Evaluation of Conventional

Activated Sludge Compared to

Membrane Bioreactors

Short Course on Membrane Bioreactors

3/22/06

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

shane@trusselltech.com
 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Introduction
• Biological processes have become the
preferred municipal wastewater
treatment process
• Activated Sludge Process (ASP) has
developed into a mature process over
the past century
• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process is
relatively new to wastewater treatment
with the concept of direct sludge
filtration emerging four decades ago
 Introduction
• Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR)
– Modified activated
sludge process
– UF/MF membrane
• Two configurations
– External (EMBR)
– Submerged (SMBR)
 Flow Schemes for the MBR and Conventional
Activated Sludge Process

Conventional Microfiltration

Tertiary
Secondary Treated
Clarifier Wastewater

Aeration Basin Backwash

Water
WASTE

Primary Treated
Wastewater
 Flow Schemes for the MBR and Conventional
Activated Sludge Process

Conventional Microfiltration

Tertiary
Secondary Treated
Clarifier Wastewater

Aeration Basin Backwash

Water
WASTE

Aeration Basin

Primary Treated MBR Tertiary

Wastewater Quality
(Equivalent to
Wastewater
a 1-3 mm screen)
WASTE
 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

 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Process Design
• MBRs combine activated sludge
technology with membrane filtration to
expand the normal operating region
• MBRs can be designed at higher MLSS
concentrations because they are not
affected by the limitations of gravity
sedimentation for solid-liquid
separation
• SMBRs are typically designed for
MLSS concentrations 8-12 g/L
 Advantages of High MLSS

• SMBRs operate at 2 to >6 times ASP

MLSS concentrations
• Higher MLSS concentrations translate
into:
–Longer SRT
same HRT, or
–Shorter HRT
same SRT
 Longer SRT Designs
• For a given HRT, the SMBR process can
operate at 2 to >6 times the SRT of ASP
• “Traditional” SMBR design has been to
operate at “conventional” HRTs with long
SRTs (i.e. > 20 days)
• Long SRTs have the following advantages:
– Complete nitrification can occur even in cold
climates
– Reduced biological sludge production
– Complete oxidation of influent organics
– Possibility that slow growing microorganisms
can degrade persistent organics
 Shorter HRT Designs
• In general, for a given SRT, the SMBR process can
treat wastewater in 1/2 to 1/4 the HRT of ASP
• Short HRTs have the following advantages:
– Reduce overall plant footprint
– Capital cost savings from reduced land and tank volume
• Concept of shorter HRTs brings about one of the
principle limitations of SMBRs compared to ASP
– Minimum SRT
• There is a minimum SRT where membrane fouling
becomes rapid
– A general design guideline is target the minimum SRT
for nitrification plus an additional safety factor
– Some manufacturers have established their own lower
limit at 12 days
Effect of SRT on Steady-State Fouling Rate
MCRT, d
10 5 4 3 2
4.0

3.5 HRT = 1 h
3.0 y = 1.661x2.1977
R2 = 0.9517

2.5

2.0

1.5
HRT = 4 h
1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

F/M, g COD/g VSS.d

 Process Design
• Key difference is in solid-liquid separation
– ASP is not sensitive to low SRTs and can
successfully operate in a “conventional” mode
– SMBRs are sensitive to low SRTs and compact
designs can result in increased membrane
fouling rates
• This difference in solid-liquid separation
also makes pretreatment imperative
– Fine screening is an absolute must in SMBRs
– The MBR community has been and is still
learning how important reliable screening
equipment is
 Process Design
• Higher MLSS concentrations influence the
oxygen transfer efficiency
• Oxygen transfer from coarse bubble
aeration required for membrane agitation
needs to be considered

Krampe
and
Kauth,
2002
 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Effluent Water Quality
• Biological process
applied to oxidize
organics and remove
nutrients
• Principle difference is
solid-liquid separation
mechanism
• Membrane provides a
more consistent, higher
quality effluent
 Effluent Water Quality
Membrane provides an absolute barrier and effluent
quality is no longer a concern.

ASP Effluent MBR Effluent

TSS, mg/L <30 ND (<2)

Turbidity, NTU 2 to >10 <0.2

Total Coliform, 10,000 to
ND to 100
#/100 mL 100,000
BOD5, mg/L <2 to 30 ND (<2)
 Effluent Water Quality
• 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
 Effluent Water Quality
• Public Health Benefit
– membranes increase the distance
between reclamation and the risk of
microbial disease
» pathogens are removed by size
exclusion
• not a highly selective chemical or photochemical
reaction
» pathogens can be rejected, not just
reduced
– Results from operating MBR plants:
 Indigenous Coliphage
Primary Effluent Reactor #1
Reactor #2 Reactor #1 (Non-Detect)
Reactor #2 (Non-Detect) Tertiary

1.E+06

Start -up
Period New Membranes
Reactor # 2

1.E+05

1.E+04

Repaired
Integrity
1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00

1.E-01
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Hours of Operation
 Effluent Water Quality
• 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 II 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
11 weeks 5

0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Tim e of Operation, h
 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Peak Flows
• Peak flows are well addressed in ASP, but
can be troublesome for MBRs
• Membranes are designed for a certain
throughput (design flux)
• MBRs are typically limited to a peaking
factor of 1.5Q
– Dependent on design flux (aggressive or conservative),
temperature, and mixed liquor conditions
• ASP is capable of sustaining larger peak
flows (>2.5Q) for longer periods of time
– Possible deterioration in effluent quality
 Peak Flows
• MBR designs for large peak flows consider
the following solutions:
– Additional membrane area for peak flow service
– Flow equalization tanks (frequently primary eff)
– “Flux enhancing” polymers or coagulant
addition
• Currently, the most conservative and cost
effective solution is typically some kind of
flow equalization
• Flux enhancing polymers and coagulant
addition are showing great promise, but
research on long-term effects is needed
 Peak Flows

Peak flows will become less of a disadvantage

for MBRs as membrane costs continue to
decline and our understanding of conditions
affecting membrane fouling increase
 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Mixed Liquor Properties
• Mixed liquor properties are important
because they determine how easily a sludge
can be filtered through a membrane, settled
or dewatered
• Differences in solid-liquid separation apply
different selective pressures
– ASP requires a biology that flocculates and
settles well to remain in the system
– MBRs retain all biomass, even single cells in the
mixed liquor
 Mixed Liquor Properties
• Merlo et al. (2004) revealed some key
findings comparing SMBR and ASP under
steady state conditions for 2, 3, 4, 5, 10-d
SRTs
– SMBR has higher colloidal content
– SMBR has higher filament concentrations
– Both SMBR/ASP particle size distribution
(excluding colloidal - i.e. >2 µm) was controlled
exclusively by mixing intensity, G
 Particle Size Distribution
ASP Hi vs. SMBR
0.6
CMAS
ASP Hi
0.5

0.4
Frequency

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-20 20-40 40-100 100-2000

0.6
SMBR
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-20 20-40 40-100 100-2000
Characteristic Length, µm
 Outline

• Introduction
• Process Design
• Effluent Water Quality
• Peak Flows
• Mixed Liquor Properties
• Conclusions
 Conclusions
• SMBRs have advantages compared to ASP
(compact, high quality effluent, high MLSS
concentrations)
• SMBRs have disadvantages compared to ASP (low
SRT limit, peak flow issues)
• Mixed liquor properties are different in SMBRs
compared to the ASP because of the reactor
conditions
• Engineers have been studying mixed liquor
properties to improve the settleability of ASP
• Future of the SMBR process will be studying
mixed liquor properties that improve filterability
Questions?