MBR System Evaluation Overview

A COMPARISON OF ENVIROQUIP AND HOLLOW FIBER MBR TECHNOLOGIES

This document is confidential and may not be reproduced/distributed without prior written approval of Treatment Equipment Company (TEC). The
data and information provided herein is accurate to the best of TECs knowledge, and may not be used in any way detrimental to the interests of TEC.

ENVIROQUIP MBR SYSTEM SUMMARY

The Enviroquip MBR system, utilizing
Kubota flat plate membranes, is the most
cost-effective membrane bioreactor on the
market. Since Kubotas first installation in
1991, their membranes have been utilized
in over 3,000 operating wastewater
treatment plants worldwide, significantly
more than any other MBR manufacturer.
These installations range from small package plants to large-scale municipal systems, the
largest of which is 20.1 MGD. Unlike hollow fiber technologies, which operate most
efficiently in a low solids environment, Kubota developed its submerged membrane
specifically for high solids applications. As such, it can only be found in wastewater
applications.
Since licensing the Kubota membrane in the United States in 2001, Enviroquip has sold
over 200 MBR systems (130+ operating, 70+ in design/construction). Much of this
continued success is due to the focus Enviroquip has placed on understanding and refining
the biohydraulics of their MBR system. Biohydraulics is the interdependence between
control strategies, system hydraulics, and biological processes, and it is the key factor in the
design and operation of successful MBR systems. The core principal of biohydraulics is the
biofilm, a beneficial molecular matrix that forms on all submerged membrane systems.
Biofilm creates a secondary membrane that can allow for enhanced nutrient removal,
degradation of refractory organics, and most importantly, prevent reversible and irreversible
fouling. Biofilm can account for 90% of the total resistance across both hollow fiber and flat
plate membranes1, and thus proper biofilm management is a key element in MBR system
design and operation.
Due to the interrelationship between biohydraulics and membrane performance, MBR
technologies are best evaluated as complete process systems, not just membrane supply
applications.
Examining installed project costs and long-term O&M data proves the
complete system approach to be the most cost-effective as well, regardless of membrane
technology. However, the considerable differences between flat plate and hollow fiber
membranes, along with differing approaches to biohydraulics and biofilm management, give
rise to key process, equipment, and operational differences that have a significant influence
on project complexity and project cost. The most notable differences are listed and
evaluated in the pages that follow.
1 Chang, Lee, Desalination 120 (1998) pp221-233
2

MBR System Evaluation Overview

KEY POINTS FOR COMPARISON

Screening
Microfiltration / Ultrafiltration
Cleaning

Flux / Equalization
Space Efficiency / Basin Volumes

Experience
Warranty

SCREENING
Screening requirements vary widely between different MBR manufacturers. Hollow fiber
systems have a much higher propensity for hair and fibrous material to wrap around the
membrane fibers and damage them, often resulting in fiber breakage. For this reason,
hollow fiber manufacturers recommend very fine screen openings and will also promote upfront coarse screening as well. In addition, it is common practice for hollow fiber systems to
include fine screening of the Return Activated Sludge (RAS). Aside from the increase in
screening equipment capital cost, the use of finer screen openings greatly increases the
amount of organic material removed, which leads to larger washer/compactor requirements.
This also adds additional capital and long term operation and maintenance costs.
By comparison, Enviroquip requires
3mm fine screening and no coarse
screening or RAS screening. These
simple screening requirements result
in lower capital and O&M costs, as
well as less plant complexity, and
should be taken into account when
evaluating MBR technologies.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

ENVIROQUIP

HOLLOW FIBER

No

Yes

3mm

0.25mm 2mm

RAS Fine Screening

No

Yes

Additional Capital Costs

No

Yes

Additional Maintenance Costs

No

Yes

Additional Complexity

No

Yes

Coarse Screen
Fine Screen Openings

The variations in screening requirements between different MBR manufacturers can be a

source of confusion to owners and engineers. One simple way to eliminate this confusion
and reduce owner risk is to mandate that all screening requirements be included in the MBR
suppliers scope, and tie those requirements to the membrane warranty. This places the
headworks risk squarely on the shoulders of the MBR supplier, and ensures that they will
recommend appropriate screens for their system. It also eliminates the potential blame
game down the road: our membranes failed because of their screens.

MICROFILTRATION / ULTRAFILTRATION
One of the myths about MBR systems is that ultrafiltration produces a higher quality effluent
than microfiltration. While this is true in water treatment (where nominal membrane pore
size is the biggest determinant of filtration resistance and effluent quality), side-by-side MBR
3

MBR System Evaluation Overview

tests have shown that microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes have comparable
physical removal capabilities in wastewater. In addition, both Enviroquip (microfiltration) and
hollow fiber (ultrafiltration) have CA Title 22 approval.
Given the order of magnitude difference in
pore size between the two technologies,
Nominal Pore Size
0.4
0.04
what causes microfiltration and ultrafiltration
Filtration Type
Microfiltration
Ultrafiltration
to have equivalent effluent profiles in
Physical Removal
Comparable
wastewater is the formation of biofilm on the
Title 22 Approval
Yes
Yes
membrane surface. As mentioned earlier,
biofilm is the biggest determinant of membrane filtration resistance in wastewater, and it has
widespread effects across the entire MBR system, influencing flux rates, equalization, transmembrane pressure, membrane fouling, and membrane life. Properly controlling and
managing the biofilm is critically important to MBR operations, and of the three methods of
biofilm management Preventative, Physical, and Chemical Physical and Chemical
cleaning requirements are discussed below.
ENVIROQUIP

HOLLOW FIBER

CLEANING
All submerged membranes use coarse REQUIREMENT
ENVIROQUIP
HOLLOW FIBER
bubble air scour as the primary method
Air Scour
Air Scour
of biofilm management. Because of the Physical Cleaning
Backpulse
fixed spacing between the membrane
Maintenance Clean
Maintenance Clean
plates in the Enviroquip MBR system, Chemical Cleaning
Recovery Clean
the coarse bubble air is extremely
effective in scouring the membrane surface, controlling the biofilm, and keeping the
membranes clean. By contrast, the tubular shape and random orientation of hollow fiber
membranes limits the effectiveness of the air scour, in turn limiting the ability of hollow fiber
systems to control biofilm formation.
Because of these limitations, all hollow
fiber systems incorporate a highpressure backpulse procedure to
e l i m i n a t e t h e b i o fi l m f ro m t h e
membrane surface.
During a
backpulse, permeate flow is reversed
and pumped back into the inside of
the hollow fiber membranes, causing
4

BACKPULSE SYSTEM

ENVIROQUIP

HOLLOW FIBER

Pumps

No

Yes

Valves

No

Yes

Storage Tanks

No

Yes

Piping

No

Yes

Controls/Automation

No

Yes

Additional Cost/Complexity

No

Yes

MBR System Evaluation Overview

the filaments to flex and bump the biofilm and other solids off the membrane surface.
Enviroquip MBR systems have never needed a backpulse system, and the additional
equipment required for the backpulsing system should not be viewed as a feature or a
benefit of hollow fiber technology (as some manufacturers suggest). It is a requirement that
only adds cost and complexity to the hollow fiber MBR system.
Over time, all submerged membrane technologies become subject to organic and/or
inorganic fouling, and these fouling events are handled with different chemical cleaning
procedures. One of those procedures, the maintenance clean, is a routine procedure used
by all membrane technologies to remove surface fouling from the membrane.
The
maintenance clean is Enviroquips only chemical cleaning procedure, and it involves
backfilling the membranes with a minimal amount of dilute chemical (a 55-gallon drum is
sufficient at most plants). The procedure is typically done 2-6 times per year and lasts
approximately 2-4 hours each time. Both the mixed liquor and membranes remain in the
basin during this chemical clean, making it truly in-situ. Further, once the maintenance clean
is completed, the spent chemical is simply flushed into the membrane basin; its
concentration is so weak that it has no effect on the biology of the mixed liquor. As a point
of reference, the maintenance clean for hollow fiber is very similar to the high-pressure
backpulse procedure using chemical instead of permeate.
In addition to maintenance
c l e a n s , a l l h o l l o w fi b e r
Materials of Construction
304SS / PVC
316SS
technologies require a recovery
Drain Basin
No
Yes
clean to dislodge particles from
Tank Linings
No
Yes
the membrane microstructure.
Chemical Storage Facilities
No
Yes
The hollow fiber recovery clean
Increased Building Footprint
No
Yes
involves draining the mixed
Additional Pumping Equipment
No
Yes
liquor from the membrane basin,
Safety/Containment Equipment
No
Yes
filling the empty basin with
Separation of Hazardous Chemicals
No
Yes
concentrated chemical, and
Neutralization of Chemicals
No
Yes
allowing the membranes to soak
for up to 24 hours.
Upon
Chemical Disposal
No
Yes
completion, the spent chemical
needs to be evacuated, neutralized, and disposed, after which the mixed liquor can be
returned to the membrane basin. Above and beyond the process complexity created by the
requirement for a drain basin, the chemical usage in the recovery clean creates additional
complexities, both from the sheer volume used as well as the concentration. From a
CHEMICAL CLEAN REQUIREMENTS

ENVIROQUIP

HOLLOW FIBER

MBR System Evaluation Overview

volume standpoint, chemical storage, pumping, and disposal create a larger plant footprint,
higher energy costs, and additional O&M. The higher concentration of chemical requires
different materials of construction, tank linings, containment equipment, and neutralization,
among other things.
The cleaning requirements for Enviroquip and hollow fiber stand in stark contrast with each
other in terms of philosophy and complexity. While many of the considerations outlined
above will not be found in the text of a proposal, they are very real, and will have a direct
impact on O&M, plant footprint, and most importantly, constructed cost.

FLUX AND EQUALIZATION

The significantly higher permeability of the ENVIROQUIP HYDRAULIC FLUX CAPABILITIES
Kubota membrane allows for higher sustainable Temp (oC)
10
15
net flux rates at higher mixed liquor
Net Flux (gfd)
12.3
14.7
concentrations than those of hollow fiber
Peak Flux (gfd)
24.6
29.4
technology. In addition, Enviroquip has Title 22
MLSS (mg/L)
8,000-18,000
8,000-18,000
approval for peaks up to 42gfd, with a peaking
capability of 2Q for 24 hours. As a point of reference, industry experience has shown
hollow fiber to have a peaking capability of 1.5Q for 24 hours.
In conjunction with Enviroquips pump forward design, the higher flux and peaking capability
of the Kubota membrane gives Enviroquip the unique ability to eliminate the need for standalone equalization in many applications, and greatly reduce the equalization volume when a
stand-alone basin is required.

SPACE EFFICIENCY AND BASIN VOLUMES

It is a fact that hollow fiber membranes are more space efficient (i.e. more membrane
surface area in a given footprint) than the Kubota flat-plate membrane. And while hollow
fiber manufacturers market space efficiency as a benefit, the message can be misleading on
many levels.
As it pertains to the membrane basin, the lower flux, limited peaking capabilities, and
recovery cleaning requirements for hollow fiber membranes mean they require substantially
more membrane surface area to treat the same flow as compared to Kubota membranes.
Further convoluting things, a leading hollow fiber manufacturer states that the best way to
determine MBR value is using what they refer to as Unit Cost (plant cost membrane
surface area). While this Unit Cost definition may seem to be a logical way to determine
6

MBR System Evaluation Overview

value, it is quite deceptive. In the hypothetical

scenario shown in the box, MBR 2 provides a
lower unit cost on the 1 MGD project,
theoretically signifying better value. However,
MBR 2 also costs 50% more than MBR 1.
Does that still mean its still a better value?

1 MGD PROJECT SCENARIO

MBR 1

MBR 2

Project Cost

$10M

$15M

100,000

200,000

10

7.5

Required Membrane Surface Area

Unit Cost

Example of the shortcomings of the Unit Cost analysis.

A more relevant evaluation of space efficiency involves not just the membrane surface area
or membrane basin footprint, but rather the overall plant footprint. Just as the membrane
basin cost is not a good indicator of total project cost; the membrane basin footprint is not a
good indicator of total plant footprint (which is largely determined by MLSS and solids
residence time, SRT). As an example, due to the high packing density, small membrane
basin volume, and short hydraulic residence time (HRT), hollow fiber MBR systems are
usually unable to carry out any biological treatment in their membrane basins. This requires
that all biological treatment be carried out in the anoxic and pre-aeration basins, thus greatly
increasing their respective volumes. By contrast, the lower packing density and longer HRT
allows Enviroquip to do a significant amount of biological treatment in their membrane
basins, thus reducing the required size of the
BASIN VOLUME
ENVIROQUIP
HOLLOW FIBER
(GALLONS)
pre-aeration basins. Add to this Enviroquips
MBR
40,000
20,000
higher sustained and peak flux capabilities,
along with the ability to comfortably operate
Anoxic
80,000
160,000
at a higher MLSS, and oftentimes Enviroquip
Pre-Air
78,000
200,000
has a smaller overall plant footprint. As a
Total
198,000
380,000
Proposed basin volumes (rounded), actual 0.5mgd MBR Project point of reference, the example to the left is
taken from an actual 0.5 mgd project.
An additional consequence of these biological process differences applies to internal recycle
streams. Since hollow fiber achieves negligible biological treatment in the membrane basin,
the dissolved oxygen (DO) from the coarse bubble air scour is not taken up; creating a high
DO recycle stream that may be toxic to the biology in the anoxic basin. Thus, hollow fiber
systems often require dual recycle streams (MBR to pre-aeration basin, then pre-aeration
basin to anoxic basin) as a way to reduce the effective DO load brought back to the anoxic
basin. Since Enviroquip performs a substantial portion of their aerobic biological treatment
in the membrane basin, there is DO uptake, which results in a low DO recycle stream, and
only a single recycle stream requirement back to the anoxic basin.

MBR System Evaluation Overview

EXPERIENCE
MBR experience can be defined in any number
MANUFACTURER A
of quantifiable ways number of plants, size of
# Plants Size (MGD) Yrs Operating MGD-Years
plants, and operating experience being three of
1
15
2
30
the most common.
A leading hollow fiber
1
10
2
20
membrane manufacturer promotes an MGD1
8
2
16
Years analysis as the best way to evaluate
3
33
6
66
vendor value.
This value is determined by
taking the number of plants of a given size,
MANUFACTURER B
multiplying by the respective flow, and then # Plants Size (MGD) Yrs Operating MGD-Years
multiplying again by the years in operation;
2
5
3
30
however, this analysis is flawed because it
5
1
3
15
skews heavily towards larger plant experience.
10
0.25
5
12.5
As shown in the hypothetical examples on the
20
0.05
5
5
right, Manufacturer A has 3 plants treating a
37
18.5
171
62.5
total of 33 MGD, 6 years of cumulative
operating history, and 66 MGD-Years of experience. Manufacturer B has 37 plants treating
a total of 18.5 MGD, 171 years of cumulative operating history, and 62.5 MGD-Years of
experience. Based solely on the MGD-Years analysis, Manufacturer A would be deemed
to have more experience, even though Manufacturer B has 34 more installations and 165
more years of cumulative MBR operations experience.
Clearly, settling on one datapoint for experience is not the most beneficial way to evaluate
MBR suppliers; rather, the most important consideration when looking at MBR supplier
experience is to choose the vendor or vendors that have experience relevant to the specific
needs of the project at hand. Given Enviroquips wide range of experience in the US, as well
as Kubotas global installation base of over 3,000 MBRs, chances are good that there is a
wealth of relevant experience for any type of MBR project. This reduces potential risk for
both the owner and engineer.

MEMBRANE LIFE AND WARRANTY

Long term testing shows Kubota membranes have a median life of 12.5 years far greater
than any hollow fiber technology. Standing behind this technology, Enviroquip supplies a flat
warranty to provide true protection to the owner. Other membrane manufacturers normally
supply pro-rated warrantees that are often shorter in duration and provide considerably less
value to the owner. Further, it is important for the engineer and owner to have a clear
understanding of the limitations that would void the warranty by examining such elements
8

MBR System Evaluation Overview

as Operating MLSS Range, Operating SRT range, Duration and Frequency of Peak Flux,
and Screening Requirements, among others. As such, not only is it important to take
warranty value and expected membrane replacement into account when evaluating MBR
systems, it is important to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the warranty.

CONCLUSION
As discussed in this summary document, the interrelationship between biohydraulics and
membrane performance merits that MBR technologies are best evaluated as complete
process systems, not just membrane supply applications. Examining installed project costs
and long-term O&M data proves the complete system approach to be most cost-effective
as well, regardless of membrane technology. That being said, the physical differences
between flat plate and hollow fiber membranes, along with differing approaches to
biohydraulics and biofilm management, give rise to key process, equipment, and operational
differences that have a profound influence on project complexity and project cost.

For more information, please visit our website:

www.tec-mbr.com

MBR System Evaluation Overview