Combining submerged membrane technology with anaerobic and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 3Tertiary membrane filtration of an industrial wastewater usinggranular and flocculent biomass SBRsSummarySequencing batch reactors (SBR) are widely used for wastewater treatment. The useof granular biomass in SBR allows higher organic loading rates (OLR). Nevertheless, themain disadvantage of these reactors, with regard to flocculent biomass SBRs, is thepresence of suspended solids in the effluent. Therefore, a suitable post-treatment processmay be required to fulfil local requirements for the amount of total suspended solids (TSS)in the effluent, which can be accomplished using membrane filtration units.In this study, effluents from a flocculent biomass SBR (F-SBR) and a granularbiomass SBR (G-SBR) were treated in tertiary membrane filtration (TMF) chambers toremove suspended solids. The performances of the operating systems were compared inorder to determine the influence of the aggregation state of the biomass on the filtrationprocess. No significant differences were observed between the two TMF systems in termsof capacity and permeability. Tertiary filtration of the effluent from the G-SBR was similar tothat of the F-SBR system. The incorporation of wastewater free of suspended solids duringone of the operating periods significantly worsened operation of the TMF systems;permeability decreased by up to 40 percent in both systems. Additionally, other factorssuch as nitrification, the presence of soluble microbial products and the concentration ofdissolved organic carbon seem to play an important role in TMF.Parts of this chapter have been published as:Sánchez, A., Garrido, J.M., Méndez, R. 2010. A comparative study of tertiary membrane filtrationof industrial wastewater treated in a granular and a flocculent sludge SBR. Desalination 250, 810-814.Sánchez, A., Garrido, J.M.., Méndez, R. 2011. Tertiary membrane filtration of an industrialwastewater using granular or flocculent biomass sequencing batch reactors. Journal of MembraneScience 382, 316-322.85
Chapter 33.1. IntroductionIn recent years, granular sludge has been proposed as an alternative for highcapacity SBR wastewater treatment systems. G-SBR systems can be operated at higherOLR than F-SBR systems. Arrojo et al. (2004) reported organic and nitrogen loading ratesof 7 gCOD·L -1·d-1 and 0.7 gN·L -1·d-1 , respectively, in a G-SBR. The OLR valuesrecommended for flocculent SBRs in the literature range from 0.5 to 2.0 gCOD·L-1·d-1(Beun et al., 1999).The basis of granulation is the continuous selection of sludge particles that occurinside a reactor. The part of the biomass that does not settle quickly enough is washed outwith the effluent (Beun et al., 1999). However, a main drawback of G-SBR systems is thepresence of suspended solids that are washed out with the treated effluent. Therefore, asuitable post-treatment process may be required to fulfil local requirements for the amountof total suspended solids (TSS) in the effluent, which can be accomplished usingmembrane filtration units, depth filters, surface filters or external settlers (Arrojo et al.,2004).Tertiary filtration, especially depth filtration, has been used to remove suspendedsolids from secondary treated waters. However, in recent years, the use of tertiarymembrane filtration (TMF) systems is becoming more common. Low-pressure tertiarymembranes have been proved to meet stringent standards. Membranes are a physicalbarrier to suspended solids that are larger than the membrane pore size. Micro- andultrafiltration membranes (MF/UF) have been used since the early 1990s for drinking waterproduction. They can also be used to remove particulate and colloidal matter from settledsecondary effluents, which increases the effectiveness of disinfection with either ultravioletradiation or ozone for reuse applications (Tchobanoglous et al., 1998; Lubello et al., 2003).Thus, compared to depth filtration, tertiary MF or UF membrane treatments produce waterof better microbiological quality that is also free of suspended solids. This should be takeninto account when water will be reused or discharged into sensible areas.Fouling is the main drawback associated with the application of membranetechnology for wastewater treatment (Kimura et al., 2005; Meng et al., 2009; Drews, 2010).Fouling decreases the permeability of a membrane, limits flux and shortens the life ofmembrane modules, thus increasing both the capital and the operating costs of filtrationsystems. Membrane fouling is the result of complex phenomena that are not yetcompletely understood.86
Page 3:
UNIVERSIDAD DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTE
Page 6 and 7:
padres Macario y Marisa, les agrade
Page 8 and 9:
2.1.2. Nitrogen compounds 662.1.2.1
Page 10:
Chapter 4: Combining UASB and MBR f
Page 14 and 15:
Objetivos y resumenEsta tesis se en
Page 16 and 17:
Objetivos y resumenpermeabilidad de
Page 18 and 19:
Objetivos y resumenuno de los pará
Page 20 and 21:
Objetivos y resumenel sistema propu
Page 22:
Objetivos y resumenconcentraciones
Page 25 and 26:
Obxectivos e resumoauga tratada. O
Page 27 and 28:
Obxectivos e resumoNo Capítulo 3,
Page 29 and 30:
Obxectivos e resumog·L -1 , valore
Page 31 and 32:
Obxectivos e resumoparámetros clav
Page 34 and 35:
Objectives and summaryThis thesis i
Page 36 and 37:
Objectives and summaryOn the basis
Page 38 and 39:
Objectives and summaryfrom the MBR
Page 40 and 41:
Objectives and summaryconsidering t
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 1IntroductionSummaryIn this
Page 44 and 45:
IntroductionThe combination of memb
Page 46 and 47:
IntroductionThe membranes should ha
Page 48 and 49: Introductionof water. Energy saving
Page 50 and 51: number of plants (cum. values)Intro
Page 52 and 53: IntroductionSubmerged MBR system in
Page 54 and 55: Introductionchanges of the foulant
Page 56 and 57: Introductionof 2% NaOH and 0.5% cit
Page 58 and 59: IntroductionFigure 1.8. Posible rel
Page 60 and 61: IntroductionSide-stream MBRs involv
Page 62 and 63: Introductionutilizes the advantages
Page 64 and 65: Introductionmeans of settlers, of s
Page 66 and 67: IntroductionUASB, achieving total n
Page 68 and 69: IntroductionEvenblij, H., van der G
Page 70 and 71: IntroductionMtinch, E.V., Ban, K.,
Page 72: IntroductionYang, S., Yang, F., Fu,
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 22.1. Liquid phaseIn this s
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 2where:M fas: molarity of F
Page 79 and 80: Acetic Acid (mg·L -1 )Chapter 2VFA
Page 81 and 82: N-NO 2-(mg·L -1 )Chapter 22.1.2.2.
Page 83 and 84: N-NO 3-(mg·L -1 )Chapter 2interfer
Page 85 and 86: P-PO 43-(mg·L -1 )Chapter 2Interfe
Page 87 and 88: Chapter 2alkalinity (IA), which is
Page 89 and 90: Chapter 22.2.3. Sludge volumetric i
Page 91 and 92: Chapter 2eq. 2.10eq. 2.11eq. 2.12Th
Page 93 and 94: Carbohydrate (mg·L -1 )Chapter 2In
Page 95 and 96: TEP (mgXG·L -1 )Chapter 22.4.4.4.
Page 97: Chapter 2Ripley, L.E., Boyle, W.C.,
Page 101 and 102: Chapter 3same in both modules; tap
Page 103 and 104: Chapter 3phases were varied (table
Page 105 and 106: Chapter 3to time was higher than 10
Page 107 and 108: COD removal (%)Chapter 3120100Perio
Page 109 and 110: DTN and N-NH 4+ (mg·L-1 )DTN and N
Page 111 and 112: Chapter 3operated with high MLTSS c
Page 113 and 114: TMP (kPa)TMP (kPa)TMP (kPa)TMP (kPa
Page 115 and 116: SMP carbohydrates (mg·L -1 )Chapte
Page 117 and 118: Volume (%)Chapter 3Therefore, the c
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 3identical to that of the c
Page 121 and 122: Chapter 3Massé, A. Spérandio, M.,
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 44.1. IntroductionThe appli
Page 125 and 126: Chapter 4support were added in this
Page 127 and 128: Chapter 4This cleaning was performe
Page 129 and 130: COD (mg·L -1 )COD removal (%)OLR (
Page 131 and 132: Chapter 4the recirculation ratio be
Page 133 and 134: (mg·L -1 )Chapter 4and ammonium) n
Page 135 and 136: Chapter 4recirculation from the MBR
Page 137 and 138: Chapter 4days 57 (period I) and 316
Page 139 and 140: Chapter 4excellent COD removal perf
Page 141 and 142: Chapter 4Rosenberger, S., Evenblij,
Page 143 and 144: Chapter 55.1. IntroductionAnaerobic
Page 145 and 146: Chapter 55.3. Material and methods5
Page 147 and 148: Chapter 5represented an increment o
Page 149 and 150:
Chapter 5operating with similar mem
Page 151 and 152:
Chapter 5behaviour might be related
Page 153 and 154:
Fouling Rate (Pa·min -1 )Fouling R
Page 155 and 156:
Concentration (mg·L -1 )DOC (mg·L
Page 157 and 158:
Chapter 5in table 5.3 showed that h
Page 159 and 160:
Chapter 5Ho, J., Sung, S. 2010. Met
Page 162 and 163:
Chapter 6Denitrification with disso
Page 164 and 165:
Denitrification with dissolved meth
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
(mg·L -1 )Denitrification with dis
Page 176 and 177:
DTN effluent (mg·L -1 )CH 4 desorb
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Chapter 7Membrane fouling in an AnM
Page 188 and 189:
Membrane fouling in an AnMBR treati
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
OLR and ORR(kgCOD ·m -3·d -1 )pHO
Page 196 and 197:
TEP removed (mg·L -1 )OA removed (
Page 198 and 199:
R col (m -1 )SRF (m·kg -1 )Membran
Page 200 and 201:
BPC, cBPC and TEP concentration(mg
Page 202 and 203:
Cake and Colloidal Resistance (m -1
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208:
Page 211 and 212:
Conclusionessentido, el uso de una
Page 213 and 214:
Conclusionesensuciamiento de la mem
Page 215 and 216:
Conclusiónspresenza de soporte de
Page 217 and 218:
Conclusións6. Aplicabilidade e per
Page 219 and 220:
ConclusionsMoreover, biomass concen
Page 221 and 222:
Conclusionstechnology and interesti
Page 223 and 224:
List of symbolsHFHRTHyVABHollow Fib
Page 225 and 226:
List of symbolsFR/J Normalized Foul
Page 227 and 228:
List of publicationsBrand, C., Sán
Page 229:
List of publicationsConference on E
show all

Combining submerged membrane technology with anaerobic and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?