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

net/publication/273749544

Optimization of Reactor Depth in Membrane Bioreactors for Municipal

Wastewater Treatment

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Engineering · July 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000829

CITATIONS READS
7 2,552

3 authors, including:

Gloria Fernandez Alvarez Jorge Ignacio Pérez

Southern Water University of Granada
5 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   658 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Modelización del Proceso Biológico de Biorreactores de Membrana Sumergida Aplicados a la Depuración de Aguas Residuales Urbanas View project

Estudio de Tecnologías Avanzadas para la Eliminación de Nutrientes y Xenobióticos en el Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gloria Fernandez Alvarez on 16 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimization of Reactor Depth in Membrane Bioreactors
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
G. Fernández-Álvarez 1; J. Pérez 2; and M. A. Gómez 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Aeration energy demand represents 45 to 80% of the total energy consumption of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
In membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology, biological aeration requirements are higher than in conventional activated sludge (CAS) because
the transfer efficiency is lower. The evaluation of aeration transfer efficiency is imperative in order to find energy-saving opportunities and
to make MBR cost effective in comparison to CAS. The effect of increasing the reactor depth was revised through the study of different
scenarios from 3 to 9 m. Afterwards, the overall costs considering both capital and operating costs were studied. The results of this work
indicate that air consumption is reduced on average by 9.1% per meter increased. This decrease affects the aeration system and represents
capital savings in aeration equipment of 52%. Moreover, blower energy consumption shows a reduction of approximately 5% per meter
increased. However, regarding civil work, an increase in reactor depth implies an increase of 21% in the constructions costs, showing an
optimum depth of 5 m. When considering global costs, this optimum moves to 6.5 m, at which the total reduction is about 42%. From here the
tendency is to stay similar, so a further increase in reactor depth does not compensate for the increase in civil work costs, even if it leads to
lower operational costs. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000829. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cost optimization; Membrane bioreactor (MBR); Oxygen transfer efficiency; Reactor depth; Standard oxygen transfer
efficiency (SOTE).

Introduction In a CAS process, 70% of the total aeration in the treatment

Membrane bioreactors (MBR) are considered an excellent alterna-
tive to conventional activated sludge (CAS) processes due to ad-
vantages such as high biomass concentration, a small footprint,
and the possibility of water reuse (Judd 2011; Lesjean et al. 2008).
However, there are some problems that need to be solved includ-
ing membrane fouling, membrane lifespan, and the reduction of the
additional costs compared to conventional wastewater treatment
plants (WWTP) (Yang et al. 2006). The energy optimization of
the treatment plants includes the solution of all of these difficulties
as particular objectives. Because aeration is the major power input,
that system should be analyzed carefully (Brepols et al. 2010;
Sandberg 2010). Energy requirements for an MBR exceed CAS
plants by 50% (Stowa and Witteveen+Bos Consulting Engineers
2005), 75–90% (Van Bentem et al. 2010), 10 to 100% (Livingston
and Zhang 2009), or in some cases the numbers are even higher
depending on the MBR concept and CAS operational characteris-
tics. Thus, reducing the costs related to energy is the most effective
way of achieving an actual cost reduction with this technology.
1
Ph.D. Student, Technologies for Water Management and Treat-
ment Research Group, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Granada,
Fuentenueva Campus, Polytechnic Building s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
(corresponding author). E-mail: gloriaf@ugr.es
2
Assistant Professor, Technologies for Water Management and Treat-
ment Research Group, Dept. of Construction and Project Engineering,
Univ. of Granada, Fuentenueva Campus, Polytechnic Building s/n,
18071 Granada, Spain.
3
Professor, Technologies for Water Management and Treatment
Research Group, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Water Research Institute,
Univ. of Granada, Fuentenueva Campus s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 24, 2013; approved on
February 28, 2014; published online on May 8, 2014. Discussion period
open until October 8, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Environmental En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9372/04014019(7)/$25.00.
plant is located in aerobic reactors, and MBR treatment plants op-
erate within the same range (Reardon 1995; Rosso and Stenstrom
2005). Although only 5% of construction costs are connected to the
aeration system, it is responsible for 45 to 80% of the total energy
consumption (Henze et al. 2008; Ovezea 2009). This means that,
for an MBR treatment plant, 30–40% of energy consumption is
used for air scouring with a further 10–50% needed for bio-
treatment (Judd 2011; Gil et al. 2010; Garces et al. 2007).
Furthermore, in an MBR treatment plant, biological aeration re-
quirements are higher than in CAS due to its lower oxygen transfer
efficiency, as a result of the higher biomass concentration used to
operate the plant (Cornel et al. 2003; Krampe and Krauth 2003).
An additional factor in the total aeration consumption comes from
the air scouring supplied to prevent fouling over the membrane
surface (Germain et al. 2005). To take advantage of energy-saving
opportunities, all these factors need to be studied together with the
evaluation of aeration transfer efficiency.
The factors that influence oxygen transfer efficiency can be
classified in four groups: hydrodynamic properties of the tank, op-
erating factors of the treatment plant, biomass characteristics, and
physical properties of the process water (Gillot and Héduit 2008).
Factors related to the biomass characteristics, such as particle
size, viscosity, contaminants concentration, etc., have been widely
studied; but because all of them are interrelated, mixed-liquor sus-
pended solids (MLSS) concentration is used as an aggregate param-
eter to control the oxygen transfer in MBRs (Stephenson et al.
2000; Germain and Stephenson 2005).
Regarding the geometric parameters, diffuser density or sub-
mergence are important factors that influence aeration efficiency
(Wagner and Pöpel 1998). Because the depth of the reactor is the
distance over which the oxygen transfer process occurs, increasing
the reactor depth means increasing the residence time of the water-
air interface, and this may be directly related to an improvement in
transfer efficiency and a decrease in aeration requirements (Mueller
et al. 2002; Wagner and Pöpel 1998). For this reason, reactor depth,

© ASCE 04014019-1 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1

 which is usually set between 4.5 and 5.5 m for technical reasons Table 2. Kinetic and Stoichiometric Constants Used in the Model ASM2
(Mueller et al. 2002; Wagner and Pöpel 1998; Collado et al. 2012; Kinetic constants Value
EPA 1989), needs to be reviewed to obtain a global cost optimiza- Endogenous decay coefficient heterotrophs, d−1 bH20 0.050
tion value. Endogenous decay coefficient autotrophs, d−1 bA20 0.040
The objective of this study is to provide an economic analysis Maximum specific growth rate, d−1 μA20 0.360
comparing different reactor depths for an anoxic-aerobic tank in an
Stoichiometric constants Value
MBR system. As it is a global economic analysis, both investment Yield coefficient, gVSS=gCOD 0.450
costs and energy consumption are presented as cost functions. Endogenous residue fraction, fH 0.200
COD/VSS ratio, f CV 1.480
Particulate VSS N content fNVSS gN/gVSS 0.065
Materials and Methods Soluble unbiodegradable fraction of COD, f S 0 us 0.030
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Particulate unbiodegradable fraction of COD, f S 0 up 0.175

Reactor Volume Design

Reactor tank configuration is presented in Fig. 1; side stream MBR
configuration has been chosen in order to evaluate the biological
tank reactor independently. Furthermore, anoxic and aerobic zones
were arranged in separate tanks to better discern the differences
obtained in the aeration system. Two lines of treatment were con-
sidered to improve the operability of the treatment plant. Then,
for each of the lines, two sets of biological reactors were studied.
However, as in any scenario a sidestream MBR configuration was
being used, all the membranes were placed separately in another
tank with the same characteristics in all cases. This membrane tank
was not considered in the study.
The bio treatment has been calculated to obtain tank size, oxy-
gen requirements, and the effluent characteristics by the Activated
Sludge Model No. 2 (Henze et al. 2000), which includes nitrogen
removal assessment.
The main characteristics needed for reactor design are presented
in Table 1. Wastewater characteristics respond to an average con-
tamination for an influent flow corresponding to a medium size pop-
ulation in Andalucía, Spain, according to the annual survey from the
National Institute of Statistics (INE 2012). Different reactor depths
from 3 to 9 m were considered in order to appraise the energy
demand savings. The set of kinetic and stoichiometric parameters
used in the model are presented in Table 2 and were based in Henze
et al. (2000) except for the factor bH20 whose value comes from
Ruiz et al. (2013) because the analyzed system was an MBR.
Table 3 includes results from the ASM-Model No. 2 such as
reactor volume and aeration requirements (AOR, kgO2 =h) that will
be constant in each studied scenario.
Aeration System Design
The algorithm to obtain the real airflow rate (AFR) that the blower
will have to introduce into the biological reactor was assessed for
aeration at two different temperatures: 13°C for winter and 28°C
for summer, obtaining the maximum aeration consumption and
therefore the design value for aeration systems in the summer.
AOR, obtained from the ASM-Model No. 2 of the IWA, was
corrected by three factors (α, β, and φ). The α-factor evaluates the
differences between the transfer coefficient (kL a) for clean and
process water, and so is affected by a high number of variables
(Germain and Stephenson 2005). In accordance with several
authors (Krampe and Krauth 2003; Muller et al. 1995; Günder
2001), an exponential relationship between MLSS and α was
assumed:
α ¼ e−0.077·MLSS ð1Þ
The exponent of this equation corresponds to a fine bubble
aeration system according to Günder (2001).
The next step was to calculate the standard oxygen transfer
rate (SOTR, kgO2 =h) which informs about the amount of oxygen
transferred into the water in standard conditions
AOR
SOTR ¼ ð2Þ
α·β·θ

where β-factor relates the saturation concentration of the process

water to that in clean water. Usually this factor takes a value of 0.95
for wastewater (EPA 1989). The φ-factor encompasses the temper-
ature effect (Bewtra et al. 1970).
The value for the standard oxygen transfer efficiency (SOTE, %)
Fig. 1. Side-stream membrane bioreactor layout considered in the
was estimated. Because it is a parameter that depends strongly on
study
the type of diffuser, it has been obtained from manufacturers, taking
a value of 4.5% per m depth for fine bubble aerators.

Table 1. Operating Parameters and Wastewater Characteristics

Considered for the Study Table 3. Results from the Reactor Volume Design and the Aeration System
Design
Wastewater
Operating parameters Value characteristics Influent Effluent Design bioreactor volume Value
System flowrate (m3 =d) 20,000.0 — — — Number of treatment lines 2
Tmin (°C) 13.0 COD (g=m3 ) 694.4 26.1 Reactor tank volume (m3 =per reactor) 7,750
Tmax (°C) 28.0 BOD (g=m3 ) 358.4 3.4 Oxygen requirements AORaverage (kgO2 =h) AORmax (kgO2 =h)
SRT (d) 18.0 SS (g=m3 ) 343.6 0.0 Winter (13°C) 377.26 837.75
MLSS (kg=m3 ) 8.0 — — — Summer (28°C) 397.28 864.56

© ASCE 04014019-2 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1

 Once the aeration requirements (AOR) for biomass growth
and aeration transfer efficiency were known, the real airflow rate
(AFR, Nm3 =h) was obtained:
SOTR
AFR ¼ ð3Þ
SOTE · ρair
where ρair was calculated in standard conditions (20°C, 1 atm),
0.276 kgO2 =Nm3 .
The design of the aeration system (number of diffusers and dis-
tribution) has been performed by means of the Quotation Manager
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
software. The diffusers were Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
rubber (EPDM) membrane diffusers (PIK 300), with a 336 mm
diameter, bubble size of 1–3 mm, and a flow range of
1.5–8.0 m3 =h=diffuser. The diffuser density was almost constant
regardless of the scenario, varying from 5.8 to 6.1%.
Finally, the types of blowers considered were turbo compressors
HST, with a flow range of 1,200–16,000 m3 =h and a maximum
pressure of 125 kPa. They have been sized based on the maximum
aeration demand to maintain dissolved oxygen in the aerobic
bioreactor (DO) at 2 mg=L. The number of compressors has been
selected according to the aeration requirements of each scenario,
considering one standby compressor.
Air scouring over the membrane was constant for each situation,
because the tank, wastewater flow and the number of membranes
were the same; so it has not been considered in this study.
Civil Work
Reactor tank design has been performed using CYPE software, con-
sidering the structure of reactor tanks made of reinforced concrete.
Resistance and durability criteria have been considered, in which
the limiting factor was the concrete cracking.
The dimensions have been obtained for a constant volume, be-
cause the bio-treatment and all the parameters used were the same
for each scenario considered, with only the depth of the biological
reactor changing. The reactor was a plug-flow reactor in which the
geometry was variable.
Economic Analysis
An economic analysis has been carried out as presented in Fig. 2.
This analysis was performed by achieving a construction and ex-
ploitation project for each alternative considered with real market
prices. As it was a global economic analysis, the study was per-
formed on the basis of the total capital investment and operational
costs. For the purposes of this study, taxes were not included.
Capital investment (CAPEX) was defined as the sum of the
costs of the civil work and those related to the equipment. However,
Fig. 2. Economic analysis for total costs
© ASCE 04014019-3
J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1
for a better comparison of the different scenarios, only the costs
related to the biological reactor tank were evaluated. Equipment
costs include the cost of the air diffusers, the air compressors, and
the aeration installations. The pricing information was obtained
from the manufacturers. Likewise, the estimated amortized capital
costs derived from the depth increase was considered and included
in the fixed term of the operational costs.
Operational costs (OPEX) have been evaluated through fixed
costs and variable costs. Fixed costs were considered to include:
maintenance, which was considered to be 0.12% for civil work
and 0.7% for equipment the power fixed term of the electrical
installation; and depreciation. Depreciation for equipment and
civil work was calculated based on the expected lifespan. For civil
work, 20 years was the duration of time considered for the
treatment plant to be amortized and, regarding equipment, the life-
span was based on manufacturer recommendations of 8 years of
depreciation. Variable costs take only energy consumption into
account.
The power needed by the blower was assessed on the bases of
the equation for an adiabatic compression (Ramalho 2003), consid-
ering a variable blower efficiency according to the depth of the
reactor (60–80%). These figures have been also assessed by
Quotation Manager software, obtaining values in the same range.
Results and Discussion
Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
The effect of the depth over an aeration tank has been studied
deeply by several authors (Sandberg 2010; Wagner and Pöpel 1998;
Pöpel and Wagner 1994; Zhen et al. 2003; Al-Ahmady 2006) who
all coincide in considering that increasing the depth of aeration im-
proves the transfer process. This can be explained by the elongation
of the path of the bubbles inside the tank, which increases the bub-
ble residence time, as the bubble speed is constant. Therefore, with
a longer time for bubble-water contact, the transfer process remains
longer, so the global efficiency improves.
Regarding the global α · β · θ parameter (Fig. 3), the mass
transfer rate rises from 0.46 to 0.56 when the reactor depth
increases from 3 to 9 m. It has been evaluated for the minimum
and maximum temperatures considered for the water (13°C, 28°C)
in order to design the membrane diffusers for the least-favorable
situation.
This factor is the most important to aeration efficiency (Germain
et al. 2007) because it incorporates all the variables affecting the
Oxygen transfer efficiency = α . β . θ
0.6 Tmin
Tmax
0.5
0.4
α .β.θ
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Reactor depth,m
Fig. 3. Evolution of oxygen transfer efficiency (α · β · θ) through the
different scenarios for reactor depth
J. Environ. Eng.
 Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
Table 4. Results for the Capital Costs CAPEX and Operational Costs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OPEX Analysis for 3-m and 9-m Reactor Depth
60 7
%sSOTE Reactor depth (m) 3.0 6.0 9.0
50 6
Civil work (%) 48.84 46.50 62.15
5 Air diffusers (%) 7.93 5.79 4.42
40

%sSOTE, %/m
Air compressors (%) 43.23 47.71 33.43
%SOTE

4
30 Total CAPEX (k€=year) 2,663.32 1,723.97 1,476.31
%SOTE
3 Maintenance (%) 3.22 3.22 2.86
20 Fixed power (%) 1.43 2.14 2.81
2 Depreciation civil work (%) 18.89 17.41 26.19
Tmean
10 1
Depreciation equipment (%) 49.48 50.06 39.87
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tmax
Tmin Energy consumption (%) 26.97 27.17 28.28
0 0 Total OPEX 344.22 230.28 175.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reactor depth, m

Fig. 4. Variation of standard oxygen transfer efficiency and specific

standard oxygen transfer efficiency evolution versus reactor depth

aeration transfer process. According to Verrecht et al. (2008) the

most important variable affecting it is the depth of the reactor when
all the parameters regarding the biomass or the influent character-
istics are considered to be constant. In this work, its increase was
21.7% for the total increase in the depth (3–9 m).
Considering the standard values for β and θ (EPA 1989), the
mean value for the α-factor was 0.54, which was in the same range
as that recommended by several authors (Krampe and Krauth 2003; Fig. 5. Capital costs analysis (CAPEX) through the different scenarios
Gillot and Héduit 2008; Stenstrom and Gilbert 1981; Bolles 2006) for reactor depth
for this type of treatment and aeration system.
SOTE was provided by the manufacturer of the air diffusers
(Fig. 4). It informs us about the real amount of oxygen the diffusers equipment were reduced by 64% for air diffusers and 40% for air
were able to transfer to the water depending on the total amount of compressors.
air introduced. It reached values of up to 58% and 52% at 9 m, Civil work costs were itemized into different prices, which are
representing an increase of 149.6% compared to 3-m depth. given in Table 5. Fig. 6 shows why the most common reactor depth
The specific oxygen transfer efficiency (sSOTE) is also presented for the construction of WWTP has historically been lower than 5 m
in Fig. 4, and had its maximum value at the bubble release level,
continuously decreasing thereafter. These results were comparable
with those from Pöpel and Wagner (1994), in which depths of up to Table 5. Market Prices Selected for Civil Work Cost Calculation
15 m were evaluated with a model and then verified with several Itemized Price
performance tests and full-scale tests. Measured data were in the Excavation (€=m3 ) 3.80
same range as calculated model data for the SOTE: 55–70% for Filling layers 40 cm (€=m3 ) 4.00
12 m depending on the type of aeration system. Likewise, research Blinding concrete HM-10 (€=m3 ) 41.00
from Al-Ahmady (2006), Iranpour et al. (2002), and Libra et al. Concrete HA-30 (€=m3 ) 60.00
(2002), evaluated the effect of the reactor depths of 4.6, 4.6, Casing/uncasing (€=m2 ) 28.00
and 4.8, respectively, obtaining SOTE of around 20%. These results Round steel B500 S (€=kg) 0.82
were also in accordance with that obtained in this work. Joint Water-Stop (€=m) 18.80
However, the growth of the SOTE was not linear, meaning Cover slab (€=u) 100.00
that the improvement in aeration efficiency was offset by several
mechanisms. This is explained by the coalescence of the bubbles
(Zlokarnik 1979). The primary fine gas bubbles tend to coalesce
and form larger ones, causing the transfer efficiency to saturate
to a maximum value.

Capital Costs
In terms of the cost, the first factor to be analyzed was the capital
costs. As stated previously when analyzing CAPEX, the capital
costs of the equipment have been considered for both the air dif-
fusers and the air compressors. The capital costs of the civil work
were also included (Table 4).
Fig. 5 shows the evolution of the different contributions to total
costs as a function of the reactor depth. At higher reactor depths, the
Fig. 6. Evolution of capital costs versus reactor depth
capital cost for civil work grew by 21%, while the capital costs for

© ASCE 04014019-4 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1

 Table 6. List of the Equipment Considered for CAPEX Calculation x 10
4 Required airflow
4
Reactor Reactor footprint AFR Number of Number of Tmin
depth (m) (m2 per reactor) (Nm3 =hVZ) diffusers compressors Tmax
3 Tmean
3.0 2,583.33 19,168.82 5,280 7

Qair, Nm3/h
4.0 1,937.50 13,933.09 3,990 5
5.0 1,550.00 10,812.89 3,128 5 2
6.0 1,291.67 8,748.92 2,496 5
7.0 1,107.14 7,287.32 2,184 3
8.0 968.75 6,201.30 1,872 3 1
9.0 861.11 5,364.94 1,632 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(Collado et al. 2012; Pöpel and Wagner 1994), as it is the depth at Reactor depth, m
which the civil work is cheapest. At this depth, the constructive
process is optimized because the quantity of formwork needed Fig. 7. Evolution of the AFR versus reactor depth
is minimal when using up-to-date commercial products. Increasing
the depth by 0.5 m means a change in the thickness of the walls,
which has an effect on the civil work costs. Due to a change in the
formwork, the capital costs for civil work decreased again at 6.5 m.
Aeration power supply
When the total capital costs were considered, this point was the 0.04

Normalized Power supply, kW/m3

global minimum, and the tendency reached a plateau from here,
remaining almost constant. Therefore, this depth would be the
optimum choice when designing the system.
Regarding capital costs for equipment, costs for both diffusers
and blowers were considered (Table 6). The number of PIK 300
DBP diffusers was reduced by 69.1% from 3 to 9 m, considering
816 diffusers for each reactor in the 9-m scenario. The HST turbo
compressor model 40–400 has been selected to meet the aeration
requirements in every scenario. This type of compressors fulfills
two objectives: it is possible to adjust the airflow supply to the aer-
ation requirements of the treatment plant, and they are 5–15% more
efficient than conventional blowers. However, the number of com-
pressors required for each one was different: for 3 m, three compres-
sors per reactor were needed plus one backup (6 þ 1); from 3.5 to
6.0 m, this was reduced to two compressors per reactor (4 þ 1);
finally from 6.5 to 9 m, just one compressor per reactor was nec-
essary (2 þ 1). Employing only one compressor per reactor results
in a loss of flexibility when operating the system and hinders the
adaptation of the airflow to the real needs of the process. However,
installing two smaller compressors per reactor could solve this
matter.
Operational Costs
Regarding OPEX, both variable and fixed costs have been evalu-
ated. When analyzing fixed costs, maintenance and depreciation
were considered to be dependent on capital costs. About mainte-
nance, it accounts for 0.12 and 0.7% of the total amount of invest-
ment for civil work and equipment, respectively.
Variable costs were formed solely by the energy requirements,
as this budget was the most important one affecting the OPEX.
Energy demand depends strongly on air consumption, so better
transfer efficiencies give rise to lower energy consumptions and a
decrease in operational costs. As the oxygen consumption by the
microorganisms was the same in all scenarios, and using the data
from the transfer efficiency, the required airflow rate and the power
demanded from the compressors have been obtained. Because the
mass transfer was better for higher reactor depths, the requirements
for airflow rate will be lower, as presented in Fig. 7. The reduction
achieved by increasing the reactor depth from 3 to 9 m at the mini-
mum and maximum temperatures was 72 and 70%, respectively.
Power supply was affected as well (Fig. 8). Although the
required pressure was larger due to higher tank depths, the sub-
sequent decrease in airflow rate balances that increase, making
Tmin
Tmax
0.03 Tmean
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Reactor depth, m
Fig. 8. Evolution of the power supply required versus reactor depth
power supply reductions 51% at the minimum temperature and
48% at the maximum temperature.
Both parameters were strongly dependent on temperature, as
the oxygen requirements and the transfer process are related to
temperature.
The airflow rate and power supply were calculated under the
minimal assumption of considering only the requisites of the bio-
logical process. This theoretical approximation can be unrealistic
for a full-scale plant, where energy consumption will in general be
higher. However, this approach was accurate enough to fulfill one
of the key aims of this study, evaluating opportunities in energy
saving during the design phase of a treatment plant project. Differ-
ent actions have been taken in this direction, including the sizing of
the aeration system as a function of the reactor depth and the se-
lection of equipments with a wide adaptability to real-life scenarios,
as turbocompressors. A poor design of the aeration system can lead
to highly inefficient plants, where real air requirements can be up to
30–50% below the maximum demand considered in the design
(Trillo 2009).
Another important choice was the implementation of the control
system. It must be flexible, adaptable to the requirements of the
aeration system, and with a good management of the air suppliers
and air distribution system. An analysis performed by Verrecht et al.
(2008) reveals that energy demand can be reduced by around 20%
in immersed MBR if the aeration is applied in proportion to the
flow. In the same way, Serralta et al. (2002) showed the possibility
of reductions of 10% in the blowers’ energy consumption.

© ASCE 04014019-5 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Operational costs analysis through the different scenarios for
reactor depth
Fig. 10. Evolution of global costs versus reactor depth
The aeration energy demand calculated took a range of values of
0.0171–0.0301 kWh=Nm3 air for the different scenarios consid-
ered, corresponding with values found in the literature (Stenstrom
and Gilbert 1981; Verrecht et al. 2010; Leu et al. 2009; Maere
et al. 2011).
Table 4 and Fig. 9 present the cost analysis performed; it is dem-
onstrated that the most important impact on OPEX was the energy
requirement followed by the depreciation equipment. To calculate
energy costs, an energy price of 0.113 €=kWh, was considered, in
accordance with the energy market. The reduction in energy con-
sumption achieved by increasing reactor depths from 3 to 9 m was
47%. The energy costs were comparable to those obtained by
Brepols et al. (2010), in which the investment costs and the energy
consumption were analyzed for an MBR and a CAS treatment
plants.
Global Cost Analysis
Finally, the global costs, considering all the fixed costs, including
depreciation and maintenance, and the energy requirement costs are
presented in Fig. 10.
As stated above, energy costs showed a decreasing exponential
trend as the reactor depth increases. This reduction in operational
costs was crucial, as the costs related to energy in a treatment plant
have a great impact on the global costs, so a reduction in this
direction represents a significant reduction for the operating stage
of the treatment plant.
The total reduction of the global costs from 3 to 9 m was around
49%. But, as stated previously, the scenario of 6.5 m would be an
excellent point of design, as after this point the reduction was much
less pronounced, and from 3 to 6.5 m the reduction in the global
costs was above 42%.
© ASCE 04014019-6
J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1
The methodology presented in this work is based on a very
specific set of conditions: sidestream MBR configuration, kinetic
constants and operating parameters adapted to MBR, wastewater
characteristics, and a defined type of aeration system. However,
it can be adapted to CAS by simply changing the operation con-
ditions to immersed MBR configuration by increasing the reactor
volume, so it includes membrane volume needs, etc. As long as all
the costs are obtained from real market prices, the study would be a
realistic reference point.
To generalize and extrapolate the results to the rest of the treat-
ment plant, this study could be extended with the study of pumping
costs or wastewater pipeline costs. Also, the number of considered
variables could be increased to include the diffuser density or the
type of diffuser.
Conclusions
Although MBR technology has developed rapidly and its capital
costs have become fairly competitive with conventional treatment,
the operating costs require an additional focus, especially those re-
lated to energy efficiency. To provide this, increasing the reactor
depth is a good option in order to reduce the impact of the higher
aeration requirements of MBR. This study shows that air consump-
tion can be reduced on average by 9.1% per m of reactor depth
increased, by improving aeration efficiency. This means a reduction
in energy costs of approximately 47% from the worst scenario
(3 m) to the best (9 m).
The cost optimization is required prior to the design of every
treatment plant in order to evaluate possible savings that can be
made at this stage. In this case, the savings in aeration equipment
represent 64% for air diffusers and 40% for air compressors when
the reactor depth is increased from 3 to 9 m. For civil work the
tendency is in the opposite direction, as there is an increase in the
construction costs of 21%. The global cost analysis shows an op-
timum depth of 6.5 m, representing a reduction of 42%, which
should be considered at the construction stage, as beyond this depth
the savings are minor.
Acknowledgments
This research (NET 324936/1) was funded by the Andalusian gov-
ernment (Andalusian Water Agency) with European Union funds
(FEDER) and Construcciones Otero. The research was conducted
at the Department of Civil Engineering and the Department of
Construction and Project Management, University of Granada,
with the collaboration of EMASAGRA S.A. The authors would
like to thank D. Bart Janssen from Sulzer Pumps-Spain for helpful
assistance with the aeration equipment.
References
Al-Ahmady, K. K. (2006). “Analysis of oxygen transfer performance on
sub-surface aeration systems.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health, 3(3),
301–308.
Bewtra, J. K., Nicholas, W. R., and Polkowski, L. B. (1970). “Effect of
temperature on oxygen transfer in water.” Water Res., 4(1), 115–123.
Bolles, S. (2006). Modeling wastewater aeration systems to discover
energy savings opportunities, Process Energy Services, Londonberry,
NH.
Brepols, C., Schäfer, H., and Engelhardt, N. (2010). “Considerations on the
design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for
municipal applications.” Water Sci. Technol., 61(10), 2461–2468.
J. Environ. Eng.
 Collado, S., et al. (2012). “Transfer of oxygen in wastewater biological
treatment. Part I: Basic principles.” Tecnologia. Del. Agua., 32(336),
78–86.
Cornel, P., Wagner, M., and Krause, S. (2003). “Investigation of oxygen
transfer rates in full scale membrane bioreactors.” Water Sci. Technol.,
47(11), 313–319.
CYPE [Computer software]. CYPE Ingenieros, Alicante, Spain.
Garces, A., De Wilde, W., Thoeye, C., and De Gueldre, G. (2007). “Opera-
tional cost optimisation of MBR schilde.” Fourth Int. Water Association
Conf. on Membranes for Water and Wastewater Treatment, Harrogate.
Germain, E., et al. (2007). “Biomass effects on oxygen transfer in
membrane bioreactors.” Water Res., 41(5), 1038–1044.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UGR/E.U ARQUITECTURA TECNICA on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Germain, E., and Stephenson, T. (2005). “Biomass characteristics, aeration
and oxygen transfer in membrane bioreactors: Their interrelations
explained by a review of aerobic biological processes.” Rev. Environ.
Sci. Biotechnol., 4(4), 223–233.
Germain, E., Stephenson, T., and Pearce, P. (2005). “Biomass char-
acteristics and membrane aeration: Toward a better understanding of
membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors (MBRs).”
Biotechnol. Bioeng., 90(3), 316–322.
Gil, J. A., Túa, L., Rueda, A., Montaño, B., Rodríguez, M., and Prats, D.
(2010). “Monitoring and analysis of the energy cost of an MBR.”
Desalination, 250(3), 997–1001.
Gillot, S., and Héduit, A. (2008). “Prediction of alpha factor values for fine
pore aeration systems.” Water Sci. Technol., 57(8), 1265–1269.
Günder, B. (2001). The membrane coupled activated sludge process in
municipal wastewater treatment, Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, PA.
Henze, M., Gujer, W., Mino, T., and Van Loosdrecht, M. (2000). “Activated
sludge models ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3.” Technical Rep.
No. 9, IWA Publishing, London.
Henze, M., van Loosdrecth, M. C. M., Ekama, G. A., and Brdjanovic, D.
(2008). Biological wastewater treatment: Principles, modelling and
design, 1st Ed., IWA Publishing, London.
Iranpour, R., Shao, Y. J., Ahring, B. K., and Stenstrom, M. K. (2002). “Case
study of aeration performance under changing process conditions.” J.
Environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2002)128:6(562), 562–569.
Judd, S. (2011). The MBR book: Principles and applications of membrane
bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment, 2nd Ed., Butterworth-
Heinemann, London.
Krampe, J., and Krauth, K. (2003). “Oxygen transfer into activated
sludge with high MLSS concentrations.” Water Sci. Technol., 47(11),
297–303.
Lesjean, B., and Huisjes, E. H. (2008). “Survey of the European MBR
market: Trends and perspectives.” Desalination, 231(1–3), 71–81.
Leu, S., Rosso, D., Larson, L. E., and Stenstrom, M. K. (2009). “Real-time
aeration efficiency monitoring in the activated sludge process and meth-
ods to reduce energy consumption and operating costs.” Water Environ.
Res., 81(12), 2471–2481.
Libra, J. A., Schuchardt, A., Sahlmann, C., Handschag, J., Wiesmann, U.,
and Gnirss, R. (2002). “Comparison of the efficiency of large-scale
ceramic and membrane aeration systems with the dynamic off-gas
method.” Water Sci. Technol., 46(4–5), 317–324.
Livingston, D., and Zhang, K. (2009). “Energy efficiency of MBR.”
Water and Wastes Digest, 〈http://www.wwdmag.com/energy/energy
-efficiency-mbr〉.
Maere, T., Verrecht, B., Moerenhout, S., Judd, S., and Nopens, I. (2011).
“BSM-MBR: A benchmark simulation model to compare control and
operational strategies for membrane bioreactors.” Water Res., 45(6),
2181–2190.
Mueller, J. A., Boyle, W. C., and Pöpel, H. J. (2002). Aeration: Principles
and practice, 1st Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
© ASCE 04014019-7
View publication stats J. Environ. Eng., 2014, 140(7): -1--1
Muller, E. B., Stouthamer, A. H., Van Verseveld, H. W., and Eikelboom,
D. H. (1995). “Aerobic domestic waste water treatment in a pilot plant
with complete sludge retention by cross-flow filtration.” Water Res.,
29(4), 1179–1189.
National Institute of Statistics (INE). (2012). 〈http://www.ine.es/〉.
Ovezea, A. (2009). “Saving energy: Using fine bubble diffusers.” Filtr.
Sep., 46(1), 24–27.
Popel, H. J., and Wagner, M. (1994). “Modelling of oxygen transfer in deep
diffused-aeration tanks and comparison with full-scale plant data.”
Water Sci. Technol., 30(4), 71–80.
Quotation Manager [Computer software]. ABS Group, Sulzer, Winterthur,
Switzerland.
Ramalho, R. S. (2003). Tratamiento De Aguas Residuales, 2nd Ed.,
Reverté.
Reardon, D. J. (1995). “Turning down the power.” Civ. Eng., 65(8), 54–56.
Rosso, D., and Stenstrom, M. K. (2005). “Comparative economic analysis
of the impacts of mean cell retention time and denitrification on aeration
systems.” Water Res., 39(16), 3773–3780.
Ruiz, L. M., Pérez, J., and Gómez, M. A. (2013). “Influence of operational
parameters over biomass growth and decay kinetic constants on mem-
brane bioreactors.” Desalin. Water Treat., 51(25–27), 4847–4854.
Sandberg, M. (2010). “Energy efficient aeration of wastewaters from the
pulp and paper industry.” Water Sci. Technol., 62(10), 2364–2371.
Serralta, J., Ribes, J., Seco, A., and Ferrer, J. (2002). “A supervisory
control system for optimising nitrogen removal and aeration energy
consumption in wastewater treatment plants.” Water Sci. Technol.,
45(4–5), 309–316.
Stenstrom, M. K., and Gilbert, R. G. (1981). “Effects of alpha, beta and
theta factor upon the design, specification and operation of aeration
systems.” Water Res., 15(6), 643–654.
Stephenson, T., Judd, S., Jefferson, B., and Brindle, K. (2000). Membrane
bioreactors for wastewater treatment, IWA Publishing, London.
STOWA and Witteveen+Bos Consulting Engineers. (2005). “Membrane
Bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment—State of the science
report.” Global Water Research Coalition, London.
Trillo, I. (2009). “Energy efficiency of aeration systems: Design, operation,
maintenance and control.” Sanitation and wastewater treatment techni-
cal sessions. ESAMUR, Murcia, Spain.
U.S. EPA. (1989). Design manual on fine pore aeration, Cincinnati.
Van Bentem, A. G. N., Nijman, N., Schyns, P. F. T., and Petri, C. P. (2010).
“MBR Varsseveld: 5 years of operational experience.” Water Pract.
Technol., 5(1), 1–8.
Verrecht, B., Judd, S., Guglielmi, G., Brepols, C., and Mulder, J. W. (2008).
“An aeration energy model for an immersed membrane bioreactor.”
Water Res., 42(19), 4761–4770.
Verrecht, B., Maere, T., Nopens, I., Brepols, C., and Judd, S. (2010).
“The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR.” Water Res., 44(18),
5274–5283.
Wagner, M. R., and Popel, H. J. (1998). “Oxygen transfer and aeration
efficiency—Influence of diffuser submergence, diffuser density, and
blower type.” Water Sci. Technol., 38(3), 1–6.
Yang, W., Cicek, N., and 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.
Zhen, H., Pêtiraksakul, A., and Meesapya, W. (2003). “Oxygen-transfer
measurement in clean water.” J. KMITNB, 13(1), 14–19.
Zlokarnik, M. (1979). “Sorption characteristics of slot injectors and their
dependency on the coalescence behaviour of the system.” Chem. Eng.
Sci., 34(10), 1265–1271.
J. Environ. Eng.