OPTIMIZATION OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR BASED SEWAGE

TREATMENT PLANT TOWARDS MICROPOLLUTANT TREATMENT

By
Mr. S. MOHANRAJ

Supervisor
Dr. R. Mohanraj
Assistant Professor

Department of Environmental Management

School of Environmental Sciences
Bharathidasan University
Tiruchirappalli – 620 024

1
 CONTENTS
 Objective

 Introduction

 Waste Water Management @ Infosys Limited

 Conventional Vs MBR

 Study area

 Optimization of the parameters

 Summary and Conclusion

2
 Aim and Objectives
 To evaluate the potential of Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR)
technology towards micro pollutants present in domestic
sewage.
 To identify and optimize the various factors that play a
major role in affecting the micro pollutant removal by MBR.
 Introduction
 Increasing population and hence the per capita consumption
has made water reuse and recycling the greatest challenge.
 Research in environmental and water resource engineering in
the last few years has significantly yielded various
technologies to provide good quality effluent that can be
recycled.
 Most wastewater treatment facilities must be modified and
upgraded using advanced treatment technologies to meet the
current demands, discharge limits and recycling requirements.
 National Sewage Generation Statistics:
S.No Description Total Qty Percenta
(in MLD) ge
1 Total Sewage Generated per Day 62000
2 Treatment Capacity Available 23277 37.5%
per Day
3 Untreated Sewage Per Day 38723 62.5 %
Source : CPCB - 2015
Karnataka State Sewage Generation Statistics:
S.No Description Total Qty Percenta
(In MLD) ge
1 Total Sewage Generated per Day 3777 MLD
2 Treatment Capacity Available 1304 MLD 34.5 %
per Day
3 Untreated Sewage Per Day 2473 MLD 65.5 %

5
Bangalore - Sewage Generation Statistics:
S.No Description Total Qty Percenta
(In MLD) ge
1 Total Sewage Generated per Day 1500
2 Treatment Capacity Available 302 20 %
per Day
3 Untreated Sewage Per Day 1198 80 %

Bangalore - Performance of STPs :

S.No Description Total Qty Percenta
(In MLD) ge
1 Design capacity of STPs 721 MLD

2 Operating capacity of STPs 302 MLD 42 %

3 Untreated Sewage Per Day 419 MLD 58 %

6
Locations of STPs in Bangalore

7
STP Details in Bangalore

8
Conventional - Sewage Treatment
 All process rely on aerobic / anaerobic

biological degradation

 Established Aerobic Options

◦ Activated Sludge Process

◦ Submerged media

◦ Fluidized bed bio reactors

Conventional - Sewage Treatment

Sewage

Sewage transfer
Pump Aeration

Bar
Screen Oil
Oil Sewage
Sewage
Skimming
Skimming Collection
Collection

Treated Sewage Activated

Activated Pressure
Pressure Clarified
Clarified
Carbon
Carbon sand
sand Water Secondary
Water Secondary
Filter
Filter Filter
Filter Tank Clarifier
Filter feed Tank Clarifier
Pump

Hypochlorite
Solution
Dosing
Sludge
Sludge Drying
Drying Beds
Beds
 Activated Sludge Process
 Activated Sludge Process (ASP) is the classical and popular
process among the different biological treatment technologies
employed for wastewater reclamation.
 The principle behind the activated sludge process is such that
the wastewater is treated using active mass of microorganisms
that are capable of oxidizing and degrading organic matter.
 Activated Sludge Process
 However, the process requires
large aeration and sedimentation
tank and generates large
quantities of sludge.
 In addition, the process also
shows solid liquid separation
problems such as bulking and
foaming.
 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

 Membrane bioreactor is a modification of the activated

sludge process.
 It integrates the ASP and membrane technology to treat and
reclaim the wastewater where the biological degradation of
pollutants is carried out in the bioreactor.
 Separation of microorganism from the wastewater is carried out
by the Ultrafiltration range membrane module.
 THE PRINCIPLE
 MBR Combines

 Biological Aerobic Degradation AT M

• To degrade organics
SIDE-STREAM

 Membrane Separation
AT
M
• To separate the biomass
SUBMERGED
• Achieve absolute filtration
 MBR Vs Conventional
 Pre Treatment
• Screening – Fine screening needed

• Oil removal to be very stringent

• Biological Aeration ( Size smaller due to higher MLSS)

 Membrane Bio Reactor

• Eliminates Secondary Clarifier and Sludge Recirculation and Tertiary Filtration

• Utilizes fine pore Membrane in the UF range for filtering out treated water.

• Membranes are back washable and tolerant to strong cleaning chemicals

 MBR Types

 FLAT SHEET

• Submerged

 HOLLOW FIBRE
• Submerged
 What do Membranes Remove ?
Removed by ultrafiltration membranes

Organic
Colloids
compounds

Dissolved salts
Algea organicmacromolocules
Ca, Mg, Na

Bacteria Viruses

Pollens Yeasts

100 µm 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

Hairs Red Globule Smallest Polio virus Reverse Osmosis

microorganism

Nanofiltration

Ultrafiltration

Microfiltration

Sand filter
Process Flow Diagram MBR
 Advantages of MBR

 MBR can handle high Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) content
present in the sewage.
 The permeate produced from this wastewater treatment technology is suitable
for direct reuse.
 The biomass production level plays a crucial role in determining the level of
removal of micro pollutants present in domestic sewage.
 STP LOCATION

 The sewage and canteen wash water generated from the campus are collected
and treated in a centralized sewage treatment plant.
 STP MBR Plant

WELL-1 Building-
4,5,6,ECC ,LETP
&FC-2
WELL-2
Building 1,2 & Screen-1
FC-1

WELL-3 RW Sump- 1 Equalizati Screen-2 Oil Skimmer Anoxic tank 1 Anoxic tank 2
900 KL on
on Tank
Tank

WELL-4 New collection Screen-3

well
well B-7,8,9
B-7,8,9 &
& Aeration tank
ETA

MBR MBR
Train-2 Train-1
Sludge
Sludge thickener
holding tank
RAS –recycled MBR Permeate
activated sludge

Sludge yard UV-Lamp

UV Lamp
Flushing to Landscape
Flushing tank KL
Building
7&8,9,ETA
,MLVP and
FC-3 Flushing network system
 Study Area Description

 The study was conducted on a currently operating MBR based

sewage treatment plant.
 The satellite co-ordinates of the plant are 12 ᵒ 43’50ᵒN and
80ᵒ00’15ᵒ E. The plant is located in an IT campus.
 The plant has a design capacity to treat 1500 m 3/day of
incoming sewage.
Digital display

24
 Study Area Basis
Parameter Unit Value
ORGANIC LOAD TO THE AERATION BASIN
BOD Load Kg/d 296
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Load Kg/d 90

Recirculation Flow Rate M3/h 250

Inert Compounds Loading Kg/d 3.72
Endogenous Decay Constant   0.05

SLUDGE GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS

Observed Biomass Yield Kg VSS/ Kg BOD 0.51, 0.14

Removed

AERATION BASIS
Oxygen Required for BOD Kg 1.25
Air Flow Rate m3/h 481
 Study Area Design

Plant loading rate calculation

Parameter ( ppm) x Hydraulic loading rate ( m3/day)

1000

= Load Kgs /day.

 2017 – BOD Trend
BOD load kgs/day
380

369
360 360
354
350 352
348 346
340

329 327
320
313
306
300

288
280

260

240

220

200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2017 – COD Trend
COD Load kgs/day
1250

1216
1200

1167 1169
1150
1135 1141
1125
1100 1096
1072
1064
1050
1042

1000 1006

950 953

900

850

800

750
Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 – BOD Trend
BOD load kgs/day
650

621 627 625 621 622

620 616
613
600 603
595

550
531

500 494

450

400

350

300

250

200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 – COD Trend
COD Load kgs/day
1650

1550
1530
1505 1511 1515 1516
1503 1495 1500
1489
1469
1450

1350
1310

1250 1238

1150

1050

950

850

750
Jan Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 TREATMENT STEPS
Pre-treatment – Removes Grit , Oil and Grease

Fine Screening – Removes fibrous material

Anoxic Tank – For nitrification and Denitrification

Aeration Basin – For Bio mass generation

Membrane Bio reactor – Membranes to draw out treated water

 Pre- Treatment
 Screening with coarse screen of 10 mm

 Collection cum equalization with air mixing

 Drum type Fine Screen 2 mm

 ANOXIC TANK
 Nitrification and De-nitrification reaction is
carried out in an anoxic tank.
 The second step de-nitrification is intended
to convert the residual Nitrates to nitrogen.
 The reaction is achieved by generation of
chemoautotrophic bacteria that is sustained
by the carbon source from the re-circulated
activated sludge and incoming raw sewage.
MBR – Membranes
 The MBR is a submerged UF membrane. Zee weed
500 type UF membrane consisting of 68 Modules
located in two tanks was used.

 Each tank has 34 modules set of modules operate

parallel to each other.

 MEMBRANE Operating
Cycle
 The Service cycle of the MBR modules was set as follows,
◦ Service : 8 min
◦ Backwash : 40 sec.
◦ Membrane air scouring : 250 m3/hr
 Plant Input Analysis
SAMPLES CONSIDERED FOR THE STUDY

 Raw Sewage Analysis

 Micro-pollutant Level Analysis

Samples were collected over 2 years on monthly basis

 Raw Sewage Analysis
S. No Parameter Unit of measurement 2017
1. pH 6.68
2. BOD mg/ltr 370
3. COD mg/ltr 1190
4. TDS mg/ltr 1450
5. TSS mg/ltr 110
6. Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen mg/ltr 56
7. Total Kjeldahl’s Nitrogen mg/ltr 60
8. Ibuprofen mg/ltr 1.65
9. Diclofenac mg/ltr 9.70
10. Sulfamethoxazole mg/ltr 0.15
11. Estrone mg/ltr 0.10
12. Estriol mg/ltr 1.52

*Note: A typical trend of the physical and chemical parameters of feed and treated water samples measured over a period of
two years (average of value measured every six months).
 2017 BOD values
BOD (ppm)
390

385
385

380 379

375

370
370

365 365
365
362
360 360
360 359
357
355 355
355

350

345

340
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2017 COD values
COD (ppm)
1200
1198
1197 1197
1195
1195
1192
1191
1190 1189
1187

1185 1184
1182

1180
1178
1176
1175

1170

1165
Jan Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2017 Ibuprofen values
Ibuprofen (ppm)
2

1.8 1.75
1.67 1.69 1.69 1.67 1.68
1.64 1.63 1.64
1.6 1.57

1.4

1.23
1.2

1 0.95

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2017 Diclofenac values
Diclofenac (ppm)
10.6

10.4
10.4

10.2
10.2
10.1

10 9.95 9.94
9.89
9.8
9.8 9.76
9.72
9.65 9.67

9.6 9.55

9.4

9.2

9
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Sulfamethaxazole values
Sulfamethoxazole (ppm)
0.2
0.19
0.18 0.18
0.18
0.17 0.17
0.16 0.16
0.16 0.16
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.14
0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2017 Estrone values
Estrone (ppm)
0.14
0.13

0.12
0.12
0.11 0.11 0.11

0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.09

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2017 Estriol values
Estriol (ppm)
1.54
1.53

1.52
1.52
1.51 1.51

1.5
1.5
1.49 1.49 1.49

1.48 1.48 1.48

1.48

1.46
1.45

1.44

1.42

1.4
Ja n Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 Raw Sewage Analysis
S. No Parameter Unit of measurement 2018
1. pH 7.00
2. BOD mg/ltr 400
3. COD mg/ltr 995
4. TDS mg/ltr 1600
5. TSS mg/ltr 175
6. Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen mg/ltr 50
7. Total Kjeldahl’s Nitrogen mg/ltr 75
8. Ibuprofen mg/ltr 2.00
9. Diclofenac mg/ltr 10
10. Sulfamethoxazole mg/ltr 0.35
11. Estrone mg/ltr 0.02
12. Estriol mg/ltr 1.25

*Note: A typical trend of the physical and chemical parameters of feed and treated water samples measured over a period of
two years (average of value measured every six months).
 2018 BOD values
BOD (ppm)
415

411
410 410
410 409

406 406
405 405
405

402
401
400
398

395
395

390

385
Ja n Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 COD values
COD (ppm)
998
997
996
996

994
994

992 992
992
991 991
990
990

988
987 987
986 986
986

984

982

980
Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 Ibuprofen values
Ibuprofen (ppm)
2.5

2 1.91 1.91
1.9 1.87 1.87
1.86 1.85 1.86
1.82
1.75
1.68
1.55
1.5

0.5

0
Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 Diclofenac values
Diclofenac (ppm)
14

12.3 12.4 12.3 12.3

12.1 12.2
11.9 11.95 11.95
12 11.7

10.2
10 9.5

0
Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 Sulfamethaxazole values
Sulfamethoxazole (ppm)
0.35

0.3 0.29 0.29 0.29

0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
0.27 0.27 0.27

0.25
0.23

0.2 0.19

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 Estrone values
Estrone (ppm)
0.08

0.07
0.07

0.06

0.05 0.05
0.05

0.04 0.04
0.04

0.03 0.03
0.03
0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02 0.02

0.02

0.01

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 2018 Estriol values
Estriol (ppm)
1.45

1.41
1.4
1.37

1.35

1.3
1.3
1.28
1.27 1.27
1.25
1.25 1.24
1.23
1.22 1.22
1.2
1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05
Ja n Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Micro-pollutant level Analysis -
Method
 Micro pollutant levels in the raw sewage were analyzed in
accordance to previously validated methods (Munoz et al.,
2009).
 Extraction of the compounds was carried out by solid-phase
extraction according to Camacho-Munoz et al., 2009.
 Chromatographic analysis was performed using an HPLC
instrument.
 This was carried out by gradient elution with acetonitrile and a
25 mM potassium di-hydrogen phosphate solution.
Process Modelling
Statistical Optimization Procedure
 Identification of Parameters
influencing the MBR Process

 Statistical optimization procedure is used simultaneously to

estimate the overall main parameter effects and interactive
effect of the parameters on the biomass production and food to
microorganism ratio.
 Identification of Parameters
influencing the MBR Process

 To optimize and model the biomass production, f/m ratio a

number of factors as follows
 MLSS
 Hydraulic retention time
 Solid retention time
 Sludge volume index
 Hydraulic loading rate
 Dissolved oxygen level.
 Identification of Parameters
influencing the MBR Process
 Two levels were set for each parameter. The air supply level
and feed capacities were adjusted accordingly to achieve the
design parameter levels.
 F/M ratio and biomass concentration were considered the
response factors.
 The study was carried out over a period of two years of the
plant and the results were identified and noted monthly
 Identification of Parameters
influencing the MBR Process

Parameters Range and level

Period 2018 2017

Plant Hydraulic loading – m3/day 1500 800

Aeration tank Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) – in hrs 12 5

MLSS (kg/m3) 12 8

Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 1.5 2

 Calculations
 Biomass Concentration

 F/m Ratio
 Biomass Concentration

 Where, X is the Biomass Concentration (Kg/m3), SRT is the

Solid retention Time (days), HRT is the Hydraulic Retention
Time (Days), Y is Observed Biomass Yield (Kg Vss/ Kg
BOD), Kd is the endogenous decay constant, S0 is MLSS
(Kg/m3) and S is the limiting substrate concentration.

 (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).

 Food to Micro-organism
Ratio

 Where, X is the Biomass Concentration (Kg/m3), So is the

MLSS concentration (Kg/m3), V is the tank volume and Q is
the hydraulic loading rate (m3/day).
 Results

 Effect of Hydraulic Retention time, solid retention time

and Sludge Volume Index on Production

 Effect of feed capacity, MLSS and Dissolved oxygen

levels on f/m ratio

 Analysis of Variance

 The main focus of this study was to determine the effect induced by the
process parameters including HRT, SRT and SVI on the production of
biomass.
 The comparative results over a period of two years indicated that the main
effects of HRT, SRT and SVI showed negative effect on the biomass
concentration as indicated by the coefficients.
 However, the two-level interactive effects of all the process parameters
showed positive correlation.
 Analysis of Variance

 This indicated that all the parameters were crucial in determining the
formation of biomass.
 The P-value plays a major role in determining the significance of the
factors and their interactions.
 Factors and their interactions exhibiting P-value less than 0.05 are
considered as significant.
 Analysis of Variance

 The remaining insignificant parameters were eliminated from the model as

they showed no effect on the process. Considering the co-efficients of
significant parameters, biomass concentration was modelled using the
following equation:

 Biomass Concentration = 226.53 – 46.72(HRT) – 25.59 (SRT) – 31.52

(SVI) + 9.66 (HRT * SRT) + 12.98 (HRT * SVI) + 7.11 (SRT * SVI)
 HRT HRT SRT

Source Year Constant HRT SRT SVI X x X

SRT SVI SVI

1 113.46 -46.72 -25.59 -31.52 9.66 12.98 7.11

Co-Efficient
2 115.80 -48.90 -27.10 -35.09 12 13 10

1 116977 109437 31043 18555 5263 4924

Sum of Squares
2 117000 109637 33000 20000 5363 5000

1 3952.55 1186.10 1043.28 200.02 176.89 53.06

F- Value
2 3960.30 1190.25 1050.39 220.75 180.30 56.01

1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

P- Value
2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

R-Sq 99 %

ANOVA Table to evaluate the Effect of Hydraulic Retention time, solid

retention time and Sludge Volume Index on Biomass Concentration
 Normal Probability Plot
 The nature of effect induced by the significant parameters on biomass
production was confirmed using the normal probability plot.
 The average of the ANOVA table values was used for the plot.
 The points close to the fitted line does not exhibit any significant effect on
the model.
 Points away from the line represent the significant effects on the model.
 The position of points representing the significant effects determines the
type of effect induced on purity.
 Normal Probability Plot
 On analyzing the normal probability plot for biomass production, it was
found that the main effects of HRT, SRT and SVI showed negative
correlation effect of approximately 50%.
 Hence it was concluded and confirmed that the parameters should be
maintained at permissible low levels to achieve greater biomass production
and hence the removal of the same as sludge.
 Normal Plot of the Standardized Effects
(response is X (kg/m3), Alpha = 0.05)
99
Effect Type
Not Significant
95 Significant

90 F actor N ame
AB
A H RT
80 B S RT
AD D SV I
70
Percent

60 BD
50
40 D
30
B
20

10 A

1
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Standardized Effect

Normal Probability Plot for Biomass

Production
 Optimization of Parameters for
Biomass Production
 Optimization of the factors on Biomass production was
carried out using desirability function (D).
 The main objective of this work is to increase the

biomass production and effect the removal of micro

pollutants from the sewage.
 Based on the results of ANOVA table and normal

probability plot, the factors were set at different ranges

using response optimizer to identify the optimal
combination of the parameters.
 Main Effects Plot for
Optimization of Parameters
 Main effects plot is used to determine the optimum
levels of each process parameter in order to achieve
the desired f/m value .
 It was identified that maximum biomass
concentration of 250 kg/day could be achieved when
plant was operated at 1500 m3/day with HRT and
SRT maintained at 5hrs and 11 days respectively.
 Optimization Results

 Based on the response optimization, the plant was

operated at HRT of 5h at 11 days of SRT and sludge
volume index of 50.
 This was achieved by gradually increasing the plant
hydraulic loading rate from 800 m3/day to 1500
m3/day over a period of 1 year.
 Optimization Results
 Post achieving the optimal conditions, the plant was
operated and monitored for a period of 2 years.
 The level of reduction and removal efficiencies of
various parameters and micropollutants by MBR
operated using optimal conditions are summarized in
table 3.
 Removal
Parameter Year Unit of measurement Raw Sewage Treated Sample Efficiency
(%)
Treated Water Quality Analysis and
Analysis of micro pollutant Content 1 6.68 7.00 -
pH
2 7.00 7.50 -
1 370 5 99
BOD mg/ltr
2 400 10 99
1 1190 38 97
COD mg/ltr
2 995 50 95
1 1450 1360 80
TDS mg/ltr
2 1600 1470 75
1 110 <1.0 99
TSS mg/ltr
2 175 <1.0 99

Total Ammoniacal 1 56 1.40 99

mg/ltr
Nitrogen 2 50 1.10 99
Total Kjeldahl’s 1 60 <5 92
mg/ltr
Nitrogen 2 75 <10 92
1 1.65 <0.05 99
Ibuprofen mg/ltr
2 2.00 <0.05 99
1 9.70 <1 99
Diclofenac mg/ltr
2 10.00 <1 99
1 0.15 <0.05 99
Sulfamethoxazole mg/ltr
2 0.35 <0.07 99
1 0.10 <0.01 99
Estrone mg/ltr
2 0.19 <0.02 99
1 1.52 <0.1 99
Estriol mg/ltr
2 1.25 <0.15 99
 Effect of feed capacity, MLSS and Dissolved oxygen
levels on f/m ratio

 The food to microorganism (F/M) ratio is one of the

significant designs and operational parameters of membrane
bioreactor systems.
 It plays affects the nature of sludge formed is the major
determinant of membrane fouling.
 A high F/M indicates higher BOD and COD contents leading
to formation of inadequately digested biological sludge.
 This can lead to poor separation of sludge from the effluent.
Effect of feed capacity, MLSS and Dissolved oxygen
levels on f/m ratio

 On the other hand, if F/M ratio is at low levels, the bacteria

begin to form a thick slime layer losing their motility.
 As a result, a slimy floc is formed that settles down in the
tank.
 The sludge hence cannot be separated from the effluent
leading to chocking of the tank and hence leads to membrane
fouling
 Normal Probability Plot

 It was found that the main effect of the hydraulic

loading and MLSS was directly proportional to the f/m
ratio.
 Any change in the loading, impacted the MLSS level

and hence the f/m ratio.

 Hence the result showed that the parameters had to be

maintained at optimum levels in order to effect

constant and consistent sludge formation.
 Normal Probability Plot

 The dissolved oxygen concentration was eliminated

from the plot as it was found to have no direct
significance on the f/m ratio.
 However, the parameter proved crucial for growth of

microorganisms.
 Normal Plot of the Standardized Effects
(response is F/M, Alpha = 0.10)
99
Effect Ty pe
Not Significant
95 Significant

90

80
70 Hy draulic Loading
Percent

60
50
40
30 MLSS
20

10

1
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Standardized Effect

Normal plot to find the nature of Effect induced by

hydraulic loading rate, dissolved oxygen and MLSS
on F/M ratio
 Main Effects Plot
 It was identified that the plant f/m ratio could be achieved at
0.2 when the it was operated at loading rate of 1500 m3/day at
MLSS of 12 kg/m3 with biomass levels maintained constant at
250 kg/day.
 Further, the plot also indicated that dissolved oxygen levels
were independent in impacting the microorganism growth.
 Hence it was concluded that DO needs to be maintained at
status quo level based on the incoming feed levels.
 Main Effects Plot for F/M
Data Means
Hydraulic Loading MLSS
0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04
Mean

800 1500 8 12
DO
0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04
1.5 2.0

Main Effects Plot to find the optimal levels in order to

achieve maximum biomass production
 PLANT OPERATING COST

LABOUR; 29.79%
POWER
CHEMICALS
POWER; 48.77% SPARES & MAINTENANCE
SLUDGE REMOVAL; SLUDGE REMOVAL
5.96% LABOUR
SPARES &
MAINTENANCE; 9.93% CHEMICALS; 5.56%
Treated Sewage Production cost
- INR 25.00 per KL
Power consumption @ STP
Power Consumption at STP

8.69% 10.20%
Collection & Transfer
22.60%
Aeration
Sludge handling
Tertiary ( Filters)

58.52%

83
 Cost Efficiency
MBR
Permeate water

Cooling Tower TOILET FLUSHING

350 M3/DAY 300 M3/DAY

RAW WATER SAVING – 650 PER DAY

Cost saving / day – Rs 48,750/day
 Conclusions
 A study on the micro-pollutant removal capabilities of MBR was conducted
in this work.
 A maximum of 250 Kg/day of biomass could be obtained from the plant if it
is operated at HRT and SRT of 5h, 11 days at 1500 m3/h Hydraulic Plant
capacity maintained at SVI of 50 and 0.2 f/m ratio.
 F/M ratio proved to indirectly influence the process of production of
biomass.
 If f/m went above optimal limit, the sludge diluted resulting in improper
filtration and hence membrane fouling.
 Conclusions
 In order to achieve the optimal f/m ratio, the plant needed to be operated at
hydraulic loading rate of 1500 m3/day at MLSS of 12 kg/m 3.
 Dissolved oxygen did not have any direct significance in affecting the f/m
ratio.
 However, Dissolved oxygen proved to be crucial for survival of
microorganisms and hence for the degradation of BOD and COD.
 Overall, when the plant was operated at optimal process conditions, a 99%
efficiency was seen in removal of major micro pollutants.
 Conclusions
 Overall, it was concluded from the results that MBR is an
efficient technology compared to conventional methods.
 It can handle heavy load of MLSS and yield treated water free
of micro pollutants and fecal coliforms when maintained at
optimal operating conditions.
 However, new technologies are required in this area to reduce
the operation and maintenance costs of the plant.
Thank you