RAISING CAPACITY OF STP (PHASE-II)

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPLEMENTING OF A MEMBRANE

BIOREACTOR (MBR) PROCESS AND COMPARISON TO THE
CONVENTIONAL EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS
1.

INTRODUCTION
submitted a Preliminary Design Report (PDR) (Rev. 1) dated December
2004 in which the agreed Scope of Works is addressed including all the
comments and instructions received from the Studies and Design Committee
Meeting
The PDR concluded the following direction and instructions of the :a)
b)
c)
d)

Increase the current capacity of the STP from 2500 m 3/day to 4000
m3/day by adding a new process stream at a capacity of 1500m 3/day.
The process design will be activated sludge with extended aeration,
using diffused aeration.
Based on the annual yearly increase (after 2007) of 150 m 3/year, the
4000 m3/day should be sufficient to treat flows up to year 2017.
Proceed with detail design based on the above criteria.

During the Study and Meeting

were instructed to hold the design of the
above mentioned agreed scope and prepare a feasibility study for another
treatment alternative using the membrane bioreactor (MBR) and compare it
with the agreed extended aeration process.
The purpose of this report is to address the requested feasibility study by
Sewage Projects Section for using the membrane bioreactor technology as a
treatment alternative and highlight the technical and cost comparison between
the activated sludge with extended aeration process and the membrane
bioreactor process.
2

MEMBRANE BIOREACTORS (MBR)

2.1

Process Description
Membrane bioreactors have been in operation since 1996. The
concept of MBR systems consists of utilizing a bioreactor and microfiltration as one unit process for wastewater treatment, thereby
replacing the solids separation function of secondary clarification and
effluent filtration.
The MBR is a combination of activated sludge process, (a wastewater
treatment process characterized by a suspended growth of biomass),
and a micro or ultra-filtration membrane system.

C 322/322M

1 of 10

The membrane system replaces the traditional gravity sedimentation

unit (clarifier) in the activated sludge process. The MBR separates
biologically treated effluent from the mixed liquor (MLSS) utilizing the
membranes to perform the separation. The membranes allow the
treated water (called as Permeate) to pass through the pores in the
membranes while acting as a barrier for solid particles greater than 0.4
microns (this aspect may vary between membrane manufacturers)
The membranes are generally mounted in modules commonly referred
to as Cassettes that are lowered into bioreactor (aeration tank).
These cassettes are then subjected to a vacuum/hydraulic head that
draws effluent water (Permeate) through the membranes while
retaining the solids in the reactor. This increases the level of MLSS in
the reactor.
Due to such a high level of MLSS, the MBR requires less space than
traditional activated sludge systems because higher organic loading
rates are achieved, thereby reducing the hydraulic residence time
(HRT) and increasing the solids retention time (SRT).
To maintain the reactor contents in suspension and also to clean
outside surfaces of the membranes compressed air is introduced
through a distribution network of pipes at the bottom of the
membranes. The rising bubbles cause the scouring of the exterior
surface of the membranes.
The result of this process is that the turbidity and suspended solids
concentration of the effluent (Permeate) is far lower than in
conventional treatment. All the biomass is retained and becomes
returned activated sludge. Thus the process is not subject to the gravity
settling solids limitations as in secondary clarifiers. Biological growth
leaves the system as waste activated sludge.
Membrane Bioreactor systems have two basic configuration.
1. Integrated bioreactor that uses membranes immersed in the
bioreactor (This type is more common and has been described in
detail below.) or;
2. The re-circulated MBR in which the mixed liquor circulates through
a membrane module located outside the tank.

The figure below shows an example of an immersed MBR.

C 322/322M

2 of 10

2.2

Worldwide Commercial MBR Systems

Two of the main suppliers of MBR systems for wastewater treatment
are Kubota (Japan) and Zenon (USA).
Other International Membrane suppliers are Degremont (France),
Membratek (S. Africa), Orelis/Mitsui (Japan), US Filter (USA) and
Wehrle Werk (Germany), Ionics (USA),TORAY (Japan)

2.3

A Typical MBR process is as follows:

1. Screening: Raw sewage/wastewater is passed through a 3 mm
screen to remove solids. (this may vary from supplier to supplier)
2. Grit: The provision of this varies from vendor to vendor.
3. Equalization Tank: An equalization tank with continuous mixing with
the help of aerators or diffused aeration precedes the biological
process. This is considered to handle all variations in flow so that
the MBR can be designed for average flow rather than peak daily
flow.
4. Anoxic Tank: The equalization tank is followed by an ANOXIC TANK
(where ever De-nitrification is required).
5. Aeration Tank / MBR Tank: The MBR combines biological treatment
with membrane separation. A very high level of MLSS is maintained
in the reactor (10000 mg/l to 15000 mg/l). The membranes are
mounted in modules that are lowered in the bioreactor. The
modules are comprised of support structures, feed inlet and outlet.
The modules in turn are connected by common headers. The
treated wastewater is separated from the activated sludge by a
membrane. Air blowers supply air for biological treatment, scouring
membranes and to keep the tank contents in completely mixed. The
continuous mixing and agitation caused by the air and water over
the membranes scours the membrane surface of any fouling.

C 322/322M

3 of 10

MBRs retain particulate and slow-growing organisms and remove a

very high percentage of pathogens. Biomass or the activated
sludge is removed with the help of pumps.

6. Permeate: The permeate is drawn through the membranes either

by gravity (hydraulic head) or by pump suction. This varies from
vendor to vendor and site to site. This permeate is free of
suspended solids (greater than 0.4 micron) and practically free from
pathogens.
7. Chlorine: Due to the higher quality permeate (effluent) a
substantially lower chlorine dosage can be used to ensure that
there is a residual in the irrigation effluent.
2.4

C 322/322M

Advantages of the MBR system

The overall area requirements are drastically reduced due to

shorter retention times, no clarification and filtration.

Treated water is free from suspended solids, bacteria and viruses,

thus making it suitable for reuse purposes like cooling water etc,
without any filtration process.

As microorganisms are virtually absent, the chlorine dose is only for

residual purposes and is very low (0.5 to 1 ppm) thereby reducing
the consumption of Hypochlorite/Cl2 gas.

Relatively high sludge age and Very stable process.

Due to high concentration of MLSS, sludge problems associated

with sludge bulking are minimized.

Any existing Sewage Treatment Plant with diffused aeration system

can be upsized using this process with certain modifications.

4 of 10

2.5

3.

Disadvantages of the MBR system

The process is yet to be established on a large scale. There is one

plant in operation near Sharjah of a capacity 300 m3/day. Others
are under construction.

Limited data on membrane life and replacement costs of

membrane modules is approximately every five (5) years with
complete replacement after ten (10) years.

The membrane performance is affected by the type of screens

used and pre treatment. Smaller screen sizes and thus more
solids removal at the inlet works.

MBR membranes have to be cleaned periodically (once in 6

months minimum) to minimize biological and chemical fouling,
Despite the cleaning, a gradual accumulation of organic
substances can occur on the membrane. This can increase the
TMP (Trans Membrane pressure) causes marginal rise in the
water levels in the MBR tank and should be continuously
monitored.

Cleaning requires use of chemicals (in one case, the wastewater

generated after cleaning of membranes has to be neutralized and
disposed. Although the frequency may me as low as once in 4 to 6
months)

High energy costs. (This may vary from vendor to vendor)

Units must be operated using PLC units which have proprietary

technology and are only accessible by the manufacturers.

TECHNICAL COMPARISON OF MBR vs. EXTENDED AERATION

Both the extended aeration process and the membrane bioreactor are
efficient in terms of the effluent quality, however there are several Operation
and Maintenance constrains related to the use of the MBR as stated in the
disadvantages of this system.
The following table summarizes the technical comparison between the two
alternatives.

Table No. 1 Technical Comparison between

Extended Aeration and Membrane Bioreactor

C 322/322M

5 of 10

No.
1

Comparison
item

Membrane Bioreactor

Extended
Aeration

Efficiency

Highly Efficient

Efficient

Reliability

Reliable but yet to be

established on larger
scales than 600 to 1000
m3/d
average
flow
capacities

More reliable
established

Suitability for Arid

Areas

Suitable

More suitable

Local regulation

Meet local regulation

Meet local regulation

Environmental
Impact

Positive environ. Impact

Positive
Impact

Operation life

Serves up to 15 years

Serves more than 50

years

Power
Consumption

Needs more power for

installation and operation

Needs less power

for installation and
operation

Operation
Maintenance

More
O&M
aspects
needed to change some
of the membranes every 5
years
and
total
replacement
after
10
years. The system needs
cleaning every 5 to 6
months. Back pressure
must be continuously
monitored

Less O&M aspects

no need to change
the equipment

Foot Print

Needs smaller foot print

Needs
print

10

Sophisticated
Equipment

Need
PLC
control/operate
system.

Less sophisticated
equipment

11

C 322/322M

Manpower

and

to
the

Requires lesser but skilled

manpower

and

environ.

larger

foot

Requires
more
manpower ,but can
be managed with
lesser
skilled
manpower making it
suitable for remote
areas

6 of 10

4.

AREA COMPARISON
The membrane bioreactor unit would replace the need for large aeration
tanks, clarifiers and filters in the normal extended aeration process.
In order to perform an area comparison between the two process
alternatives we have used the proposed extension of Ghayathi STP-Phase-II
with capacity 2500m3/day and 3500 m3/d as a basic scale for this purpose.
Appendix B of this report contains sketch drawing for the area comparison
for membrane process and extended aeration process. Also in Appendix B
is a chart showing the comparison between the two process for various
aspects ;
As can be seen from the layout drawings there is considerable savings in
area with the MBR process, compared to the extended aeration due to the
reduced sizes of the aeration tanks and the elimination of clarifiers and filter
units. Subsequently this would then offer a cost saving for the civil site
works.
In general the MBR requires less than to of the area required by the
extended aeration process. This is based on the actual foot print of the
secondary and tertiary treatment tanks and structures without considering
other units and landscaping areas.
For a 2500 m3/d Plant

5.

Area required by MBR

310 m2

Area required by Extended Aeration

1362 m2

COST ANALYSIS
A cost analysis is required in order to determine the feasibility of using fullscale application of the MBR process compared to current extended aeration
process for STP Phase-II with capacity 2500 m 3/day , 3500 m3/day. The
two main elements of this analysis will be Capital costs and ongoing
Operation and Maintenance costs over a selected period of time.
5.1

Capital Costs
Table 2 shows the capital costs for the MBR process for MBR
installations versus the Extended Aeration (diffused air).
All the common associated components of the treatment plant
including the inlet works structure, the chlorine contact tank, the lift
station, sludge holding tank and drying beds will be kept for both
processes.

C 322/322M

7 of 10

Table 2 - Capital Costs

2500 m3/d STP

3500 m3/d STP

Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Distribution Chamber, Inlet works

Biological process Tanks
Clarifiers
Filters
Chlorine Contact .Tank/Lift Station
Sludge Drying beds
Sludge Holding Tank & New PS
Plant drain/Filter Reject P/S
Blower Building
Admin Building upgrade
Site Piping
Civil Site works
E/M site works, instrumentation

14

Grand Total

5.2

Ex Aeration
1,653,821
4,439,275
2,155,889
2,127,749
4,007,309
3,019,216
1,261,688
855,282
2,700,000
460,000
3,480,000
6,325,000
3,680,000
36,165,228.0

MBR
1,653,821
8,573,609
0
0
4,007,309
2,012,811
883,181
855,282
3,240,000
460,000
2,640,000
4,200,000
2,750,000

Ex Aeration
2,067,276
5,993,021
2,802,656
2,836,998
5,610,232
4,025,622
1,640,194
983,574
2,970,000
460,000
4,176,000
6,641,250
4,232,000

MBR
2,067,276
12,063,752
0
0
5,610,232
2,817,935
1,148,136
983,574
3,564,000
460,000
3,696,000
4,410,000
3,162,500

31,276,012

44,438,823.1

39,983,405

Operation and Maintenance Costs

The Operation and Maintenance cost includes the following main
items:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Personnel and Labor Costs

Power Costs
Chemicals
Spare Parts
Regular Maintenance (Cleaning, Changing Oils, etc..)

The following Table 3 shows the annual operation and maintenance

costs for the extended aeration and MBR systems taking into
consideration the actual costs obtained from the running extended
aeration plants and the estimated costs for the MBR systems.

C 322/322M

8 of 10

Table 3 - Annual Operation and Maintenance Comparisons

(only pertaining secondary and tertiary treatment)
2500 m3/d
Extended
Aeration
(Diffused
Air) ( )

Description

MBR ( )

3500 m3/d
Extended
Aeration
(Diffused
Air) ( )

MBR ( )

Personnel / Labor

600,000

440,000

600,000

440,000

Power Costs

157,000

235,000

217,000

326,000

Spare Parts

36,800

52,000

42,800

53,000

Chemicals

72,000

21,000

101,000

30,000

Regular Maintenance

35,000

35,000

35,000

35,000

Total Cost / Year

900,800

783,000

995,800

884,000

6.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1

Conclusion
As requested by ADSSC, this report describes the MBR process in
detail and compares the process, both on a technical and costs basis,
to that of Extended Aeration (diffused air) for the 2500 m/day or 3500
m3/d upgrade proposed for the Ghayathi Sewage Treatment Plant.
The technical advantages and disadvantages of the MBR system are
clearly described with the report and an equal cost comparison based
on the same parameters has been provided.
The analysis of the report suggests that the MBR process has some
technical advantages over the conventional extended aeration process
such as area and chemical reduction.
However, there are also several disadvantages that should be
considered.

C 322/322M

In particular the fact that the process is still new and untried in
this part of the world raises some concerns over its appropriate
usage in the Western Region.
Reliability still needs to be established and an overseas visit to
some plants in Europe or Japan would be recommended.
Further to this there is also the issue of limited suppliers in the
Should the chosen supplier cease to operate; the system could
be rendered obsolete.

9 of 10

Another major concern is the proprietary technology on the

PLC. Anytime there is a problem the manufacturer will need to
be contacted and this is where the distance to the Western
Region becomes an issue.

The main advantage that the MBR process offers is costs savings. Our
review and analysis of both the capital and operation and maintenance
costs suggests that an MBR plant with a capacity of 2500 m/day or
3500 m3/d would have initial capital costs approximately 25% less than
the conventional plant and 5-10% less on annual O&M costs.
6.2

Recommendation
Our recommendation is that whilst the MBR process offers a more
economical alternative to the conventional extended aeration with
diffused air, it is a regionally unproven process (except for a 600 m3/d
Plant at ) on a large scale. This process would be better suited closer
to a major service area such as . Some consideration should perhaps
be given to installing a smaller unit at a location closer to the service
areas in order to gain further knowledge and experience.

C 322/322M

10 of 10