Membrane bioreactors and their uses in

wastewater treatments

Applied Microbiology and

Biotechnology

ISSN 0175-7598
Volume 88
Number 6

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

(2010) 88:1253-1260
DOI 10.1007/
s00253-010-2885-8

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
work, please use the accepted author’s
version for posting to your own website or
your institution’s repository. You may further
deposit the accepted author’s version on a
funder’s repository at a funder’s request,
provided it is not made publicly available until
12 months after publication.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
DOI 10.1007/s00253-010-2885-8

MINI-REVIEW

Membrane bioreactors and their uses

in wastewater treatments
Pierre Le-Clech

Received: 1 August 2010 / Revised: 31 August 2010 / Accepted: 2 September 2010 / Published online: 24 September 2010
# Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract With the current need for more efficient and
reliable processes for municipal and industrial wastewaters
treatment, membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology has
received considerable attention. After just a couple of
decades of existence, MBR can now be considered as an
established wastewater treatment system, competing direct-
ly with conventional processes like activated sludge
treatment plant. However, MBR processes still suffer from
major drawbacks, including high operational costs due to
the use of anti-fouling strategies applied to the system to
maintain sustainable filtration conditions. Moreover, this
specific use of membranes has not reached full maturity yet,
as MBR suppliers and users still lack experience regarding
the long-term performances of the system. Still, major
improvements of the MBR design and operation have been
witnessed over the recent years, making MBR an option of
choice for wastewater treatment and reuse. This mini-
review reports recent developments and current research
trends in the field.
Keywords Membrane bioreactor . Wastewater . Recycling .
Fouling . Aerobic . Anaerobic
Introduction
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process is generally
described as the combination of biodegradation treatment
by activated sludge with liquid/solid separation by porous
P. Le-Clech (*)
UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, School
of Chemical Engineering, The University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia
e-mail: p.le-clech@unsw.edu.au
membranes. The presence of the micro- or ultra-filtration
membrane (i.e., physical barrier rejecting particles larger
than its pore size, ranging from 0.05 to 0.4 μm) leads to
significant improvements and advantages when MBR is
compared to conventional activated sludge processes
(CASP; Fig. 1):
& As the secondary clarifiers are replaced by the more
compact membrane modules, the footprint for the
overall treatment system is largely reduced.
& The use of membrane filtration as separation process
also improves the quality of the produced effluent.
MBR allows the complete physical retention of bacte-
rial flocs and most of the suspended solids, and
therefore can offer good disinfection capacity. As a
result, the total coliforms reduction can reach an
average of log 7 (Hirani et al. 2010).
& The total retention of activated sludge in the bioreactor
also allows operation under high mixed liquor-
suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations and elevated
solid retention time (SRT). Higher volumetric loading
could therefore be applied to MBR systems. Long SRT
allows the development of slow-growing microorgan-
isms responsible for the degradation of specific organic
pollutants (especially nitrogen-based compounds). The
high MLSS concentration also allows the reduction of
the size of the bioreactor.
& Operation at elevated SRT can also lead to low-sludge
yield, resulting in sludge minimization.
In addition to these advantages, many other drivers have
boosted the recent development of MBR technology. They
include the limited available footprint for the construction
of new treatment systems, the more stringent regulations
imposed for environmental discharge experienced world-
wide, the reduction in membrane cost, the continuous
 Author's personal copy
1254
Aeration Basin
Secondary
Clarifier
(Primary
RAS Tertiary
Treated)
Wastewater Waste Treatment
MBR
Tertiary
Effluent
Waste
Fig. 1 Comparison between conventional activated sludge and
membrane bioreactor layouts
improvement in process design and/or the high water
quality required for water reuse applications (Judd 2006).
Given the large number of MBR plants in operation and
under construction, confidence in this technology keeps
increasing, making MBR a technology of choice for
wastewater treatment and reuse.
MBR applications
Historically, MBRs have first been used for small, decentral-
ised treatment applications. As a compact and low-
maintenance process, MBRs presented some advantages in
trailer parks, ski resorts, hotels, on board of ships and in small
office buildings. As stakeholders become more familiar with
the technology, the size and the quantity of MBR plants
quickly increased in the late 1990s. For example, the first full-
scale MBR plant for domestic wastewater treatment has been
installed in the UK in 1998, and features a capacity of 1.9
megalitres per day—MLD, in Porlock. Since then, the range
of capacities and applications developed significantly. By
2006, more than 100 municipal MBR plants with a capacity
larger than 500 person equivalent were in operation in Europe
only. Today, several thousand MBRs have been commis-
sioned worldwide and some are currently designed to treat up
to 100 MLD (in the Taihu Lake region, China, for example).
As mentioned before, some of the main drivers for using MBR
technology are related to current water scarcity and more
stringent regulations. Because of its high-quality, MBR
effluent is not only directly discharged in the environment,
but could be reused for non-potable applications (like
irrigation, industrial applications, dual-distribution systems).
A current trend is to combine MBR with advanced water
treatment like activated carbon, post-ozonation or reverse
osmosis for indirect potable reuse with effluent being used for
groundwater (aquifer) recharge or surface water augmentation
(Judd 2006).
A significant number of MBR installations have also
been reported for the remediation of industrial wastewaters,
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
which are generally treated with difficulties by convention-
al treatment processes. Food, pharmaceutical, paper and
pulp, landfill, textile and meat industries are some of the
examples for which MBR has been successfully applied to
treat high-strength wastewaters (Yang et al. 2006). An
estimated 500 commissioned MBR plants treating each
more than 20 m3/day of industrial wastewater has been
reported in Europe for 2008 (Lesjean and Huisjes 2008).
MBR design and removal performances
The first generation of MBR systems used in the 1980s was
mainly based on the sidestream configuration, for which the
membrane is located outside the bioreactor and the biomass
is circulated at high cross-flow velocity (usually around 2–
4 m/s). At that time, tubular membranes remained the norm
in the industry, and the permeation was operated from
inside to outside the tubes (i.e. ‘in-to-out’ filtration).
Although featuring high permeate flux and relative sim-
plicity in retrofitting to existing processes, these systems
have rarely been developed on the large scale mainly due to
the high energy consumption of the recirculating pump.
The introduction of the submerged membrane configuration
in MBR, in 1989, allowed a significant reduction of the
capital and operating costs, resulting in the development of
the second generation of MBRs. With the membrane
directly immersed inside the bioreactor, the slight negative
pressure imposed on the permeate side is responsible for the
driving force allowing the clean water to permeate through
the membrane. The use of aeration underneath the
membrane has also been implemented in this new config-
uration in order to limit membrane fouling (more details
about fouling follow). The resulting simplification of the
overall treatment system has a brought technical break-
through, which is responsible for the recent development of
the MBR technology worldwide.
In submerged MBR processes, the membrane can be
configured as vertical flat plates, vertical or horizontal
hollow fibres (filtration from out-to-in) or, more rarely, as
tubes (filtration from in-to-out). The membranes are
generally mounted in modules or cassettes, which include
aeration ports, permeate flow connections and supporting
frames. The use of coarse bubbling at the bottom of the
membrane module has a triple role: aeration not only (1)
provides extra oxygen and (2) keeps the biomass in
suspension, but also (3) produces a turbulent two-phase
flow velocity (estimated around 0.2–0.4 m/s) on the
membrane surface, limiting fouling deposition (Le-Clech
et al. 2003a). Hollow fibre modules are generally cheaper to
manufacture, allow high membrane packing density and
can tolerate vigorous backwashing. However, fluid dynam-
ics and distributions may be probably easier to control for
 Author's personal copy
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
flat plate and tubular membranes, where the membrane
channel width is well defined (Cui et al. 2003). As a result,
hollow fibres may be more prone to fouling and clogging
(see below), and require more frequent washing and
cleaning. An interesting discussion of the relative perform-
ances of hollow fibre and flat plate membranes revealed the
higher hydraulic performance of the flat plate (Gunder and
Krauth 1998). A more recent large-scale comparison
concluded that the relative merit of the two systems was
likely to be based solely on cost (Judd 2002). Amongst the
numerous membrane manufacturers, Kubota (flat plate
configuration), GE-Zenon, Mitsubishi Rayon and Siemens
Water Technologies-Memcor (hollow-fibre configuration)
are the current main membrane suppliers for MBR systems.
Many membrane suppliers have developed filtration
products specifically designed for MBR applications.
Low-cost polymeric hydrophilic microporous membranes
used in submerged configuration are generally proposed
with their pore size ranging from 0.02 to 0.5 μm. While the
large pore MBRs rely on the formation of a fouling layer to
produce high product quality, the intrinsic retentions of UF-
based systems are not filtration-time-dependant and show
good performances from the early stage of the filtration.
Overall, MBRs are operated with a permeate flux ranging
between 10 and 25 L/m2h, resulting in a transmembrane
pressure (TMP) of generally less than half a bar (Le-Clech
et al. 2006). Given the tradeoff existing between high initial
permeability obtained with MF and more easily recoverable
fouling in UF, optimisation of the pore size remains a
difficult task in MBR applications.
The main operating conditions for MBR include solid
and hydraulic retention times (SRT and HRT, respectively).
They remain closely related to the quantity and quality of
the wastewater to be treated and have a strong influence on
the nature of the activated sludge (Judd 2006). These
intricate relationships are still not totally understood as the
biomass characteristics are extremely complex to fully
quantify and qualify (see below for more details). Given
their improved biological treatment capacities, MBR could
be operated at relatively low HRTs (generally around 4–
6 h). One of the MBR's major advantages is to decouple
HRT from SRT, and long SRTs (up to 30 days) have been
widely applied to the system. This usually results in higher
MLSS concentration (up to around 15 g/L) and relatively
lower sludge wastage. As a result, the food to micro-
organisms (F/M) ratio as low as 0.05–0.15 day−1 could be
found in the industry. However, it is expected that higher
aeration demand is required for greater MLSS levels.
Given the higher concentration of active biomass present
in MBRs (compared to CASP), more intensive biological
degradation (i.e. greater pollutant uptake rate in smaller
volume) could be obtained in membrane-assisted processes.
For MBR treating domestic wastewaters, volumetric load-
1255
ing rates have been reported up to 0.79 and 3.2 kg/m3day
for biological and chemical oxygen demands (BOD and
COD), respectively (Bracklow et al. 2010). The presence of
the membrane combined with the intensive biological
activity obtained in the MBR guarantees the constant high
quality of the produced permeate. With effluent featuring
suspended solids less than 1 mg/L, BOD generally lower
than 10 mg/L and COD removal efficiencies of 95–99%
(compared to maximum rate of 95% for CASP), MBR is an
option of choice for water treatment, reclamation and reuse.
The complete retention of biomass within the MBR
reactor is also responsible for the development of slow-
growth nitrifying bacteria, resulting, in some cases, in total
nitrification (oxidation of ammonia to nitrite and then
nitrate). Under specific conditions, nitrification activity in
MBR (2.28 g NH4-N /kg MLSS·h) has been reported to be
more than twice that of an equivalent CASP (Zhang et al.
1997). These performances generally occur when good
oxygen transfer is possible through the small MBR flocs.
Denitrification (i.e. reduction of nitrate into nitrogen in the
absence of oxygen) is another necessary step in wastewater
treatment plants required to remove NO3 from the effluent.
In an MBR, this process is conducted within a separate
anoxic zone or by the use of intermittent aeration.
Alternatively, pre-denitrification (anoxic denitrification tank
located before the aerobic nitrification section) could be
designed as the first treatment step to ensure the availability
of a large amount of carbonaceous material from the
sewage for the heterogeneous denitrifers. This configura-
tion has been reported to improve denitrification rates,
reduce reactor volume and decrease aeration demand in the
subsequent aerobic tank due to the pre-degradation of a
fraction of the organic matters (Kraume and Drews 2010).
The other main nutrient, phosphorus, can be removed in
MBR by incorporating chemical (usually alum) coagulation
and/or an initial anaerobic zone for biological removal.
Under controlled conditions, phosphate concentration could
remain below 0.1 mg/L in the MBR effluent (Judd 2006).
MBR operational issues
Although numerous factors make MBR systems very
advantageous compared to conventional systems, many
barriers still limit the faster and larger development of this
technology.
Pretreatment and clogging
Although quite often neglected in the literature, pretreat-
ment of the wastewater is a crucial step in the success of the
MBR operation. Depending on the overall process design,
MBR could be used to treat either primarily settled effluent
 Author's personal copy
1256
or raw sewage waters. In both cases, MBR influent requires
proper and efficient pre-screening. Conventional fine
screens (around 2 mm gaps) used in the first MBR designs
were found to be inadequate to remove efficiently all the
materials, which could damage or clog the membrane
modules (especially hollow fibre) and aerators. Materials
which can tangle around the fibres, and therefore, need to
be removed by the pretreatment, mainly include hairs, lint,
fibrous materials and other debris. These cannot be
displaced by simple backwashing, and manual removal
generally results in fibre damage. With time and experi-
ence, the installation of finer sieving was easily accepted
with screen sizes going down to 0.5 mm. As a result, the
increased amount of waste sludge produced and the
maintenance of the sieving system have to be carefully
considered during the design phase. Clogging of the
membrane modules can also be caused by the gradual
fouling (or clogging) of the aeration devices, which leads to
insufficient and unevenly distributed aeration (and therefore
fluid circulation) on the membrane surface. As a result, the
activated sludge accumulating in the vicinity of the
membrane tends to be dewatered as permeation continues.
Because of its nature, clogging is generally an irrecoverable
problem faced by MBR operators, whose only option is to
change the affected membrane modules. Strategies used to
limit clogging of aerators include regular air and/or liquid
flushing and good monitoring of the MLSS concentration
(usually kept between 6 and 18 g/L).
Fouling and fouling control in MBR
One of the main drawbacks of MBR remains the unwanted
deposition of materials on the membrane surface during
filtration. This fouling phenomenon has been studied by
many groups over the last decades and recent literature
reviews have summarised the current understanding and
advancements in this field (Le-Clech et al. 2006; Drews
2010). Here, the main concepts are presented, which could
help the readers to grasp the complex and labile interactions
occurring between the different fractions of the biomass and
the membrane surface during MBR operation.
Activated sludge is composed of colloids, suspended
solids (large biological flocs, individual microorganisms
and inert particles) and soluble materials (dissolved matters
from the wastewater and soluble microbial products (SMP)
excreted from biomass activities). Over recent years, the
methods used to characterise the biomass have been
diversified, allowing an improved understanding of the
interactions between the compounds present in the activated
sludge and the membrane. However, recent efforts to relate
the extracllular polymeric substances (EPS) and SMP
fractions (generally given in terms of proteins and carbohy-
drates) to the MBR fouling propensity have not been
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
universally successful in explaining the fouling phenomena
in MBRs (Drews et al. 2008; Lyko et al. 2008). Fouling
mechanisms in the MBR include a mixture of pore closure,
pore blocking and cake formation. Temporal changes in the
hydraulic performances of MBR have been extensively
studied and detailed fouling processes have been proposed.
The most elaborated fouling mechanism described in the
literature involves a three-stage process: initial membrane
fouling by adsorption and pore closure followed by a period
of slow (‘sustainable’) TMP rise and finally a TMP jump
(Zhang et al. 2006).
Because of the biological nature of the foulants, the
terms biofouling, biocake and biofilm are often inter-
changeably used in MBR application. Biofouling is
described as the undesirable deposition of materials of
biological origin, which participates in the reduction of
hydraulic performances in MBR systems. This phenome-
non can be characterised by the initial attachments of SMP,
bacteria and other colloidal particles onto a surface through
adhesive forces during either passive adsorption or filtration
condition. As the mixed liquor filters through the fouled
membrane, nutrients and dissolved oxygen are provided to
the deposited bacteria. The immobilised bacteria can
therefore assimilate to the surrounding environment by
producing EPS and forming the biofilm layer (Marselina et
al. 2008). Biofilm formation therefore relies on early
bacterial attachments and subsequent growth of bacteria
on the membrane surface. In the initial stage of formation,
the biofilm is not expected to uniformly cover the surface,
but the colonisation tends eventually to spread across the
overall surface. The established biofilm is highly heteroge-
neous, features high moisture content and consists of both
non-water-permeable materials (cells, scale, debris) and
water-permeable substances (biopolymers).
Permeation and fouling rates are directly related and it is
common practice to operate MBRs at reasonably low fluxes
to limit rapid and severe fouling. During peak-flow
operation, MBR can be operated for up to a couple of
hours at high flux (around twice the average flux), before
being returned to normal operation or into relaxation mode,
so a fraction of the fouling accumulated during the peak
period could be removed simply by aeration. Although used
extensively in MBR research studies, the concept of critical
flux (i.e. maximum flux at which no or little fouling is
observed) does not have any real practicability in full-scale
long-term operation of MBR (Le-Clech et al. 2003b).
Instead, the notion of sustainable flux has been introduced
as the flux for which the TMP increases gradually at an
acceptable rate, such that chemical cleaning is not needed
(Ng et al. 2005). Difficulties remain in being able to model
or predict values for sustainable flux for a given MBR
design and operation conditions. Because of the complexity
and the changing nature of the interactions between the
 Author's personal copy
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
biological compounds and the membrane, forecasting MBR
hydraulic performances has been, so far, impossible.
Air scouring is generally used to control fouling in
MBRs and the effects of the two-phase flows circulating on
the membrane surface have been extensively reviewed (Cui
et al. 2003). In the case of hollow fibre MBR, aeration also
results in fibre movement, which limits the deposition of
materials on their surface. It is now generally accepted that,
once a certain air flowrate is exceeded, no further
significant fouling limitation is observed. This allows the
possible optimisation of the aeration rate for a given MBR
design and set of operating conditions. Although few
studies have indicated the greater performances obtained
with small-size bubbles, the large majority of the literature
acknowledges that large bubbles create relatively more
turbulence and therefore, present a better option for anti-
fouling strategy (Prieske et al. 2008).
Membrane cleaning strategies are numerous and gener-
ally remain proprietary. Physical cleaning by relaxation or
backwashing is used on a frequent basis but their efficiency
tends to decrease with filtration time. As irreversible
fouling accumulates on the surface, chemical cleanings of
various intensities (i.e. higher concentration of cleaner
used) can be applied on a weekly to yearly basis (Le-Clech
et al. 2005). Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) at concentration
up to 0.3% is used as the main chemical agent in most of
the MBR plants to remove organic-based compounds.
Citric acid is generally applied in the case of inorganic
fouling.
Notwithstanding the decrease of hydraulic performances
due to fouling phenomena, the recent widespread applica-
tion of MBR has proven the technology to be sustainable,
when operation and anti-fouling conditions are well
managed.
Aeration and oxygen transfer
Like in any aerobic treatment process, oxygen is required in
MBR processes to maintain the existing biomass alive and
to degrade the biodegradable pollutants and other nitrogen-
based compounds. The floc size and concentration are two
of the main factors influencing the quantity of oxygen
which can be transferred for the biological degradation. The
removal efficiency of organic pollutants is strongly affected
by the oxygen transfer between the bubble and the solution;
and the α factor (i.e. rate of oxygen transfer in clean water
divided by the rate in mixed liquor) is generally used to
illustrate the level of oxygen transfer in MBRs. It has been
widely reported that the level of MLSS has a negative
impact on the α factor, limiting the operation of MBR
under elevated SRTs (i.e. high concentration and resulting
viscosity of the mixed liquor). While an average α value of
0.5 has been considered to be acceptable in MBRs, a case
1257
study reported the decrease in α from 0.75 to 0.2 when the
MLSS concentration was increased from 5 to 20 g/L
(Drews and Kraume 2005). Most of the research has
revealed the exponential relationship between α and MLSS
concentration (Judd 2006). On the other hand, the impact of
floc size on oxygen transfer is not so well defined;
however, higher volumetric removal rates are generally
observed when the biological process features smaller floc
aggregations. Due to the relatively high shear rate experi-
enced by the MBR flocs, their average size tends to be
significantly smaller than the flocs measured in CASP. This
change in biomass morphology is therefore an important
advantage resulting from the extensive use of aeration in
MBRs.
Membrane integrity and expected lifetime
A major limitation that MBR systems are facing is the loss
of membrane integrity, which could lead to the passage of
high concentrations of biomass to the permeate. Generally,
the causes of membrane failure can be divided into four
categories:
& Chemical oxidation: frequent and/or extended contact
between membrane and cleaning solution can cause
degradation and ageing of the membrane;
& Faulty installation: once under pressure, an incorrectly
installed membrane module can be compressed and
damaged;
& Presence of foreign bodies: scouring and cleaving of the
membrane can result from the presence of abrasive or
sharp-edged materials in the influent;
& Faulty membrane/module structure: operating stress and
strain occurring in the system due to fibre movement
and membrane backwashing can also lead to membrane
breakage.
Once damaged, disinfection of the product water may be
compromised and the faulty membrane/module ought to be
changed quickly. When breakage occurs in a submerged
hollow-fibre MBR system, continuous filtration allows
solids and particles to quickly clog the broken fibre.
However, if the operating conditions comprise backflushing
periods, the solids would be forced out of the fibre during
the backwash and the compromised membrane would need
to be replaced. As a result, membrane breakage also causes
the loss of the backwash efficiency, since its effect
dissipates through the broken fibre.
Although a widely used process, MBR technology has
not reached the maturity which allows the exact prediction
of the membrane lifetime. Change of the membrane module
is generally required when chemical cleaning cannot return
the system to sustainable operation or when the quality of
the permeate is constantly below expectation. Membrane
 Author's personal copy
1258
lifetime greatly changes from one plant to another and
depends on the type of membrane used, the applied
operating conditions, the characteristics of the feed water
and the cleaning frequency. Membrane and MBR suppliers
offer specific lifetime guarantees ranging generally from 3
to 8 years.
Energy consumption and cost considerations
Although the cost of membrane modules keeps decreasing,
the capital investment for building an MBR plan remains
higher than for a conventional treatment system. Due to the
high energy demand, the MBR technology is also usually
related to greater cost of maintenance and operation, when
compared to conventional techniques. Because of the
elevated cost of aeration, more efficient optimisation of
the aeration (system and flowrate) is still required, and
intermittent aeration, stacking of membrane and better
design of module geometry has been proposed to increase
fouling control (Kraume and Drews 2010). Regular
chemical cleanings and other anti-fouling strategies such
as operation at low flux, membrane relaxation and back-
washing also contribute to the overall operation and
maintenance costs. This is generally counter-balanced by
the use of higher membrane areas, which inevitably leads to
higher capital and maintenance costs. Other parameters
involved in the cost of MBR operation include (but are not
limited to) plant capacity, membrane technology used,
characteristics of the feed water (including temperature
and peaking factors). Overall, the energy demand for large
plants is reported to range between 0.8 and 1 kWh/m3 of
produced water (Fenu et al. 2010). Given the relative
membrane lifetime (see above), the cost considerations for
MBRs must also include the replacement of the membrane
modules when their operation is no longer sustainable. As a
result, the high energy demand for MBR remains a
potential weakness for its future development.
Current research trends
Anaerobic MBR
The anaerobic MBR (AnMBR) process has received
increasing attention from both researchers and industrialists
dealing with wastewater treatment. This is due to the
significant advantages offered by anaerobic biological
treatment, including low production of biological waste,
low nutrition requirements, ability to treat high organic
loadings and especially, the formation of biogas (methane)
as a useful end product, leading to possible net energy
production within the treatment plant (Huang et al. 2010).
However, the application of submerged AnMBR still
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
requires to be fully assessed, both technically and econom-
ically (Lin et al. 2009). The benefits of considering
AnMBR process and optimising its design greatly depend
on the nature of the wastewater to be treated (i.e. high or
low strength and relative level of particulate pollutants).
While conventional anaerobic processes work very well for
high strength, great opportunities have also been recognised
for effluents containing high levels of particulate pollutants,
and for low-strength wastewaters. Since aeration cannot be
used as an anti-fouling strategy in AnMBRs, new forms of
fouling control still need to be investigated, such as the
utilisation of the produced biogas to scour the membrane.
Removal of compounds of concern
The presence of trace concentrations of organic chemicals
like endocrine-disrupting chemicals, pharmaceutically ac-
tive compounds, antibiotics and personal care products
found in surface waters poses potential risks to the
environmental ecosystems and to human health, as these
compounds are not easily removed by conventional
treatment processes. Because of their higher level of
biological degradation and their longer sludge age, MBRs
have been shown to be more efficient (than other
conventional processes) in the overall removal of those
contaminants. Interestingly, the role of the membrane
process does not contribute directly to this improved
removal. Recently, the fate of many of these compounds
has been studied when treated by MBRs, and the relative
treatment by (1) adsorption on activated sludge, (2)
biodegradation and (3) removal by membrane process has
been recently assessed (Le-Minh et al. 2010). Finally, the
crucial role of the physicochemical properties (e.g. relative
hydrophobicity, charge and size) of the trace organics have
also been described (Tadkaew et al. 2010).
Development of alternative membranes
Although the price of polymeric membrane modules keeps
decreasing, many studies, mainly originating from devel-
oping countries, are based on the use of low-cost materials.
In applications where high product quality is not necessar-
ily required; filter cloths, mesh and non-woven materials
can be used (Chang et al. 2007). Because of their large pore
size (up to a few microns), these filters can produce higher
fluxes than conventional MBRs. However, they rely on the
formation of a dynamically formed coating on the surface
of the filter to give reasonable removal efficiencies. As a
result, and because of their high roughness and large pore
size, those filters currently suffer from high irremovable
fouling. The early research activities conducted on the
development of (self-forming) dynamic membranes have
been recently reviewed (Meng et al. 2009). With a low
 Author's personal copy
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
number of articles published on that topic in the last few
years, it would seem that the concept of dynamic filters
did not gain much interest, although they could offer a
cheap alternative to conventional polymeric membranes.
The use of membrane modification techniques like
plasma treatment, graft polymerization and hydrophilic
coating has also shown some potential for low-fouling
membranes (Meng et al. 2009). Since membrane rough-
ness has been closely related to fouling propensity, MBR
suppliers have been developing and optimising their
method of membrane manufacture very carefully. The
example of the recent development of microsieve mem-
branes and their narrow pore size distribution remains
another interesting option of low-fouling architecture for
MBR applications (Ning Koh et al. 2008).
Membrane ageing and degradation
With hydrophobic interactions between solutes and
membrane material, fouling is expected to be more
severe with hydrophobic membranes. Due to their good
physical strength and chemical resistance, polyvinylidene
fluoride, polypropylene and polyethersulfone are the
main materials used to manufacture commercial MBR
membranes. These compounds are, however, relatively
hydrophobic and require to be mixed with additives like
polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and methacrylates, before
being used for aqueous filtrations (Puspitasari et al.
2010).
The increase in hydrophilicity offered by these mem-
branes is usually characterised by contact angle measure-
ment, which fails to characterise the detailed interactions
between membrane surface and potential foulants. Not only
the nature of these additives may be quickly altered during
repetitive chemical cleanings, their exact effect on MBR
performance is also questionable when the fouling layer is
established and covers the membrane surface. So far, little
research has been conducted to assess the exact ageing
mechanisms of polymeric membranes used in MBR
applications. Both physical and chemical characterisations
of the membrane ageing are still needed to be able to model
membrane lifetime.
References
Bracklow U, Drews A, Gnirss R, Klamm S, Lesjean B, Stuber J,
Barjenbruch M, Kraume M (2010) Influence of sludge loadings
and types of substrates on nutrients removal in MBRs.
Desalination 250(2):734–739
Chang W-K, Hu AY-J, Horng R-Y, Tzou W-Y (2007) Membrane
bioreactor with nonwoven fabrics as solid-liquid separation
media for wastewater treatment. Desalination 202(1–3):122–128
Cui ZF, Chang S, Fane AG (2003) The use of gas bubbling to enhance
membrane processes. J Membr Sci 221(1–2):1–35
1259
Drews A (2010) Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors-
characterisation, contradictions, cause and cures. J Membr Sci.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2010.06.046
Drews A, Kraume M (2005) Process improvement by application of
membrane bioreactors. Chem Eng Res Des 83(3):276–284
Drews A, Vocks M, Bracklow U, Iversen V, Kraume M (2008) Does
fouling in MBRs depend on SMP? Desalination 231(1–3):141–149
Fenu A, Roels J, Wambecq T, De Gussem K, Thoeye C, De Gueldre
G, Van De Steene B (2010) Energy audit of a full scale MBR
system. Desalination. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.05.057
Gunder B, Krauth K (1998) Replacement of secondary clarification by
membrane separation—results with plate and hollow fibre
modules. Water Sci Technol 38(4–5):383–393
Hirani ZM, Decarolis JF, Adham SS, Jacangelo JG (2010) Peak flux
performance and microbial removal by selected membrane
bioreactor systems. Water Res 44(8):2431–2440
Huang Z, Ong SL, Ng HY (2010) Submerged anaerobic membrane
bioreactor for low-strength wastewater treatment: effect of HRT
and SRT on treatment performance and membrane fouling. Water
Res. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.035
Judd S (2002) Submerged membrane bioreactors: flat plate or hollow
fibre? Filtr Sep 39(5):30–31
Judd S (2006) The MBR book: principles and applications of
membrane bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment.
Elsevier, Oxford
Kraume M, Drews A (2010) Membrane bioreactors in waste water
treatment—status and trends. Chem Eng Technol 33(8):1251–1259
Le-Clech P, Alvarez-Vazquez H, Jefferson B, Judd S (2003a) Fluid
hydrodynamics in submerged and sidestream membrane bio-
reactors. Water Sci Technol 48(3):113–119
Le-Clech P, Jefferson B, Chang IS, Judd SJ (2003b) Critical flux
determination by the flux-step method in a submerged membrane
bioreactor. J Membr Sci 227(1–2):81–93
Le-Clech P, Fane A, Leslie G, Childress A (2005) MBR focus: the
operators' perspective. Filtr Sep 42(5):20–23
Le-Clech P, Chen V, Fane TAG (2006) Fouling in membrane
bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci 284(1–
2):17–53
Le-Minh N, Khan SJ, Drewes JE, Stuetz RM (2010) Fate of
antibiotics during municipal water recycling treatment processes.
Water Res doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.020
Lesjean B, Huisjes EH (2008) Survey of the European MBR market:
trends and perspectives. Desalination 231(1–3):71–81
Lin HJ, Xie K, Mahendran B, Bagley DM, Leung KT, Liss SN, Liao BQ
(2009) Sludge properties and their effects on membrane fouling in
submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (SAnMBRs). Water
Res 43(15):3827–3837
Lyko S, Wintgens T, Al-Halbouni D, Baumgarten S, Tacke D, Drensla
K, Janot A, Dott W, Pinnekamp J, Melin T (2008) Long-term
monitoring of a full-scale municipal membrane bioreactor—
characterisation of foulants and operational performance. J
Membr Sci 317(1–2):78–87
Marselina Y, Le-Clech P, Stuetz RM, Chen V (2008) Towards fouling
monitoring and visualisation in membrane bioreactors. In: Guell
C, Ferrando M, Lopez F (eds) Monitoring and visualizing
membrane-based processes. Wiley, Weinheim
Meng F, Chae S-R, Drews A, Kraume M, Shin H-S, Yang F (2009)
Recent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): membrane
fouling and membrane material. Water Res 43(6):1489–1512
Ng CA, Sun D, Zhang J, Chua HC, Bing W, Tay S, Fane A (2005)
Strategies to improve the sustainable operation of membrane
bioreactors. Proceedings of the International Desalination Asso-
ciation Conference, Singapore
Ning Koh C, Wintgens T, Melin T, Pronk F (2008) Microfiltration
with silicon nitride microsieves and high frequency backpulsing.
Desalination 224(1–3):88–97
 Author's personal copy
1260
Prieske H, Drews A, Kraume M (2008) Prediction of the circulation
velocity in a membrane bioreactor. Desalination 231(1–3):219–
226
Puspitasari V, Granville A, Le-Clech P, Chen V (2010) Cleaning and
ageing effect of sodium hypochlorite on polyvinylidene fluoride
(PVDF) membrane. Sep Purif Technol 72(3):301–308
Tadkaew N, Sivakumar M, Khan SJ, Mcdonald JA, Nghiem LD
(2010) Effect of mixed liquor pH on the removal of trace organic
contaminants in a membrane bioreactor. Bioresour Technol 101
(5):1494–1500
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 88:1253–1260
Yang W, Cicek N, Ilg J (2006) State-of-the-art of membrane
bioreactors: worldwide research and commercial applications in
North America. J Membr Sci 270(1–2):201–211
Zhang B, Yamamoto K, Ohgaki S, Kamiko N (1997) Floc size
distribution and bacterial activities in membrane separation
activated sludge processes for small-scale wastewater treatment/
reclamation. Water Sci Technol 35(6):37–44
Zhang J, Chua HC, Zhou J, Fane AG (2006) Factors affecting the
membrane performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. J
Membr Sci 284(1–2):54–66