Efficiencies of Organic Matters and Nitrogen Removal at Different Recycle Ratios in a SMBR System

  • Jongtai Jung
  • Yonghyun ChoEmail author
  • Yuneun Kim
Environmental Engineering


The experiment in this study was conducted using wastewater treatment system constructed with anoxic reactor, selector, and aerobic reactor. The Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR) system was operated with a design flow of 50 m3/day, and the vertically double layer-submerged biological membrane was integrated with aerobic reactor. The objective of this study has been to help move towards an optimal design on the operation of submerged reactor treatment plants. In particular, this study has focused on the organic matters and nitrogen removal efficiency according to recycle ratios. The obtained results of experiment are as follows: BOD and COD, which are indicators of organic compounds were 96.50−98.50% and 92.90−97.00%, respectively. The measured ranges of BOD and COD indicated a reliable treatment efficiency, and similar efficiency was observed for suspended solids and coliform removal. These results could be applied to good effluent quality for suitable standards of the reuse water. The Recycle ratios in this study were 1, 1.5, 2, and 3; and the corresponding T-N removal efficiencies for each ratio were 54.10%, 69.80%, 76.60%, and 81.90%, respectively. It is observed that the removal efficiencies are increased in proportion to the recycle ratio. While the recycle ratio was increasing from 1 to 3, the removal efficiency increased 15.70%, 22.50% and 27.80%.


Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR) water reuse recycle ratio T-N removal MLSS (Mixed Liquor Suspended Solid) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bagatin, R., Klemes, J., Reverberi, A. P., and Huisingh, D. (2014). “Conservation and improvements in water resource management: A global challenge.” Journal of Clean. Prod., Vol. 77, No. 8, pp. 1–9, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brik, M., Schoeberl, P., Chamam, B., Braun, R., and Fuchs, W. (2006). “Advanced treatment of textile wastewater to wards reuse using a membrane bioreactor.” Process. Biochem., Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 1751–1757, DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2006.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Churchouse, S. (2002). Membrane bioreactors: going from laboratory to large scale-problems to clear solutions in: Presented at Membranes and the Environment, University of Oxford, July 14–17.Google Scholar
  4. Dufresne, R., Lebrun, R. E., and Lavallee, H. C. (1997). “Comparative study on fluxes and performances during papermill wastewater treatment with membrane bioreactor.” Canadian J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 95–103, DOI: 10.2166/wst.2007.208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fujita, K. and Takizawa, S. (1994). “Study on hydraulics of backwashing and air-scrubbing in hollow fiber filtration(in Japanese).” J. Japan Water Works Association, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 94–101, J-GLOBAL ID: 200902110991294912.Google Scholar
  6. Hasar, H. and Kinaci, C. (2004). “Comparison of a sMBR and a CASP system for wastewater reclamation and re-use.” Filtration and Separation, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 35–39, DOI: 10.1016/S0015-1882(04)00112-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hasar, H., Kinaci, C., and Unlü, A. (2002). “Viability of microbial mass in a submerged membrane bioreactor.” Desalination, Vol. 150, No. 3, pp. 263–268, DOI: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00982-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Li, J. P., Healy, M. G., Zhan, X. M., and Rodgers, M. (2008). “Nutrient removal from slaughterhouse wastewater in an intermittently aerated sequencing batch reactor.” Journal of Bioresource Technology, Vol. 99, No. 16, pp. 7644–7650, DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maranon, E., Castrillon, L., Garcia, L., Vazquez, I., and Fernandez-Nava, Y. (2008). “Three-step biological process for the treatment of the liquid fraction of cattle manure.” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 99, No. 16, pp. 7750–7757, DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pollice, A., Laera, G., Saturno, D., and Giordano, C. (2008). “Effects of sludge retention time on the performance of a membrane bioreactor treating municipal sewage.” Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 317, Nos. 1–2, pp. 65–70, DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2007.08.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pradhan, M., Vigneswaran, S., Kandasamy, J., and Aim, R. B. (2012). “Combined effect of air and mechanical scouring of membranes for fouling reduction in submerged membrane reactor.” Desalination, Vol. 288, No. 3, pp. 58–65, DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shamim, A. D., Francesco, G., Jan, H., Alberto, F., and Enrico, D. (2013). “Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR) for treatment of textile dye wastewatertowards developing novel MBR process.” Journal of Apcbee Procedia, Vol. 5, No. 12, pp. 259–264, DOI: 10.1016/j.apcbee.2013.05.045.Google Scholar
  13. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2015). Water for a sustainable world, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015, Scholar
  14. Woo, Y. C., Lee, J. J., Shim, W. G., Shon, H. K., Tijing, L. D., Yao, M., and Kim, H. S. (2016). “Effect of powdered activated carbon on integrated submerged membrane bioreactor-nanofiltration process for wastewater reclamation.” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 210, No. 6, pp. 18–25, DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. WHO (2006). The world health report 2006 –working together for health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Environmental EngineeringIncheon National UniversityIncheonKorea
  2. 2.Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringInha Technical CollegeIncheonKorea
  3. 3.Research InstituteJARWON Electronics Co., LtdBucheonKorea

Personalised recommendations