I.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Introduction to Vegetable (Edible) Oil IndustryThe consumption of vegetable oil increased (3.5%) rapidly nearly twice more than the world
population increased (1.6%) between 1980 and 2000. Predominant oil-bearing crops sourced for
the production of vegetable oil include Soybean, palm, sunflower, safflower, cotton seed,
rapeseed, and peanut. World major exporters of vegetable oils include India, Malaysia, Argentina,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Brazil while countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, the
United States, and Singapore are both major importers of vegetable oils [13]. Vegetable oils are
generally obtained through extraction and refining processes of oils and fats from vegetable and
animal sources. The initial crude oil obtained usually contains free fatty acids, phospholipids,
sterols, water, odorants, and other impurities. Furthermore, refined oils and fats contain small
amounts of free fatty acids and water [14]. Preliminary preparation of vegetable oil raw materials
includes husking, cleaning, crushing, and conditioning after which the oil is extracted through
mechanically pressing or using solvents such as hexane. The oil are carefully recovered from the
extraction process through is skimming, filtration, and distillation depending on the method of
extraction while the refining processes includes degumming, neutralization, bleaching,
deodorization, and advanced refining process for specific demand from industries such as
pharmaceutical (abass o. alade et al.).
Soybeans are believed to have originated in China where written records on soybean production
date back to 2800 B.C. However, India is a leading producer and exporter of soybean. Because of
their varied uses, high nutrient value and adaptability to modern farming techniques, soybeans
now constitute one of the major agricultural crops in worldwide. Soybean processing involves
extracting oil from the beans, milling the spent bean flakes and refining the oil (Andersen et al.).
The Indian soyabean refined oil processing industry is one of the largest in the world in terms of
production, consumption, export and growth prospects. The oil processing industry in India is a
sunrise sector that has gained prominence in recent years. Increase industrialization with literacy
and affluence has given a considerable push to the oil processing industry growth (Sarita et al.)
Currently, India accounts for 11.2 per cent of vegetable oil import and 9.3 per cent of edible oil
consumption. India is one of the largest producers of oilseeds in the world and this sector
occupies an important position in the agricultural economy and accounts for an estimated
production of 28.21 million tonnes of nine cultivated oilseeds during the year 2007-08. India
contributes about 6 -7% of the world oilseeds production. In India Madhya Pradesh is the leading
state in producing soybean followed by Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. On an average,
Madhya Pradesh produces 74 percent of India's total soybean crop; Maharashtra, 13 percent; and
Rajasthan, 10 percent. The crop has exhibited a vast potential as a monsoon season crop mainly in
Central India, and is extending its coverage in the Southern parts of the country (khurana et al.).
1

Effluent from the vegetable oil industry used to be discharged directly into soil or groundwater.
But due to the emergence of environmental consciousness the Pollution Control Boards have
become stricter and imposed stringent norms. The studies have shown that fatty materials within
waste streams from oil industries are readily biodegradable and it therefore follows that these
effluents are amenable to biological treatment.95% of BOD in wastewaters from a soya bean oil
refining plant is removed by using an activated sludge process (Aslan et al 2009). But MBR
technology is a proven approach for high strength wastewater like soybean processing
wastewater.

I.I.1 Sources and Characteristics of Soybean Process WastewaterThe first step in processing soybeans involves cleaning, cracking and removing the soybean hulls,
steaming the bean meats to provide uniform moisture content and rolling the meats into flakes to
facilitate the extraction of oil. Since this preparation step involves only dry processes, no liquid
wastes are produced if dry cleaning of dust, etc. is provided. Next a solvent (hexane) is used to
extract the oil from the flakes in an extractor unit. Spent flakes pass through a desolventizer
toaster, where the retained solvent is stripped from the flakes with steam, prior to being ground
and blended with hulls for soybean meal or other desired products. Solvent from the extractor
unit, which contains approximately 25 percent oil and is called miscella, is directed to evaporators
where the crude oil is 38 separated from the solvent and is directed either to storage or refining. v
Solvent from the evaporators and desolventizer toaster is condensed with water and separated by
gravity for reuse in the system. Extraction condensate is commonly wasted but may be reused in
the boilers if adequate safeguards are provided. Refining of the crude oil involves several steps
including degumming, removal of fatty acids, bleaching, hydrogenation, filtration and
deodorization. Wastewater sources from this processing step are primarily associated with the
removal and processing of fatty acids and the blowdown from the "greasy water" cooling tower
serving the deodorizer tower. Solid wastes consisting of spent bleaching clays, filter cake and
wastes from the initial soybean cleaning step are hauled to a sanitary land fill. Other wastes from
the plant consist of blowdown from a boiler and a "clean water" cooling tower plus regeneration
wastes from zeolite softeners.
Wastewaters associated with fatty acid separation and processing account for most of the organic
matter in the plant wastewater while representing only about 15 percent of the flow. These
wastewaters are also very high in total and dissolved solids, largely due to chemical additions. (In
the separation step, caustic soda is used to convert the fatty acids to oil insoluble soaps. The
soapstock is subsequently treated with sulfuric acid in the acidulation step to revert it to fatty
acids which are concentrated for shipment to soap manufacturers.) Much of the organic matter in
the "greasy water" cooling tower blowdown, which has a high concentration of whitish colloidal
material, is also due to residual fatty acids removed in the deodorizer tower (Andersen et al.).

Table 1. Typical Characteristics of Soybean Processing Wastewater

COD (g/l)

BOD5

7.5211.4
5
(9.130.4
5)

4.066.78
(5.210.2
6)

NH3-N
(g/l)

TN (g/l)

TP (g/l)

Alkalinity
(g/l)

pH

0.020.03
(0.0270.0
02)

0.370.44
(0.410.0
3)

0.0810.09
2
(0.0850.0
04)

1.602.43
(2.130.2
7)

5.46.6
(5.90.
3)

Fig. 1. Simplified schematic diagram of vegetable oil refining processes: sources of vegetable oil refinery wastewater
(acid and technological wastewater) (Chipasa et al.)

1.2 Introduction to Membrane Bio-Reactor TechnologyA process that uses both a biological stage and a membrane module has recently been developed
for wastewater treatment: it is called the membrane bioreactor process [marrot]. Conventional
activated sludge (CAS) systems use suspended microorganisms for biodegrading organic
substances and nutrients in wastewater flows. This is combined with the physical separation of
influent suspended matter in a primary settling phase and removal of the bacterial flocs in a
secondary settling phase. The secondary settling tanks constitute the biggest part of a
conventional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
A membrane bioreactor (MBR) uses permselective membranes instead of secondary settling tanks
(a membrane as applied to water and wastewater treatment is simply a material that allows some
physical or chemical components to pass more readily through it than others. [mbr book]).
Hence, membrane bioreactor is a form of activated sludge process which replaces gravity settling
of conventional ASP and uses micro filtration (0.1 to 10 m) or ultra filtration (0.01 to 0.1 m)
membranes as a physical barrier for the final clarification. A process that uses both a biological
stage and a membrane module has recently been developed for wastewater treatment: it is called
the membrane bioreactor process [marrot]. The separation process is then no longer driven by
gravity but by means of a pressure gradient across the membranes (by definition a positive value
during filtration), called the transmembrane pressure (TMP). This implies that the driving force of
the separation process is now directly controllable (Jiang, 2007).
With a MBR it is possible to remove dissolved and suspended organic chemical constituents
through biodegradation, as well as bio adsorption, and suspended matter through physical
separation like membrane filtration, which results in excellent quality of treated water. Most
importantly it is necessary to maintain appropriate biological conditions in the bioreactor for
retaining a sufficient microorganism environment for removal of the organic constituents. The
microorganisms in the bioreactor can either be aerobic or anaerobic depending on the desired
treatment and conditions in the bioreactor.
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) was introduced in order to overcome some of the draw backs
identified in the conventional activated sludge (CAS) process like sludge bulking, sludge rising
and nocardia foam etc.[thai comp thesis]. Moreover, it offers many more advantages over
conventional systems. Due to the robustness, reliability and flexibility, MBR technology is
gaining wide acceptance in field of wastewater treatment. Conventional ubiquitous technologies
are estimated to be replaced by MBR systems in the coming years. Although MBR capital and
operational costs exceed the costs of conventional process, it seems that the upgrade of
conventional process occurs even in cases when conventional treatment works well. It can be
related with increase of water price and need for water reuse as well as with more stringent
regulations on the effluent quality. Along with better understanding of emerging contaminants in
wastewater, their biodegradability, and with their inclusion in new regulations, MBR may become
a necessary upgrade of existing technology in order to fulfill the legal requirements in wastewater
6

treatment plants (WWTPs) [Jelena Radjenovi]. Moreover, the costs have decreased significant
since its implementation in the 1990s and continues to decrease today. This still makes MBR
technology one of the most established technologies for wastewater treatment, along with the keyfact that MBR systems provide highly consistent quality of water effluents. The most cited market
analysis report indicates a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.2 % and predicts a global
market value of $ 627 million in 2015 (BCC, 2011). This growth rate is much higher than the
other wastewater treatment technologies; further, the market is expected to increase twice over the
present growth rate in the next five years.
Membranes are usually made from different plastic or ceramic materials. Metallic membranes
also exist, however, they are not applicable in MBR technology, The most widely used materials
are celluloses, polyamides, polysulphone, charged polysulphone and other polymeric materials
such as polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyethylsulphone (PES),
polyethylene (PE), and polypropylene (PP). All of these polymeric materials have a desirable
chemical and physical resistance but ceramic membranes are more stable and resistant. They are
also hydrophobic, and it is known that hydrophobic membranes are more prone to fouling than
hydrophilic ones due to the fact that most interactions between the membrane and the foulants are
of hydrophobic nature [5, 6]. [ Jelena Radjenovi]

1.3 Configurations of Membrane Bioreactor

MBR systems can be classified into two major categories according to the location of the
membrane component. Membrane separation is carried out either by pressure-driven filtration in
side-stream MBRs (Fig. 1) or with vacuum-driven membranes immersed directly into the
bioreactor, which operates in dead-end mode (Fig. 2) in submerged MBRs. The more common
MBR configuration for wastewater treatment is the latter one, with immersed membranes,
although a side-stream configuration is also possible, with wastewater pumped through the
membrane module and then returned to the bioreactor. The energy consumption required for
filtration in submerged MBR is significantly lower than side stream configuration (Table 1)
[redjenovic]. A submerged MBR is usually less energy intensive than a side stream MBR,
however recent developments have decreased the extra energy demand and cost for sidestreams
MBR[Sutton]. Both configurations need a shear over the membrane surface to prevent membrane
fouling with the constituents of mixed liquor. Side-stream MBRs provide this shear through
pumping, as with most other membrane processes, whereas immersed processes employ aeration
in the bioreactor to provide it.[redjenovik]
1.3.1 Side Stream or Cross Flow MBRIn this type, membrane component is placed in a separate vessel, outside the bioreactor basin (see
fig 1). In CF-MBR, usually polymeric flat sheet membranes are used and the mixed liquor is
filtered under pressure in a specific outer skin membrane module. The permeate flux generally
varies between 50 and 120 m3/m2/s and the transmembrane pressure (TMP) is in the range of 1 to
4 bar. The first large, U.S., full scale MBR system for industrial wastewater treatment previously
referenced, was an external membrane based system.

Fig. 1 Side-stream MBR with external pressure-driven membrane filtration

1.3.2 Submerged or Immersed MBRIn this type, membrane component is immersed inside the bioreactor basin [see fig 1(b)]. Usually
hollow fiber membranes are used for submerged MBRs. For the submerged configuration, the
filtration is carried out in the aeration basin by suction removal of the effluent. The permeate flux
varies from 15 to 50 m3/m2/s and the TMP is about 0.5 bar. In the late 1980s, Japanese researchers
began to explore application of the MBR technology where the membranes were mounted directly
in the biological reactor, immersed in the mixed liquor (i.e., internal membrane MBR system),
and the membrane permeate or biosystem effluent was withdrawn through the membranes by the
use of a suction pump (Yamamoto et al., 1989).

Fig. 2 Submerged MBR with internal vacuum-driven membrane filtration

Table 1. Comparison of Cross-Flow MBR and Submerged MBR [4;5]

S. No.

Comparative Factor
area

Cross-flow MBR

Submerged MBR

Characterized by higher flux (50-100

m3/m2/s), thus lower membrane area
requirement.

Lower flux (15-35 m3/m2/s) but higher

membrane packing density (i.e., membrane
area per unit volume).

Higher flux membranes with bioreactor

operating at higher VSS concentration and
skidded assembly construction, results in
compact system.
Less susceptible to changing wastewater and
biomass characteristics.

Higher membrane packing density and

operation at bioreactor VSS concentration
of 10 g/l or greater translates to compact
system.
More susceptible to changing wastewater
and biomass characteristics requiring
alteration in membrane cleaning strategy
and/or cleaning frequency.
Off-line recovery cleaning required
every 2 to 6 months. A more complex
procedure requiring significantly more
time and manual activity, at least on
occasion may be required.
An operating life of 5 years may be
possible prior to irreversible fouling and/or
excessive membrane physical damage.

1.

Membrane
Requirement

2.

Space or footprint
Requirements

3.

Membrane
performance
Consistency

4.

Recovery
membrane
Performance
.

5.

Membrane life or
Replacement
requirements

An operating life of 7 years or more can be

achieved with polymerics prior to irreversible
fouling. Operating life of ceramics is much
longer.

6.

Economics

Non-conventional designs translate to

comparable power costs. Comparable capital
cost at least at lower wastewater feed rates.
Higher OPEX & lower CAPEX. Aeration
costs low (nearly 20% of OPEX) & high
pumping cost (60-80% of OPEX).

Power and capital cost advantage at higher

wastewater feed rates. Appears to be more
economical based on energy consumption.
Lower OPEX & higher CAPEX. Aeration
costs high (nearly 90% of OPEX) & very
low liquid pumping costs (higher if suction
pump is used nearly 28% of OPEX)

7.

Typical
energy
requirements

2 to 10 KW.h/m3

0.2 to 0.4 KW.h/m3

of

Off-line cleaning required every 1 to 2

months. Simple, automated procedure
normally requiring less than 4 hours.

1.4 Configurations of Membrane ModuleThere are six principal configurations currently employed in membrane processes, which all have
various practical benefits and limitations. The configurations are based on either a planar or
cylindrical geometry and comprise:
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)
e.)
f.)

Plate-and-frame/flat sheet (FS),

Hollow Fiber (HF),
Multi-Tubular (MT),
Capillary tube (CT),
Pleated filter cartridge (FC),
Spiral-wound (SW).

Of the above configurations, only the first three are suited to MBR technologies (Table 2). The
modules must permit turbulence promotion, cleaning or, preferably, both. Turbulence promotion
9

can arise through passing either the feed water or an air/water mixture along the surface of the
membrane to aid the passage of permeates through it [2]. Hollow fiber configurations works at
higher fluxes, but are operated at lower MLSS concentrations compared to flat sheet
configurations [22].

Fig 3 Hollow-fiber (HF) membrane module

Fig. 4 Flat Sheet Membrane Module

Fig. 5 Spiral-wound membrane part

Striking differences are observed between flat sheet and hollow fiber
membranes applied in full scale MBRs. In both municipal and industrial plants,
10

hollow fiber membranes are protected by stricter pre-treatment and are

cleaned more frequently mechanically (backwash) and chemically.
Moreover, hollow fiber configurations are designed to work at higher fluxes,
but are operated at lower MLSS concentrations compared to flat sheet
configurations. (Pawel Krzeminski et al.)
Table 2. Comparison of Tubular, Flat Sheet and Hollow Fiber Membranes [41]

Characteristics

Tubular membranes

Flat sheet membranes

Hollow fiber membranes

Arrangement

External - recycling

External / submerged

External / Submerged

Packing density

Low

Moderate

High

Energy demand

High (turbulent flow)

Cleaning
Replacement

Efficient
+
cleaning possible
Tubes or element

Specific Fluxes

40-60 m3/m2/s

1.5

Low-moderate
flow)
physical Moderate

(laminar Low
Back washing possible

Sheet

Element

115 m3/m2/s

50.65 m3/m2/s

Membrane Materials-

There are mainly two different types of membrane material, these being polymeric and ceramic.
Metallic membrane filters also exist, but these have very specific applications which do not relate
to membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology. The membrane material, to be made useful, must then
be formed (or configured) in such a way as to allow water to pass through it. The membrane must
also be mechanically strong (i.e. to have structural integrity). Lastly, the material should normally
have some resistance to thermal and chemical attack, that is, extremes of temperature, pH and/or
oxidant concentrations that normally arise when the membrane is chemically cleaned, and should
ideally offer some resistance to fouling.
Polymeric MembranesPolymeric membranes are also usually fabricated both to have a high surface porosity, or % total
surface pore cross-sectional area [Fig. 6(a)], and narrow pore size distribution to provide as high a
throughput and as selective a degree of rejection as possible. Whilst, in principal, any polymer can
be used to form a membrane, only a limited number of materials are suitable for the duty of
membrane separation, the most common being:
polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF)
polyethylsulphone (PES)
polyethylene (PE)
polypropylene (PP)
11

All the above polymers can be formed, through specific manufacturing techniques, into
membrane materials having desirable physical properties, and they each have reasonable chemical
resistance. However, they are also hydrophobic, which makes the susceptible to fouling by
hydrophobic matter in the bioreactor liquors they are filtering. This normally necessitates surface
modification of the base material to produce a hydrophilic surface using such techniques as
chemical oxidation, organic chemical reaction, plasma treatment or grafting. The combination of
good chemical resistance, surface structure and lower cost has meant that these polymeric
materials dominate. The polyolefenic hollow fiber (HF) membranes are amongst the lowest in
raw production cost of all MBR membrane materials. The remaining materials polyacrylonitrile
(PAN), polysulphone, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polytetrafluorethane (PTFE) are much less
common.
Ceramic MembranesInorganic ceramic membranes are composed of Al2O3, ZrO2, TiO2, SiO2, or combinations thereof.
Whilst ceramic membranes are more robust in terms of resistance to fouling and chemical attack,
they remain limited to niche applications in MBR technology primarily due to their relatively
high cost. Ceramic multichannel monoliths have found use in some applications, and recently
ceramic flat sheet configurations have been introduced. Typically, ceramic membranes can work
under temperature up to 300C, pressure up to 2.5 MPa and pH ranges from 1 to 14. The ceramic
membranes are best facility for high strength wastewater like oily wastewater, as it guarantees the
reliability, robustness and stability of the process. Mueller et al. [17] studied two ceramic
membranes (0.2 and 0.8 m pore sizes) for the treatment of oily water Hueneme field in
California. The oil removal efficiencies were about 98% to 99% [9].
TERI University, India has taken initiative to use low cost ceramic membranes prepared from
waste materials like bagasse fly ash. The recent development of low cost ceramic membrane
filters from waste materials such as biomass ash has opened a new MBR research frontier
especially applicable for developing countries. In this work, a 17 L lab scale MBR was fabricated
locally. Experiments were conducted with real sewage and ceramic membrane filters prepared
from biomass ash. The system showed more than 90% removal of COD and NO3-N at hydraulic
retention time (HRT) between 8-16 h [6]. Ceramic membranes are susceptible for fouling if
critical flux is exceeded in operation. Figure 6(b) shows microscopic view of ceramic membranes.

12

Figure 6: MBR most common material: (a) Polymeric (b) Ceramic

1.6 History of MBR technologyThe first MBR installation (Membrane Sewage System-MST) commercialized in the 70s and
80s was based on side stream configurations, was made by Dorr-Oliver, Inc., with flat sheet ultra
filtration plate operated at excessive pressure (3.5 bar inlet pressure) and low flux rate (17 l/(m 2
h)), yielding mean permeability. At around this time, from the late 1980s to early
1990s, other important commercial developments took place. [2]. However,
installation of the first large full scale MBR system for industrial wastewater treatment was at
the General Motors plant in Mansfield, Ohio (U.S.) in the early 1990s [38]. The breakthrough for
the MBR technology came in 1989 with the idea of Yamamoto et al.3 to submerge membranes in
the bioreactor. The lower operating cost obtained with the submerged configuration along with the
steady decrease in the membrane cost encouraged significant development of the MBR
technology. To date, much progress has been achieved on research and practical applications of
MBR systems. In conjunction with this progress, the field of application has broadened from
municipal wastewater treatment and some special areas to the industrial wastewater treatment
sector.[H, Lin et al.]
Table 3. Summary of MBR development and commercialization [mbr book]

TIME
Late 1960s

EVENT
Dorr-Oliver develops first side stream FS MBR

Early 1970s

Thetford Systems commercializes side stream multitube Cycle-Let process for

water reuse in USA
TechSep (Rhone-Poulenc, later Novasep Orelis) commercializes side stream FS
Pleiade for water reuse in Japan

Early 1980s

13

Mid-1980s

Early-mid1990s

Early 2000s

Nitto Denko files a Japanese patent on an immersed FS

MBR.
University of Tokyo experiments with immersed hollow
fiber MBR
Kubota commercializes immersed FS MBR in Japan.
Weir Envig commercializes the side stream ADUF system
based on Membralox membranes.
Zenon commercializes vertical immersed hollow fiber
ZeeWeed technology in North America and Europe;
acquires Thetford in 1993 Wehrle commercializes side
stream multitube Biomembrat system.
Mitsubishi Rayon commercializes MBR based on immersed
fine hollow fiber Sterapore membrane, horizontal
orientation.
USF commercialises vertical immersed hollow fiber
MemJet system Huber commercializes the rotating FS
MBR.
Norit X-Flow develops side stream airlift multitube system
Puron (vertical immersed hollow fiber) commercialized,
and acquired by Koch.
Kolon and Para (Korea) introduce vertical immersed hollow
fiber MBR Toray introduces FS MBR.
Mitsubishi Rayon introduces vertical immersed hollow fiber
MBR Asahi Kasei introduces vertical immersed hollow fiber
MBR

1.7 Present scenario and market status of membrane

bioreactorsAccording to Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Systems Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth,
Trends and Forecast, 2012 2019 (most recent market report), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) is a relatively
new yet fast maturing technology in the area of wastewater treatment. Prevalent technologies in
wastewater treatment such as a conventional activated sludge (CAS) system are gradually
replaced by MBR. With growing population and increasing requirements for sufficient clean and
fresh water, treatment of wastewater is imperative. Of all the MBRs employed globally, a
majority belongs to municipal corporations for treatment of domestic wastewater.
The MBR markets are shifting from the initial regions of adoption such as Europe, U.S.A and
Japan and gradually moving towards emerging economies (China, South Korea and Brazil) with
larger populations and limited fresh water supply.
14

Asia Pacific dominated the market in 2012 and accounted for over 38% of the global annual
revenue. China witnessed an urbanization rate of more than 40% which is probable to accelerate
the water demand primarily for agricultural and industrial applications. It was followed by Europe
and North America which faces squeezed growth rate due to matured market phase.
GE Zenon is estimated to be one of the leading players of MBR systems market that held
substantial market share in 2012.
The most cited market analysis report indicates a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.2
% and predicts a global market value of $ 627 million in 2015 (BCC, 2011). This growth rate is
much higher than the other wastewater treatment technologies; further, the market is expected to
increase twice over the present growth rate in the next five years.
Hollow fiber MBR system is one of the early stage eminent techniques that are still expected to
dominate the market globally over the coming years. Simplicity and high output efficiency has
helped hollow fiber MBR systems sustain relentlessly over the past couple of years. Flat sheet and
Multi-tubular products incurred high operation and maintenance costs which led to their
dampened market growth.
And due to low energy requirements submerged MBRs are expected to dominate in the market
over side stream configuration of membrane bioreactors.

1.8 Advantages and Disadvantages of MBRThe MBR technology offers various advantages over conventional wastewater treatment
technologies such as small space requirements, excellent permeate quality, low excess sludge
production etc. But membrane fouling and high costs are two major barriers in the broad
application of MBR technology which should be minimized. All the drivers and barriers to the
membrane bioreactor technology are briefly discussed below-

Advantages- Membrane bioreactor overcomes various limitations of conventional

wastewater treatment technologies and offers many advantages. Some of them are discussed
below.
i.)

Slower growing organisms, such as nitrifying bacteria and those capable of degrading
complex organics, can be readily maintained in MBRs.

ii.)

Largely unencumbered control of the SRT provides optimum control of the microbial
population and flexibility in operation. Provides opportunity to consider
design/operation of bioreactor at very short or very long SRT (e.g., 1 day or less, or
greater than 30 days) as process requirements dictate versus concerns for achieving a
flocculant biomass.
15

A short SRT maximizes biomass production and its organic content which if the
biomass is anaerobically processed, maximizes digester gas production and therefore
its energy value. A long SRT favors aerobic digestion of biosolids, which may be
attractive under certain circumstances.
iii.)

High mixed liquor concentrations in the reactor allow wastewaters to be treated

efficiently at long SRTs, minimizing biomass yield. Moreover, SRT is independent of
HRT, which results in compact bioreactors and operation on higher organic load,
which further leads to excellent quality of permeate.

iv.)

Non-biodegradable compounds tend to be discharged with the sludge rather than with
the treated water.

v.)

Eliminates concern for changing biomass settling characteristics (e.g. filamentous

growth) and associated cost implications (e.g., polymer addition, chlorine addition to
control filaments).

vi.)

It can be readily configured to achieve biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal if

required. Ideal process configuration to promote removal of certain metals through
external chemical addition, and retention of resulting salts and hydroxides.

vii.)

MBR systems can operate largely unattended except for occasional routine
performance checks and maintenance of mechanical components.

viii.)

Represents an attractive technology for upgrading and/or expanding an existing

activated sludge system plagued by clarifier performance problems or excessive
operational needs, or where site constraints dictate against addition of new structures
[Sutton].

ix.)

MBR systems do not require any more significant operational attention, in each case
much less than CAS process. A process control of an MBR system is reduced to
monitoring the MLSS concentration, occasional adjustments of the chemical feed
rates, and scheduling membrane recovery cleaning. Therefore, MBR is a much better
solution for the small plants where CAS is non-feasible due to its requirement for
constant attention and monitoring [rejonivik].

x.)

MBR system requires only 40-60% of the space required for activated sludge system,
therefore significantly reducing the concrete work and overall foot-print.[aquatable]

Disadvantagesi.)

MBR is widely viewed as being a state-of-the-art technology but is also sometimes

seen as high-risk and prohibitively costly compared to CAS and other more
established technologies. Therefore, unless a high output quality is required,
organizations generally do not perceive a need to invest large sums of money in an
MBR.
16

ii.)

Sometimes, low membrane flux (i.e., permeate production per unit of membrane area),
low permeability (i.e., flux per unit of transmembrane pressure) and limited membrane
life hindered broad application of the MBR technology. Fouling of membrane is the
major reason of limited membrane life.

iii.)

However, research and studies are increasing year by year in membrane bioreactor
technology; yet more extensive analysis and research in required to reduce membrane
fouling and cost (both CAPEX and OPEX) of MBRs.

1.9 Membrane Fouling and Control Strategies1.9.1 DefinitionMembrane fouling refers to the deposition or adsorption of material on the surface of the
membrane or within the pores. It is common and costly problem in membrane filtration
applications. Fouling may cause a decline in permeate flux, increase in TMP, loss of permeate
quality and deterioration of the membrane, etc. [Shodh ganga].
Fouling occurs as a consequence of interactions between the membrane and the mixed liquor, and
is one of the principal limitations of the MBR process. Fouling of membranes in MBRs is a very
complex phenomenon with diverse relationships among its causes, and it is very difficult to
localize and define membrane fouling clearly. The main causes of membrane fouling are:
1. Adsorption of macromolecular and colloidal matter
2. Growth of biofilms on the membrane surface
3. Precipitation of inorganic matter
4. Aging of the membrane (rejonivik et al.)
Membrane fouling which has been recognized as a major obstacle to the wider application of
membrane technology for wastewater treatment has made the researchers to work constantly to
find the causes and to eradicate fouling. Considerable energy consumption and engineering cost is
increased by membrane fouling through reduction of filtration efficiency, increase in frequency
and intensity of cleaning and shortening of membrane lifetime etc.

1.9.2 Types of Membrane FoulingThe common compounds that foul a membrane can be the following four categories: particulate
fouling caused by colloids and suspended solids, organic fouling caused by adsorption of organic
matter, biofouling caused by deposition or growth of microorganism, and scaling caused by salt
precipitation (Table 4).

i.)

Particulate fouling- Small particles can accumulate on the membrane surface,

thereby forming a filter cake, which is referred to as particulate fouling. The
particulates can either be suspended solids, colloids and even microorganisms.
Particulate fouling is the dominant type of fouling in most microfiltration (MF) and
17

ultrafiltration (UF) systems. However, MBRs using MF and UF membranes suffer

more colloidal and organic fouling.

ii.)

Organic fouling- Organic fouling refers to the adsorption of dissolved organic

substances on the membrane surface or in its pores due to the intermolecular
interactions between the membrane and organic matter. Natural organic matter (NOM)
fouling in drinking water filtration processes is a well-known problem. Humic
substance is a major fraction of NOM. However, the filtration of wastewater and
activated sludge has been applied more recently and soluble microbial products (SMP)
fouling has been the main concern.

iii.)

Biofouling- Biofouling refers to the adhesion and growth of microorganisms on the

membrane surface, i.e., the formation of a biofilm, which results in a loss of membrane
performance. Basically a biofilm can occur on all kinds of surfaces, natural and
synthetic, due to the fact that bacteria have developed elaborate adhesion mechanisms.
Reverse osmosis (RO) and nano filtration (NF) processes suffer more of biofouling
due to their low flux and limited membrane cleaning options.

iv.)

Scaling- Formation of a scaling on the membrane surface may occur if dissolved salts
exceed their solubility product. Typically, over-saturation is of concern in RO and NF
operations with regard to CaCO3, CaSO4, BaSO4, SrSO4, MgCO3 and SiO2. However,
RO plants can operate at super-saturation condition (e.g., BaSO 4) without scaling.
Scaling is not dominating in MBR fouling. However, iron or calcium precipitation
may occur in some cases. Acid cleaning should be considered if oxidant cleaning is not
sufficient to restore the membrane permeability.

TABLE 4 Characteristics of Four Types of Membrane Fouling [19]

Characteristics

Particulate fouling

Organic fouling

Biofouling

Scaling

Foulants

Colloids, Suspended
solids

Organic matter

Microorganism

Salt, Metal
cations

Major factors
affect fouling

Concentration, Particle
size
Distribution,
Compressibility
of particles

Concentration,
Charge,
Hydrophobicity, pH,
ionic strength,
Calcium

Temperature,
Nutrients

Temperature,
Concentration,
pH

18

Indicator of
fouling
prediction

Silt density
index (SDI), Modified
fouling index
(MFI), Specific
resistance to
fouling (SRF)

DOC, UV 254,
SUVA

Assimilable
organic carbon
(AOC), Biofilm
formation rate
(BFR)

Solubitlity

Feed water
pretreatment

Coagulation, MF and
UF

Adjustment of1.) pH
2.) Coagulation

Sand filtration,
Biofilter,
Coagulation,
Flocculation, UF
and MF

Acid, Antiscalent

1.9.3 Interactions between Foulant and MembraneThe affinity of foulant to the membrane can significantly influence the membrane fouling and
permeate quality. The interaction between the foulant and membrane is more pronounced for the
colloidal and macromolecular organic matter rather than the particulates due to the fact that they
have smaller sizes. There are many factors which can influence this interaction, e.g., charge, pH,
hydrophobicity, multivalent ions (Ca2+ and Mg2+), ionic strength and membrane morphology.
Fouling can also be divided from the practical point of view on:
1. Reversible fouling that can be removed from the membrane by physical cleaning,
2. Irreversible fouling removed by chemical cleaning,
3. Irrecoverable fouling that cannot be removed by any cleaning.
1.9.4 Fouling MechanismAccording to recognized mechanisms (Fig. 7), the fouling on the membrane occurs as:
1. Complete blocking caused by occlusion of pores by the particles with no particle
superimposition,
2. Intermediate blocking caused by occlusion of pores by particles with particle superimposition,
3. Standard blocking where particles smaller than the membrane pore size deposit onto the pore
walls thus reducing the pore size,
4. Cake filtration where particles larger than the membrane pore size deposit onto the membrane
surface.

19

Fig. 7 Fouling Mechanism

1.9.5 Factors Affecting Membrane FoulingThe factors affecting membrane fouling can be classified into three major groups (Le-Clech et al.,
2006): membrane materials, biomass characteristics, and operating conditions. The complex
interactions between these aspects complicate the understanding of membrane fouling. For a
given MBR process, the fouling behavior is directly determined by sludge characteristics and
hydrodynamic conditions. But, operating conditions (i.e., SRT, HRT and F/M) and feed water
have indirect actions on membrane fouling by modifying sludge characteristics. Figure 3 gives the
relationship between various fouling factors and membrane fouling on the basis of recent
literature [fengang].

Fig.3. Factors influencing membrane fouling in membrane bioreactor [17].

1.9.6 Mitigation of MBR foulingThe successful operation of a MBR plant requires careful management of fouling, since its
complete avoidance is not possible. Recent improvements in fouling control have led to more
favorable projections of membrane life, significantly decreasing overall costs [chang et al.]
Physical cleaning
Physical cleaning techniques for MBRs include mainly membrane relaxation (where filtration is
paused) and membrane backwashing (where permeate is pumped in the reverse direction through
the membrane). These techniques have been incorporated in most MBR designs as standard
operating strategies to limit fouling; although vigorous backwashing is not an option for flat plate
20

submerged membranes. Backwashing (also called backflushing) has been found to successfully
remove most of the reversible fouling due to pore blocking, transport it back into the bioreactor,
and partially dislodge loosely attached sludge cake from the membrane surface. In some cases,
clogging near the membrane surface may also be partially loosened or removed by backwashing
[fane et al.].
On the other hand, physical methods can produce a stable flux without secondary chemical
contamination but are more frequent and generally require more energy. Successful membrane
cleaning procedures generally employ some combination of two techniques, with some workers
experimenting with more advanced mechanical methods, such as agitator-induced flushing (Ahn
and Song 2000)[chang et al.].
a.) Relaxation- Relaxation refers to the periodical stop of the filtration process (e.g., 10 20
seconds every 2 5 minutes). Relaxation allows the removal of the deposited foulants in a
relaxed condition. Relaxation has the advantage of no consumption of production water
and easy implementation in al MBR configurations.
b.) Forward flushing- Forward flushing refers to the periodical creation of a high crossflow
velocity along the membrane surface. Membrane forward flushing is beneficial for the
removing of filter cake and has the advantage of no consumption of production water.
Forward flushing is a unique cleaning method for tubular membranes.
c.) Backwashing- Backwashing (sometimes called backpulsing, backflushing) refers to the
reversion of the filtration flow, from the permeate side to the feed side for hydraulic
membrane cleaning. Backwashing is an effective method to control the membrane fouling.
It is easy to automate and can be performed frequently in MBR systems. However,
backwashing consumes product water and creates a filtration down time.
Not all membrane modules can apply backwashing. It is feasible for tubular, hollow fiber and
capillary membranes. However, it is practically difficult for the flat plate membra, due to lack of
mechanical support to the flat sheet membranes. Therefore, the flat plate membranes normally run
at a lower flux to limit the membrane fouling. The parameters controlling the backwashing

include: backwashing frequency, duration and flux, which can vary in a wide range for
different configurations of MBRs.
Generally, tubular membranes modules can backwash at a higher flux (310 times
filtration flux) but a shorter duration (820 seconds) due to their strong mechanical
strength. The hollow fibre and capillary membranes are normally backwashed at a lower
flux (12 times) but for a longer time (0.52 minutes) [shodhganga]
Chemical cleaning
It is expected that membrane relaxation and backwashing effectiveness tend to decrease with
operation time as more irreversible fouling accumulates on the membrane surface. Therefore, in
addition to the physical cleaning strategies, different types/intensities of chemical cleaning may
also be recommended.
They include:
21

 Chemically enhanced backwash (on a daily basis),

Maintenance cleaning with higher chemical concentration (weekly), and
Intensive (or recovery) chemical cleaning (once or twice a year).
Maintenance cleaning is used to maintain design permeability and helps to reduce the frequency
of intense cleaning. Intensive cleaning is generally carried out when further filtration is no longer
sustainable because of an elevated TMP. Under normal conditions, the prevalent cleaning agents
remain sodium hypochlorite (for organic foulants) and citric acid (for inorganics). Sodium
hypochloride hydrolyzes the organic molecules, and therefore loosen the particles and biofilm
attached to the membrane (fane et al.).
Chemical cleaning is the strongest form of cleaning. It is used to clean the membrane fouling,
which cannot be removed hydraulically. Chemicals can be used to displace, dissolve or
chemically modify the foulant depending on the characteristics of the foulant and chemicals.
Chemicals should be carefully selected according to the type of fouling and the stability of the
membrane material. An ideal chemical should be effective to remove the target foulant, and
finally, cheap. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the membrane fouling, selecting a suitable
chemical is often a trial and error process, if there is no experience on the specific feed water
characteristics.
In MBRs, the most common fouling is organic fouling due to the adsorption of proteins,
polysaccharides, etc. Therefore bases, e.g., sodium hydroxide, are often used to loosen the
organics. In addition, oxidants, e.g., sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide, are the most
often used chemicals to destroy the organics. Acids, e.g., citric acid, are used in the case of iron,
etc., salt precipitation. Proteases are also used in the case of protein fouling, if conventional base
and oxidants cleaning are not effective. In the chemical cleaning process, a few factors are
essential to the cleaning efficiency, i.e., chemical concentration, contact time, temperature, crossflow velocity and TMP. Chemical cleaning can be applied in different ways in MBRs, e.g., in
backwashing (chemical enhanced backwashing), lower concentration but in situ (maintenance
chemical cleaning) and high concentration but offline (intensive chemical cleaning)
[shodhganga].

22

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ALONGWITH CRITIQUE

2.1 General
India is one of the largest producers of oilseeds in the world and this sector occupies an
important position in the agricultural economy and accounts for an estimated production
of 28.21 million tonnes of nine cultivated oilseeds during the year 2007-08. India
contributes about 6 -7% of the world oilseeds production. The Indian soyabean refined oil
processing industry is one of the largest in the world in terms of production, consumption,
export and growth prospects.
Vegetable oils are generally obtained through extraction and refining processes of oils and
fats from vegetable and animal sources. The initial crude oil obtained usually contains free
fatty acids, phospholipids, sterols, water, odorants, and other impurities. Furthermore,
refined oils and fats contain small amounts of free fatty acids and water.
Preliminary preparation of vegetable oil raw materials includes husking, cleaning,
crushing, and conditioning after which the oil is extracted through mechanically pressing
or using solvents such as hexane. The oil are carefully recovered from the extraction
process through is skimming, filtration, and distillation depending on the method of
extraction while the refining processes includes degumming, neutralization, bleaching,
deodorization, and advanced refining process.
Effluent from the vegetable oil industry used to be discharged directly into soil or
groundwater. But due to the emergence of environmental consciousness the Pollution
Control Boards have become stricter and imposed stringent norms. The studies have
shown that fatty materials within waste streams from oil industries are readily
biodegradable and it therefore follows that these effluents are amenable to biological
treatment.95% of BOD in wastewaters from a soya bean oil refining plant is removed by
using an activated sludge process (Aslan et al 2009). But MBR technology is a proven
approach for high strength wastewater like soybean processing wastewater.
Membrane bioreactor is a form of activated sludge process which replaces gravity settling
of conventional ASP and uses micro filtration (0.1 to 10 m) or ultra filtration (0.01 to 0.1
m) membranes as a physical barrier for the final clarification. A process that uses both a
biological stage and a membrane module has recently been developed for wastewater
treatment: it is called the membrane bioreactor process [marrot]. The separation process is
then no longer driven by gravity but by means of a pressure gradient across the
membranes (by definition a positive value during filtration), called the transmembrane
pressure (TMP). This implies that the driving force of the separation process is now
directly controllable (Jiang, 2007).
To achieve high quality of treated wastewater and to overcome obstacles like sludge
bulking, MBR technology is an attractive and robust technology could be implied for
advanced wastewater treatment.
23

2.2Application of membrane bioreactor technology in treating high

strength industrial wastewater: a performance review
Zainura Zainon Noor et al. analysed that high strength wastewater can be successfully
treated by using membrane bioreactor (MBR) in different conditions according to the
types and characteristics of wastewater and this has been demonstrated by the use of MBR
in textile and food industries and also MBR parameters operational control. High strength
wastewater contains fats, oil and grease or other organic or inorganic compounds in great
amount according to the types of sources that take part. Several factors need to be taken
into consideration during the operation such as hydraulic retention time (HRT), solid
retention time (SRT), mix liquor suspended solid (MLSS), food to microorganism (F/M),
transmembrane pressure (TMP) and flux. Fouling factors need to be taken seriously
because they are the major problems affecting the performance of the MBR and quality of
the effluent. There are specific methods to reduce and clean the clogging membrane
depending on the level of severity of the fouling. Besides that, the performance of MBR in
removing soluble organic waste can be increased by adding a fouling reducer such as
powdered activated carbon (PAC).
By controlling the parameters such as SRT, HRT, TMP, Flux and MLSS to an optimum
condition, the best performance of MBR can be produced. For wastewater with very high
pollutant loading, it may need to be treated prior to entering MBR to avoid membrane
fouling. However, there are some methods to reduce the fouling problems such as physical
and chemical cleanings and also by using biofouling reducer (BFR) to enhance the
performance of MBR.
2.3Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment:
applicability and selection of optimal system configuration.
Sutton et al. concluded that the membrane biological reactor (MBR) configuration has
proven to be optimal for treatment of many industrial wastewaters when treatment
efficiency is an important consideration. Industrial applications have ranged from nitrogen
removal from food processing wastewaters to use of the technology to deal with complex
organics in wastewaters originating from the production of pharmaceuticals and the
manufacture of polymeric membrane materials. The immersed MBR was typically more
cost-effective than the external membrane.
The technical advantages of the external membrane configuration, and recent significant
membrane and system design advances resulting in reductions in operating power costs,
have translated to broader application of this configuration. External membrane MBRs
have recently been designed to treat wastewater flows as high as 3785 m3/day.
In the MBR configuration, a high concentration of biomass measured as volatile
suspended solids (VSS) (i.e., normally greater than 10 g/l) is achieved by absolute
retention of suspended matter with a particle size much smaller than that characterizing a
24

bacterial cell (i.e., typically 0.3 to 0.5 microns) through use of a micro filtration or ultra
filtration membrane unit process. VSS concentration values in excess of 30 g/l have been
maintained in external membrane based MBR systems. The external membrane MBR
configuration is preferred versus the internal membrane configuration, for a number of
technical reasons. Recent membrane and system design advances have resulted in
comparable economics for external versus internal membrane MBRs over a much broader
wastewater flow rate range.Future developments are likely to include the emergence of
cost-effective anaerobic MBR systems and full scale application of alternative MBR
configurations in which membranes are used for other purposes than simply biomasseffluent separation.
2.4Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment: A
Critical Review
Hongjun lin et al. reviewed that Membrane fouling and its consequences in terms of plant
maintenance and operating costs remain the critical limiting factors affecting the
widespread application of MBRs for industrial wastewater treatments. Although intensive
efforts have been dedicated to the study on membrane fouling mechanisms and control,
most of these efforts have been focused on municipal wastewater treatment. It is necessary
to develop more effective and easier methods to control and minimize membrane fouling,
especially in large-scale applications for industrial wastewater treatments, considering the
unique characteristics of industrial wastewaters.
Anaerobic treatment would offer additional benefits when treating some industrial streams
characterized by their high organic strength. However, a review of literature shows that the
research and application efforts regarding
AnMBR are very limited. Further efforts are needed to explore reliable AnMBR systems
suitable for industrial wastewater treatments.
Bioaugmentation offers considerable advantage in dealing with the problems of bacterial
acclimatization, toxicity of compounds, and restart of the system. Because industrial
wastewaters typically contain toxicants, bioaugmentation of special bacteria responsible
for utilizing various toxicants would improve the performance of the whole system.
However, the bacteria suitable for bioaugmentation have to meet some criteria. For
example, they must be catabolically active to degrade specific compounds, and be
competitive, and hence persistent, after being introduced into biotreatment systems. They
also should be compatible with indigenous microbial communities so that they will not
adversely affect the indigenous microbial communities. Therefore, selection of candidate
bacteria for bioaugmentation is a complicate work and costs much.
A comparison between industrial wastewater and municipal wastewater treatments
suggests that more attention should be paid on membrane fouling control in industrial
wastewater treatments. Considering the significantly different wastewater characteristics,
research needs for industrial wastewater treatments should focus on development of
25

reliable high-rate anaerobic MBR systems and bioaugmentation. However, aerobic

treatment was much more efficient for municipal wastewater treatment.
2.5A review of membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology and their
applications in the wastewater treatment systems
It was reviewed by Kader et al. that the treatment in the MBR system provides a high
degree of treatment in terms of suspended solids and organic matter removal. Also the
process can be run in a nitrification/ denitrification mode to remove nitrogen compounds,
and can be combined with the use of a coagulant for phosphorus removal. The MBR
technology has great potential in wide ranging applications including municipal, industrial
wastewater treatment and solid waste digestion.
2.6 Treatment and recycling of wastewater by submerged hollow fiber

membrane

Dewen He et al. studied the effects of experimental conditions including the MBR
equipped novel device and different operating modes on permeate flux. The results show
that the MBR equipped novel device can reduce the resistance and enhance the flux,
decreasing the total resistance (Rt = 9.649) to 5.962 and increasing the permeate flux to
15-20 l/m2 hr. The permeate flux of intermittent operating mode is more than that of
continuous operation and the value of the permeate flux is between 15 l/m2 hr and 20 l/m2
hr. The MBR equipped novel device which adopting intermittent operating mode is most
effective in this study and the value of permeate flux is between 20 l/m2 hr and 25 l/m2 hr.

2.7 Treatment of food industry wastewaters in membrane bioreactor

Application of membrane bioreactor (MBR) was investigated by Jakopovic et al. as a
treatment process for two different types of food industry wastewaters: an oil plant
wastewater and wastewater from beverage production.
In beverage production membrane bioreactor achieved effective and stable organic
compounds removal from the wastewater (COD=94 %, TOC=94 %, BOD5= 98 %) during
all period of experiment. Facility had conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment
which could not treat wastewater satisfactorily due to the frequent changes in the
wastewater composition and flow rate. Therefore, membrane bioreactor with immersed
membrane was tested for wastewater treatment to compare the two technologies. Average
percent of COD removal with membrane bioreactor for treatment of wastewater from
vegetable oil production was 75%, while fats and oils were removed with an average of
86%. Best treatment efficiency was achieved by treatment of mixed wastewaters from all
of the sources where COD was removed with 91% and oil and grease with 95% efficiency.
Activated sludge was successfully kept in the bioreactor by immersed membrane so that
stable concentration of activated sludge biomass could be maintained in spite of large
26

fluctuations in the composition of the wastewater. Stable and uninterrupted filtration was
obtained by using backwash cleaning and by maintaining constant flow and aeration rate.
This type of wastewater treatment ensures large return of processed water for reuse, which
enables more efficient water management and considerable reduction in wastewater
discharge cost.
2.8 Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment: A review
with cost considerations
Simon Judd et al. concluded that the side-stream configuration has a higher total energy
cost, by up to two orders of magnitude, compared with the submerged system due to the
recycle component. The submerged configuration operates more cost effectively than the
side-stream configuration with respect to both energy consumption and cleaning
requirements, with aeration providing the main operating cost component as it is required
for both mixing and oxygen transfer. On the other hand, the lower flux under which the
submerged system operates implies a higher membrane area and thus a higher associated
capital cost. It is concluded that the MBR is a highly effective treatment process for
wastewater treatment in areas requiring a high quality effluent (such as discharge to
bathing waters or water reuse) or specialization in the microbial community (e.g. high
strength liquors, effective nitrification). Side-stream systems have liquid pumping costs
6080% of the total costs, and this along high cleaning requirements leads to much higher
operating costs compared with submerged systems, although the capital costs and
footprints are smaller, as the membrane area required is smaller.

2.9

Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR) for treatment of

textile dye wastewater towards developing novel MBR process

Deowan et analyzed the application of a submerged membrane bioreactor (SMBR) with

commercial membrane module and novel MBR modulefor the treatment of model textile
dye wastewater (MTDW). For this work, MTDW was developed and a pilot-scale
automated SMBR unit was applied to carry out the tests with this model wastewater. The
hydraulic volume of MBR model was 57 litres. One flat sheet commercial MBR module
was submerged in the reactor. The module consisted of 3 sheets, with 25 cm 25 cm
dimensions of each sheet covering total active membrane area of 0.33 m 2. To reach the
target, different MBR process parameters like COD, BOD, TOC, pH, conductivity, flux,
TMP, MLSS, colour contents, air supply, O 2 consumption, HRT, SRT, drying residue,
nutrients etc. have been investigated. It is reported that under the operating conditions of
permeate flux of 4 L/m2h, around 50 mbar of TMP, 12 g/L of MLSS, 40-80 h of HRT, 1.0
m3/h of air supply to MBR reactor, pH of 8.20.2- 10.50.2 and temperature of 182 C,
the COD removal efficiency was around 90% for 2450 mg/L inlet COD fed to the
membrane bioreactor and Red and Blue colour removal efficiencies were 25-70% and 2050% respectively. In order to develop novel MBR process, a novel MBR module has
already been applied replacing the commercial one and the preliminary results carried out
using novel MBR module shows bit higher COD and colour removal efficiencies.

27

2.10 Feasibility study for evaluating the client application of

membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology for decentralized
municipal wastewater treatment in Vietnam
Miriam Sartor et al. investigated the results of the pilot studies concerning COD and
nitrogen removal are more than 95% of COD load and 80% of total nitrogen were
removed. The turbidity of the effluent was less than 5 NTU. The overall conclusion is that
decentralised or semi-central plants can be started in these countries to recover water at the
source of pollution. Membrane-supported bioreactor (MBR) technology is one eminently
important process for decentralised wastewater treatment plants. It is possible to degrade
the organic substances with biological wastewater treatment and to purify water of
suspended solids in one step. The treated water meets standards and is free of
microorganisms, thus it can be re-used directly.
2.11 Experimental investigation
membrane bioreactor

of

oily

water

treatment

by

In this study, Molwa et al.analysed applicability of membrane bioreactor (MBR)

experimentally for the treatment of oil field wastewater (produced water). This type of
wastewater is characterised with relativity moderate to high amount of salt and oil. The
normal bacteria which are growing in conventional activated sludge and MBR cannot
withstand at these adverse conditions, therefore, different groups of bacteria were isolated
and adapted for surveying under high salinity conditions. The performance and efficiency
of these bacteria in the degradation of model oil has been studied. The results showed that
the bacterial consortium can degrade two models of hydrocarbons (hexadecane and
phenanthrene) in the presence of salt very effectively.
The oil degrades in the MBR with high extent. The results show that achieving 100%
removal in permeate is possible. The initial concentration of oil in the feed tank
dramatically reduced after 10 or 15 h. Further degradation is achieved during 10 days of
operating the system. Increasing TDS and COD in the inlet feed increased required HRT
but still it is rather short. This shows that the oil is mainly composed of biodegradable
form of hydrocarbons.
Since that the microorganism (bacteria) were isolated from the environment with high
salinity, it is expected that with lowering the salt concentration the performance reduces.
Obtained results show that even without any salt the bacteria are still capable to degrade
the oil. Therefore, it may be concluded that the bacteria belongs to halotolerant group with
activity at low and high salt concentrations.
2.12 Performance of Aerobic MBR Treating High Strength Oily
Wastewater at Mesophilic Thermophilic Transitional Temperatures
Nakhla et al. studied the performance of an aerobic membrane-coupled bioreactor (MBR)
operating at mesophilic- thermophilic transitional temperatures (40C) treating oily
rendering wastewater has been evaluated in terms of COD, BOD5, oil and grease, solids
28

and ammonia removal at 5 and 10-day HRT. The COD removal efficiency increased from
78% to 96%, BOD5 removal from 87 to 99% and oil and grease removal from 92 to 95%
with the increase in hydraulic retention time (HRT) from 5 to 10 days. The operation at a
typically high temperatures showed promise as a treatment solution due to the low sludge
yields of 0.03 g VSS/g COD. The ammonia-N removal efficiencies across the reactor was
69% to79% at 5-day and 10-day HRT. The 5-day HRT proved insufficient contact time for
complete biodegradation as evident from the presence of readily biodegradable VFA in the
effluent.
2.13 Performance evaluation of a submerged membrane bioreactor
for the treatment of brackish oil and natural gas field produced
water

After one year operation of lab-scale MBR system for the treatment of produced water,
Koyuncu et al. concluded that a stable performance is obtained in spite of the variations in
the influent at different SRTs. Although the COD removal in the bioreactor slightly
increased with shortened SRT, the total COD removal efficiency of the MBR process
could be kept over 8085% independent of SRT. The COD removal rate slightly increased
with SRT due to the higher concentration of biomass which may decompose organic
compounds. The increase of sludge age increased the removal efficiency of oil and grease
dramatically from 60% to 85%. The hydrocarbons removal efficiency of 99% was
achieved. The
MBR removed almost all of the light hydrocarbons from n-C9 to n- C13 and an important
reduction of hydrocarbons ranged between C13 and C40 was also observed. The
corresponding permeability after physical cleaning was restored to 60% and to 95% after
subsequent chemical cleaning.
2.14 Evaluation of using membrane bioreactor for treating
municipal wastewater at different operating conditions
Mohd Noor et al. examined that the combination of biological degradation with membrane
filtration allows for high reduction of chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N). A laboratory-scale membrane
bioreactor was fed with synthetic wastewater to investigate the possibility of simultaneous
removal of organics and nitrogen. The degradation of synthetic wastewater at a hydraulic
retention (HRT) time of 8 h has been studied. Three different concentrations of COD of
the influent were investigated and the averages of these concentrations are 606, 1440 and
2500 mg/L. The initial range of BOD and NH3-N were, 471.6 to 1888.6 mg/L and 19.455
to 53.609 mg/L respectively. Sludge retention time (SRT) was varied between 30 and 35
days. Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) was ranged between 9980 and 26,720 mg/L.
Results showed that removal efficiencies for the MBR varied from 97.8 to 99.9% for
COD, 98.9 to 99.9% for BOD and 91.0 to 99.9% for NH3-N. pH of the effluent was
increased compared with pH of the influent but it was not exceeded the effluent discharge
standards to Malaysian inland waters (pH range from 6.0 to 9.0). The anoxicaerobic
29

MBR is recommended for application in high strength municipal wastewater treatment

plants that subjected to a variable concentration of COD, BOD and NH3-N.
2.15 Performance
Enhancement
of
Recirculated
Membrane
Bioreactor (RMBR) with Dual Effect of Cross Flow Velocity and
Operating Temperature for Wastewater Treatment
In this study, Sapkal et al. carried out experiments at two temperatures, 30oC and 40oC
with varying three different Cross flow velocities of 1m/s, 1.5m/s and 2 m/s respectively.
CFV and temperature had significant effect on performance of recirculated MBR. About
93% (72 mg/lit effluent COD) of COD removal is obtained at 30oC with CFV 1.5 m/s.
Flux declination is large at 30oC as compared to flux declination at 40oC temperatures for
all CFVs. Sludge production in terms of MLSS, is large at 30 oC and minimum at 40oC.
This high concentration of MLSS is responsible for COD removal as well as membrane
fouling. Flux declination is high at 30oC than at 40oC. This study demonstrated that
permeate flux declination is slow with increasing cross flow velocity. It can be concluded
that high CFV decreases the flux reduction which supports the trend of increase of
permeate flux at higher value of CFV. It was concluded that on increasing temperature,
flux increases and flux declination decreases. By investigating the data obtained in this
study, Sapkal et al.conclude that at high temperature (40 oC) TMP increase is low as
compare to low temperature (30oC). It is due to the scouring works more effectively in
higher temperature (> 35oC, thermophilic) conditions than at 30oC (mesophilic) conditions
due to smaller floc size (visual perception). MLSS concentration is low at 40 oC than 30oC
and 33oC. MBR system can achieve high removal efficiencies in wastewater treatment and
that MBR permeate is suitable for urban, agricultural and recreational reuse according to
the quality criteria defined by the various International agencies for water reuse.
2.16 Performance of Lab-Scale Membrane Bioreactor for Leachate
from Go Cat Landfill in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Nhu Sang et al. examined characteristics of leachate from the Go Cat landfill in Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam and the performance of a lab-scale bioreactor equipped with a micro
filtration unit (membrane bioreactor; MBR) for leachate treatment. The COD
concentrations of leachate were 39.6-59.8 g/l and 1.1-4.0 g/l in the dry season (Nov. 2003
- Apr. 2004) and the rainy season (May - Aug. 2004), respectively, indicating that intensive
precipitation of the monsoon climate in summer promotes leachate generation and changes
in its quality because of the enhanced degradation and increased dilution. The BOD/COD
ratio over 0.68 through the year suggested that biological wastewater treatment processes
are promising for leachate treatment. The MBR was operated for 90 days at volumetric
loading rates of 1.9-4.2 g-COD/l/d. The microfiltration membrane kept the sludge
concentration high in the MBR. The specific loading rate remained at 0.097-0.616 g-COD
g-VSS-I d-I because of the high MLVSS concentration. The MBR showed high COD
removal of 84-97% throughout the experimental period. Those results suggest that the
effluent COD standard of 100 mg {-I is probably achieved in the rainy season, but some
post-treatment processes are needed, especially for the dry season.
30

2.17 Field testing of polymeric mesh and ash-based ceramic

membranes in a membrane bioreactor (MBR) for decentralised sewage
treatment
M. Balakrishnan et al. investigated the initial findings of field testing of 2 low-cost
membrane filters, viz. 30 m polymeric mesh and 26 m macroporous waste-ash based
ceramic filter, in a submerged membrane bioreactor (MBR) employing batch anoxic and
aerobic conditions. The influent was raw wastewater from a residential complex located
near Delhi, India. The results indicated that the ceramic filter was able to operate for
longer periods without cleaning; however, there is a limit to the transmembrane pressure it
can withstand. The suspended solids retention was high with both filters (average of 96%).
Moderate reduction in chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (NH4+) and total
phosphorus (PO43-) was achieved. The improvements in operation required in such
systems are also underlined. The ash-based ceramic filter appears promising in terms of
both long-term stable flux and high sludge retention in a submerged MBR. However, filter
and module design needs to be improved and appropriate cleaning protocols evolved to
ensure that TMP limits are not exceeded.
The MBR system design has to incorporate solutions to handle large fluctuations in
influent flow and properties; in particular, effective operation in the absence of influent
flow needs to be examined.
2.18 Sewage treatment in a bioreactor with indigenous membranes
from bagasse ash
S. Basu et al. concluded that the recent development of low cost ceramic membrane filters
from waste materials such as biomass ash has opened a new MBR research frontier
especially applicable for developing countries. In this work, a 17 L lab scale MBR was
fabricated locally. Experiments were conducted with real sewage and ceramic membrane
filters prepared from biomass ash. The system showed more than 90% removal of
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and NO3-N at hydraulic retention time (HRT) between
8-16 h. A clear filtrate was obtained (suspended solids <0.2 gl-1). Good sludge separation
obtained was also linked to improvement in sludge settle ability and increased
extracellular substances compared to the starting (seed) sludge. the COD reduction in the
MBR. The average COD reduction was 83.4 % at 6h HRT which increased to more than
95% reduction on increasing the HRT to 8h to 16h.

31

Fig. Photo of sewage in MBR (left), and treated sewage (right) (HRT 12h)

2.19 Ceramic Membrane Bioreactor: potential applications and

challenges for the future
E. Meabe et al concluded the accelerated growth of the MBR technology market during
last years has been traditionally linked to the development of polymeric submerged
membranes for urban wastewater treatment, side-stream ceramic membranes have not
been left behind. Ceramic membranes present noteworthy benefits that make them
particularly appropriate for niche applications of MBR systems, such as the treatment of
industrial effluents or decentralised domestic wastewater depuration. The aim of this study
is to establish the bases for the application of ceramic MBR technology, which offers
certain unique advantages and is characterised by its maximum robustness and reliability
when compared with other membrane-based systems. This work includes a comprehensive
analysis of the scenario for potential use of ceramic MBRs and presents some applications
of the highly hydrophilic Likuid-CBR ceramic membranes. The permeate from the
previous stage is treated biologically with the Likuid-CBR process. The final effluent
contains 1.000 mg/L of inert COD, less than 25 mg/L of BOD5 and no Suspended Solids.
The filtration system operates with a cross-flow velocity of 3 m/s and 120 L/hm2 of stable
flux. The COD of the influent is slowly biodegradable and the design contemplates a quite
long hydraulic retention time of 5 days, corresponding to an organic load of 0.3
kgCOD/kgSSVd.
2.20 Treatment of oily wastewater using low cost ceramic membrane:
Comparative assessment of pore blocking and artificial neural
network models
32

M.K. Purkait et al. analyzed performance and modeling of the separation of oil-in-water
(o/w) emulsions using low cost ceramic membrane that was prepared from inorganic
precursors such as kaolin, quartz, feldspar, sodium carbonate, boric acid and sodium
metasilicate. Synthetic o/w emulsions constituting 125 and 250 mg/L oil concentrations
were subjected to microfiltration (MF) using this membrane in batch mode of operation
with varying trans-membrane pressure differentials (AP) ranging from 68.95 to 275.8 kPa.
The membrane exhibited 98.8% oil rejection efficiency and 5.36 x 10"^ mVm^ s permeate
flux after 60 min of experimental run at 68.95 kPa trans-membrane pressure and 25Onig/L
initial oil concentration. These experimental investigations confirmed the applicability of
the prepared membrane in the treatment of o/w emulsions to yield permeate streams that
can meet stricter environmental legislations (<10mg/L). Subsequently, the experimental
flux data has been subjected to modeling study using both conventional pore blocking
models as well as back propagation-based multi-layer feed forward artificial neural
network (ANN) model. Amongst several pore blocking models, the cake filtration model
has been evaluated to be the best to represent the fouling phenomena. ANN has been
found to perform better than the cake filtration model for the permeate flux prediction
with marginally lower error values.
This work reports the comparative assessment of performance of pore blocking model and
artificial neural network model for the prediction of permeate flux during dead-end
filtration of o/w emulsions using low cost ceramic membrane.
Low cost ceramic membrane was prepared using various low cost inorganic precursors
such as kaolin, quartz, feldspar, sodium carbonate, boric acid and sodium metasilicate. The
performance of the prepared membrane was evaluated by conducting MF of synthetic o/w
emulsions with two different feed oil concentrations (125 and 250 mg/L) at transmembrane pressure differentials (AP) that varied from 68.95 to 275.8 kPa. Experimental
investigations confirmed that the prepared membrane can be used for the treatment of o/w
emulsions to yield permeate containing oil concentration less than 10 mg/L. Subsequent
analysis of different pore blocking models inferred that the membrane fouling was due to
cake filtration. A comparative assessment of permeate flux decline was carried out using
both conventional pore blocking models and back propagation-based multi-layer feed
forward artificial neural network (ANN) model. Based on several investigations and
theoretical studies, it is herewith inferred that while cake filtration enables the prediction
of flux as well as identification of optimum conditions for operation, the ANN model has
been suitable to predict the permeate flux with high degree of accuracy over wide choices
of independent variables such as time, feed concentration and pressure differentials. In
comparison, it was found that the permeate flux can be predicted better using ANN model
than using cake filtration model. In summary, the low cost ceramic membrane has been
found to be promising for treatment of oil-water emulsions and ANN-based "black box"
model can be used for prediction of permeate flux required for the design of membranebased separation processes.

2.21 Investigations on the use of different ceramic membranes for

efficient oil-field produced water treatment
33

Mehrdad Ebrahimi et al. investigated efficient performance of the combination of

treatment processes for oilfield produced water generated from oil tank dewatering was
investigated in the study presented below. By-produced wastewater is generated in
significant quantity during exploitation of crude oil and gas from onshore and offshore
production operations. This wastewater, commonly referred to as produced water, has
distinctive characteristics, due to their organic and inorganic compounds. However, these
characteristics change from well to well. The treatment process investigated here consists
of a pre-treatment step utilizing microfiltration (0.1 and 0.2 m pore size filters) and/or a
simulated batch dissolved air flotation (DAF), and a multistage post-treatment step
utilizing cross-flow ultra- (0.05 m pore size and 20 kDa molecular weight cut-off filters),
and nanofiltration (1 and 0.75 kDa MWCO filters). Filters used were ceramic membranes.
To determine the separation capability of the processes described, various parameters,
such as trans-membrane pressure varying from 0.5 to 2 bar, cross-flow velocity in the
range of 0.6 to 1.3 m/s, influent oil concentration ranging from 32 to 5420 parts per
million (ppm) and different membrane cleaning methods used were investigated. The
average permeate flux varied from 3.4 to 3300 l/h m2 bar, total oil removal was up to
99.5% and total organic carbon removal reached 49%.It was concluded that the single and
combined treatment processes presented as pre-, and post-treatment steps, which consists
of micro-, ultra-, and nanofiltration systems using different ceramic membranes, were
feasible to remove oil from oilfield produced water and various prepared model solutions.
Total removal percentage of oil content up to 93% with MF as pre-treatment step and up to
99.5% with UF followed by NF as final treatment
2.22 Effect of Hydraulic Retention Time and Sludge Retention Time
on Membrane Bioreactor: Performance in Summer Season
Dawande et al. studied feasibility of Submerged MBR and a hollow fiber submerged
membrane bioreactor was operated at different operating conditions of influent
concentration of COD,BOD, ammonia, phosphates, TSS, VSS etc, temperature (30-32 OC),
HRT (4,6 and 8 hours) and SRT(10,20 and 30 days) and its performance was evaluated for
treating municipal sewage and hospital wastewater. The results have shown a high
removal efficiency of COD, BOD and ammonia which ranged between 92.51 to 97.95 %,
93.10 to 97.63 % and 97.70 to 98.67 %, respectively. While, for TSS and VSS, the
removals were found to reach almost 100 %. Comparatively, the phosphorus removal
efficiency (54.50 to 57.95 %) was found inferior than other parameters. The removal
efficiencies reduced with increase in HRT, while efficiency increased with increase in
SRT. Better results were obtained with residential wastewater as compared to hospital
wastewater. The inferior removals may be due to presence of refractory/toxic
pharmaceuticals present in the latter case. The results of present study have shown that
anoxic and aerobic MBR can be an efficient alternative for treating residential quarter
wastewater and hospital effluents compared to conventional activated sludge system
(Aerobic reactor-Secondary Clarifier) that subjected to a variable concentration of COD,
BOD and ammonia.

34

2.23 A review of membrane bioreactors and their potential application

in the treatment of agricultural wastewater
N. Cicek reviewed the potential applications of the MBR technology for the treatment of
wastewater from agricultural sources. Anaerobic digestion coupled with an aerobic/anoxic
membrane bioreactor could be utilized for treating manure and wastewater from livestock
operations to levels suitable for direct reuse or safe discharge to surface water bodies.
Wastewater generated from industries such as slaughterhouses, meat, dairy, egg, and potato
processing and liquor production could potentially be treated with MBRs resulting in
compact systems producing high quality reusable water. Also effective removal of nitrates,
herbicides, pesticides, and endocrine disrupting compounds may be achieved by MBRs.
Agricultural activities and related industries constitute a potential source of pollution to the
environment. Waste from intensive livestock operations and wastewater generated by the
food processing industry are two streams characterized by high organic and nutrient strength.
Multiple treatment processes are normally required to ameliorate the waste to levels
acceptable for on-site reuse or direct discharge to surface water. MBRs offer a proven
alternative due to their ability to handle high organic loadings and wide fluctuations in flow
and strength. Activated sludge scrubbing may also be able to be incorporated into these
systems for odor control and air pollution management. High quality effluent produced by
the MBR would provide pathogen and bacteria control and assist the facility in complying
with strict environmental regulations. It would also allow extensive process optimization
through internal water recycle and significantly reduce dependence to municipal waste
treatment facilities or to the availability of crop land for waste application.

35

2.24 Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling

Field et al. stated that the critical flux hypothesis for MF is that on start-up there exists a
flux below which a decline of flux with time does not occur; above it fouling is observed.
This flux is the critical flux and its value depends on the hydrodynamics and probably other
variables. And concluded for three different systems constant-flux filtration was realized by
gradually increasing TMP from an appropriate starting value. Under certain circumstances a
constant flux can be achieved at a constant TMP as shown in the filtration of yeast cell
debris and 5% dry weight yeast suspension. The critical and generally low value of TMP
below which constant-flux filtration can be realized depends upon the hydrodynamics.
Below this critical TMP, there will be little or even no irreversible surface fouling.
Fundamentally the process is best understood in terms of a critical flux; the value of TMP is
not of physical significance per se but is crucial in that for a given membrane resistance it is
related to flux and is often the controlled parameter. By correctly selecting the initial TMP
the rate of fouling is greatly reduced because a critical flux is not exceeded. Thus ideally
constant-flux, rather than a constant-pressure, operating mode is to be preferred. A
mathematical analysis of the classic constant pressure blocking filtration laws, with due
allowance for a cross-flow removal mechanism, has been completed. This demonstrates that
36

provided certain terms take finite values of fluxes should exist at which there no decline of
flux with time.
2.25 Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment
Le-Clech et al. concluded that after more than 10 years of intensive research, consensus on
the exact fouling phenomena in MBRs has not been reached yet. Originally, it was suspected
that aeration rate and MLSS concentration had the main impact on MBR fouling.
Notwithstanding their significant effects, new areas of research have been since developed
around the more detailed characterization of these parameters. Efforts now concentrate on
optimizing air distribution along the membrane modules and on more precise identification
of the biological parameters, which have the most influence on the membrane performances.
With the significant changes in biomass characteristics from one plant to another, it is not
surprising to observe different biomass parameters affecting MBR fouling with various
propensities. These disparities are also partly due to the different analytical methods and
instruments used in the reported studies. In other words, the quest for a single fouling
parameter in MBR seems in vain. A large number of recent publications indicate the
biomass supernatant (SMP) and its carbohydrate fraction to be one of the main parameters
affecting MBR fouling. However, the more detailed characterization of the supernatant and
the fouling layer currently carried out also reveals the significant role played by the protein
fraction. The effect of pore size on membrane fouling is also crucial for MBR design, but
the assessment of an optimized membrane pore size is time-dependant. MF-based MBR
systems seem to rely on initial fouling and the resulting creation of a dynamic membrane to
produce high product quality, while UF-based MBRs feature good rejection from the early
stage of filtration. However, this review revealed no clear advantage of using tight
membranes over more open pores (within a given flux range).
Finally, the filtration time (short-term versus long-term), the mode of operation (constant
flux versus constant TMP), the initial stage of the membrane (new versus cleaned), the
operating conditions and the cleaning protocol are also crucial elements when the fouling
experiments are designed and should be carefully selected, reported and analyzed in view of
the results. The critical flux concept and its determination with the flux-stepping experiment
remains an interesting tool to assess fouling propensity for a given operating condition, but
cannot be used for long-term filtration predictions. Instead, the concept of sustainable flux,
for which filtration can be maintained over an extended period of time, is more appropriate
for real MBR plants. Effectiveness and strategies for physical and chemical cleanings are
underreported in the open literature, and there are still opportunities to match cleaning
protocols with the foulant species present. At this stage in time, it is difficult to propose a
short-listing of all the parameters which could predict and/or model MBR fouling. The large
number of studies published on the subject and reviewed in Section 3 reveals the complex
interactions existing between the different fouling parameters. Further understanding of the
nature of MBR foulants and their interactions with the membrane material may provide new
directions for cleaning agents and protocols, and fouling mitigation strategies for MBRs. In
that effort, previous studies reported for flocculation, settling and dewatering of activated
sludge can be used as interesting parallels.

37

2.26 Recent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane

fouling and membrane material
Fangang Meng et al. reviewed recent advances of research on membrane fouling and
membrane material in MBRs. From the viewpoint of fouling reversibility with physical and
chemical cleanings, membrane fouling includes removable and irremovable fouling, in
which the latter will be paid more and more attention to in MBRs, especially in long-term
operation. From the viewpoint of fouling components, the fouling in MBRs can be classified
into three major categories: biofouling, organic fouling and inorganic fouling. The results
obtained from recent investigations on bound EPS, SMP, filamentous bacteria and
hydrodynamic conditions are updated.
In the coming few years, membrane fouling is still a hot issue in research and application of
MBRs. According to recent literature and our own experience, the future study on
membrane fouling should include:
(1) Studies on membrane fouling mechanisms should focus on identification and
characterisation of membrane foulants (i.e., chemical and biological components of
foulants, bacteria community of the foulants). Cake formation, pore blocking, and
EPS/SMP adsorption on/within the membranes could all be important. Of particular
importance could be the interaction and interrelation between these mechanisms and
sludge characteristics.
(2) Development of procedures for the visualisation and characterisation of membrane
fouling in MBRs. Direct monitoring and in situ techniques will offer more useful
information about the formation of membrane foulants.
(3) Development of more effective and easy methods to control and minimize membrane
fouling. Generally, removable fouling is controlled by creating shear stress on the
membrane surface. Although air bubbles are used to promote shear stress and to
enhance the membrane flux, they also have strong impact on biomass characteristics.
Moreover, enforced aeration will need more energy.
Research should be directed to optimisation of the current coarse aeration methods for
submerged membrane modules. Lastly, alternative filtration concepts to limit the
deposition of foulants onto the membrane surface should be developed.
(4) Study the fouling behaviour in full-scale MBR plants in order to reflect the real fouling
behavior.
(5) Development of novel membrane modules for MBRs to reduce their capital costs and
enhance their hydrodynamic conditions.
(6) Modeling of mass transfer and membrane fouling by mathematical approaches such as
CFD, Monte Carlo simulation, fractal theory, artificial neural network (ANN). In other
words, a comprehensive investigation should be performed to understand, control and
38

reduce membrane fouling, especially avoiding severe fouling; it is just like a systematic
physical examination on a person to understand his/her health condition and to avoid
the occurrence of illness, especially fatal diseases.
2.27 Fouling and Mitigation Strategies in Membrane Bioreactors for
Wastewater Treatment
Balasubramanian et al. reviewed on the membrane characteristics, its causes of fouling and
its application in different waste water treatment. It also takes a glance on different hybrid
systems where MBR has been incorporated with some other pre treatment technologies. So
far, the high costs of membranes and membrane fouling are the main factors which restrict
the wide application of MBRs. Over the past few years, considerable investigations have
been performed to develop high-flux or low-cost membranes and to understand MBR
fouling in detail. Despite of worldwide research on the complex topic of fouling in MBR,
many questions still remain unanswered to date. Still by improving the technology and by
coupling MBRs with other unit operations and processes have increased the expected
membrane lifetime and enough full-scale plants have been successfully operated and now
there are more than 3000 MBR installations in operation or under construction worldwide. It
is clear that the MBR technology is becoming increasingly competitive andits future market
position is guaranteed.
2.28 Fouling of membrane bioreactors during treatment of produced
water
Judd et al. studied the potential of membrane bioreactor technology for treatment of oil and
gas field produced water has been assessed. A pilot scale immersed membrane bioreactor
with tubular membranes treating a synthetic analogue wastewater was operated under steady
state conditions. Membrane fouling is examined by both critical flux determination and
longer term trials . Liquid phase analysis has included high performance size exclusion
chromatography (HPSEC) to derive molecular weight grade efficiencies between each stage
of the process. Gas phase monitoring of key components in the feed water including BTEX
compounds (Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) has been undertaken. Overall the
link between the bio transformations of organics from feed to soluble microbial products has
been identified in relation to membrane fouling to provide a framework for optimising MBR
operation.
A study of fouling and biomass speciation for MBR treatment of produced water and
sewage anologues and real sewage has revealed marked differences both in hydraulic
behaviour and foulant species. When fed with the produced water analogue the mean
permeability was found to decrease by 50-65% for each 3 L.m -2.h-1 flux step between 3 and
15 LMH, finally decreasing to 25 L.m-2.h-1 bar-1 at an imposed flux of 18 L.m-2.h-1. At the
same flux the municipal sewage permeability was around 1100 L.m -2.h-1 bar-1. On the other
hand, both the proteinaceous and carbohydrate EPS levels were substantially higher in the
municipal biomass, suggesting that this parameter cannot in isolation be considered to be an
indicator of fouling propensity for a given biomass concentration. HPSEC analysis reveals
39

that UV-absorbing (and hence ostensibly aromatic) organic chemical species in the biomass
differ substantially for MBRs fed with different feedwaters.

40

2.29 CRITIQUE
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have been actively employed for municipal and industrial
wastewater treatments and have proven to be an emerging technology which has developed
a niche in the wastewater treatment sector. Presently, the global market for this technology is
rapidly growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.2%. This growth rate is
much higher than any other wastewater treatment technologies; also, the market is expected
to increase twice over the present growth rate in the next five years worldwide. So far, the
high costs of membranes and membrane fouling are the main factors which restrict the wide
application of MBRs.
Over the past few years, considerable investigations have been performed to develop highflux or low-cost membranes and to understand MBR fouling in detail. Since, MBRs were
less adopted in India due to cost considerations are now gaining warm welcome in
wastewater treatment systems. Also, trials have been made to develop low cost membranes
from fly ash. Despite of worldwide research on the complex topic of fouling in MBR, many
questions still remain unanswered to date. Still by improving the technology and by
coupling MBRs with other unit operations and processes have increased the expected
membrane lifetime and enough full-scale plants have been successfully operated and now
there are more than 3000 MBR installations in operation or under construction worldwide.
It is clear that the MBR technology is becoming increasingly competitive and its future
market position is guaranteed. MBR is most appealing when its small footprint, ease of
automation, and excellent effluent quality are all requirements. It is also most appealing
when flow peaking can be easily addressed. Reuse projects that scalp the flow from nearby
sewers are one of the more obvious examples. Moreover, MBR has the potential to
rearrange our thinking about reuse.
MBR systems still face several research and development challenges when applied to
industrial wastewater treatments. Among the challenges and opportunities are the following Membrane fouling and its consequences in terms of plant maintenance and operating costs
remain the critical limiting factors affecting the widespread application of MBRs for
industrial wastewater treatments. Although intensive efforts have been dedicated to the
study on membrane fouling mechanisms and control, most of these efforts have been
focused on municipal wastewater treatment. It is necessary to develop more effective and
easier methods to control and minimize membrane fouling, especially in large-scale
applications for industrial wastewater treatments, considering the unique characteristics of
industrial wastewaters.
Anaerobic treatment would offer additional benefits when treating some industrial streams
characterized by their high organic strength. However, a review of literature shows that the
research and application efforts regarding AnMBR are very limited. Further efforts are
needed to explore reliable AnMBR systems suitable for industrial wastewater treatments.
Bioaugmentation offers considerable advantage in dealing with the problems of bacterial
acclimatization, toxicity of compounds, and restart of the system. Because industrial
41

wastewaters typically contain toxicants, bioaugmentation of special bacteria responsible for

utilizing various toxicants would improve the performance of the whole system. However,
the bacteria suitable for bioaugmentation have to meet some criteria. For example, they must
be catabolically active to degrade specific compounds, and be competitive, and hence
persistent, after being introduced into biotreatment systems. They also should be compatible
with indigenous microbial communities so that they will not adversely affect the indigenous
microbial communities. Therefore, selection of candidate bacteria for bioaugmentation is a
complicate work and costs much. Applications of bioaugmentation in MBR systems have
been limited in the field and need further studies.
Most of the research reported on industrial wastewater treatments with MBRs has been
confined to bench experiments. Full-scale studies spanning long-term operations have been
limited. Many times, bench testing doesnt accurately predict full-scale results. Attempts
should be made to bridge the gap between success at laboratory-scale studies and full-scale
applications.
This study highlights the lack of standard configuration and design criteria for MBR
systems for industrial wastewater treatments. Therefore, further studies are required to
improve the knowledge of the design and management of these systems to enhance the
treatment efficiency and reduce treatment cost.
There is a short of fundamental information on the operational issues, cost issues, energy
issues, and manufacture cost of MBR systems for industrial wastewater treatments. Wellcontrolled pilot-scale MBR studies are needed to address these issues.
A comparison between industrial wastewater and municipal wastewater treatments
suggests that more attention should be paid on membrane fouling control in industrial
wastewater treatments. Considering the significantly different wastewater characteristics,
research needs for industrial wastewater treatments should focus on development of reliable
high-rate anaerobic MBR systems and bioaugmentation. However, aerobic treatment was
much more efficient for municipal wastewater treatment. Future researchers are likely to
focus on reduction in operating (energy) costs in MBRs for industrial wastewater treatments,
although this is also one of the research needs for municipal wastewater treatment.

42

3. PROBLEM FORMULATION

The Indian soybean refined oil processing industry is one of the largest in the world
in terms of production, consumption, export and growth prospects. The oil
processing industry in India is a sunrise sector that has gained prominence in recent
years. Increase industrialization with literacy and affluence has given a considerable
push to the oil processing industry growth. Currently, India accounts for 11.2 per
cent of vegetable oil import and 9.3 per cent of edible oil consumption. India is one
of the largest producers of oilseeds in the world and this sector occupies an
important position in the agricultural economy and accounts for an estimated
production of 28.21 million tonnes of nine cultivated oilseeds during the year 200708. India contributes about 6 -7% of the world oilseeds production.
In India, Madhya Pradesh is the leading state in producing soybean followed by
Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. On an average, Madhya Pradesh
produces 74 percent of India's total soybean crop. Indore is commercial and
industrial capital of Madhya Pradesh. There are various industrial units of various
genres such as food processing industries, paint and dye industries, chemical
industries and pharma industries etc. Wastewater generated is mainly high strength
wastewater and it is usually treated by conventional activated sludge process.
Ruchi soya ltd is one of the leading industries in field of edible oil and soya
products. Ruchi soya ltd., located at Village- Mangaliya, Indore consumes
approximately 23000 liter of water daily for processing and generates about 450
KLD of soybean processing wastewater from various units of production. This
wastewater generated is high strength wastewater having high values of COD, TSS,
Total Nitrogen, Total phosphorus & temperature and low pH value. Wastewater is
being treated in a common effluent treatment plant by conventional activated sludge
43

process prior to pretreatment of oil and grease trap and equalization tank. Treated
water is being used for gardening purpose, cooling water in cooling tower and coal
ash quenching. Sludge generated is generated in primary settling tank is stored in
hazardous waste storage area. And sludge recovered in clarifier is disposed by usual
methods. Application of membrane bioreactor could result in much better quality of
treated water which could further be used as product processing water and sludge
production can be minimized along with saving energy consumption and space.
Due increasing water pollution and degrading quality of ground & surface water, it
is essential to provide best treatment facilities like MBR technology, so that water
could be reused. Membrane bioreactor technology has been successfully used for
treatment of oily and high strength wastewater resulting in excellent quality of
permeate and very good COD, TSS, nutrients and oil removal efficiencies. But cost
consideration and membrane fouling are recognized as the major obstacle in
application of MBR.
There are following points recognized for problem formulation1. Treatment of high strength wastewater like soybean processing wastewater
by activated sludge process is not appropriate to gain good quality of treated
water. Thus, advanced wastewater treatment system like MBR technology
should be adopted.
2. ETP comprises of conventional ASP requires large space as compared to
MBRs (2 to 3 times of space). Thus, valuable land can be saved on adopting
MBR.
3. Sludge production in Conventional ASP is much higher than that produced in
MBR systems. Thus, overall cost could be down by eliminating treatment of
excess sludge by adopting MBR.
4. Nutrients removal is very essential in wastewater treatment as they would
result in eutrophication of water bodies and are harmful to environment.
44

Conventional ASP is not very effective in removal of nutrients but MBR

technology could be used effectively for the purpose.
5. Optimal operation conditions and use of low cost membranes should adopt
for economical application of MBRs.
6. Fouling is a major problem in MBR technology and thus proper mitigation
strategies and factors affecting fouling of membranes should be analyzed.

45

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to investigate the feasibility of membrane
bioreactor technology for treatment of soybean processing wastewater (high
strength wastewater) and to check optimum operating conditions for submerged
MBR. Moreover, factors affecting fouling and fouling mitigation strategies are to be
analyzed. The details of the objective of the study can be described as following1. To characterize soybean processing wastewater by analyzing various physical
and chemical parameters like pH, Temperature, COD, BOD, TSS, Total
nitrogen, Total phosphorus, TKN etc. of effluent obtained from Ruchi Soya
Ltd, Indore, M.P.
2. To investigate the optimum operating conditions by operating MBR at
different hydraulic retention time (HRT) and sludge retention time (SRT); to
obtain quality effluent that could be reclaimed and reused.
3. To compare the laboratory scale MBR process result (physio-chemical
parameters prescribed by CPHEEO Manual, 2012) with conventional ASP
and SBR.
4. To analyze factors affecting membrane fouling and optimum fouling
mitigation strategies in operation of laboratory scale membrane bioreactor
and to determine critical flux for the arrangement.
5. To check feasibility of membrane bioreactor for treatment of soybean
processing wastewater (high strength wastewater).
46

5. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

5.1

Characterization of wastewater-

Physical and chemical wastewater parameters are analyzed for the samples taken
from effluent of Ruchi Soya ltd. The selection of determinants was done on the
basis of the main pollutants discharge by the industries of Indore city.
5.2

Quantitative parameters investigation

A. Physical:
(1) pH
(2) Colour
(3) Odour,
(4)Turbidity
(5)Temprature
(6)Total dissolved solids.
B. Chemical:

(1) BOD
(2) COD
(3) Total Alkalinity
(4) Sulphate
(5) Nitrogen (Ammonium)
(6) Total Nitrogen
(7) Total Phosphate
5.3

Development and operation of laboratory scale MBR-

Membrane module is to be submerged in a reactor having facility of aeration just

beneath the membrane module to control fouling by shear along with the
arrangements to determine flux and trans-membrane pressure (TMP).
Samples at different operating conditions (at different SRT, HRT, flux and TMP) are
analyzed and feasibility of MBR is examined along with determination of optimum
operating condition and fouling studies.
5.4

To develop a software for MBR design and analysis.

47

6. REFRENCES
[1.] Marrot, B., Barrios-Martinez, A., Moulin, P., and Roche, N., Industrial Wastewater
Treatment in a Membrane Bioreactor: A Review, Environmental Progress, Vol. 23(1), 2004, 5968
[2.] Judd, S., 2006, The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors in
Water and Wastewater Treatment.
[3.] Sutton, Paul M., Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment: Applicability
and Selection of Optimal System Configuration, Water Environment Foundation, 2006, 32333248
[4.] Samarakoon, S.M.S.M.K., 2005, Development of an Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor for
Small Scale Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Tropical Regions.
[5.] Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Systems Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and
Forecast, 2012 2019, Http://Www.Researchandmarkets.Com/Research/Rnl27v/Membrane, Accessed On
16/11/2014
[6.] Dubey, A., Basu, S., Tewari, P.K., Singh, R.K., Batra, V.S. And Balakrishnan, M., Sewage
Treatment in a Bioreactor with Indigenous Membranes from Bagasse Ash, Journal of
Organization for Protection of Ecosystem, Environment and Endangered Species (E-Planet), Vol.
11, 2013, 01-04.
[7.] Gupta, N., Jana, N., and Majumder, C.B., Submerged Membrane Bioreactor System for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Process: An Overview, Indian Journal of Chemical
Technology, Vol. 15, 2008, 604-608.
[8.] www.thembrsite.com
[9.] Ebrahimi, M.,Willershausen, D.,Ashaghi, K.S., Engel, Placido, L., Mund, P., Bolduan, P. And
Czermak P., Investigations on the Use of Different Ceramic Membranes for Efficient Oil-Field
Produced Water Treatment Desalination, Vol. 250, 2010, 991-996
[10.] Meabe, E., Lopetegui, J., Ollo, J. and Lardies S., Ceramic Membrane Bioreactor: Potential
Applications and Challenges for the Future.
[11.] Tolkou, A., Zouboulis A. And Samaras P., The Incorporation of Ceramic Membranes in
MBR Systems for Wastewater
Treatment: Advantages and Patented New Developments, Recent Patents on Engineering, 2014,
Vol. 8, (1), 1-9.
[13.] Biomimetic Membrane, Http://Www.Waterworld.Com/Articles/Wwi/Print/Volume27/Issue-3/Editorial-Focus/Desalination/Biomimetic-Membranes-Taking.Html, Accssed On18/11/2014.
[14.] C.Y. Tang, Et Al., Desalination by Biomimetic Aquaporin Membranes: Review of Status and
Prospects, Desalination, 2012, Doi:10.1016/J.Desal.2012.07.007
[15.] Noor Sabrina Ahmad Mutamim, Zainura Zainon Noor, Mohd Ariffin Abu Hassan and Gustaf
Olsson, Application Of Membrane Bioreactor Technology In Treating High Strength Industrial
Wastewater: A Performance Review, Desalination, Vol. 305, 2012, 111.
[16.] CPHEEO, Manual On Sewerage And Sewage Treatment Part A: Engineering, The Central
Public Health And Environmental Engineering Organization, Ministry Of Urban Development,
New Delhi, India, 2012.
48

[17.] Meng, F., Chae S.R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H.S. And Yang F., Recent Advances In
Membrane Bioreactors (Mbrs): Membrane Fouling And Membrane Material, Water Research,
43, 2009, 1489 1512.
[18.] Chang, I.S., Clech P.L., Jefferson, B. And Judd, S., Membrane Fouling In Membrane
Bioreactors For Wastewater Treatment, J. Environ. Eng, 2002, Vol. 128, 1018-1029.
[19.] Jiang T., 2007, Characterization and Modeling of Soluble Microbial Products in Membrane
Bioreactors, PhD. Thesis, Ghent University, Belgium.
[20.] Field, R.W., WU, D., Howell, J.A. and Gupta, B.B., Critical Flux Concept for
Microfiltration Fouling, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 100, 1995, 259-272.
[21.] Krzeminski, P., Antonio Gill, J., Nieuwenhuijzen, A.F.V., Graaf, J.H.J.M.V.D. And Lier,
J.B.V., Flat Sheet or Hollow Fibre Comparison of Full Scale Membrane Bioreactor
Configurations, Desalination and Water Treatment, Vol. 42(1-3), 2012, 100-106.
[22.] Lin, H. Et Al., Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment: A Critical
Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 42, 2012, 677740.
[23.] Cicek, N., A Review of Membrane Bioreactors and Their Potential Application in the
Treatment of Agricultural Wastewater, Canadian Biosystems Engineering, Vol. 45, 2003, 6.376.49.
[24.] Scott, J.A. and Smith K.L., A Bioreactor Coupled to a Membrane to Provide Aeration and
Filtration in Ice Cream Factory Waste Water, Water Resources, Vol. 31, 1996, 1-69.
[25.] Kurian, R. and Nakhla, G., Performance of Aerobic MBR Treating High Strength Oily
Wastewater at Mesophilic Thermophilic Transitional Temperatures, Water Environment
Foundation, 2006, 3249-3255.
[26.] Soltani, S., Mowla, D., Vossoughi, M. And Hesampour M., Experimental Investigation of
Oily Water Treatment by Membrane Bioreactor, Desalination, Vol. 250, 2010, 598600.
[27.] Hoinkis, J., Deowan, S.A., Panten, V., Figoli, A., Huang, R.R. and Drioli E., Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR) Technology a Promising Approach for Industrial Water Reuse, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 33, 2012, 234 241.
[28.] Sofia, A., Ng, W.J. and Ong, S.L., Engineering Design Approaches for Minimum Fouling
in Submerged MBR, Desalination, Vol. 160, 2004, 67-74.
[29.] Borte Kose et al., Performance Evaluation of a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor for the
Treatment of Brackish Oil and Natural Gas Field Produced Water, Desalination, Vol. 285, 2012,
295300.
[30.] Nandi, B.K., Moparthi, A., Uppaluri, R. and Purkait M.K., Treatment of Oily Wastewater
Using Low Cost Ceramic Membrane: Comparative Assessment of Pore Blocking and Artificial
Neural Network Models, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 88, 2010, 881-892
[31.] Chang, I.S., Gander, M., Jefferson B. and Judd S. J., Low-Cost Membranes for Use in A
Submerged MBR, Short Communication, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 79, Part B,
2001, 183-188.
[32.] Wozniak T., MBR Design and Operation Using MPE-Technology, Desalination, Vol. 250,
2010, 723728.
[33.] Verrecht, B., James, C., Germain, E., Birks, R., Barugh A., Pearce, P. and Judd S.,
Economical Evaluation and Operating Experiences of a Small-Scale MBR for Nonpotable
Reuse, J. Environ. Eng., Vol. 138, 2012, 594-600.
[34.] Liang, Z., and Hu, Z., Start-Up Performance Evaluation of Submerged Membrane
Bioreactors Using Conventional Activated Sludge Process and Modified Luzack-Ettinger
Process, J. Environ. Eng., 2012, Vol. 138, 932-939.

49

[35.] Jain, J., Dubey, A., and Singh J.K., Application of membrane bioreactor in wastewater
treatment: A Review, International Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 3(2),
2013, 115-122.
[36.] Jain A. and Chaurasia S.P., Bioethanol Production in Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) System:
A Review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Development, Vol. 4(4), 2014,
387-394.
[37.] Keerthi and Balasubramanian N., Fouling and Mitigation Strategies in Membrane
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment, Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment, Vol.
18(6), 2014, 84-93.
[38.] Hermanowicz, Slav W, 2011, Membrane Bioreactors: Past, Present and Future, Water
Resources Collections and Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
[39.] Knoblock, M.D.; Sutton, P.M.; Mishra, P.N.; Gupta, K.; Janson, A. (1994) Membrane
Biological Reactor System for Treatment of Oily Wastewaters. Water Environment Research, Vol.
66 (2), pp.133-139
[40.] Yamamoto, K.; Hiasa, M.; Manhmood, T.; Matsuo, T. (1989) Direct Solid-Liquid Separation
Using Hollow Fiber Membrane in an Activated Sludge Aeration Tank. Water Science &
Technology, Vol. 21, 43-54.
[41.] Tardieu, E., Grasmick, A., Geaugey, V., & Manem, J., Influence of hydrodynamics on
fouling velocity in a recirculated MBR for wastewater treatment, Journal of Membrane Science,
Vol. 156, 1999, 131140.
[42.] Defrance, L., & Jaffrin, M. Y., Comparison between filtration at fixed transmembrane
pressure and fixed permeate flux: application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater
treatment, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 152, 1999, 203210.

50