Membrane Bioreactors:

State of the Art and

Technology Exchange

Seminar for DOW Chemical

Midland, MI
June 21, 2007

R. Shane Trussell, Ph.D., P.E.

 Outline
• Introduction
• Membrane Issues
• Other Issues
 Outline
• Introduction
–Brief history
–Configurations and
manufacturers
–MBR vs. Conventional
• Membrane Issues
• Other Issues
 Introduction
• An MBR is not a
membrane process
• An MBR is a
biological
process that
uses membranes
for solid-liquid
separation
 Introduction
• MBR’s Roots
– Dorr Oliver (1960s)
– Successfully
coupled activated
sludge (AS) to
membrane separation
by early 1970s
(sold 27 units
between 1974 and
1982)
– EMBR process with
flatsheet UF
membranes
• Cost prohibitive
– Capital and O&M
 Introduction
• SMBR configuration
– University of Tokyo
Professors Aya and
Yamamoto
– 1989 Wat. Sci. Tech.
• Japan
– Kubota developed flat-
sheet SMBR
– Mitsubishi developed
horizontal hollow
fiber SMBR
• Canada
– Zenon developed
vertical hollow fiber
SMBR
 Introduction
• SMBR configuration
– Breakthrough for
commercialized MBR
technology
– Reduced energy by 90%
• Japan
– Kubota dominates with
60 MBRs by 1996 (total
1.5 MGD)
• UK, Canada, and USA
– Milton, Ontario, CA
1997
– Arapahoe, CO, USA 1998
– Kingston Seymour, UK
1992
 Introduction
• SMBR manufacturers in the
USA - firsts
– Zenon was 1.0 MGD in
Arapahoe, CO in 1998
– Mitsubishi was 0.10 MGD in
Byfield, MA in 2000
– Kubota was 0.6 MGD in Running
Springs, CA in 2002
– US Filter was 0.16 MGD in
Lake Oconocee, GAG in 2003
• Zenon is the predominant
MBR manufacturer with the
most experience and
capacity
• Kubota is the runner-up
with significant
knowledge and
installation capacity
 Submerged MBR (SMBR)
Q
Aeration Basin Effluent

WASTE
Primary Treated
Wastewater

QR = 3-5xQ
Solids Recycle

Waste Activated Sludge

 External MBR (EMBR)
Aeration Basin Effluent

Primary Treated
Wastewater

Solids Recycle QR = 20-30xQ

Waste Activated Sludge

 “Air-lift” EMBR
QR = 5-10xQ Effluent

Q
Solids Recycle

Primary Treated
Wastewater

Aeration Basin
Diffuser

Waste Activated Sludge

 ZENON
• Hollow fiber
membrane
configuration
• Proprietary
polymer
• Ultrafiltration
• 1998 First MBR
Installation in
the USA was
operational at
1.0 MGD in
Arapahoe, CO
 ZENON
• 48 modules combine
to form a cassette
• One common header
• Permeate drawn
from top and
bottom
• Intermittent
coarse bubble
aeration (10s on/
10s off)
 ZENON

• Membranes submerged at end of aeration basin

• System capable of operating with “backpulse”
or “relax”
 Kubota / Enviroquip
• Flat sheet membrane
configuration
• Polyethylene
• Microfiltration
• 2002 First MBR
Installation in the
USA was operational
at 0.6 MGD in
Running Springs, CA
 Kubota / Enviroquip
• 100 flat sheets
combine to form
cassette
• Each sheet has
tube connection
to header
• Constant coarse
bubble aeration
to mitigate
membrane fouling
 Kubota / Enviroquip

• Cassette submerged in aeration basin

• Double decker (DD) configuration
• System operates with membrane relax, no
backpulse
 US Filter/ MemJet
• Hollow fiber
membrane
configuration
• PVDF
• Microfiltration
• 2003 First MBR
Installation in the
USA was operational
at 0.16 MGD in Lake
Oconee, GA
 US Filter/ MemJet
• Bundles of 4
membrane modules
• Common header for 4
modules
• Combination of
air/liquid jet “Jet
Tech” is used to
provide cross-flow
to the membrane
surface
 US Filter/ MemJet
• Separate tank
for membranes
• Backwashing
cycle:
45 s relax
15 s permeate
backflush
15 s coarse
bubble air
 Mitsubishi / GE Ionics

• Hollow fiber membrane

configuration
(horizontal)
• Polyethylene
• Microfiltration
• 2000 First MBR
Installation in the
USA was operational
at 0.10 MGD in
Byfield, MA
 Mitsubishi / GE Ionics
• 50 membrane modules
for 1 membrane bank
• Modules connect to
common header
• Permeate drawn from
both sides (L and R)
• Constant coarse
bubble aeration
 Mitsubishi / GE Ionics

• Membranes submerged in aeration basin

• System operates with membrane relax, no
backpulse
 Membrane Comparison
Nominal Absolute Membrane
Manufacturer MWCO, MWCO, Area/Footprint,
µm µm ft2/ft2

Zenon 0.035 0.1 290

US Filter 0.08 0.2 400

Kubota 0.4 - 170

Mitsubish
0.4 0.5 -
i
Koch Puron
EMBR’s “Re-Birth”- Air Pumps
How does MBR compare
to what is “common”
wastewater practice?
 Drivers for Process
Selection
– Intended use of treated water

Effluent limits
– Scalability

Site constraints

Flexibility with
expansions/retrofits
– Capital cost
– O&M cost
– Training/Expertise requirement
 Technologies
Goal is to remove COD, TN, TSS,
and Pathogens
Small to medium capacity < 5 MGD
• Oxidation Ditch
• Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Large capacity > 5 MGD
• Conventional activated sludge
• Pure oxygen activated sludge
• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
 Flow Scheme for Conventional
Activated Sludge Process
Microfiltration
Conventional
Aeration Basin To
Secondary Disinfection
Clarifier

Backwash
Water
WASTE

Primary Treated
Wastewater
 Flow Schemes for the MBR and
Conventional Activated Sludge
Process
Microfiltration
Conventional
Aeration Basin To
Secondary
Disinfection
Clarifier

Backwash
Water
WASTE

Aeration Basin

To
Primary Treated MBR Disinfection
Wastewater

WASTE
 Sequencing Batch
Reactors
• SBR is a fill-and draw type
activated sludge system
» Equalization, aeration and
clarification all performed in the
same batch reactor

React Settle Decant

 Retrofitting SBR with MBR
Aeration Tank Membrane Tank

Primary Treated
Disinfection
Wastewater
Q

Solids Recycle
QR = 3-5•Q
Waste
Activate
Sludge
Capacity increases by 8-fold
• “Batch” becomes “Continuous”
• MLSS increases from 3 to 10 g/L
 Oxidation Ditch
Oxidation ditch is an activated sludge process
that utilizes long solids retention times

CAS SRT = 5 avg. days

Oxidation ditch SRT = 20 avg. days
 Oxidation Ditch
• Double Ditch
• Triple Ditch
• Mechanical aerators
• More capacity, more ditches
•Typical HRT is 24 h
 Technologies
All conventional technologies that
compete with MBR use gravity for
solid-liquid separation
• Additional filtration process required to
attain recycled water status
• Membrane filtration required to attain a
similar water quality
• MBR has great potential to reduce
disinfection requirements
Commercial MBRs to date are not marketed
in in a manner that allows operation
similar to pure oxygen plants
• Low SRT operation to prevent nitrification
and significantly reduce oxygen requirements
• This is because membrane fouling rates are
increased with low SRT designs
 Technologies
Obvious winner for MBR
• Space limitations
• High quality effluent required
Debate amongst practicing engineers in
USA as to the economics of MBR
compared to membrane filtration of
secondary effluents for large
wastewater treatment facilities
• Less aeration required on settled
effluent because less solids present
• Higher flux and reduced capital cost
• Reality is established cleaning
intervals are different (2nd effluent
every 3 to 4 weeks while MBR every 1
to 3 months)
 Technologies
Large membrane facilities treating secondary
effluent
• Orange County Water District 85 MGD
• West Basin Municipal Water District 40
MGD
• Clark County Water Reclamation District
30 MGD
Large MBR facilities
• Traverse City 17 MGD facility
• Tempe 10 MGD facility
• King County Brightwater 38 MGD
• Irvine Ranch Water District 20 MGD
MBRs economic viability depends on the
entire picture of a given location
• Cost of land and availability
• Total present worth costs
• Overall project goals
 Principle Advantages of
MBR Process
• High quality
effluent
• Compact
Footprint
• High MLSS
concentrations
 MBR Advantages
• Some obvious benefits
of MBRs are
• MBR produces an excellent
effluent quality
• MBR has a much smaller
footprint
• smaller aeration tanks
• no clarifiers
• no filters
• MBR has great potential for
being highly automated and
requiring little operator
attention
 MBR Advantages
• MBR eliminates the need
for monitoring sludge
settleability as an
operational parameter
» Effluent quality is not
dependent on operations
» Not necessary to determine
TSS/VSS concentrations to
maintain desired SRT
» Can use fixed waste rate
SRT=V/QWAS
 MBR Advantages
• Higher MLSS concentrations (More bug
mass per volume)
– Membrane provides solid-liquid
separation
» SBR or Ox. Ditch 2-4 g/L
» MBR 8-12 g/L
• MBR makes longer SRTs feasible
– Reduced solids handling costs
– More stable nitrogen removal process
 MBR Advantages
Membrane provides an absolute barrier
and effluent quality is no longer a
concern.
Well
Water Quality Operated Typical MBR
Parameter CAS Effluent
Effluent
TSS, mg/L 5 to 10 ND (<2)
Turbidity, NTU 2 to 5 <0.2
Fecal
1000 to
Coliform, ND to 10
10,000
#/100 mL
 MBR Advantages
• Public Health Benefit
– Membrane is an
absolute barrier that
physically removes all
pathogens
– Conventional
technologies depend on
highly selective
chemical or
photochemical reaction
» Pathogens may repair
themselves and reactivate
– Results from operating
MBR plants:
 Total Coliforms
Primary Effluent Total Coliforms MBR Permeate Total Coliforms

Mitsubishi 1E+09
1E+08

Concentration, MPN/100mL
1E+07
1E+06
1E+05
1E+04
1E+03
1E+02
1E+01
1E+00
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Tim e of Operation, h
open symbols denote below detection limit

Primary Effluent Total Coliforms MBR Permeate Total Coliforms

Zenon 1E+09
1E+08
Concentration, MPN/100 mL

1E+07
1E+06
1E+05
1E+04
1E+03
1E+02
1E+01
1E+00
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Tim e of Operation, h
open symbols denote below detection limit
 Fecal Coliforms
Primary Effluent Fecal Coliforms MBR Permeate Fecal Coliforms

Mitsubishi 1E+09
1E+08

Concentration, MPN/100mL
1E+07
1E+06
1E+05
1E+04
1E+03
1E+02
1E+01
1E+00
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Tim e of Operation. h

Primary Effluent Fecal Coliforms MBR Permeate Fecal Coliforms

Zenon 1E+09
Concentration, MPN/100 mL

1E+08
1E+07
1E+06
1E+05
1E+04
1E+03
1E+02
1E+01
1E+00
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Tim e of Operation, h
 Indigenous Coliphage
Primary Effluent Total Coliphage MBR Permeate Total Coliphage

Mitsubishi 1.00E+09
1.00E+08

Concentration, PFU/100 mL
1.00E+07
1.00E+06
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Tim e of Operation, h

Primary Effluent Total Coliphage MBR Permeate Total Coliphage

Zenon 1E+09
1E+08
Concentration, PFU/100 mL

1E+07
1E+06
1E+05

1E+04
1E+03
1E+02
1E+01
1E+00
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Tim e of Operation, h
 Why MBR?
• MBR Effluent Allows Modern Objectives to be
Realized
– Ideal for UV disinfection
» All particulate matter and suspended solids that
can interfere with UV have been rejected at
membrane barrier
» High percent transmissivity (>70%)
» Dose of 80 mJ/cm2 adequate for MBR effluent,
while 100 mJ/cm2 required for granular filtered
wastewater
– Ideal pretreatment process for reducing TDS
» Suitable for direct feed to RO
» Chloramine residual is required
 Aqua 2000 Bureau Study
[Filmtec BW 30-4040, low pressure TFC RO membranes]
Net Operating Pressure Temperature

200 40
Plant shutdow n
Feed TDS = 1200 mg/L
175 35

150 30
Net Operating Pressure, psi

125 25

Temperature, °C
100 20

75 15

50 10

25 5
11 weeks
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Tim e of Ope ration, h
 Principle Disadvantage of MBR
Process
• Ability to maintain hydraulic capacity
• All treated wastewater exiting an MBR
process must pass through the membrane

• Peak flows are

a particularly
significant
issue
• Cold weather
can further
complicate this
issue
 Peaking Studies
• Peaking studies are commonly
performed to estimate the sustainable
flux under wet weather flow scenarios
• These peaking studies are frequently
performed during dry weather
conditions and not during a storm
event
• Typically, the flux is increased to
mimic storm conditions for a period
of hours or days
 Peaking Studies
• Three significant issues to be aware of:
– New membranes do not provide
representative performance
– Temperature influence on TMP needs to be
accounted for
Flux @ 20 C Overall Vacuum Pressure

– Sustainable
membrane flux
is greatly
influenced by
mixed liquor
properties
 Technologies
Manufacturers and design engineers are
still learning how to address peak
flows
Store peak flow in equalization tanks
• Need adequate space
• Generally required for peaking factor >
2.5
• Economics will depend on the specific
application
Purchase additional membrane capacity
• Generally more expensive solution for
peaks > 2.5
• Often preferred by the MBR manufacturer
• Design decisions need to be made with
extra membranes (e.g. operate or store)
Break/Questions?