P. Cornel and S.

Krause
Technische Universitat Darmstadt, Institut WAR, Petersenstrasse 13, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
(E-mail: p.cornel@iwar.tu-darmstadt.de)
Abstract In wastewater treatment, micro- and ultra-filtration membranes are used for the separation of the
activated sludge (biomass) from the treated water. This offers the advantages of a complete removal of
solids and bacteria, as well as most of the viruses, namely those attached to the suspended solids.
Compared to the conventional activated sludge process (CAS) this technology allows a much higher
biomass concentration (MLSS) whereby the reactor volume and the footprint decreases. With increasing
MLSS, the viscosity of the sludge increases, which leads to reduced oxygen transfer rates. Depending on
the type of membrane and membrane module, the pre-treatment has to be more sophisticated to prevent
clogging and sludging of the modules.
Due to fouling and scaling, the flux through the membranes will decrease with time. The decrease
depends on the water quality as well as on the measurements taken to minimize fouling. Mainly, three
strategies are available: lowering the flux, increasing the crossflow and cleaning of the membranes.
Different strategies including backwash and chemical cleaning in situ, on air and ex situ can be
applied. It has been proven more effective to apply preventive regular cleaning.
Besides the energy demand for oxygen supply which is typically in the range of 0.3 kWh/m3 for
municipal wastewater the energy for fouling prevention is substantial. Immersed membranes need
approximately 0.4 to 1 kWh/m3 for the coarse bubble aeration, whereas tubular modules require 1 to
4 kWh/m3 pump energy.
For proper design of industrial wastewater treatment, the verification of applicability and the development
of adequate cleaning strategies, it is a precondition to run pilot tests for a sufficient period of time with the
wastewater to be treated. More than 100 industrial wastewater treatment membrane bioreactors (MBR) are
in operation in Europe. Data of three case studies for a sewage sludge dewatering plant in UK
(12,000 m3/d), a plant for the treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater in Germany (3,600 m3/d), as well for
revamping of an chemical WWTP . 2,000 m3/d in Italy, are given.
MBRs will be used in future wherever high quality effluent is required, because of a sensitive receiving
water body or due to the fact of water reuse as process water. MBRs are a perfect pre-treatment in
industrial applications when further treatment with nanofiltration or reverse osmosis is considered.
The technique is advanced and can be applied both in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment.
Higher operational costs must be balanced by superior effluent quality.
Keywords MBR; design; pre-treatment; oxygen transfer; industrial applications

Water Science & Technology Vol 53 No 3 pp 3744 Q IWA Publishing 2006

Membrane bioreactors in industrial wastewater

treatment European experiences, examples and
trends

Introduction

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are a further development of the conventional activated

sludge process (ASP), where the secondary clarifier is replaced by a membrane filtration.
Membranes with pore sizes of 0.10.4 mm are typically used. One advantage of this process is the complete removal of suspended solids (SS), including bacteria. However, the
pore sizes of the membranes are too large to separate single molecules or ions. As the
MLSS (mixed liquor suspended solids) is independent of the sedimentation behaviour of
the sludge, it can be increased significantly. Typical MLSS values are in the range
of 12 15 g/L at immersed MBRs up to 30 g/L in tubular systems. By the loss of the
doi: 10.2166/wst.2006.074

37

P. Cornel and S. Krause

secondary clarifier and the increase of MLSS in the aeration tank, the footprint of the
treatment plant is significantly smaller.
Two main configurations of MBRs can be established. At the so called immersed or
submerged membranes, the fouling control is achieved by an air scour at the membrane
surface by an additional coarse bubble crossflow aeration. The necessary shear velocity
is caused by the movement of the bubbles close to the membrane surface. This kind of
membrane is applied in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment and can be placed
either inside the aeration tank or in an external filtration tank. At tubular side stream
membranes, the fouling control is achieved by a high water velocity across the filtration
channel. This configuration is used for industrial wastewater treatment only. All three
applied configurations are shown in Figure 1.
The aim of the paper is to share the European experiences with the MBR process, to
elaborate the differences to the conventional activated sludge process and to present a
possible technical solution for the design of the MBR process. Three case studies chosen
from more than 100 industrial applications show the broad operative range. Perspectives
and further needs round off the paper.
Design of MBRs

As the MBR is an activated sludge process, the same generally accepted design regulations for the conventional ASP can be applied for MBR design. The F/M-ratio is one,
or the key, design parameter and as high MLSS can be achieved the resulting tank
volumes are smaller. The aeration equipment has to be adapted to the resulting high
specific volumetric oxygen rates.
The hydraulic load and the achievable flux are the key parameters for the design of
the membrane surface, whereby the membranes have to permeate the maximal flow. As
membranes are still a relevant expense factor, strategies to avoid or cut peak flows might
pay off.
For the design of the configuration, maintenance and membrane cleaning facilities, it
is important to specify the type of membrane and membrane module as early as possible.
Overall, in MBRs the automation level is higher compared to conventional wastewater
treatment plants due to back flush, cleaning procedures, etc.
Pre-treatment

The wastewater needs to be carefully pre-treated before entering the MBR plant and
there must not be any emergency bypass, so that only pre treated wastewater will enter

38

Figure 1 Options of membrane configurations

Aeration tank

General. The use of membranes to separate the biomass leads to some changes in the
design and operation of the plant. As already mentioned, the MLSS in MBRs can usually
be raised to approximately 10 to 15 g/L for immersed membranes and up to 30 g/L for
tubular side stream membranes.
The aeration tank design is (as in the conventional ASP process) based on the load
(F/M-ratio). Higher MLSS and similar F/M as in conventional activated sludge plants
result in smaller aeration tank volumes. However, a minimum hydraulic retention time
(HRT) should be observed, at least 4 h in municipal MBR according to Engelhardt
(2003).

P. Cornel and S. Krause

the MBR. It is advisable to remove abrasive or sharp edged materials which can damage
the membranes, as well as fibers or hairs which can clog the membrane (modules), and
lead to a dramatic and rapid decrease of the flux. Screens, or even better sieves, with
mesh sizes , 0.5 mm have proved suitable (ATV-DVWK, 2002). Further, a grease trap
should be installed, because oil and grease may influence the flux of the membranes
negatively. The hydraulic equalisation is of importance, because the costly membrane
surface has to be designed according to the maximum inflow. Thus, a storage, and if
necessary an equalisation tank to cut hydraulic peaks, can be advisable.

Recirculation. The filtration leads, locally, to an increase of the sludge concentration

whereby the sludge needs to be returned to the aeration tank. In case of configuring the
membranes inside the aeration tank, the mixing due to the oxygen input and the fouling
control by coarse bubbles is usually sufficient. If the membranes are located outside of
the aeration tank, in general, a recycle rate of 4 to 5 is sufficient.
Sludge production. Our experiences with a municipal MBR show that the surplus
sludge production is in the same range as conventional ASP plants. Furthermore, it can
be shown that MBR can be simulated by the activated sludge model ASM 1 (Henze et al.,
1987) and ASM 3 (Gujer et al., 1999), both by IWA. Thus, in principal, the
biodegradation of organic compounds does not differ from conventional plants.
Sludge characteristics and oxygen transfer. The sludge characteristic differs from
conventional activated sludge, mainly due to the higher MLSS. The sludge viscosity
increases with increasing MLSS. The viscosity of the MBR sludge is non-Newtonian, i.e.
it decreases at higher shear stress (Cornel et al., 2003). The higher viscosity may lead to
a lower a-value ( ratio of the aeration coefficient kLa under process condition to the
clean water aeration coefficient) which is approximately 0.5 ^ 0.1 at MLSS content of
approximately 12 g/L. In Figure 2, a-values of two municipal full scale MBRs are
shown. It is obvious that the a-value decreases at increasing MLSS.
Membranes. The design of the membranes surface area is important for economic
efficiency. The flux depends on the membranes, the modules, the transmembrane
pressure, the wastewater composition and on fouling/scaling. For the design, the net flux
is the important parameter which characterises the overall flow rate including breaks and
back flushes. For industrial wastewater in general, pilot tests have to be performed. The
resulting flux is often as low as 8 15 (20) L/(m2 h) for immersed membranes and up to
120 L/(m2 h) for tubular membranes.
The design has to consider that the initial flux will not stay constant. Typically, the
flux will decrease with time at constant pressure, respectively, the pressure difference has

39

P. Cornel and S. Krause

Figure 2 a-values in dependence of MLSS for municipal full-scale MBRs

to be increased to keep the flux at a constant level. These phenomena are a result of fouling or scaling, hence the accumulation of organics, colloids, particles and precipitates on
and in the membranes.
Fouling can be controlled by reducing the flux, which results in higher membrane surface area and higher energy demand, by increasing the crossflow resulting in higher
energy demand again and/or regular cleaning of the membranes (Judd, 2004).

Membrane cleaning

The membranes require regular cleaning to remove membrane fouling and keep the flux/pressure (or permeability flux divided by the pressure in L/(m2 h bar)) loss in a given
range. Overall, different cleaning procedures have been established and will be described
in the following (see also Figure 3):
backwash with permeate: in situ, automatically every few minutes mainly; hollow
fibre membranes only
chemical enhanced backwash: in situ or on air; chemicals such as acids or oxidizing agents; automatic control mode, e.g. daily
maintenance cleaning: in situ, ex situ or on air; chemicals such as NaOCl, citric
acid (0.5%) etc.; e.g. weekly
intensive cleaning: ex situ, e.g. different chemicals, 35 8C, 12 times per year
Typical chemicals used for cleaning are acids such as nitric, sulphuric, hydrochloric
acids or weak acids such as citric acid to remove scaling, and oxidizing agents such as

40

Figure 3 Cleaning specific terms for immersed membranes

Energy demand

The energy demand of MBRs is higher compared to conventional AS systems, mainly

due to the additional energy demand for fouling control. Immersed membranes require
approximately 0.4 1 kWh/m3 for coarse bubble aeration, the energy demand for tubular
side stream membranes ranges from 1 to 4 kWh/m3 (ATV-DVWK, 2002). Air cycling
(Zenon), or stacking of the membrane modules (Kubota and others), are attempts to use
the coarse bubble energy more efficiently (Figure 4). The energy consumption for maintaining the underpressure is almost neglectable with values around 0.01 kWh/m3 depending on the trans membrane pressure. The energy demand for oxygen supply depends on
the COD load and on the MLSS, as the a-value is affected (see above). Comparing
an MBR with MLSS of 12 g/L and thus a a of 0.5 with a conventional system with an
a-value of 0.7, the aeration energy is by the factor of 1.4 (0.7/0.5 1.4) higher. For
municipal stabilization plants with a typical specific aeration energy demand of 0.3 to
0.4 kWh/m3 thus by 0.12 to 0.16 kWh/m3 higher. Due to high salt content and a wide span
of COD concentrations, a value for industrial wastewater applications is not possible.

P. Cornel and S. Krause

sodium hypochlorite or peroxide, eventually in combination with caustic soda, to adjust

the pH. Frequency, as well as type and concentration of chemicals, depend strongly on
wastewater composition, membrane and module type and are not standardised so far. In
contrast, cleaning strategies are a focus of research with regard to avoiding the use of
chlorinated products (AOX-formation) and to reduce the so-called aging of membranes
caused by the use of oxidizing chemicals which corrode the membranes. Some commercial agents with unknown formula are also offered.

Experience with MBR

In Europe, more than 30 municipal MBRs are in operation, most of them in the UK (20
MBRs) and Germany (8) (Cornel and Krause, 2003). The market is dominated by two
suppliers Kubota (Japan, flat plate membrane) and Zenon (Canada, hollowfiber membrane). The largest operated plants are in Brescia (I) (38,000 m3/d) and in Kaarst (D)
(80,000 p.e./ , 45,000 m3/d). There is little reliable information about the lifetime of
membranes. Although some have been in operation for 5 to 6 years without failures with
annual replacements of less than 3% (Churchhouse and Brindle, 2003), others had to be
replaced after 2 to 3 years because of serious fouling or even mechanical destruction.
Table 1 lists industrial MBRs in Europe resulting from a questionnaire dated February
2002. Meanwhile, although some plants could be added, the table gives an overview of
different applications. The leachate MBRs are dominated by the tubular system, whereas
all other branches are operating mainly immersed MBRs. The membrane flux range form

Figure 4 Air-cycling process for immersed membranes (Zenon)

41

Table 1 MBRs in industrial wastewater treatment (ATV-DVWK, 2002)

Industry sector

P. Cornel and S. Krause

Automobile
Chemical industry
Leachate
Food industry
Tannery
Composting
Cosmetics
Malthouse
Paper
Pharmaceutical industry
Ships/cruisers
Tank cleaning
Textile industry
Rendering plants

Numbers

Flux (m3/d)

1
15
48
9
5
2
3
2
1
15
15
3
5
4

225
70 1,360
10 18,000
100 1,840
40 800
40 50
120 680
100
900
50 1,500
10 740
200
10 1,440
40 960

as low as 8 L/(m2 h) with submerged hollow fiber modules in the chemical industry up to
100 L/(m2 h) with tubular systems for leachate treatment. Therefore, it is advisable to
pilot industrial MBRs.
Case studies of industrial wastewater treatment

Some data may illustrate the status and degree of development industrial MBRs have
reached.
Case A

Treatment of wastewater of a central sewage sludge dewatering plant in the UK (effluent

of sludge dewatering centrifuges and sludge dryers).
Design parameters:
four parallel operated units (denitrification volume 2,300 m3; nitrification tank
9,400 m3) with eight separate tanks to operate Kubota flat membrane units (immersed
inside aeration tank)
Flow: 12,000 m3/d
installed membrane surface: 20,500 m2 (Kubota flat membranes)
max. flux: 24 L/(m2 h)
MLSS is 20,000 mg/L
chemical cleaning: twice per year
Table 2 contains the average values of some key parameters.
Case B

Treatment of chemical/pharmaceutical wastes; high effluent requirements for suspended

solids and P because of a very small receiving water body
Table 2 Average values of case A (Klegraf, 2004)

42

Flow, m3/d
COD, mg/L
BOD, mg/L
NH4-N, mg/L
PO4-P, mg/L
Susp. solids, mg/L

Design in

Actual value in

Actual value out

Value guaranteed

12,000
2,500
1,300
167
30
300

3,000

210

670

45
,3
0.12
0.5

10
3
2
10

Case C

Revamping of an existing wastewater treatment plant in Italy

Low footprint requirements; expansion of capacity on given space
Non/bad flocculating sludge
Design parameters (Brockmann, 2004)
three parallel operated units with Zenon hollow fibre membranes (8,500 m2 in total) in
external filtration units
aeration with pure oxygen but crossflow generation with compressed air
Flow
3,000 m3/d at max. of 100 m3/h
COD
6,000 mg/L
Vaeration tank
2,000 m3
MLSS
12,000 mg/L
DCOD
. 97%
Performance
Requirements of 160 mg/l COD, 40 mg/l BOD and 15 mg/l N fulfilled
Foaming reduced by anti foaming chemicals
Scaling leads to pressure drop increase; regular maintenance cleaning once per weak
with citric acid

P. Cornel and S. Krause

Design parameters:
three activated sludge units followed by four Zenon hollow fibre membrane filtration
units (immersed external)
Installed membrane surface 15,840 m2
average flux 12.5 L/(m2 h), max. peak 17 L/(m2 h)
MLSS is 12,000 mg/L
Table 3 lists the average values of some key parameters

Perspectives of MBRs

The MBR technology is ready to take a major role in wastewater treatment. The experience in recent years shows that this technique is adult and can be applied both in
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment. The performance of a successful design
and operation is possible.
As a result, MBRs are of interest wherever high quality effluent is required, e.g.
because of water reuse as process water in industry. MBRs are a perfect pre-treatment in
industrial applications when further treatment with nanofiltration or reverse osmosis is
considered.
The future of MBRs is also in the expansion of the capacity. Presently, the worlds
biggest municipal wastewater treatment MBR is some 1,900 m3/h (MBR Nordkanal,
Erftverband, Germany). The prices for MBRs are decreasing and with it the potential
Table 3 Average values of case B

Flow
COD, mg/L
NH4-N, mg/L
N total, inorg. mg/L
PO4-P, mg/L
Calcium, mg/L

Design in

Actual value in

Actual value out

Value guaranteed

3,600 m3/d;
200 m3/h
4,000

3,500 m3/d
3,500 (2,000 4,500)

300 (250 400)

500 or . 90%
removal

130

100

38
,1,300

,10 (5 30)
700 900

,1
20 30
,1

50
2

43

P. Cornel and S. Krause

market is growing (e.g. Judd, 2005). The further development and research of membrane
bioreactors will be in:
the improvement of cleaning strategies, especially in the application of safe chemicals
for the water body
the optimisation of the energy demand, improvement of the fouling control (maximum
utilisation of the used air)
membranes
W longer lifetime
W high and stable flux and high permeability
W low cost
W resistant against mechanical forces.

References
ATV-DVWK (2002). Aufbereitung von Industrieabwasser und Prozesswasser mit Membranverfahren und
Membranbelebungsverfahren, KA Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser, Abfall (49) No. 10 (part 1) and No. 11
(part 2) (also available at www.dwa.de).
Brockmann, M. (2004). Membranbelebungsverfahren zur Abwasserreinigung in der chemischen und
pharmazeutischen Industrie. In ATV-DVWK und DVGW Membrantage, June 2004, Kassel.
Churchhouse, S. and Brindle, K. (2003). Long term operating experiences of membrane bioreactors. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Membrane Bioreactors MBR4; Cranfield University,
April 2003.
Cornel, P., Wagner, M. and Krause, S. (2003). Investigation of oxygen transfer rates in full scale membrane
bioreactors. Water Science and Technology, 47(11), 313 319.
Cornel, P. and Krause, S. (2003a). State of the art on MBRs in Europe. Proceedings Applications and
Perspectives of MBR in Wastewater Treatment and Reuse, 28 29 April 2003 Cremona, Italy.
Engelhardt, N. (2003). Membranbelebungsverfahren eine beherrschbare und erfolgreiche Technik
Erfahrungen nach vierjahrigem Betrieb; Membrantechnik 5.
Gujer, W., et al. (1999). Activated Sludge Model No. 3. Water Sci. Technol., 39(1), 183 193.
Henze, M., et al. (1987). Activated Sludge Model No 1. IAWPRC, London, Scientific and technical report
No. 1.
Judd, S. (2004). Submerged membrane bioreactors: a matter of control. In IWA Yearbook 2004.
IWA Publishing, London.
Judd, S. (2005). MBR5 Short Course, Cranfield University, 18 19th July.
Klegraf, F. (2004). Membranverfahren zur Behandlung und Wiederverwendung von Industrieabwasser.
In ATV-DVWK und DVGW Membrantage, June 2004, Kassel.

Authors Note

This paper is based on Cornel, P. and Krause, S. 2004. Membrane bioreactors; design,
experience and perspectives; Proceedings Research and innovation in wastewater treatment, Workshop at Politecnico Milano, Italy, 25/26 Nov. 2004.

44