Advertisement

Improving energy efficiency and fouling mitigation for membrane bioreactor in Al-Rustamiyah sewage treatment plant based on hydrodynamics

  • R. I. Ibrahim
Original Paper

Abstract

In Al-Rustamiyah sewage treatment plant in the east of Baghdad city, capital of Iraq, the membrane bioreactor suffering from a severe biofouling problem. The main reason for this problem is inefficient and inadequate aeration process. The objective of this work is to control fouling and to improve the energy efficiency of the submerged membrane bioreactor. Fouling control is achieved by optimizing the two-phase hydrodynamic parameters (air bubble diameter and shear stress), while energy efficiency improved through analysis of flow field. An experimental rig similar to real plant was built, and several operating and design parameters were experimentally tested. The parameters were air flow rate (1–9 L/min), membrane sheets spacing (3, 5, and 7 mm), and air diffuser design (pipe diffuser and disk diffuser). The bubble sizes were measured experimentally using high-speed camera. It was found that larger bubbles were produced at narrow channels between the membrane sheets. Optimization using computational fluid dynamic with ANSYS FLUENT was employed; the results showed that a bubble diameter of 2.5 mm had a slug flow pattern, resulting in better energy saving for a 3 mm space between membrane sheets with a 5 L/min air flow, while maximum shear stress obtained was (4 Pa). Nutrients removal results from synthetic sewage were 97.32, 79.68, and 13% for COD, NH3–N, and PO 4 −3 , respectively, at 6 days retention time. The results obtained are quite significant in practice because it contributes to improve the efficiency of membrane bioreactor in Al-Rustamiyah sewage treatment plant.

Keywords

Flow pattern Fouling control Nutrients removal Optimization technique 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Chemical and Process Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and Build Environment, the National University of Malaysia (Grant No. 02-01-02 SF 1021). Special thanks addressed to Prof. Abdul Wahab Mohammad, Dean of Faculty of Engineering and Build Environment for his scientific supervision during the sabbatical leave in UKM/Malaysia.

References

  1. Akita K, Yoshida F (1974) Bubble size, interfacial area and liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient in bubble columns. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 12:76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bérubé PR, Lin H, Watai Y (2008) Fouling in air sparged submerged hollow fiber membranes at sub- and super-critical flux conditions. J Membr Sci 307:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohm L, Drews A, Prieske H, Berube PR, Kraume M (2012) The importance of fluid dynamics for MBR fouling mitigation. Bioresour Technol 122:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braak E, Alliet M, Schetrite S, Albasi C (2011) Aeration and hydrodynamics in submerged membrane bioreactors. J Membr Sci 379:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braghetta A, DiGiano FA, Ball WP (1998) NOM accumulation at NF membrane surface: impact of chemistry and shear. J Environ Eng 124(11):1087–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brannock MWD, De Wever H, Wanga Y, Leslie G (2009) Computational fluid dynamics simulations of MBRs: inside submerged versus outside submerged membranes. Desalination 236:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brannock M, Wang Y, Leslie G (2010) Mixing characterisation of full-scale membrane bioreactors: CFD modelling with experimental validation. Water Res 44:3181–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carreño-Martinez YM, Gozálvez-Zafrilla JM, Mendoza-Roca JA, Santafé-Moros A (2010) Flow simulation in submerged membrane bioreactor at laboratory scale. In: COMSOL conference, Paris, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  9. DiGiano FA, Arweiler S, Riddick JA (2000) Alternative tests for evaluating NF fouling. J Am Water Works Assoc 92(2):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drews A (2010) Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors—characterization, contradictions, causes and cures. J Membr Sci 363:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elimelech M, Zhu X, Childress AE, Hong S (1997) Role of membrane surface morphology in colloidal fouling of cellulose acetate and composite aromatic polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 127(1):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etienne B, Alliet M, Schetrite S, Albasi C (2011) Aeration and hydrodynamics in submerged membrane bioreactors. J Membr Sci 379:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenu A, Roels J, Wambecq T, De Gussem K, Thoeve C, De Gueldre G, Van De Steene B (2010) Energy audit of a full scale MBR system. Desalination 262:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghidossi R, Veyret D, Moulin P (2006) Computational fluid dynamics applied to membranes: state of the art and opportunities. Chem Eng Process 45:437–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gil JA, Túa L, Montaño B, Rodríguez DP (2010) Monitoring and analysis of the energy cost of an MBR. Desalination 250:997–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hernández Rojas ME, Van Kaam R, Schetrite S, Albasi C (2005) Role and variations of supernatant compounds in submerged membrane bioreactor fouling. Desalination 179:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howe KJ, Clark MM (2002) Fouling of microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes by natural waters. Environ Sci Technol 36(16):3571–3576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jucker C, Clark MM (1994) Adsorption of aquatic humic substances on hydrophobic ultrafiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 97:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Judd S (2008) The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends Biotechnol 26:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamp PC, Kruithof JC, Folmer HC (2000) UF/RO treatment plant Heemskerk: from challenge to full scale application. Desalination 131(1–3):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laine JM, Hagstrom JP, Clark MM, Mallevialle J (1989) Effects of ultrafiltration membrane-composition. J Am Water Works Assoc 81(11):61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lander DA (2009) Effect of bloom-forming algae on fouling of integrated membrane systems in seawater desalination. Doctoral Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  23. Laura A, Marcano C (2012) Energy optimization of membrane bioreactors. M.Sc. Thesis, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. Le-Clech P, Jefferson B, Judd SJ (2005) A comparison of submerged and sidestream tubular membrane bioreactor configurations. Desalination 173:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Le-Clech P, Chen V, Fane TAG (2006) Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci 284:17–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemmon EW (obtained 2010/09) Thermophysical properties of fluid systems, en NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database http://webbook.nist.gov
  27. Li QL, Xu ZH, Pinnau I (2007) Fouling of reverse osmosis membranes by biopolymers in wastewater secondary effluent: role of membrane surface properties and initial permeate flux. J Membr Sci 290(1–2):173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meng F, Chae SR, Drews A, Kraume M, Shin HS, Yang F (2009) Recent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): membrane fouling and membrane material. Water Res 43:1489–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ndinisa NV, Fane AG, Wiley DE (2006) Fouling control in a submerged flat sheet membrane system. Part II. Two phase flow characterization and CFD simulations. Sep Sci Technol 41:1383–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nywening JP, Zhou H (2009) Influence of filtration conditions on membrane fouling and scouring aeration effectiveness in submerged membrane bioreactors to treat municipal wastewater. Water Res 43:3548–3558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sánchez-Pérez JA, Rodríguez-Porcel EM, Casas López JL, Fernández Sevilla JM, Chisti Y (2006) Shear rate in stirred tank and bubble column bioreactors. Chem Eng J 124:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shimizu Y, Matsushita K, Watanabe A (1994) Influence of shear breakage of microbial cells on cross-flow microfiltration flux. J Ferment Bioeng 78(2):170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokolichin A, Eigenberger G, Lapin A (2004) Simulations of buoyancy driven bubbly flow: established simplifications and open questions. AIChE J 50:24–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephenson T, Judd S, Jefferson B, Brindle K (2000) Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. IWA Publishing, London, pp 3–7Google Scholar
  35. Talaia MAR (2007) Terminal velocity of a bubble rise in a liquid column. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 28:264–268Google Scholar
  36. Vrijenhoek EM, Hong S, Elimelech M (2001) Influence of membrane surface properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 188(1):115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang J, Guan J, Santiwong SR, Waite TD (2008) Characterization of floc size and structure under different monomer and polymer coagulants on microfiltration membrane fouling. J Membr Sci 321(2):132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wicaksana F, Fane AG, Chen V (2006) Fibre movement induced by bubbling using submerged hollow fibre membranes. J Membr Sci 271:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu X, Elimelech M (1997) Colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis membranes: measurements and fouling mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 31(12):3654–3662CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electromechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of TechnologyBaghdadIraq

Personalised recommendations