,; , r~

L ..... , ,. ,

~) ,. | •
DESALINATION

ELSEVIER Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322

Ultrafiltration as an advanced tertiary treatment process

for municipal wastewater
George Tchobanoglous a, Jeannie Darby a, Keith Bourgeous a, John McArdle b,
Paul Genest b, Michael Tylla c*
aDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA,
Tel.." +916-752-5670, Fax: +916-752-7872; bKoch Membrane Systems Inc., 850 Main Street, Wilmington,
MA 01887, USA, Tel.: +978-694-7173, Fax: +978-694-7021, E-mail. McArdleJ@kochind.com and
GenestP@kochind.com; and CKoch International GmbH, Membrane Systems Division, Neusserstrasse 33,
40219 D~isseldorf, Germany, Tel.: +49-211-90195-24, Fax: +49-211-90195-95, E-mail. TyllaM@kochind.com

Received 29 June 1998; accepted 8 July 1998

Abstract

Treatment of secondary and tertiary municipal wastewater by membrane filtration has been investigated at the
University of California, Davis, California, USA, as described in the following paper. Secondary and tertiary
wastewater used during this investigation were produced from activated sludge and media filtration processes,
respectively. Ultrafiltration, hollow-fiber, polysulfone membranes were used in this investigation for the
treatment of secondary and tertiary municipal wastewater. Membrane operating parameters investigated were
cross-flow velocity, with circulation and single pass flow, trans-membrane pressure and backflushing methods.
Total solids and particle size distribution of secondary and tertiary wastewater were analyzed and correlated with
observed membrane performance. Reduction of total solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical
oxygen demand (COD) of secondary wastewater was also determined after treatment with membrane and media
filtration processes.

Keywords: Wastewater reuse; Ultrafiltration membrane; Sand filtration; Particle size distribution

1. B a c k g r o u n d using either microfiltration or ultrafiltration

hollow-fiber membranes followed by reverse
Recent d e v e l o p m e n t s in m e m b r a n e osmosis spiral membranes is recognized as
filtration are providing new technically the low cost alternative for municipal
feasible and e c o n o m i c a l m e t h o d s for wastewater reuse plants [1].
treatment of municipal wastewater. For It is expected that the use of membrane
example, a combined membrane process f i l t r a t i o n for t r e a t m e n t of m u n i c i p a l

*Corresponding author
Presented at the Conferenceon Membranesin Drinkingand IndustrialWaterProduction,Amsterdam, September21-24, 1998,
International Water Services Association,European DesalinationSocietyand AmericanWater Works Association
0011-9164/98/$ - See front m~ter © 1998 ElsevierScienceB.V. All rights reserved.
P// S0011-9164(98)00175-1
316 G. Tchobanoglous et al. /Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322
wastewater will steadily increase with more
stringent discharge regulations and fresh
water supply limitations. In response,
ultrafiltration and microfiltration membrane
suppliers have developed a number of
different membrane structures, membrane
p o l y m e r s , m e m b r a n e c a r t r i d g e s and
operating procedures for treatment of
wastewater treatment, described below.
Suppliers of reverse osmosis membranes
have been involved in some of these activities;
however, the majority of work seems focused
on the use of hollow-fiber microfiltration and
ultrafiltration membranes as pretreatment for
spiral reverse osmosis membranes.
1.1. Membrane structure
Ultrafiltration and microfiltration
membranes are used for the treatment of
municipal wastewater. Ultrafiltration
membranes have tighter pore structures than
microfiltration membranes, and remove
larger amounts of solids. Reverse osmosis
membranes have been shown to perform at
lower operating pressure and longer time
between cleanings after ultrafiltration
compared to after microfiltration [2].
Ultrafiltration membranes have asymmetrical
"skinned" surface structure. Depth fouling
does not occur with this type of membrane,
resulting in high and consistent membrane
productivity.
1.2. Membrane polymer
Membrane polymers used for treatment of
municipal wastewater include polysulfone,
polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile (PAN),
polyvinylidene flouride (PVDF), cellulose
acetate, and blends of these materials. Each
of these polymers has a set of properties
desired for treatment of municipal wastewater
including productivity (flux), chemical
resistance, fouling resistance and mechanical
strength. However, it is important to
recognize that polymers having an especially
useful property in one area may have a
critical deficit in another area. Identifying
polymers with the optimal combinations of
properties for this application is perhaps the
major goals of membrane suppliers.
1.3. Membrane cartridges
Membrane cartridge design should allow
for simple installation, fiber integrity
checking and maintenance. Special tools and
training should not be needed for these
procedures. Air leak and pressure hold tests
are used to check integrity of hollow-fiber
membranes. Clear cartridge housings allow
visual identification of fiber leaks. Individual
fibers are repaired in each cartridge either on
the system itself or using a separate repair
stand. Cartridges should be installed on the
membrane system in a manner that provides
for their c o n v e n i e n t removal and
replacement.
Membrane cartridges are designed for
either outside-in or inside-out flow. Outside-
in flow cartridges may use smaller diameter
hollow-fibers because only clean, filtered
water moves into the narrow fiber lumen, with
solids remaining on the outside of the fiber.
Inside-out flow cartridges maintain crossflow
feed distribution while avoiding accumulation
of solids on the outside of the fiber bundle.
This provides for efficient membrane use and
high productivity. Note that the inside
diameter of a hollow-fiber membrane with
inside-out flow must be carefully selected to
avoid fiber plugging and loss of membrane
productivity.
1.4. Operating procedures
Backflushing with permeate and oxidant
chemicals, including sodium hypochlorite
and hydrogen peroxide, or compressed air, is
used to c o n t r o l m e m b r a n e fouling.
Ammonia in municipal wastewater can reduce
the effectiveness of chemical backflushing by
converting hypochlorite into less active
chloramine species. Reverse osmosis
permeate can be used as backflush solution,
instead of ultrafiltration permeate, to avoid
reaction of hypochlorite with ammonia
 G. Tchobanoglous et al. /Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322
contained in ultrafiltration or microfiltration
permeate. However, using reverse osmosis
permeate for backflushing is not desired
because of the resulting loss of product water.
Some polymers, notably polypropylene,
are extremely sensitive to attack by oxidant
chemicals. Removal of residual chlorine by
the addition of reducing chemicals, such as
sodium metabisulfite or thiosulfite, is
generally required with this type of
membrane.
Process flow for membrane systems
include dead-end, single-pass and
recirculation. Municipal wastewater with
higher solids; for example, secondary
wastewater, may require recirculation flow for
optimum membrane performance.
Municipal wastewater with lower solids; for
example, tertiary wastewater, may operate
with dead-end or single-pass flow, with lower
equipment and electricity costs.
2. Municipal wastewater analysis
It would be very useful for membrane
suppliers to have an analytical measurement
available to predict membrane performance
for the treatment of a specific municipal
wastewater. Availability of this type of
analytical method could eliminate the need
for expensive and time consuming pilot plant
testing.
With this in mind, secondary and tertiary
municipal wastewater have been sampled
from several municipal treatment plants.
Total solids and particle size distribution was
determined for each of these samples for use
as a predictor of membrane performance.
This method has shown promising results,
however, additional work is needed in this
area to further develop and refine this
approach.
3. Membrane testing
Ultrafiltration, hollow-fiber, polysulfone
membranes were used for all pilot plant
317
testing in this report. Koch Membrane
Systems manufactures these membranes
specifically for the treatment of municipal
wastewater (Table 1).
Table 1
Ultrafiltration membrane description
Manufacturer Koch Membrane Systems, Inc.
Wilmington, MA, USA
Designation HF-479-35-PM100
Membrane material Polysulfone
Cartridge material Polysulfone
Cartridge diameter 20 cm (8 inch)
Cartridge length 180 cm (72 inch)
Fiber diameter(ID) 0.9 mm (35 mil)
Membranearea 45 m2 (479 ft2)
MWCO 100,000 daltons (nominal)
3.1. University of California, Davis, CA
Secondary and tertiary wastewater used for
pilot plant testing at this site was obtained
from an activated sludge process and a
Parkson Dynasand continuous upflow filter,
respectively [3].
Process flow used for pilot plant testing at
this site was single - pass with 10% bleed for
secondary and tertiary wastewater. Total water
recovery was about 80%, including backflush
losses. Backflush started after each twenty
minute production period, with 100-150 mg/1
hypochlorite in the backflush solution.
Ultrafiltration permeate was used for the
backflush solution.
Membrane productivity was consistent at
135-170 lmh (80-100 gfd) for secondary
and tertiary wastewater, and increased as
expected at higher trans-membrane pressure
(Fig. 1).
Particle sizes for secondary wastewater at
this site are distributed preferentially to the
larger particle range (52.7%). Particle size
distribution shifts from larger to smaller size
particles after tertiary filtration, as expected.
Total solids in the secondary and tertiary
wastewater are 4.61 mg/1 and 1.87 mg/1,
respectively. Tertiary filtration removes about
318 G. Tchobanoglous et al. / Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322

University of California. Davis. CA. USA

4 2/13/98 - 3/17/98 4/30/9S-5/19/98
200
Increase hans-membrane
pressure
180

Secondary Efflue~tt
160

140

120
Secondary and Tertiary Wastewster •--4t--Transmembrane Pressure
Once- Through Flow • Cartridge Pressure Drop
Water Recovery - 90% operating/80% overall 100
A Cartridge Productivity
Backflush Frequency - 20 minutes/130 ppm CIO-
Back/lush Duration - 90 seconds

6O

2O

0 . . . . . . . 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Elapsed Time (hours).
Fig. 1. U n i v e r s i t y o f California, D a v i s , C A .

4 - 100

Gwinnett County. GA. USA 90

9/4/97 - 9/12/97
80

70

• Transmembrane Pressure
• Cartridge Pressure Drop
Second ary W astewater
.t. Cartridge Productivity
Recirculstion Flow
Water Recovery .. 90% operating/84% overall 50 "~
Baekflush Frequency = 20 m m / I 0 0 ppm CIO2"
Backflush Duration - 14,5 sec .4o

,30

,20

0 . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Elapsed Time (Hours)
Fig. 2. G w i n n e t t C o u n t y , G A .
 G. Tchobanoglous et al. /Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322 319

Table 2
Particle size distribution

Site/Stream Particle size distribution (mg/l) Total

0.4-1 1-5 5-12 12-20 >20 (mg/1)
(mg/l) (%) (mg/1) (%) (mg/1) (%) (mg/1) (%) (mg/l) (%)

Davis, CA
Secondary 0.52 11.3 0.76 16.5 0.43 9.3 0.47 10.2 2.43 52.7 4.61
Tertiary 0.48 25.7 0.77 41.2 0.20 10.7 0.17 9.1 0.25 13.4 1.87
Gwinnett, GA
Secondary 0.40 5.9 0.87 12.9 0.56 8.3 0.75 11.1 4.17 61.8 6.75
WF21, CA
Secondary 1.30 38.3 0.93 27.4 0.40 11.8 0.24 7.1 0.52 15.3 3.39

Table 3
Average BOD/COD analysis

Site Stream BOD5 (mg/1) Removal(%) COD (mg/1) Removal(%)

Davis, CA Secondary 8.8 29.3

Tertiary filtered 3.4 61.4 17.2 41.3
Membrane filtered 1.1 87.5 6.2 78.8

60% of total solids from the secondary
wastewater (Table 2).
BOD removal from secondary wastewater
was 61.4% after tertiary filtration and 87.5%
after tertiary and membrane filtration. COD
removal from secondary wastewater was
41.3% after tertiary filtration and 78.8% after
tertiary and membrane filtration (Table 3).
High and consistent membrane
p r o d u c t i v i t y was o b s e r v e d p r o c e s s i n g
secondary and tertiary wastewater at this site
indicating that removal of large particles
from this wastewater by tertiary filtration does
not have a significant impact on performance
of the membrane system.
3.2. Gwinnett County, GA
Secondary wastewater used for pilot plant
testing at this site was obtained from an
activated sludge process.
Process flow for pilot plant testing at this
site was recirculation with 10% bleed. Overall
water recovery was about 85%, including
backflush losses. Backflush started after each
twenty minute production period, with 100-
150 mg/1 hypochlorite in the backflush
solution. H y d r o g e n p e r o x i d e was also
successfully used in the backflush solution.
Ultrafiltration permeate was used for the
backflush solution.
Membrane productivity was consistent at
75 lmh (-45 gfd) for secondary wastewater
(Fig. 2), Larger diameter hollow-fibers (35
mil versus 30 mil) were used to avoid fiber
plugging and to maintain high membrane
productivity.
Particle sizes of secondary wastewater at
Gwinnett are distributed preferentially to the
larger particle size range (61.8%). Total
solids at this site were higher (6.75 mg/1) than
at UC Davis (Table 2).
3.3. Water Factory 21, Orange County, CA
Secondary wastewater used for pilot plant
320 G. Tchobanoglous et al. / Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322

4 • 1~

.90
W',d~ F~torv 2~ CA, USA
60.2/W - 7 / I ~ .80

.70
i
,60
Secondary W a s ~ s v a t ~
~tian Flow ~ TrammembranePressure

p , , , , w .40
kddlmh Duration - 120 se:ondl d:
.30

211

10

' I I I a .0
I00 2O0 3OO 4OO 5OO
~ a p ~ l T ~ (Hours)
Fig. 3. Water Factory 21, CA.

testing at this site was obtained from a blend
of activated sludge and trickling bed
processes.
Process flow for pilot plant testing at this
site was recirculation with 10% bleed. Overall
water recovery was about 85%, including
backflush losses. Backflush started after each
twenty minute production period, with 100-
150 mg/1 hypochlorite in the backflush
solution. Hydrogen peroxide was also
successfully used in the backflush solution.
Ultrafiltration permeate was used for the
backflush solution.
Membrane productivity was consistent at
65 lmh (~40 gfd) for secondary wastewater
(Fig. 3). Cartridge pressure drop was about
the same at WF 21 and Gwinnett, however,
crossflow velocity at Gwinnett was lower than
at WF 21 because of the larger diameter
fibers at Gwinnett.
Particle sizes of secondary wastewater at
WF 21 are distributed preferentially to the
smaller particle size range (38.3%). Total
solids of secondary wastewater at WF 21 is
lower (3.39 mg/1) than at Gwinnett (6.75
mg/l) and UC Davis (4.61 mg/1). However,
concentration of solids of secondary
wastewater in the smaller particle range at WF
21 is higher (1.30 mg/l) than at Gwinnett (0.4
mg/1) and UC Davis (0.52 mg/l).
Membrane productivity with secondary
wastewater at WF 21 and Gwinnett are about
the same with larger diameter fibers (35
versus 30 rail) used at Gwinnett to avoid fiber
plugging. This result is explained by the
higher total solids concentration of Gwinnett
secondary wastewater, especially in the larger
particle size range.
Membrane productivity with secondary
wastewater at WF 21 using recirculation flow
is lower than at UC Davis using single-pass
flow, indicating that secondary wastewater at
WF 21 is more difficult to process than at UC
Davis. Total solids of WF 21 secondary
wastewater is lower than at UC Davis;
however, the concentration of smaller
particles at WF 21 (1.30 mg/1) is larger than at
UC Davis (0.52 mg/1). This observation
indicates smaller particles have a
d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e impact on m e m b r a n e
performance than larger particles.
WF 21 secondary wastewater has a higher
 G. Tchobanoglous et al. /Desalination 119 (1998) 315-322
concentration of smaller particles (1.30 mg/l)
than Gwinnett secondary wastewater (0.40
mg/1); however, larger diameter fibers were
needed at Gwinnett to achieve about the same
membrane productivity as at W F 21. As
previously reported, total solids of secondary
wastewater are higher at Gwinnett than at WF
21. This observation indicates membrane
performance depends on both total solids and
particles size distribution.
4. Conclusions
Pilot plant testing at several municipal
wastewater treatment plants has demonstrated
that optimal use of hollow-fiber ultrafiltration
and microfiltration membranes to process
secondary and tertiary wastewater requires the
careful combination of membrane structure,
membrane polymer, membrane cartridge and
operating procedures of the membrane
system.
321
Total solids and particle size distribution
analysis of secondary and tertiary municipal
w a s t e w a t e r appear to p r o v i d e a useful
information for predicting the performance
of hollow-fiber ultrafiltration membranes.
Additional pilot plant testing is planned to
further investigate this approach.
References
[ll G.L. Leslie et al., Performance and economic
evaluation of membrane processes for reuse
applications, Proceedings Water Reuse
Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 1998.
[2l G.L. Leslie et al., Pilot testing of microfiltration
and ultrafiltration upstream of reverse osmosis
during reclamation of municipal wastewater,
Proceedings American Desalting Association,
Biennial Conference and Exposition, Monterey,
CA, 1996.
[3] G. Tchobanoglous et al., Continuous backwash
upflow filtration for primary effluent, Water
Environmental Research, 66 (1994).