Table 2.19 Operating Conditions <strong>of</strong> Membrane Biore<strong>ac</strong>tor Process for Treatment <strong>of</strong> Different Kinds <strong>of</strong> Wastewater Wastewater Industrial Wastewater Le<strong>ac</strong>hate Volume (L) HRT (h) Initial COD (mg/L) 46 BOD/COD MLSS (mg/L) SRT (d) OLR (kg COD/m 3 .d) Reference 5500 30,000-50,000 20,000 50 2.2-10.2 Nagano, et al., 1992 2750 140 42,660 10,900 16 5.40 Krau<strong>th</strong> and Staab, 1993 1900 144-240 29,400 1,800 50-75 2.5-4.9 Zaloum, et al., 1994 - 24 13,300 0.49 - - - Scott and Smi<strong>th</strong>, 1997 15 24 21-50 (AOX) 10,000-20,000 - - Hall, et al., 1995 220 15-25 2,700-4,300 30,000-47,000 Lubbecke, et al., 1995 287 (m 3 ) 54 14,200 28,700 31 6.3 Mishra, et al., 1996 180 (m 3 ) 28.8 4,000 0.2 Dijk and Roncken, 1997 9,500 240 8,000 (BOD) 4,000 30 Ahn, et al., 1999 303 (m 3 ) 65 850-4,200 0.40-0.75 8,000-10,000 80 Jensen, et al., 2001
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids and Dissolved Substances The effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>th</strong>e MLSS concentration on <strong>th</strong>e membrane fouling have been reported by many researchers as membrane resistance varies proportionally in MLSS concentration (Fane, et al., 1981) and when <strong>th</strong>e MLSS concentration exceeded 40,000 mg/L, <strong>th</strong>e flux is found <strong>th</strong>at dramatically decrease (Yamamoto, et al., 1989). However, Lubbecke, et al. (1995) illustrated <strong>th</strong>at MLSS concentrations upto 30,000 mg/L is not directly responsible for irreversible fouling, and <strong>th</strong>at viscosity and dissolved matter have a more significant imp<strong>ac</strong>t on flux decline. The increase in viscosity to yield a substantial suction pressure increase can causes <strong>th</strong>e failure <strong>of</strong> MBR system (Ueda, et al., 1996). The effects <strong>of</strong> MLSS, dissolved matter, and viscosity on membrane fouling could be estimated as given by Sato and Ishii (1991) in <strong>th</strong>e following manner: Where: 0. 926 47 1. 368 0. 326 R = 842 . 7 * ∆P * ( MLSS) * ( COD) * ( µ ) Eq. 2.1 R = Filtration resistance, m -1 ∆P = Transmembrane pressure, Pa µ = Viscosity, Pa.s MLSS = mixed liquor suspended solid, mg/L COD = Soluble chemical oxygen demand, mg/L According to <strong>th</strong>e few researches, <strong>th</strong>e role <strong>of</strong> mixed liquor in membrane fouling was due to <strong>th</strong>e presence <strong>of</strong> suspended solids (SS), colloids, and dissolved matter which contributed to resistance against filtration by 65, 30, and 5 % respectively (Derfrance, et al., 2000). Through fr<strong>ac</strong>tionation <strong>of</strong> <strong>th</strong>e mixed liquor <strong>of</strong> <strong>ac</strong>tivated sludge into floc cell, EPS and dissolved mater, Chang and Lee (1998) indicated EPS as an important component contributing to fouling causing resistance in <strong>th</strong>e filtration process. However, <strong>th</strong>ese studies show <strong>th</strong>at individual fouling resistances were not additive due to <strong>th</strong>e sum <strong>of</strong> <strong>th</strong>e resistances given by e<strong>ac</strong>h component was found to be greater <strong>th</strong>an <strong>th</strong>e measured total resistance. Wisniewski and Grasmick (1998) fr<strong>ac</strong>tionated <strong>th</strong>e <strong>ac</strong>tivated sludge suspension into settleable particles (particle size above 100 µm), supr<strong>ac</strong>olloidal-colloidal fr<strong>ac</strong>tion (nonsettleable particle wi<strong>th</strong> a size ranging from 0.05 to 100 µm), and soluble fr<strong>ac</strong>tion (obtained after filtration wi<strong>th</strong> 0.05 µm membrane). They revealed <strong>th</strong>at 52% <strong>of</strong> <strong>th</strong>e total resistance could be attributed to soluble components. Particle Size Distribution Many researchers have sought to establish <strong>th</strong>e influence <strong>of</strong> particle size on <strong>th</strong>e cake layer resistance. Generally, <strong>th</strong>e particle size <strong>of</strong> an <strong>ac</strong>tivated sludge floc ranges from 1.2 to 600 µm (Jorand, et al., 1995). The break-up <strong>of</strong> biological flocs, generating fine colloids and cells which later form a denser cake layer on <strong>th</strong>e membrane is due to <strong>th</strong>e shear force rising as a result <strong>of</strong> pumping during cross-flow filtration (Wisniewski and Grasmick, 1998; Kim, et al., 2001). According to Wisniewski, et al. (2000), after <strong>th</strong>e floc breakup, <strong>th</strong>e suspension produced consists mainly <strong>of</strong> particles having a size <strong>of</strong> around 2 µm causing a decrease in flux. 97% <strong>of</strong> <strong>th</strong>e particles in <strong>th</strong>e MBR system have an average diameter smaller <strong>th</strong>an 10 µm, while <strong>th</strong>e <strong>ac</strong>tivated sludge contained flocs range from 20 to 200 µm in size (Cicek, et al., 1999).
- Page 1 and 2:
APPLICATION OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR
- Page 3 and 4:
Abstract Landfill leachate is a com
- Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Chapter Title Pag
- Page 7 and 8:
4.5.6 Cost Analysis for Operation 1
- Page 9 and 10: 4.4 Effect of Free Ammonia Concentr
- Page 11 and 12: 4.16 COD Concentration in the Influ
- Page 13 and 14: MWCO Molecular Weight Cut-off MWW M
- Page 15 and 16: 1.1 Background Chapter 1 Introducti
- Page 17 and 18: generally unsuccessful in removal o
- Page 19 and 20: 2.1 Introduction Chapter 2 Literatu
- Page 21 and 22: In the municipal solid waste landfi
- Page 23 and 24: COD/TOC, VS/FS and VFA/TOC ratios o
- Page 25 and 26: Table 2.3 presents the general leac
- Page 27 and 28: Ground water 2.7.1 Seasonal Variati
- Page 29 and 30: Table 2.5 Variation of COD, BOD & B
- Page 31 and 32: entails the re-circulation of leach
- Page 33 and 34: Table 2.8 Summary of Biokinetic Coe
- Page 35 and 36: that extensive loss of nitrogen (up
- Page 37 and 38: ammonia could only be achieved when
- Page 39 and 40: Table 2.10 Treatment Efficiencies o
- Page 41 and 42: Activated Carbon Adsorption Granula
- Page 43 and 44: Colloidal material as well as metal
- Page 45 and 46: iologically, physical-chemical proc
- Page 47 and 48: Ammonia Stripping Air stripping of
- Page 49 and 50: These systems are land intensive wh
- Page 51 and 52: the biological treatment can be rep
- Page 53 and 54: Table 2.16 Typical Leachate Composi
- Page 55 and 56: influent reached 200 mg/L. For the
- Page 57 and 58: Table 2.18 Advantages and Disadvant
- Page 59: through the effluent. Different ope
- Page 63 and 64: 2.12 Yeasts 2.12.1 Introduction The
- Page 65 and 66: Nishihara ESRC Ltd. (2001) studied
- Page 67 and 68: nitrification-denitrification proce
- Page 69 and 70: Table 3.1 Composition of Simulated
- Page 71 and 72: 3.4.1 Ammonia Toxicity The experime
- Page 73 and 74: Figure 3.4 Experiments Conducted to
- Page 75 and 76: Leachate Option Ammonia Stripping R
- Page 77 and 78: MW larger than 50 kDa, (2) MW betwe
- Page 79 and 80: Figure 3.7 Flowchart Showing Ammoni
- Page 81 and 82: Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 4.
- Page 83 and 84: COD Removal Effeciency (%) COD Remo
- Page 85 and 86: MLSS (mg/L) 14000 12000 10000 8000
- Page 87 and 88: Specific Growth Rate ( d -1 ) 0.50
- Page 89 and 90: change in the predominant species w
- Page 91 and 92: Table 4.4 Effect of Free Ammonia Co
- Page 93 and 94: Table 4.5 Substrate Utilization by
- Page 95 and 96: 4.3.1 Initial Membrane Resistance P
- Page 97 and 98: when compared with the present stud
- Page 99 and 100: COD Removal Efficiency (%) 90 80 70
- Page 101 and 102: (2) TKN Removal Efficiency Prior to
- Page 103 and 104: As there was no significant improve
- Page 105 and 106: The probable reason for frequent fo
- Page 107 and 108: Ammonia Concentration (mg/L) Ammoni
- Page 109 and 110: concentration after treatment. Othe
- Page 111 and 112:
After the chemical cleaning of the
- Page 113 and 114:
emoval of 38%. A higher removal in
- Page 115 and 116:
Influent BOD (mg/L) Influent BOD (m
- Page 117 and 118:
(3) TKN Removal Efficiency The TKN
- Page 119 and 120:
Figure 4.34 gives the overall TKN r
- Page 121 and 122:
fraction and slowly biodegradable C
- Page 123 and 124:
BOD (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) 6000 5000 400
- Page 125 and 126:
Figure 4.39 Molecular Weight Cut-of
- Page 127 and 128:
COD (mg/L) 8000 6000 4000 2000 COD
- Page 129 and 130:
Though, the obtained COD removal ef
- Page 131 and 132:
cake used on the top of the membran
- Page 133 and 134:
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommend
- Page 135 and 136:
0.02, respectively. This can be con
- Page 137 and 138:
References Abeling, U., and Seyfrie
- Page 139 and 140:
Brown, M.J., and Lester, J.N., 1980
- Page 141 and 142:
Diamadopoulos, E., 1994. Characteri
- Page 143 and 144:
Grady, C.P.L., Daigger, G.T., and L
- Page 145 and 146:
Keenan, J.D., Steiner, R.L., and Fu
- Page 147 and 148:
Martin, G.M.A., Auzmenti, A.I., and
- Page 149 and 150:
Pohland, F.G., and Harper, S.R., 19
- Page 151 and 152:
Shin, H.S., An, H., Kang, S.T., Cho
- Page 153 and 154:
Visvanathan, C., Ben Aim, R., and P
- Page 155 and 156:
Appendix A Pictures of Experiments
- Page 157 and 158:
Raw Leachate YMBR Effluent BMBR Eff
- Page 159 and 160:
Appendix B Leachate Characteristics
- Page 161 and 162:
Table B-2 Acclimation of Mixed Yeas
- Page 163 and 164:
Appendix C Experimental Data of Bio
- Page 165 and 166:
y: Where: OUR at line g: This is th
- Page 167 and 168:
Table C-3 Experimental Results for
- Page 169 and 170:
Appendix D Membrane Resistance Stud
- Page 171 and 172:
Table D-3 Experimental Data for Det
- Page 173 and 174:
Table D-4 Experimental Data for Det
- Page 175 and 176:
Pressure (kPa) Pressure (kPa) 25 20
- Page 177 and 178:
Appendix E MBR without Ammonia Stri
- Page 179 and 180:
Day HRT (h) pH COD (mg/L) Feed Reac
- Page 181 and 182:
Day HRT (h) pH COD (mg/L) Feed Reac
- Page 183 and 184:
Table E-3 Variation in TMP with Tim
- Page 185 and 186:
Appendix F Ammonia Stripping Studie
- Page 187 and 188:
Table F-5 Pilot Scale Study on Ammo
- Page 189 and 190:
Table G-1 Feed, Reactor and Effluen
- Page 191 and 192:
Table G-3 Feed, Reactor and Effluen
- Page 193 and 194:
Appendix H Other Studies 179
- Page 195 and 196:
Table H-2 Membrane Resistance of th
- Page 197:
Table H-6 Chemical Cost for the Yea