The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane

Table 3.4 Comparative pilot plant trials
hand it is widely recognised that analogues can never satisfactorily represent real
sewage, particularly so in the case of such crucially important parameters as fouling
propensity, and can be extremely expensive to produce. For pilot trials of MBR technologies
of a reasonable scale (i.e. based on a small number of full-scale membrane modules),
conducting trials based on real feedwaters is always preferred. A number of such
trials have been carried out since around the turn of the millennium which permit a useful
technology comparison (Table 3.4), albeit with certain caveats. The studies identified
in Table 3.2 all employ at least one full-scale membrane module per bioreactor and at
least three different technologies. Not all of these studies have been published, however.
3.2.2 Beverwijk wastewater treatment plant, the Netherlands
Design 135
Technology Reference
tested
Adham et al. van der Tao et al. Honolulu Lawrence Trento Eawag
(2005) Roest et al. (2005) et al.
(2002) (2005)
Zenon � � � � � �
Kubota � � � � � �
Mitsubishi � � � � �
Rayon
Norit X-Flow – � –
Huber (�) �
Memcor � � �
Toray �
An extensive comparative pilot trial was carried out at Beverwijk–Zaanstreek wastewater
treatment works between 2000 and 2004, with a substantial body of work
published in 2002 (van der Roest et al., 2002). The work represents one of the earliest
large-scale comparative pilot trials and was conducted by DHV in collaboration
with the Dutch Foundation of Applied Water Research (STOWA). The ultimate goal
of the work was the construction of a number of full-scale plants of 60–240 megalitres
per day (MLD) capacity in the Netherlands, scheduled for installation between
2003 and 2006. Results from trials on four MBR systems of 24–120 m 3 /day capacity
were published in the 2002 report. The four technologies originally tested were
Kubota, Norit X-Flow, Mitsubishi Rayon and Zenon. Subsequent reports by this
group (Lawrence et al., 2005; Schyns et al., 2003) have not contained the same level
of technical detail regarding operation and maintenance.
The reported trials (van der Roest et al., 2002) were conducted in four phases:
I. Primary clarification with ferric dosing prior to screening
II. Primary clarification with simultaneous ferric dosing (i.e. downstream of
screening)
III. Raw wastewater with simultaneous precipitation
IV. Raw wastewater with bio-P removal.