Thesis - faculty.ait.ac.th - Asian Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Where; J = ∆P Eq. 4.2 µRt J = Permeate flux (L/m 2 .h) ∆P = Applied pressure (kPa) µ = Dynamic viscosity (N.s/m 2 ) Rt = Total resistance for filtration or Hydraulic resistance of clean membrane (m -1 ) The membrane resistance (Rm) of the YMBR was found to be 6.66 x 10 11 m -1 and that of BMBR was found to be 6.29 x 10 11 m -1 . The membrane used in the study had a surface area of 0.42 m 2 and pore size of 0.1 µm. Both the membranes had a similar pore size and almost the same membrane resistance. The membrane resistant is important as with increasing membrane operation, the membrane resistance tends to increase the transmembrane pressure, which after a certain limit decreases the flux to a great extent. During this stage when the transmembrane pressure reaches a maximum, the membrane is said to be fouled. The effect of the membrane resistance prior to and after fouling has also been studied which would be discussed in later part of this chapter. 4.3.2 Optimization of HRT in Terms of Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Efficiency (1) COD Removal Efficiency The influent COD concentration was maintained around 7,000 to 9,000 mg/L, and the volumetric loading rate was gradually increased from 6.7 to 17.9 kg COD/m 3 .d by decreasing HRT from 24 h to 12 h with 4 h decrement. A detailed tabulation of the results is given in Table E-1 and E-2 of Appendix E for the BMBR and YMBR systems, respectively. The increase in organic loading in terms of COD concentration and change in HRT is presented in Figure 4.13. As a real leachate from the transfer station and sanitary landfill was used, fluctuations in the feed could not be avoided. In all experimental runs, the MLSS of both the systems were maintained around 10,000 to 12,000 mg/L and DO concentration of above 2.0 mg/L. Figure 4.14 and 4.15 illustrates the MLSS concentration and pH, respectively in both the membrane bioreactors. The fluctuations in the pH of the BMBR reactor could be due to the products if the degradation taking place within the system. While treating the medium-aged landfill with membrane bioreactors, the effluent COD concentration fluctuated with that of the influent concentration. The influent and effluent COD concentration in the BMBR and YMBR are presented in Figure 4.16. It was observed that the average COD removal efficiency of the YMBR was slightly higher than that of the BMBR for varied HRT, though the difference was just marginal. The reason for the increased run period at 16h HRT was the absence of significant improvement in the treatment performance in terms of COD removal. In a study conducted by Sun, et al., 2002 found similar results. When an influent wastewater with 2,400 mg/L COD was treated using a submerged MBR, it was found that a change in HRT from 3 to 6 days did not significantly affect the performance. The removal efficiency just changed from 92 to 93%. A high COD removal of the high strength wastewater could be due to the increased HRT 82
when compared with the present study. Figure 4.17 shows the efficiency of COD removal for both YMBR and BMBR systems for various HRT throughout the run period. MLSS (mg/L) HRT (h) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 HRT Organic Load 1 22 48 72 94 119 145 173 Time (days) Figure 4.13 Variation in Organic Load with HRT Figure 4.14 Variation in MLSS in the MBR Systems 83 BMBR YMBR 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (days) 22 18 14 10 6 COD Organic Load (kg/m 3 .d)
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 and 60: through the effluent. Different ope
Page 61 and 62: Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids and D
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: 4.3.1 Initial Membrane Resistance P
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
show all

Thesis - faculty.ait.ac.th - Asian Institute of Technology

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?