Membrane Bioreactor and Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor Performance Comparison Under the Same Conditions

Öz

This study aims comparative evaluation of two different membrane modules, 0.45 µm and non-woven dynamic membrane, in AeMBR for synthetic wastewater treatment. Filtration performances of both membrane materials were compared under same operational conditions. Throughout the filtration process, 99% and 95% COD removal efficiencies were achieved relying upon 0.45 µm and non-woven dynamic membrane, respectively. AeMBR was successfully operated at 10 LMH and no chemical cleaning was employed for 30 days. It was perfectly operated up to 15 LMH and then 20 LMH. The turbidity and trans-membrane pressure (TMP) of 0.45 µm was usually higher at the begging compared with the dynamic membrane despite membrane clogging rates were comparable. Capillary suction time (CST), soluble microbial product (SMP), extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), specific resistance to filterability (SRF), attenuated total reflectance fourier transformed-infrared spectroscopy (ATR FT-IR) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analyzes were performed to understand the characterization of the cake deposited on membranes. 16S rDNA region shown significant result in terms of air/ambient temperature change. For both membrane modules, offline chemical cleaning employment with NaOCl and sulfuric acid, respectively, almost completely eliminated foulants and it was found that chemically washed membranes showed pressure close to that of the new membrane.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dynamic membrane bioreactor,non-woven,0.45 μm membrane,biological treatment,COD removal,PES

Proje Numarası

FYL-2017-3108

Membran Biyoreaktör ve Dinamik Membran Biyoreaktör Performansının Aynı Koşullarda Kıyaslanması

Öz

Bu çalışma, sentetik atık su arıtımı için aerobik membran biyoreaktörde (AeMBR), 0,45 µm ve dokuma olmayan membran olmak üzere iki farklı membran modülünün karşılaştırmalı değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Her iki membran malzemesinin filtrasyon performansları aynı operasyonel şartlar altında karşılaştırılmıştır. Filtreleme işlemi boyunca, 0,45 µm ve dokuma olmayan membran olmak üzere sırasıyla %99 ve % 95 KOİ giderim verimleri elde edilmiştr. AeMBR, 10 LMH'de başarıyla işletilmiş ve 30 gün boyunca hiçbir şekilde kimyasal yıkama uygulanmamıştır. Reaktör, 15 LMH akıya kadar mükemmel bir şekilde işletilmi ve sonra 20 LMH’de işletime devam edilmiştir. 0.45 µm membranın bulanıklık ve trans-membran basıncı değerleri, dokuma olmayan membrana nispeten başlarda genellikle yüksek sonuçlar vermiştir. Membranlar üzerinde oluşan kek tabakasının karakteristik özelliklerini belirlemek üzere kapiler emme süresi (CST), çözünür mikrobiyal ürün (SMP), hücre dışı polimerik bileşenler (EPS), süzülmeye karşı spesifik direnç (SRF), fourier dönüştürülmüş kızılötesi spektroskopisi (ATR FT-IR) ve denatüre gradyan jel elektroforezi (DGGE) aanalizleri yapılmıştır. 16S rDNA bölgesi, hava/ortam sıcaklığı değişikliği açısından önemli sonuç göstermiştir. Her iki membran modülü için, sırasıyla NaOCl ve sülfürik asit ile yapılan kimyasal temizleme istihdamı, neredeyse tamamen tıkanmaları ortadan kaldırmış ve kimyasal olarak yıkanmış membranların, yeni membranlarınkine yakın basınç gösterdiği bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dinamik membran biyoreaktör,dokuma olmayan,0.45 μm membrane,biyolojik arıtım,KOİ giderimi,PES

Destekleyen Kurum

Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

FYL-2017-3108

Kaynakça

1. An, Y., Wang, Z., Wu, Z., Yang, D., & Zhou, Q. 2009 Characterization of Membrane Foulants in an Anaerobic Non-Woven Fabric Membrane Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatmen Chemical Engineering Journal 155(3): 709–15.
2. Arhin, S. G., Banadda, N., Komakech, A. J., Kabenge, I., & Wanyama, J. 2016 Membrane Fouling Control in Low Pressure Membranes: A Review on Pretreatment Techniques for Fouling Abatement. Environmental Engineering Research 21(2): 109–20.
3. Azami, Hamed, Mohammad Hossein Sarrafzadeh, and Mohammad Reza Mehrnia. 2012 Soluble Microbial Products (SMPs) Release in Activated Sludge Systems: A Review. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 9(30).
4. Barker, Duncan J., and David C. Stuckey. 1999 A Review of Soluble Microbial Products (SMP) in Wastewater Treatment Systems. Water Research 33(14): 3063–82.
5. Chae, So Ryong, Yong Tae Ahn, Seok Tae Kang, and Hang Sik Shin. 2006 Mitigated Membrane Fouling in a Vertical Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (VSMBR). Journal of Membrane Science 280(1–2): 572–81.
6. Chen, G. W., W. W. Lin, and D. J. Lee. 1996 Capillary Suction Time (CST) as a Measure of Sludge Dewaterability. Water Science and Technology 34(3–4–4 pt 2): 443–48.
7. Chen, Yuanxin, and W. S.Winston Ho. 2016 High-Molecular-Weight Polyvinylamine/Piperazine Glycinate Membranes for CO2 capture from Flue Gas. Journal of Membrane Science.
8. Chu, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., Zhao, Y., Dong, B., & Zhang, H. 2014 Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor for Wastewater Treatment: Operation, Critical Flux, and Dynamic Membrane Structure. Journal of Membrane Science 450: 265–71.

9. Chu, Libing, and Shuping Li. 2006 Filtration Capability and Operational Characteristics of Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Separation and Purification Technology 51(2): 173–79.
10. Çınar, Ö., Yaşar, S., Kertmen, M., Demiröz, K., Yigit, N. Ö., & Kitis, M. 2008 Effect of Cycle Time on Biodegradation of Azo Dye in Sequencing Batch Reactor. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 86(6): 455–60.
11. Croue, J. P., M. F. Benedetti, D. Violleau, and J. A. Leenheer. 2003 Characterization and Copper Binding of Humic and Nonhumic Organic Matter Isolated from the South Platte River: Evidence for the Presence of Nitrogenous Binding Site. Environmental Science and Technology 37(2): 328–36.
12. Drews, A., Vocks, M., Iversen, V., Lesjean, B., & Kraume, M. 2006 Influence of Unsteady Membrane Bioreactor Operation on EPS Formation and Filtration Resistance. Desalination 192(1–3): 1–9.
13. Ersahin, Mustafa Evren, Hale Ozgun, Yu Tao, and Jules B. van Lier. 2014 Applicability of Dynamic Membrane Technology in Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors. Water Research 48(1): 420–29.
14. Fan, Bin, and Xia Huang. 2002 Characteristics of a Self-Forming Dynamic Membrane Coupled with a Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 36(23): 5245–51. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es025789n.
15. Fu, Zhimin, Fenglin Yang, Feifei Zhou, and Yuan Xue. 2009 Control of COD/N Ratio for Nutrient Removal in a Modified Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Treating High Strength Wastewater. Bioresource Technology 100(1): 136–41.
16. Galil, N I, and L Jacob. 2009 Comparative Characterization of Biosolids from a Membrane Bioreactor and from a Sequencing Batch Reactor. Environmental Engineering Science 26(5): 1001–8.
17. Germain, Eve, Tom Stephenson, and Pete Pearce. 2005 Biomass Characteristics and Membrane Aeration: Toward a Better Understanding of Membrane Fouling in Submerged Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs). Biotechnology and Bioengineering 90(3): 316–22.
18. Hernandez Rojas, M. E., R. Van Kaam, S. Schetrite, and Claire Albasi. 2005 Role and Variations of Supernatant Compounds in Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Fouling. Desalination 179(1–3 SPEC. ISS.): 95–107.
19. Jarusutthirak, Chalor. 2003 Fouling and Flux Decline of Reverse Osmosis (RO), Nanofiltration (NF) and Ultrafiltration (UF) Membranes Associated with Effluent Organic Matter (EFOM) during Wastewater Reclamation/Reuse. PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA.
20. Jeison, D., and J. B. van Lier. 2006 On-Line Cake-Layer Management by Trans-Membrane Pressure Steady State Assessment in Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Biochemical Engineering Journal 29(3): 204–9.
21. Jeong, Tae Young, Gi Cheol Cha, Ik Keun Yoo, and Dong Jin Kim. 2007 Characteristics of Bio-Fouling in a Submerged MBR. Desalination 207(1–3): 107–13.
22. Jiang, T., Myngheer, S., De Pauw, D. J., Spanjers, H., Nopens, I., Kennedy, M. D., ... & Vanrolleghem, P. A. 2008 Modelling the Production and Degradation of Soluble Microbial Products (SMP) in Membrane Bioreactors (MBR). Water Research 42(20): 4955–64.
23. Judd, S. 2010. Elsevier The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors in Water and Wastewater Treatment. London, UK.
24. Kim, In S., and Namjung Jang. 2006 The Effect of Calcium on the Membrane Biofouling in the Membrane Bioreactor (MBR). Water Research 40(14): 2756–64.
25. Kimura, K., Y. Hane, and Y. Watanabe. 2005 Effect of Pre-Coagulation on Mitigating Irreversible Fouling during Ultrafiltration of a Surface Water. Water Science and Technology 51(6–7): 93–100.
26. Kimura, Katsuki, Takuro Naruse, and Yoshimasa Watanabe. 2009 Changes in Characteristics of Soluble Microbial Products in Membrane Bioreactors Associated with Different Solid Retention Times: Relation to Membrane Fouling. Water Research 43(4): 1033–39.
27. Kiser, M. A., Oppenheimer, J., DeCarolis, J., Hirani, Z. M., & Rittmann, B. E. 2010 Quantitatively Understanding the Performance of Membrane Bioreactors. Separation Science and Technology 45(7): 1003–13.
28. Kiso, Y., Muroshige, K., Oguchi, T., Yamada, T., Hhirose, M., Ohara, T., & Shintani, T. 2010 Effect of Molecular Shape on Rejection of Uncharged Organic Compounds by Nanofiltration Membranes and on Calculated Pore Radii. Journal of Membrane Science 358(1–2): 101–13.
29. Lee, Sangyoup, Eunsu Lee, Menachem Elimelech, and Seungkwan Hong. 2011 Membrane Characterization by Dynamic Hysteresis: Measurements, Mechanisms, and Implications for Membrane Fouling. Journal of Membrane Science 366(1–2): 17–24.
30. Lee, Soo-Youn, Hyeon-Guk Kim, Jong Bok Park, and Yong Keun Park. 2004 Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Analysis of Bacterial Populations in 5-Stage Biological Nutrient Removal Process with Step Feed System for Wastewater Treatment. Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) 42(1): 1–8.
31. Liu, Yong Qiang, Benjamin Moy, Yun Hua Kong, and Joo Hwa Tay. 2010 Formation, Physical Characteristics and Microbial Community Structure of Aerobic Granules in a Pilot-Scale Sequencing Batch Reactor for Real Wastewater Treatment.” Enzyme and Microbial Technology 46(6): 520–25.
32. Ma, J., Wang, Z., Xu, Y., Wang, Q., Wu, Z., & Grasmick, A. 2013 Organic Matter Recovery from Municipal Wastewater by Using Dynamic Membrane Separation Process. Chemical Engineering Journal 219: 190–99.
33. Meng, F., Chae, S. R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H. S., & Yang, F. 2009 Recent Advances in Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane Fouling and Membrane Material. Water Research 43(6): 1489–1512.
34. Meng, Fangang, Hanmin Zhang, Fenglin Yang, and Lifen Liu. 2007 Characterization of Cake Layer in Submerged Membrane Bioreactor. Environmental Science and Technology 41(11): 4065–70.
35. Mohammadi, T., M. Kazemimoghadam, and M. Saadabadi. 2003 Modeling of Membrane Fouling and Flux Decline in Reverse Osmosis during Separation of Oil in Water Emulsions. Desalination 157(1–3): 369–75.
36. Özkaya, Bestami, and Ahmet Demir. 2011 Microbial Community Analysis with PCR DGGE-SEQUENCING Based Molecular Methods in Municipal Solid Waste Management. Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 3: 219–27.
37. Reid, E., Xingrong Liu, and S. J. Judd. 2006 Effect of High Salinity on Activated Sludge Characteristics and Membrane Permeability in an Immersed Membrane Bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science 283(1–2): 164–71.
38. Ren, X., Shon, H. K., Jang, N., Lee, Y. G., Bae, M., Lee, J., ... & Kim, I. S. 2010 Novel Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Coupled with a Nonwoven Fabric Filter for Household Wastewater Treatment. Water Research 44(3): 751–60.
39. Rosenberger, Sandra, and Matthias Kraume. 2003 Filterability of Activated Sludge in Membrane Bioreactors. Desalination 151(2): 195–200.
40. Sun, Yanmei, Yaoyao Fang, Peng Liang, and Xia Huang. 2016 Effects of Online Chemical Cleaning on Removing Biofouling and Resilient Microbes in a Pilot Membrane Bioreactor. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 112: 119–27.
41. Trussell, R. Shane, Rion P. Merlo, Slawomir W. Hermanowicz, and David Jenkins. 2006 The Effect of Organic Loading on Process Performance and Membrane Fouling in a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Treating Municipal Wastewater. Water Research 40(14): 2675–83.
42. US APHA 1998. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington DC, USA.
43. US APHA 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington DC, USA.
44. Wang, Z., Wu, Z., Yu, G., Liu, J., & Zhou, Z. 2006 Relationship between Sludge Characteristics and Membrane Flux Determination in Submerged Membrane Bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science 284(1–2): 87–94.
45. Wang, Z., Ma, J., Tang, C. Y., Kimura, K., Wang, Q., & Han, X. 2014 Membrane Cleaning in Membrane Bioreactors: A Review. Journal of Membrane Science 468: 276–307.
46. Wang, Zhiwei, Zhichao Wu, Xing Yin, and Lumei Tian. 2008 Membrane Fouling in a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) under Sub-Critical Flux Operation: Membrane Foulant and Gel Layer Characterization. Journal of Membrane Science 325(1): 238–44.
47. Wu, J., Le-Clech, P., Stuetz, R. M., Fane, A. G., & Chen, V. 2008 Effects of Relaxation and Backwashing Conditions on Fouling in Membrane Bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science 324(1–2): 26–32.
48. Wu, Z., Wang, Z., Zhou, Z., Yu, G., & Gu, G. 2007 Sludge Rheological and Physiological Characteristics in a Pilot-Scale Submerged Membrane Bioreactor. Desalination 212(1–3): 152–64.
49. Yu, G. H., Juang, Y. C., Lee, D. J., He, P. J., & Shao, L. M. 2009 Filterability and Extracellular Polymeric Substances of Aerobic Granules for AGMBR Process. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 40(4): 479–83.
50. Yurtsever, Adem, Beste Calimlioglu, and Erkan Sahinkaya. 2017 Impact of SRT on the Efficiency and Microbial Community of Sequential Anaerobic and Aerobic Membrane Bioreactors for the Treatment of Textile Industry Wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal 314: 378–87.
51. Zhu, Xuefeng, Zhiwei Wang, and Zhichao Wu. 2011 Characterization of Membrane Foulants in a Full-Scale Membrane Bioreactor for Supermarket Wastewater Treatment. Process Biochemistry 46(4): 1001–9.