Use of Membrane Technologies in

Advanced Waste Water Treatment Process

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen,

23WM60R08

School of Water Resources

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
 Introduction
We generally use the Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) Digestion Process for
secondary wastewater treatment. Still, due to modern-day pollution, different types of
emerging contaminants with high MLSS concentrations from pharmaceutical, chemical,
and textile industries are going to the river water where only the CAS process is not
sufficient to treat the influent water completely.

CAS
NEW TECHNOLOGY
Nonlinear modelling of activated sludge process using the Hammerstein-
Wiener structure, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20161000119

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08

? 2
 Advanced Solution:
So modern research found a solution, where the MLSS concentration is too high to be treated by
conventional activated sludge digestion (CAS); a Membrane-based technology in addition to it will be a
better and more sustainable option because:

 The treated water from the membrane-based plant of the study area is being successfully used for
flushing and HVAC purposes in the hotel.
 The space requirement is less than conventional treatment methods as the need for more settling tanks
is eliminated.
 Those units can be quickly installed, commissioned, and maintained by trained personnel.
 Membrane does not require regular backwashing or cleaning.
 Membrane cleaning can be done twice a year by use of chemicals.
 These systems have minimal operator interface and smaller carbon footprints than conventional
wastewater treatment plants.

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 3

  WHICH ONE IS EFFECTIVE?
 Recent studies shows that the technologies that are currently in use in the
field, doing great in the removal of organics, nutrients, and other
emerging pollutants, are:

Membrane Bioreactor Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 4

 MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR):
The MBR is a suspended growth-activated sludge system that utilizes microporous
membranes for solid/liquid separation instead of secondary clarifiers.

(Karim, 2017.)
Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 5
 Different types of MBR configuration:
Membrane separation is carried out either by pressure-driven filtration in side-stream
MBRs (Fig. 1) or vacuum-driven membranes immersed directly into the bioreactor,
which operates in dead-end mode (Fig. 2) in submerged MBRs.

(Radjenovic et al. 2007.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 6

 Comparison between pressure-driven MBR and vacuum-driven MBR:
The energy consumption required for filtration in submerged MBR is significantly lower.
Shear enhancement is critical in promoting permeate flux and suppressing membrane
fouling, but generating shear also demands energy, which is probably the reason for
submerged configuration predominance. Also, in the side-stream MBR module fouling is
more pronounced due to its higher permeate flux.

Lower flux
In Submerged membrane

(Radjenovic et al. 2007.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 7

 COD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT
CONFIGURATIONS OF MBR

Submerged MBR has a higher COD removal rate than side-stream MBR as mentioned by
Al-Asheh et al. (2021).

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 8

Removal of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds:

(Silvia Diaz-Cruz and Barcelo, 2007.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 9

 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR): In an MBBR system, plastic media
with a high surface area is added to the treatment tank. Wastewater flows
through the tank, and microorganisms attach to the surfaces of the media,
forming a biofilm.

(Odegaard, 2006.)
Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 10
 Types of Filter Media Used:  Which has more surface area?

(Bassin and Dezotti., 2011.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 11

  Removal of Pharmaceuticals

(Casas et al., 2015.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 12

 MORE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY OF
PHARMACEUTICALS

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 13

 Comparison between MBR & MBBR:

(Huang et al., 2016.)

COD removal is COD removal is

58.2% in MBBR 46.4% in MBR

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 14

 Less concentration
of COD generated
in MBBR than in
MBR

(Huang et al., 2016.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 15

More hydraulic retention time so more
energy & hence more cost is generated
in MBBR than MBR
Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 16
 Comparison of MBR & MBBR in the case of Sludge Generation

After wastewater treatment, a by-product in the form of

sludge is generated which needs additional cost to treat.
Therefore technology that generates less sludge is
preferable. And MBR has the lowest sludge generation i.e.
79.3kg dry sludge/106 L treated wastewater.

MBBR1: Plastic Media

MBBR2: Sponge Media

(Sohail et al., 2020.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 17

 Comparison of MBR & MBBR in the case of Membrane Fouling
 BIOMASS

 SLUDGE

 SURFACE AREA OF REACTOR

 EFFICIENCY

 MEMBRANE FOULING

MBBR1: Plastic Media, MBBR2: Sponge Media Hence, more membrane fouling in the case of MBR
(Sohail et al., 2020.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 18

 Case Study of Membrane Technology in India
The study area is an MBR plant with a design capacity of 500 KLD located in a luxury hotel
in Delhi. Samples of raw sewage and treated water from the MBR plant were taken and
analyzed in a laboratory to evaluate the performance of the MBR plant. The membrane used
in the bioreactor is made of PVDF material and 0.2 microns pore size.

Polyvinyldiene Fluoride (PVDF),

(Singh and Reghu, 2015.) Generally used as an electrical insulator.
Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 19
  METHODOLOGY

 Sampling Period:
Samples were taken for five days in October 2014 from the
inlet and outlet of the MBR facility.

 Sampling Materials & Methods:

The experimental method consisted of collecting
composite samples of raw sewage and treated water from
the inlet and outlet of the MBR plant in a one-liter bottle.
Sampling was conducted from 9 am to 2 pm, with a five- Before and after treatment
day peak sewage flow. (Singh and Reghu, 2015.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 20

  Results of the Study

 The BOD 5 of the raw sewage from the hotel at

the inlet varied from 280- 400 mg/L over the
five-day sampling period. The BOD5 of outlet-
treated water varied from 20-28 mg/L, which is
within the permissible limit.

 Chemical oxygen demand of the inlet varied

from 420- 580 mg/L while at outlet varied from
28- 46 mg /L.

(Singh and Reghu, 2015.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 21

 The TSS and TDS values of inlet varied from 318-458
mg/L and 2231-3892 mg/L. The TSS at outlet varied
from 22-35mg/L with an average removal efficiency of
around 93 % .

 Irrigation Use:

(Singh and Reghu, 2015.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 22

 The total phosphate in outlet varied from 8.44 -11.365 ppm with removal efficiency
around 68 %.
Removal Efficiencies

(Singh and Reghu, 2015.)

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 23

 CONCLUSION

All of these advanced wastewater treatment processes—MBR, MBBR—

rely on the growth of biofilm on a surface to facilitate the biological
degradation of pollutants & relies on a membrane surface for separation
and filtration.

So we can say based on the economy and the case study, MBR is most
suitable than MBBR.

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 24

 References
• Nonlinear modeling of activated sludge process using the Hammerstein-Wiener structure. January 2016. E3S Web of
Conferences 10(4):00119Follow journal. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20161000119

• Karim, M.A., 2017. A Preliminary Comparative Analysis of MBR and CAS Wastewater Treatment Systems.
DOI:10.16966/2381-5299.138

• Radjenovic, J., Matosic, M., Mijatovic, I., Petrovic, M., Barcelo, D., 2007. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) as an
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology. DOI 10.1007/698-5-093.

• Silvia Diaz-Cruz, M., Barcelo, D., 2007. Input of Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals as a
Consequence of Using Conventional and Non-conventional Sources of Water for Artificial Groundwater Recharge

• Odegaard, H., 2006. Innovations in Wastewater Treatment: The Moving Bed Biofilm Process. In: Water Science and
Technology: Volume 53, 17-33

• Casas, M, E., Chhetri, R, K., Ooi, G., Hansen, M.S, K., Litty, K., Christensson, M., Kragelund, C., Andersen, H, R.,
Bester, K., 2015. Biodegradation of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater by staged Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors
(MBBR).

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 25

 References
• Huang, C., Shi, Y., Xue, J., Zhang, Y., El-Din, Md, G., Liu, Y., 2016. Comparison of biomass from integrated fixed-
film activated sludge (IFAS), moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) treating
recalcitrant organics: Importance of attached biomass.

• Sohail, N., Ahmed, S., Chung, S., & Nawaz, M. S. (2020). Performance comparison of three different reactors
(MBBR, MBR and MBBMR) for municipal wastewater treatment. Desalination and water treatment, 174, 71–78.
doi:10.5004/dwt.2020.24866

• Singh, S.K., Reghu, A., 2015. Application of Membrane Bioreactor Technology for Waste Water Treatment and Reuse:
Case Study of MBR Plant in Luxury Hotel in Delhi.

• Biase, A, D., Kowalski, M, S., Devlin, T, R., Oleszkiewicz, J, A., 2019. Moving bed biofilm reactor technology in
municipal wastewater treatment: A review.

• Al-Asheh, S., 2021. Case studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering.

• Al-Asheh, S., Bagheri, M., Aidan, A., 2021. Membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment: A review

Prepared by Sayangdipta Sen, 23WM60R08 26