Advertisement

Aggravation of membrane fouling and methane leakage by a three-phase separator in an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor

  • Chao Pang
  • Chunhua He
  • Zhenhu Hu
  • Shoujun Yuan
  • Wei WangEmail author
Research Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

The three-phase separator is a critical component of high-rate anaerobic bioreactors due to its significant contribution in separation of biomass, wastewater, and biogas. However, its role in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor is still not clear. In this study, the distinction between an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor (EAnCMBR) unequipped (R1) and equipped (R2) with a three-phase separator was investigated in terms of treatment performance, membrane fouling, extracellular polymers of sludge, and microbial community structure. The results indicate that the COD removal efficiencies of R1 and R2 were 98.2%±0.4% and 98.1%±0.4%, respectively, but the start-up period of R2 was slightly delayed. Moreover, the membrane fouling rate of R2 (0.4 kPa/d) was higher than that of R1 (0.2 kPa/d). Interestingly, the methane leakage from R2 (0.1 L/d) was 20 times higher than that from R1 (0.005 L/d). The results demonstrate that the three-phase separator aggravated the membrane fouling rate and methane leakage in the EAnCMBR. Therefore, this study provides a novel perspective on the effects of a three-phase separator in an EAnCMBR.

Keywords

Anaerobic membrane bioreactor Three-phase separator Membrane fouling Methane leakage Sludge property 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51878232), Science and technology project of Anhui provincial housing and urban rural development office (No. 2017YF-05), and CAS Key Laboratory of Urban Pollutant Conversion, University of Science and Technology of China (No. KF201702).

Supplementary material

References

  1. Ao L, Liu W J, Qiao Y, Li C P, Wang X M (2018). Comparison of membrane fouling in ultrafiltration of down-flow and up-flow biological activated carbon effluents. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 12(6): 9Google Scholar
  2. APHA (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed. Washington DC, USA: America Public Health AssociationGoogle Scholar
  3. Buntner D, Sanchez A, Garrido J M (2013). Feasibility of combined UASB and MBR system in dairy wastewater treatment at ambient temperatures. Chemical Engineering Journal, 230: 475–481Google Scholar
  4. Chen M Y, Lee D J, Tay J H (2006). Extracellular polymeric substances in fouling layer. Separation Science and Technology, 41(7): 1467–1474Google Scholar
  5. Chen R, Nie Y, Hu Y, Miao R, Utashiro T, Li Q, Xu M, Li Y Y (2017a). Fouling behaviour of soluble microbial products and extracellular polymeric substances in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating low-strength wastewater at room temperature. Journal of Membrane Science, 531: 1–9Google Scholar
  6. Chen X, Li G, Lin H, Li Y, Ma Y, Dai R, Zhang J (2017b). Operation performance and membrane fouling of a spiral symmetry stream anaerobic membrane bioreactor supplemented with biogas aeration. Journal of Membrane Science, 539: 206–212Google Scholar
  7. Chen Y L, Rossler B, Zielonka S, Lemmer A, Wonneberger A M, Jungbluth T (2014). The pressure effects on two-phase anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 116: 409–415Google Scholar
  8. Chen Z B, Xiao T T, Hu D X, Xu J, Li X, Jia F Q, Wang H X, Gu F G, Su H Y, Zhang Y (2018a). The performance and membrane fouling rate of a pilot-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor for treating antibiotic solvent wastewater under different cross flow velocity. Water Research, 135(1): 288–301Google Scholar
  9. Chen Z W, Luo J Q, Hang X F, Wan Y H (2018b). Physicochemical characterization of tight nanofiltration membranes for dairy waste-water treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 547: 51–63Google Scholar
  10. Chu H P, Li X Y (2005). Membrane fouling in a membrane bioreactor (MBR): Sludge cake formation and fouling characteristics. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 90(3): 323–331Google Scholar
  11. Crone B C, Garland J L, Sorial G A, Vane L M (2016). Significance of dissolved methane in effluents of anaerobically treated low strength wastewater and potential for recovery as an energy product: A review. Water Research, 104: 520–531Google Scholar
  12. Du D L, Zhang C Y, Zhao K X, Sun G R, Zou S Q, Yuan L M, He S L (2018). Effect of different carbon sources on performance of an A2N-MBR process and its microbial community structure. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 12(2): 4Google Scholar
  13. Ersahin M E, Ozgun H, Tao Y, van Lier J B (2014). Applicability of dynamic membrane technology in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 48: 420–429Google Scholar
  14. Ersahin M E, Tao Y, Ozgun H, Gimenez J B, Spanjers H, van Lier J B (2017). Impact of anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor configuration on treatment and filterability performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 526: 387–394Google Scholar
  15. Ghangrekar M M, Asolekar S R, Joshi S G (2005). Characteristics of sludge developed under different loading conditions during UASB reactor start-up and granulation. Water Research, 39(6): 1123–1133Google Scholar
  16. Hori T, Haruta S, Ueno Y, Ishii M, Igarashi Y (2006). Dynamic transition of a methanogenic population in response to the concentration of volatile fatty acids in a thermophilic anaerobic digester. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(2): 1623–1630Google Scholar
  17. Huang Z, Ong S L, Ng H Y (2011). Submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor for low-strength wastewater treatment: Effect of HRT and SRT on treatment performance and membrane fouling. Water Research, 45(2): 705–713Google Scholar
  18. Ince O, Anderson G K, Kasapgil B (1995). Control of organic loading rate using the specific methanogenic activity test during start-up of an anaerobic digestion system. Water Research, 29(1): 349–355Google Scholar
  19. Lee W, Kang S, Shin H (2003). Sludge characteristics and their contribution to microfiltration in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 216(1–2): 217–227Google Scholar
  20. Lemmer A, Chen Y, Lindner J, Wonneberger A M, Zielonka S, Oechsner H, Jungbluth T (2015). Influence of different substrates on the performance of a two-stage high pressure anaerobic digestion system. Bioresource Technology, 178: 313–318Google Scholar
  21. Li Y, Liu H, Yan F, Su D, Wang Y, Zhou H (2017). High-calorific biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste using a two-phase pressurized biofilm (TPPB) system. Bioresource Technology, 224: 56–62Google Scholar
  22. Li Y, Sun Y M, Li L H, Yuan Z H (2018). Acclimation of acid-tolerant methanogenic propionate-utilizing culture and microbial community dissecting. Bioresource Technology, 250: 117–123Google Scholar
  23. Liao B Q, Kraemer J T, Bagley D M (2006). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Applications and research directions. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 36(6): 489–530Google Scholar
  24. Martin Garcia I, Mokosch M, Soares A, Pidou M, Jefferson B (2013). Impact on reactor configuration on the performance of anaerobic MBRs: Treatment of settled sewage in temperate climates. Water Research, 47(14): 4853–4860Google Scholar
  25. Meng F, Zhang H, Yang F, Zhang S, Li Y, Zhang X (2006). Identification of activated sludge properties affecting membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors. Separation and Purification Technology, 51(1): 95–103Google Scholar
  26. Metzger U, Le-Clech P, Stuetz R M, Frimmel F H, Chen V (2007). Characterisation of polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of different filtration modes. Journal of Membrane Science, 301(1–2): 180–189Google Scholar
  27. Ng K K, Shi X, Ng H Y (2015). Evaluation of system performance and microbial communities of a bioaugmented anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating pharmaceutical wastewater. Water Research, 81: 311–324Google Scholar
  28. Ozgun H, Tao Y, Ersahin M E, Zhou Z, Gimenez J B, Spanjers H, van Lier J B (2015). Impact of temperature on feed-flow characteristics and filtration performance of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket coupled ultrafiltration membrane treating municipal wastewater. Water Research, 83: 71–83Google Scholar
  29. Padmasiri S I, Zhang J, Fitch M, Norddahl B, Morgenroth E, Raskin L (2007). Methanogenic population dynamics and performance of an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) treating swine manure under high shear conditions. Water Research, 41(1): 134–144Google Scholar
  30. Rincon B, Raposo F, Borja R, Gonzalez J M, Portillo M C, Saiz-Jimenez C (2006). Performance and microbial communities of a continuous stirred tank anaerobic reactor treating two-phases olive mill solid wastes at low organic loading rates. Journal of Biotechnology, 121(4): 534–543Google Scholar
  31. Ruigomez I, Gonzalez E, Guerra S, Rodriguez-Gomez L E, Vera L (2017). Evaluation of a novel physical cleaning strategy based on HF membrane rotation during the backwashing/relaxation phases for anaerobic submerged MBR. Journal of Membrane Science, 526: 181–190Google Scholar
  32. Smith A L, Skerlos S J, Raskin L (2013). Psychrophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater. Water Research, 47(4): 1655–1665Google Scholar
  33. Wang W, Wang S, Ren X, Hu Z, Yuan S (2017a). Rapid establishment of phenol- and quinoline-degrading consortia driven by the scoured cake layer in an anaerobic baffled ceramic membrane bioreactor. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 24(33): 26125–26135Google Scholar
  34. Wang W, Wu B, Pan S, Yang K, Hu Z, Yuan S (2017b). Performance robustness of the UASB reactors treating saline phenolic wastewater and analysis of microbial community structure. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 331: 21–27Google Scholar
  35. Xia T, Gao X, Wang C, Xu X, Zhu L (2016). An enhanced anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating bamboo industry wastewater by bamboo charcoal addition: Performance and microbial community analysis. Bioresource Technology, 220: 26–33Google Scholar
  36. Yen F C, Chang T C, Chien C H, Laohaprapanon S, Natarajan T S, Sheng-Jie Y (2016). Feasibility of combined upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-aerobic membrane bioreactor system in treating purified terephthalic acid wastewater and polyimide membrane for biogas purification. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 4(4): 4113–4119Google Scholar
  37. Zhang J, Chua H C, Zhou J, Fane A G (2006). Factors affecting the membrane performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 284(1–2): 54–66Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Pang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chunhua He
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhenhu Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shoujun Yuan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wei Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Municipal Engineering, School of Civil EngineeringHefei University of TechnologyHefeiChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Urban Pollutant Conversion, Chinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations