13.07.2015 Views

Combining submerged membrane technology with anaerobic and ...

Combining submerged membrane technology with anaerobic and ...

Combining submerged membrane technology with anaerobic and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 4recirculation from the MBR to the UASB system) it was difficult to define a real SRT, sincea fraction of aerobic biomass was continually recirculated between the MBR <strong>and</strong> UASBreactors. Nevertheless, the amount of aerobic biomass purged from the system wassimilar than that purged during period II (<strong>with</strong>out recirculation).4.4.3. Membrane performanceThe main parameters regarding <strong>membrane</strong> performance are presented in table 4.1.The flux was maintained between 12 <strong>and</strong> 15 L·m -2·h -1 during most of the operationalperiods, being more variable on period I due to the higher fouling rate observed during thisperiod (figure 4.4b). During periods III <strong>and</strong> especially IV, the lower fluxes values wereobtained due to the extremely low MLVSS concentrations in the <strong>membrane</strong> filtrationchamber (table 4.1). Only in the period II, <strong>with</strong>out recirculation between MBR <strong>and</strong> UASBreactor <strong>and</strong> a higher MLVSS concentration in <strong>membrane</strong> filtration chamber, stableoperation at 19 L·m -2·h -1 was achieved. The flux achieved was higher than those observedin AnMBR, <strong>with</strong> values between 5 <strong>and</strong> 10 L·m -2·h -1 (Spagni et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2007;Lew et al., 2009; Ho <strong>and</strong> Sung, 2010), but lower than those typically reported in aerobicMBR operating <strong>with</strong> similar <strong>membrane</strong> modules, being between 20 <strong>and</strong> 25 L·m -2·h -1 (Judd,2002; Wen et al., 2004). On the other h<strong>and</strong>, the observed fluxes were much lower thanthose referred by Leikness et al. (2007), who worked <strong>with</strong> a biofilm <strong>membrane</strong> bioreactor<strong>with</strong> a first moving bed bioreactor (MBBR) followed by a filtration chamber connected inseries <strong>and</strong> obtained fluxes of 50 L·m -2·h -1 .Table 4.1. Parameters related <strong>with</strong> <strong>membrane</strong> performance.Parameter Unit Period I Period II Period III Period IVMLVSS 1 g·L -1 1.3±0.7 3.3±0.7 0.8±0.3 0.9±0.4Flux L∙m -2·h -1 13.3±1.8 15.5±2.2 13.3 ± 2.8 11.0±1.5Permeability L∙m -2·h -1·bar -1 153±68 189±32 170 ± 42 148±47Fouling rate Pa·min -1 1.7±0.9 0.5±0.4 0.8±0.3 0.9±0.6SMP C mg·L -1 37.6±17.3 10.4±3.1 14.6±2.0 14.1±5.0Recirculation - yes (0.15) no yes (0.15) yes (0.075)1 In the <strong>membrane</strong> filtration chamber122

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!