2008 01 23 MTB Etfs Membrane-Bioreactors
2008 01 23 MTB Etfs Membrane-Bioreactors
2008 01 23 MTB Etfs Membrane-Bioreactors
Membrane Bioreactors
INTRODUCTION
The technologies most commonly used for performing secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater rely on microorganisms suspended in
the wastewater to treat it. Although these technologies work well in many situations, they have
several drawbacks, including the difficulty of
growing the right types of microorganisms and
the physical requirement of a large site. The use
of microfiltration membrane bioreactors
(MBRs), a technology that has become increasingly used in the past 10 years, overcomes many
of the limitations of conventional systems. These
systems have the advantage of combining a suspended growth biological reactor with solids
removal via filtration. The membranes can be
designed for and operated in small spaces and
with high removal efficiency of contaminants
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended
solids. The membrane filtration system in effect
can replace the secondary clarifier and sand filters in a typical activated sludge treatment
system. Membrane filtration allows a higher
biomass concentration to be maintained, thereby
allowing smaller bioreactors to be used.
APPLICABILITY
For new installations, the use of MBR systems
allows for higher wastewater flow or improved
treatment performance in a smaller space than a
conventional design, i.e., a facility using secondary clarifiers and sand filters. Historically,
membranes have been used for smaller-flow systems due to the high capital cost of the
equipment and high operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Today however, they are receiving
increased use in larger systems. MBR systems
are also well suited for some industrial and
commercial applications. The high-quality effluent produced by MBRs makes them particularly
applicable to reuse applications and for surface
MEMBRANE FILTRATION
Membrane filtration involves the flow of watercontaining pollutants across a membrane. Water
permeates through the membrane into a separate
channel for recovery (Figure 1). Because of the
cross-flow movement of water and the waste
constituents, materials left behind do not accumulate at the membrane surface but are carried
out of the system for later recovery or disposal.
The water passing through the membrane is
called the permeate, while the water with the
more-concentrated materials is called the concentrate or retentate.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
DESIGN FEATURES
Pretreatment
To reduce the chances of membrane damage,
wastewater should undergo a high level of debris
removal prior to the MBR. Primary treatment is
often provided in larger installations, although
not in most small to medium sized installations,
and is not a requirement. In addition, all MBR
systems require 1- to 3-mm-cutoff fine screens
immediately before the membranes, depending
on the MBR manufacturer. These screens require
frequent cleaning. Alternatives for reducing the
amount of material reaching the screens include
using two stages of screening and locating the
screens after primary settling.
Membrane Location
MBR systems are configured with the memTurbidimeter
Mixed
Anoxic
Aerobic + ZeeWeed
Pretreated
Wastewater
Feed
Treated
Water
Sludge
Recycle
Clean in
Place
Tank
Blowers
Sludge Wasted
@ 1 - 1.2 wt% TS
Figure 3.
branes actually immersed in the biological reactor or, as an alternative, in a separate vessel
through which mixed liquor from the biological
reactor is circulated. The former configuration is
shown in Figure 3; the latter, in Figure 4.
Membrane Configuration
MBR manufacturers employ membranes in two
basic configurations: hollow fiber bundles and
plate membranes. Siemens/U.S.Filters Memjet
and Memcor systems, GE/Zenons ZeeWeed and
ZenoGem systems, and GE/Ionics system use
hollow-fiber, tubular membranes configured in
bundles. A number of bundles are connected by
manifolds into units that can be readily changed
for maintenance or replacement. The other configuration, such as those provided by
Kubota/Enviroquip, employ membranes in a flatplate configuration, again with manifolds to allow a number of membranes to be connected in
readily changed units. Screening requirements
for both systems differ: hollow-fiber membranes
typically require 1- to 2-mm screening, while
4
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Siemens/U.S. Filter Systems
Siemens/U.S.Filter offers MBR systems under
the Memcor and Memjet brands. Data provided
by U.S. Filter for its Calls Creek (Georgia) facility are summarized below. The system, as Calls
Creek retrofitted it, is shown in Figure 5. In essence, the membrane filters were used to replace
secondary clarifiers downstream of an Orbal
oxidation ditch. The system includes a fine
screen (2-mm cutoff) for inert solids removal just
before the membranes.
The facility has an average flow of 0.35 million
gallons per day (mgd) and a design flow of 0.67
mgd. The system has 2 modules, each containing
400 units, and each unit consists of a cassette
with manifold-connected membranes. As shown
in Table 1, removal of BOD, TSS, and ammonianitrogen is excellent; BOD and TSS in the effluent are around the detection limit. Phosphorus is
also removed well in the system, and the effluent
5
Figure 5.
Table 1.
Calls Creek results 2005
Parameter
Influent
Average
Flow (mgd)
Average
0.44
0.26
TSS (mg/L)
248
0.21
0.72
0.10
0.55
0.12
14.8
0.88
--
Turbidity (NTU)
--
has very low turbidity. The effluent has consistently met discharge limits.
Zenon Systems
General Electric/Zenon provides systems under
the ZenoGem and ZeeWeed brands. The ZeeWeed brand refers to the membrane, while
ZenoGem is the process that uses ZeeWeed.
Performance data for two installed systems are
shown below.
--
Min Month
145
P (mg/L)
0.35
Max Month
BOD (mg/L)
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
Effluent
0.28
14.2
0.30
20
1.31
0
0.01
Cauley Creek, Georgia. The Cauley Creek facility in Fulton County, Georgia, is a 5-mgd
wastewater reclamation plant. The system
includes biological phosphorus removal, mixed
liquor surface wasting, and sludge thickening
using a ZeeWeed system to minimize the required volume of the aerobic digester, according
to information provided by GE. Ultraviolet disinfection is employed to meet regulatory limits.
Table 2 shows that the removal for all parame-
Table 2.
Cauley Creek, Georgia, system performance
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
Influent
Effluent
Average
Average
Max Month
Min Month
4.27
--
4.66
3.72
2.0
2.0
BOD (mg/L)
182
COD (mg/L)
398
TSS (mg/L)
174
2.0
12
22
3.2
TKN (mg/L)
33.0
1.9
2.9
1.4
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
24.8
0.21
0.29
0.10
5.0
TP (mg/L)
0.1
0.13
0.06
--
NO3-N (mg/L)
--
2.8
COSTS
Capital Costs
Capital costs for MBR systems historically have
tended to be higher than those for conventional
systems with comparable throughput because of
the initial costs of the membranes. In certain
situations, however, including retrofits, MBR
systems can have lower or competitive capital
costs compared with alternatives because MBRs
have lower land requirements and use smaller
tanks, which can reduce the costs for concrete.
U.S. Filter/Siemens Memcor package plants
have installed costs of $7$20/gallon treated.
Fleischer et al. (2005) reported on a cost comparison of technologies for a 12-MGD design in
Loudoun County, Virginia. Because of a chemical oxygen demand limit, activated carbon
adsorption was included with the MBR system.
It was found that the capital cost for MBR plus
granular activated carbon at $12/gallon treated
was on the same order of magnitude as alternative processes, including multiple-point alum
addition, high lime treatment, and postsecondary membrane filtration.
Operating Costs
Operating costs for MBR systems are typically
higher than those for comparable conventional
systems. This is because of the higher energy
7
Table 3.
Summary of Traverse City, Michigan, Performance Results
Influent
Average
Flow (mgd)
Effluent
Average
4.3
Max Month
--
Min Month
5.1
3.6
BOD (mg/L)
280
<2
<2
<2
TSS (mg/L)
248
<1
<1
<1
27.9
< 0.08
< 0.23
< 0.03
6.9
0.7
0.95
0.41
17.2
--
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
TP (mg/L)
Temperature (deg C)
23.5
11.5
350
35
300
30
250
25
200
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
Aug-05
Inf. BOD
Effl. BOD/TSS (mg/L); Infl. and Effl. NH3-N, PO4-P (mg/L); and
Flow (MGD)
Parameter
0
Sep-05
Inf. TSS
Nov-05
Inf. NH3-N
Jan-06
Inf. PO4-P
Feb-06
Eff. BOD
Apr-06
Eff. NH3-N
Jun-06
Eff. TSS
Jul-06
Eff. PO4-P
Flow (MGD)
of the same order of magnitude as those of alternative processes, and they compared favorably to
those of processes that are chemical-intensive,
such as lime treatment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge Dr. Venkat Mahendraker, GE/Zenon, Mr. John Irwin, Siemens/
U.S. Filter, and Mr. Scott Blair and Mr. Leroy
Bonkoski of the Traverse City WWTP for
their assistance in obtaining data and system
information. EPA acknowledges external peer
REFERENCES
Crawford, G., G. Daigger, J. Fisher, S. Blair, and
R. Lewis. 2005. Parallel Operation of Large
Membrane Bioreactors at Traverse City. In
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 78th Annual Conference &
Exposition, Washington, DC, CD-ROM,
October 29Nov 2, 2005.
Crawford, G., A. Fernandez, A. Shawwa, and G.
Daigger. 2002 Competitive Bidding and
Evaluation of Membrane Bioreactor EquipmentThree Large Plant Case Studies. In
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 75th Annual Conference &
Exposition, Chicago, IL, CD-ROM, September 28Oct 2, 2002.
EPA 832-F-07-015
Office of Water
September 2007