evaluated in environmental and economic terms

based on major performance indicators as proposed by
200,000
Capacity

Benedetti et al. () and Yang et al. ():

50,000

42,500
5,000
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
[P.E.]

•
Legend: HF – hollow fibre; FS – flat sheet; N.A. – not available.

effluent concentration of pollutants (mg/L),

• removal efficiencies of pollutants expressed as % of
HF/Memcor
HF/Memcor
FS/Kubota

FS/Kubota
FS/Kubota
HF/Zenon
HF/Zenon

incoming load, and

HF/Koch
Membrane

• energy consumption per volume of treated wastewater

type

(kWh/m3).
Running Springs (US)
Sabadell-Riu Sec (ES)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Bonita Springs (US)
Ulu Pandan (SG)

Santa Paula (US)

Healdsbrug (US)
continued

Delphos (US)

MBR performance
LOTT (US)
Installation
|
Table 1

Good removal efficiencies of chemical oxygen demand

(COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD) and Total Kjeldahl
 384 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs) Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012

Figure 1 | Energy consumption histograms on the basis of: (a) membrane configuration and (b) flow capacity.

Table 2 | Characteristics of MBRs

Location Heenvliet Varsseveld Ootmarsum Terneuzen

WWTP configuration CAS þ MBR MBR CAS þ MBR CAS þ MBR

Membrane configuration Submerged Submerged Sidestream Sidestream
Membrane location Separate filtration tank Separate filtration tank External External
Membrane type Flat sheet (FS) Hollow fibre (HF) Tubular (MT) Tubular (MT)
Membrane supplier Toray Zenon-GE Norit Norit
2
Total membrane area [m ] 4,115 20,160 2,436 13,860
Biological Capacity [P.E.] 3,333 23,150 7,000 15,500
3
Hydraulic capacity (DWF) [m /h] 50 250–300 75 400
Hydraulic capacity (RWF) [m3/h] 100 755 150 620
Average Flux (DWF) [LMH] 12–24 15–25 26–40 25–40
SADm [Nm3/m2 h] 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6
SADp [m3/m3] 12.9 12.3 6.0 13.3

Legend: DWF – dry weather flow; RWF – rain weather flow; P.E. – person equivalent; SADm – specific aeration demand per membrane area; SADp – specific aeration demand per permeate
volume.

Nitrogen (TKN) were achieved in all of the plants. All MBRs
removed COD to about 25 mg/L with removal efficiency
between 92 and 96%. BOD was removed far below the
10 mg/L requirement with efficiencies of about 99%. BOD
concentrations lower than 1.0 mg/L, in Ootmarsum and
Varsseveld, and 1.7 mg/L in Heenvliet were accomplished.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen was removed with 96–98%
efficiency, to concentrations of about 2.0 mg/L. The best
nitrogen removal was achieved in Heenvliet where the aver-
age value of total nitrogen (n-Total) was 3.0 mg/L for the year
2008. In all cases, biological removal of phosphorus was lim-
ited due to insufficient anaerobic conditions in the bioreactor
and/or low sludge loading levels. Phosphorus removal effi-
ciency was in the range of 67–96% and 73–94% in 2008
and 2009, respectively. Nonetheless, phosphorus removal
of 94–96% reaching total phosphorus (P-Total) concen-
trations of 0.4–0.7 mg/L was attained in MBR Varsseveld in
combination with the dosage of iron chloride sulfate. In
MBRs of Heenvliet and Ootmarsum, chemicals were not
added, which resulted in phosphorus removal of 67–74%
and higher concentrations in the effluent, namely 1.7–
2.2 mg/L. The summary of overall performance of the inves-
tigated MBRs, in terms of pollutants removal efficiency, with
minimal, average and maximal values, is presented in
Table 3.
Total and specific energy consumption
Detailed energy consumption data for three MBR installa-
tions are summarized and presented in Table 4.
 385 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs) Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012

Table 3 | Influent and effluent characteristics and removal efficiency

Influent Effluent Removal efficiency

COD BOD P-Total TKN COD BOD N-Total P-Total TKN COD BOD P-Total TKN
MBR Performance [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] [%] [%] [%] [%]

Heenvliet (FS) 2008 Min 61 23 2 10 8 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 92 98.5 67 98

Mean 366 156 7 44 25 1.7 3.0 2.2 1.0
Max 665 300 12 71 94 44 13 7.6 3.0
2009 Min 41 19 1 9 6 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 93 99.0 73 97
Mean 374 171 8 48 24 1.3 4.2 1.9 1.1
Max 716 310 17 85 58 3.9 8.6 5.8 3.0
Varsseveld (HF) 2008 Min 400 140 6 32 16 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.8 96 99.7 96 96
Mean 693 297 12 60 25 0.9 3.9 0.4 2.1
Max 870 460 16 82 33 1.9 15 1.2 13
2009 Min 280 93 5 24 12 0.5 2.3 0.1 1.0 96 99.7 94 96
Mean 752 306 13 59 25 0.8 5.8 0.7 1.8
Max 1,250 700 35 81 36 1.6 20 3.2 3.8
Ootmarsum (MT) 2008 Min 199 58 3 13 51 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.6 95 99.5 72 97
Mean 513 212 7 47 23 0.9 3.6 2.0 1.5
Max 865 400 11 78 46 2.2 8.7 11 7.7
2009 Min 190 63 2 15 15 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.5 95 99.6 74 96
Mean 514 222 7 45 24 0.8 3.6 1.7 1.7
Max 1,030 390 13 70 39 2.1 8.8 5 7.3

Table 4 | Summary of energy consumption data of investigated MBR installations

Location Heenvliet MBR Varsseveld MBR Terneuzen MBR

Period of study 2008–2010 2005–2010 2010

3
Design dry weather flow [m /month] 36,000 180,000 288,000
Treated flow [m3/month] 27,826 132,054 169,984
Monthly power requirement [kWh]
Max 33,869 146,051 166,332
Average 22,700 110,486 154,636
Min 14,165 58,408 146,581
Daily power requirement [kWh] 1,788 N.A. 5,888
Yearly power requirement [kWh] 227,001 1,325,833 N.A.
Specific energy consumption [kWh/m3]
Max 1.82 1.44 1.28
Average 1.06 0.84 0.97
Min 0.77 0.60 0.76
Specific energy consumption in 2008 [kWh/PEremoved] 89 67 N.A.

The specific energy consumption for each MBR ana-
lysed on a long-term scale is presented in Figure 2.
The specific energy consumption of the Heenvliet MBR
varied between 0.8 and 1.8 and was on average 1.1 kWh/m3
(Figure 2(a)). For the total plant, thus for combined MBR
and CAS systems at Heenvliet, the specific energy
consumption ranged between 0.3 and 1.1 and was on aver-
age 0.6 kWh/m3.
The specific energy consumption of the Varsseveld
MBR, presented in Figure 2(b), varied between 0.6 and 1.4
and was on average 0.8 kWh/m3. The total energy consump-
tion was reduced from the initial value 1.1 kWh/m3 after the
 386 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
Figure 2 | Specific energy consumption per volume of treated wastewater for:
(a) Heenvliet (FS), (b) Varsseveld (HF), (c) Terneuzen (MT) MBRs.
start-up of the plant to 0.8 kWh/m3 after 6 months of oper-
ation (Giesen et al. ). For the next 3 years, energy
consumption was slowly but steadily reduced (Van
Bentem et al. ). After 5 years of operational experience,
further energy reduction is expected with a goal to reach
0.7 kWh/m3 during normal MBR operation (Van Bentem
et al. ).
Figure 2(c) shows the energy results, based on daily
values, from the first operational period of the Terneuzen
MBR. The energy consumption of the not yet optimized
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
installation varied between 0.8 and 1.3 with an average con-
sumption of 0.97 kWh/m3. It is important to stress that
major problems are usually visible during the plant start-
up but also with long-term experience. Hence, comparison
between Terneuzen MBR and other MBRs already operated
for many years should be done carefully. Nevertheless, it is
expected that after start-up and the optimization period,
energy consumption will be reduced to the design values
of 0.5–0.6 kWh/m3 (Mulder ). Typical specific energy
consumption values for a tubular airlift MBR are reported
to be in the range of 0.4–1.0 kWh/m3 (Judd ; Van ’t
Oever ; Helble & Mobius ). In 2008, specific
energy consumption of only ultrafiltration installation, i.e.
sludge circulation, membrane aeration, permeate and back-
wash pumps, in Ootmarsum was reported to be lower than
0.4 kWh/m3 (Borgerink & Schonewille ) and in 2009
in the range of 0.2–0.3 kWh/m3 (Futselaar et al. ).
This is lower than the currently achieved 0.7–0.8 kWh/m3
in Terneuzen. Detailed distribution of energy consumption
components for each MBR is presented in Figure 3.
The specific energy consumption of Heenvliet MBR
increased from 2008 to 2010 (Figure 3(a)). This can be
explained twofold. Firstly, the volume of treated flow in
the MBR decreased leading to higher specific energy con-
sumption. Secondly, the 2008 data do not include data
from January to April, a period when heating WWTP build-
ings and offices is significantly contributing to higher
specific energy consumption.
Figure 3(b) shows an increase in the specific energy con-
sumption in the year 2008, very likely due to maintenance
works that were performed in the membrane tanks. At
that time, in order to prevent membrane fouling or clogging,
process settings for the MBR operation were much more
conservative, i.e. higher aeration rates and increased recircu-
lation. In 2009 the settings were optimized again, resulting
in lower energy consumption.
In the case of WWTPs connected to the combined sewer
system, such as Varsseveld, the specific energy consumption
strongly depends on the weather conditions and amounts of
treated flow. The volume of treated flow in the MBR Varsse-
veld was 10 and 15% lower in 2008 and 2009, respectively,
compared with the previous years. Hence, as Varsseveld
experienced very dry months, the energy consumption per
m3 was higher, leading to a high yearly average in 2009
and 2010. However, compared with other dry months in
the past, the plant was actually performing much better in
terms of total energy consumption. The energy consumption
of the blowers producing air for membrane scouring was
based on cyclic aeration: 15 s on and 15 s off.
 387 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs) Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012

as it reduces the chances of unscheduled manual interven-

tion at the plant caused by fouling or clogging.

Specific energy components

Figure 4(a) shows the percentage distribution of the energy

consumption in the full-scale flat sheet MBR in Heenvliet.
Aeration is the major component of energy consumption
as the blowers providing air for the membrane scouring

Figure 3 | Specific energy consumption distribution of equipment for: (a) Heenvliet (FS),
(b) Varsseveld (HF), (c) Terneuzen (MT) MBRs.

Implementation of more economical aeration strategy, so

called ‘eco-aeration’, developed by the membrane supplier
(Zenon-GE) and based on 10/30 intervals, could potentially
save 50% of currently consumed energy (Buer & Cumin
). The total specific energy consumption of the MBR
could then be about 0.7 kWh/m3 and as such reach the set
goals (Van Bentem et al. ; Van Bentem et al. ).
Nevertheless, as reported by Judd (), certain over aera- Figure 4 | Energy consumption distribution of MBR equipment for: (a) Heenvliet (FS), (b)
tion might be beneficial from an operational point of view, Varsseveld (HF), (c) Terneuzen (MT) MBRs.
 388 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
and the biological process contribute to nearly 70% of the
total energy demand. The coarse bubble aeration is the lar-
gest consumer being 56% and 0.48 kWh/m3; process
aeration energy demand is 11%; mixers and recirculation
pumps consumed 9 and 6%, respectively. The rest, 17%, is
mainly associated with the pumping, i.e. recirculation,
permeate extraction and sludge discharge, the pre-treatment,
the mixers and the heaters during winter months.
Figure 4(b) shows the percentage distribution of the
energy consumption in the full-scale hollow fibre MBR
in Varsseveld. The results show that blowers providing
air for the membrane scouring and the biological process
contribute to more than 50% of the total energy demand.
The coarse bubble aeration is the largest consumer, being
36% and 0.3 kWh/m3; process aeration energy demand is
17%; permeate and feed pumps consumed 15 and 11%,
respectively. Energy consumption related with the mem-
brane operation, i.e. membrane air scouring, feed and
permeate pumps, required about 0.5–0.6 kWh/m3 of trea-
ted wastewater. The rest (16%) represents energy
consumed by the other installed equipment. The three
main contributors are: the pump for internal recirculation
from the oxic to the anoxic zone, about 0.03 kWh/m3; the
mixers in the anoxic tank, about 0.025 kWh/m3; and the
recirculation pump that pumps sludge from the oxic
zone to the fine screens, about 0.02 kWh/m3. Other indi-
vidual components, with energy usage less than
0.01 kWh/m3, are the chemical dosing pumps, the waste
sludge pumps, the gravity thickener, the thickened
Figure 5 | Specific energy consumption as a function of treated wastewater.
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
sludge pumps, the process water pumps and the heating
of the buildings (Van Bentem ).
Figure 4(c) shows the percentage distribution of the
energy consumption in the full-scale tubular MBR in Ter-
neuzen. Membrane aeration, doubled at the time due to a
clogging problem of the aerators, is responsible for con-
sumption of 35% of total energy. The airlift system, i.e.
feed and permeate pumps, contributes to 46% of total
energy consumption, mainly due to the high recirculation
rate of activated sludge. The rest, 11%, is representing
other smaller contributors such as: waste sludge pump,
iron-chloride dosing pump, online measurements, lights
and computers at offices.
Flow dependency
Operation at optimal flow conditions, i.e. close to design
flow at dry weather conditions (DWF), results in low specific
energy consumption of about 0.7–0.8 kWh/m3 (Figure 5).
Under these high utilization conditions, reduction in
energy consumption was, depending on the plant, between
5 and 20% compared with the average energy consumption.
This is due to the fact that required membrane aeration rates
are not proportional to the volumes of the treated flow. This
phenomenon is also partially explained by operation of the
process equipment, e.g. pumps and blowers, at or near
their best efficient points when the flow increases. Although
total energy consumption increased as the flow increases, an
improvement in energy efficiency was observed with
 389 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
increase in the volume of treated wastewater. Contrarily,
sub-optimal operation below the design flow leads to
higher specific energy consumption values.
Plant capacity and membrane area
Figure 6 presents specific energy consumption as a function
of plant capacity for Dutch and German municipal MBR
plants (adopted from Pinnekamp ). Although, the smal-
lest installations are the least energy efficient, the biggest are
not the most efficient ones either. Hence, the capacity of the
plant does not determine the energy efficiency of the instal-
lation. Furthermore, all of the compared MBRs were more
energy demanding than the average CAS treatment plant
in The Netherlands, represented by the benchmark value.
General improvement in the range of 11–19% in energy effi-
ciency for Dutch MBRs was observed during the 2008–2009
period.
The specific energy consumption per area of the mem-
branes installed was lower for hollow fibre installation
(Figure 7). The observed improvement for Heenvliet MBR
is a logical consequence, also reported in the literature by
Judd (), of an operational concept change from serial to
parallel where only a small fraction, i.e. 25%, of the influent
is treated in the MBR. As a result, since March 2009, two
membrane lines were operated alternately to increase mem-
brane utilization and to reduce energy demand for
membrane air-scouring. Obviously, the operational power
demand increases with the amount of membranes installed
in a submerged system. However, when energy usage is
Figure 6 | Energy consumption as a function of plant design capacity (Pinnekamp 2008).
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
normalized for the membrane area, their specific energy con-
sumption decreases. Thus, big MBR installations are more
energy efficient, in terms of membrane surface specific
energy consumption (in kWh/m2), compared with the small
ones. Additionally, operation of side-stream membranes is
the most energy demanding. However, because side-stream
systems can apply higher fluxes, it needs less membranes
than submerged systems and thus requires lower capital
costs. When results are compared for similar capacity,
side-stream systems require 60–70% less membranes.
Effluent quality
Analysis was performed based on the Heenvliet MBR due to
the availability of a large energy and effluent data set. No
direct relation between total and specific energy consump-
tion and concentration of total suspended solids (TSS),
COD, BOD, P-Total, N-Total and TKN in the effluent was
observed. Also when accounting for the specific energy
requirements for process and membrane aeration rates no
clear dependency on effluent quality could be determined.
Hence, certain potential energy savings will not have a
direct impact on effluent quality. This observation is in
agreement with Verrecht et al. () who reported a
reduction in energy consumption in a small-scale decentra-
lized MBR by 23% without compromising effluent quality,
represented by COD and NO3-N data. However, for a
more accurate assessment of the potential energy reduction
in a full-scale MBR, more specific measurements and
detailed analysis is required. It was also observed that
 390 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
Figure 7 | Energy consumption as a function of installed membrane area.
effluent concentrations of analysed parameters, i.e. COD,
BOD and TKN, were not dependent on the influent concen-
trations. Only the effluent P-Total was slightly affected by
the influent concentration.
CONCLUSIONS
Specific energy requirements of several MBRs were linked
to operational parameters and reactor performance. Based
on the results presented in this paper, the following con-
clusions can be made:
• The municipal MBRs are well operated, with good per-
formance, without major problems and, despite often
sub-optimal operation, consume on average 0.8–
1.1 kWh/m3; values similar to other comparable
installations.
• Investigated full-scale MBRs have a potential for further
improvement in energy efficiency.
• Operation at optimal flow conditions, i.e. close to design
flow at dry weather conditions (DWF), results in a low
specific energy consumption of about 0.7 kWh/m3. Also
increase in the applied flux results in low energy
consumption.
• The specific energy consumption of an MBR system is
dependent on many factors, such as system design and
layout, volume of treated flow, membrane utilization
and operational strategy.
• Lack of clear correlation between total and specific
energy consumption and TSS, COD, BOD, N-Total and
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
TKN concentrations in the effluent indicate a potential
for energy optimization studies without immediate
danger of affecting the quality of the produced effluent.
• Aeration is a major energy consumer, often exceeding
50% share of total energy consumption, with a minimum
of 35% for membrane aeration. In consequence, coarse
bubble aeration applied for continuous membrane clean-
ing remains the main target for energy saving actions.
• Specific energy consumption for membrane aeration in
flat sheet MBR was 33–37% higher than in hollow fibre
system whereas total specific energy consumption differs
only 0.2 kWh/m3.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the MBR2þ project
consortium: Evides, Witteveen þ Bos and Hollandse Delta
Water Board for their financial support of this research.
The authors also like to thank Hollandse Delta, Regge&Din-
kel and Rijn&Ijssel Water Boards for their support and
cooperation within the work described in this article. The
authors also want to thank the European Commission for
its financial support through the MBR-Train project. MBR-
Train is a Marie Curie Host Fellowship for Early Stage
Research Training supported by the European Commission
under the 6th Framework Programme (Structuring the Euro-
pean Research Area – Marie Curie Actions). The authors
would like to thank Wilfred Langhorst (Heenvliet); Niels
Nijman, Philip Schyns and André van Bentem (Varsseveld);
 391 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
Jeroen Buitenweg and Rob Borgerink (Ootmarsum); Han
van den Griek and Jan Willem Mulder (Terneuzen) who col-
laborated in this research.
REFERENCES
Benedetti, L., Dirckx, G., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C. & Vanrolleghem,
P. A.  Environmental and economic performance
assessment of the integrated urban wastewater system.
Journal of Environmental Management 88 (4), 1262–1272.
Borgerink, R. & Schonewille, H.  Hybrid MBR Ootmarsum
outperforming expectations. KnowHow 11 (3), pp. 14–15.
Norit NV, Borne, The Netherlands.
Brepols, C., Schäfer, H. & Engelhardt, N.  Considerations on
design and financial feasibility of large scale membrane
bioreactors. Aquatech, Amsterdam, 1–3 Oct.
Brepols, C., Schafer, H. & Engelhardt, N.  Economic Aspects
of Large Scale Membrane Bioreactors. Thessaloniki, Greece,
pp. 29–30.
Brepols, C., Schäfer, H. & Engelhardt, N.  Considerations on
the design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane
bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Science and
Technology 61 (10), 2461–2468.
Buer, T. & Cumin, J.  MBR module design and operation.
Desalination 250 (3), 1073–1077.
Cornel, P. & Krause, S.  State of the Art of MBR in Europe.
Technical Note of National Institute for Land and
Infrastructure Management 186, pp. 151–162.
Cornel, P., Wagner, M. & Krause, S.  Investigation of oxygen
transfer rates in full scale membrane bioreactors. Water
Science and Technology 47 (11), 313–319.
Cummings, G. & Frenkel, V. S.  Membranes for industrial
water reuse Theyre not just for municipal applications
anymore. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation 2008, pp. 77–91.
Engelhard, N. & Lindner, W.  Experiences with the world’s
largest municipal waste water treatment plant using
membrane technology. Water Practice and Technology 1 (4).
Fatone, F., Battistoni, P., Pavan, P. & Cecchi, F.  Operation
and maintenance of full-scale municipal membrane
biological reactors: a detailed overview on a case study.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 46 (21),
6688–6695.
Fenu, A., Roels, J., Wambecq, T., De Gussem, K., Thoeye, C., De
Gueldre, G. & Van De Steene, B.  Energy audit of a full
scale MBR system. Desalination 262 (1–3), 121–128.
Futselaar, H., Borgerink, R., Schonewille, H., de Vente, D. &
Buitenweg, J.  First year of operation of the hybrid side
stream MBR in Ootmarsum, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Garcés, A., De Wilde, W., Thoeye, C. & De Gueldre, G. 
Operational Cost Optimisation of MBR Schilde, Harrogate, UK.
Giesen, A., van Bentem, A. & Power, S.  Dutch best-in-class
experience with membrane bio-reactors for municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings of WISA
Biennial Conference and Exhibition, Durban, South Africa.
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
Giesen, A., Van Bentem, A., Gademan, G. & Erwee, H. 
Lessons learnt in facility design, tendering and operation of
MBR’s for industrial and municipal wastewater treatment. In:
Proceedings of WISA Biennial Conference and Exhibition,
paper 102, Sun City, South Africa.
Gnirss, R. & Dittrich, J.  Microfiltration of
municipal wastewater for disinfection and
advanced phosphorus removal: results from trials with
different small-scale pilot plants. Water Environment
Research 72, 602–609.
Helble, A. & Mobius, C.  Current experience with the use of
membrane bioreactor technology for the treatment of
papermill effluent. In: Proceedings of PTS Water &
Environmental Technology Symposium (H.-J. Öller & A.
Hutter, eds). München, PTS. Available from: http://www.
cm-consult.de/download/184_m2903.pdf.
Judd, S.  The MBR Book, Principles and Applications of
Membrane Bioreactors in Water and Wastewater Treatment.
Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Judd, S.  The MBR Book, Principles and Applications of
Membrane Bioreactors for Water and Wastewater Treatment,
2nd edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Koch  Membrane bioreactors: advanced membranes improve
energy efficiency and reduce lifecycle costs. Filtration and
Separation 48 (1), 34–37.
Komesli, O. & Gokcay, C.  Treatment and Reuse of Domestic
Wastewater by MBR (Membrane Bioreactor): The Energy
Consumption of the MBR. Istanbul, Turkey, p. 996.
Kraume, M. & Drews, A.  Membrane bioreactors in waste
water treatment – status and trends. Chemical Engineering
and Technology 33 (8), 1251–1259.
Krause, S.  Untersuchungen zum Energiebedarf von
Membranbelebungsanlagen (Research into the energy
consumption of membrane bioreactor plants). Technischen
Universität Darmstadt.
Krause, S. & Cornel, P.  Membrane bioreactor’s energy
demand in wastewater treatment. Harrogate, UK.
Krause, S. & Dickerson, D.  Energy Efficient MBR Process.
Anaheim, US, pp. 572–582.
Krause, S., Lyko, M. & Ozturk, B.  Energy Saving
MBR-Process for Wastewater Treatment. Istanbul, Turkey,
pp. 47–55.
Lazarova, V., Martin, S., Bonroy, J. & Dauthuille, P.  Main
Strategies for Improvement of Energy Efficiency of Membrane
Bioreactors. Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 1078–1080.
Lesjean, B. & Luck, F.  Assessment of the membrane
bioreactor technology and European market outlook. IDS-
Water White Paper. Available from: http://www.idswater.
com/Common/Paper/Paper_155/Assessment%20of%20the
%20membrane%20bioreactor%20technology%20.htm.
Lesjean, B., Tazi-Pain, A., Thaure, D., Moeslang, H. & Buisson, H.
 Ten persistent myths and the realities of membrane
bioreactor technology for municipal applications. Water
Science and Technology 63 (1), 32–39.
Livingstone, D.  MBR turndown. http://www.wwdmag.com/
MBR-Turndown-article9769, Scranton Gillette
Communications.
 392 P. Krzeminski et al. | Energy consumption of full-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
Livingstone, A., Ball, A., Lewis, C., Swanson, M. & Zhang, K. 
Energy Pro Systems – Membrane bioreactors for reduced
power consumption. Scranton Gillette Communications.
Mizuta, K. & Shimada, M.  Benchmarking energy
consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants in
Japan. Water Science and Technology 62 (10), 2256–2262.
Mulder, J. W.  Operational experiences with the hybrid MBR
Heenvliet, a smart way of retrofitting. In: Proceedings of final
MBR Network Workshop, 31 March–1 April 2009, Berlin,
Germany.
Mulder, J. W.  Personal Communication.
Mulder, J. W., Evenblij, H., Feyaerts, M. & Geilvoet, S.  Hybrid
MBR Heenvliet – 20 months of operational experience. In: 7.
Aacher Tagung Wasser und Membranen (T. Melin, J.
Pinnekamp & M. Dohmann, eds). pp. A23-1–A23-10.
Mulder, J. W., Evenblij, H., Geilvoet, S. & Puttemans, S. 
Hybrid MBR Heenvliet – 2.5 Years of Experience.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Palmowski, L., Veltmann, K. & Pinnekamp, J.  Energy
optimization of large-scale membrane bioreactors –
Importance of the design flux. Istanbul, Turkey,
pp. 1009–1018.
Pellegrin, M.-L. & Kinnear, D.  MBR energy consumption:
comparing operating full-scale plants. Anaheim, US,
pp. 30–46.
Pinnekamp, J.  Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben:
Begleitprojekt zu FuE-Vorhaben im Bereich der
Membrantechnik in Nordrhein-Westfalen (FEMem). (Final
report on the research project: Monitoring Project on R&D
projects in the field of membrane technology in North Rhine-
Westphalia), Institut für Siedlungswasserwirtschaft, RWTH
Aachen.
Ryan, O.  Energy Efficiency Solutions for a Full-Scale MBR
Plant. Cranfield University, Cranfield.
Stone, M. & Livingston, D.  Flat Plate MBR Energy
Consumption – Village of Dundee, MI. In Proceedings of the
Water Environment Federation 2008, pp. 525–547.
STOWA  Membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater
treatment – State of science report. Global Water Research
Coalition, London.
Tao, G. H., Kekre, K. A., Visvanath, B., Oo, M. H. & Seah, H. 
Towards Less Than 0.4 kWh/m3 Energy Consumption of
First received 14 July 2011; accepted in revised form 9 September 2011
View publication stats
Water Science & Technology | 65.2 | 2012
Membrane Bioreactor for Water Reclamation. Vienna,
Austria.
Ueda, T., Hata, K. & Kikuoka, Y.  Treatment of domestic
sewage from rural settlements by a membrane bioreactor.
Water Science and Technology 34 (9), 189–196.
Van Bentem, A.  Personal communication.
Van Bentem, A., Nijman, N., Schyns, P. & Petri, C.  MBR
Varssveld: 3½ Years of Operational Experience. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Van Bentem, A., Nijman, N., Schyns, P. & Petri, C.  MBR
Varsseveld: 5 years of operational experience. Water Practice
and Technology 5 (1).
Van der Benten, H. F., Van Roest, A. G. N. & Lawrence, D. P. 
MBR-technology in municipal wastewater treatment:
challenging the traditional treatment techniques. Water
Science and Technology 46 (4–5), 273–280.
Van Dijk, L. & Roncken, G.  Membrane bioreactors for
wastewater treatment: the state of the art and new
developments. Water Science and Technology 35 (10),
35–41.
Van ’t Oever, R.  MBR focus: is submerged best? Filtration
and Separation 42 (5), 24–27.
Verrecht, B., Judd, S., Guglielmi, G., Brepols, C. & Mulder, J. W.
 An aeration energy model for an immersed membrane
bioreactor. Water Research 42 (19), 4761–4770.
Verrecht, B., Maere, T., Benedetti, L., Nopens, I. & Judd, S. 
Model-based energy optimisation of a small-scale
decentralised membrane bioreactor for urban reuse. Water
Research 44 (14), 4047–4056.
Visvanathan, C., Aim, R. B. & Parameshwaran, K. 
Membrane separation bioreactors for wastewater treatment.
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
30 (1), 1–48.
Wallis-Lage, C. & Levesque, S.  Cost effective and energy
efficient MBR systems. In: Proceedings of Singapore
International Water Week, 22–25 June, Singapore. Available
from: http://bvwater.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/
abstract_siw09_wallis-lage.pdf.
Yang, L., Zeng, S., Chen, J., He, M. & Yang, W.  Operational
energy performance assessment system of municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Water Science and Technology
62 (6), 1361–1370.