http://www.paper.edu.

cn

Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

Comparison between a sequencing batch membrane

bioreactor and a conventional membrane bioreactor
Han-Min Zhang *, Jing-Ni Xiao, Ying-Jun Cheng,
Li-Fen Liu, Xing-Wen Zhang, Feng-Lin Yang
School of Environmental and Biological Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, PR China
Received 1 July 2004; received in revised form 26 January 2005; accepted 19 March 2005

Abstract
An operation of a membrane bioreactor in sequencing batch mode named a sequencing batch membrane bioreactor (SBMBR) was
investigated for enhancing nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Its performance was compared with a conventional membrane bioreactor
(CMBR) at various influent COD/TN ratios of 3.428.2. The operational parameters were optimized to increase the treatment efficiency. COD
removal averaged at 94.9 and 97.7%, respectively, for SBMBR and CMBR during the 8 months experimental period. The SBMBR system
demonstrated good performance on nitrogen and phosphorus removal at different COD/TN ratios. When COD/TN was 6.3 and the total
nitrogen (TN) load was 0.22 kg/(m3 days), the TN and ammonium nitrogen removals of the SBMBR were maintained over 65 and 90%,
respectively. Total phosphorus (TP) removal of the SBMBR was approximately 90% during most of the experimental time. In comparison, the
CMBR did not perform so well. Its effluent TN concentration was close to that in the influent at COD/TN = 6.3 and TP removal was not stable.
The specific nitrification rate test showed that pH value affected the activity of nitrifiers but no irreversible harm was induced. Furthermore, the
sequencing batch mode operation of MBR retarded membrane fouling according to the monitoring of trans-membrane pressure (TMP).
# 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sequencing batch membrane bioreactor (SBMBR); Conventional membrane bioreactor (CMBR); Nitrogen and phosphorus removal; Membrane
fouling; Specific nitrification rate

1. Introduction
The key nutrients causing eutrophication in waterways
are excess phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in
effluents from municipal or industrial plants discharged in
the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to removal these
from wastewater at their sources. A number of biological
nutrient removal (BNR) processes had been developed.
Among these processes, the sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
has been applied as one alternative BNR technology since its
process is simple to operate and very flexible for combining
nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Its cycle format can be
easily modified at any time to offset changes in process
conditions, influent characteristics or effluent objectives [1].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhhanmin@126.com (H.-M. Zhang).

However, SBR has a potential deficit in that poor

clarification and a turbid effluent are associated with it.
To overcome these drawbacks and improve system
performance, membrane filtration technology has been
introduced in biological wastewater treatment. The filtration
function of membrane enables a complete solidliquid
separation in membrane bioreactor (MBR), eliminating the
need for the formation of flocs or aggregates [25]. The
combination of MBR have been used for treating various
types of wastewater, which demonstrate good performance
for removal of organic matter and biological sludge
separation [68].
Recent studies have introduced alternating aerobic and
anaerobic conditions in a submerged MBR by intermittent
aeration for simultaneous removal of carbon and nitrogen.
Yeom et al. [9] reported that an intermittently aerated
membrane bioreactor with a submerged fibre hollow
membrane was capable of achieving 96% COD and 83%

1359-5113/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2005.03.072


88

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

TN removals at 815 h HRT and a very long SRT. Ueda and

Hata [10] introduced an intermittent suction method in a
membrane bioreactor for treatment of domestic sewage from
rural settlements. Ng et al. [11] investigated the effect of
MLSS concentration in a sequencing batch membrane
bioreactor on COD and nitrogen removal. Bae et al. [12]
evaluated the biological nutrient removal performance of a
membrane separation process coupled to a SBR in the
treatment of dairy industry wastewater. All these studies
demonstrated that MBR operated in an intermittent way can
obtain a high organic substrate and nitrogen removal. The
removal of phosphorus remains inadequate, however, and
should be optimized to increase phosphorus removal.
The objective of this study was to enhance nitrogen and
phosphorus removal by sequential operation of a membrane
bioreactor in alternating aerobic and anoxic/anaerobic
condition. This system was named a sequencing batch
membrane bioreactor (SBMBR). Besides the advantages of
no sedimentation phase and thus a shorter cycle time, the
combination may provide a suitable environment for both
nitrobacteria and phosphorus accumulating organisms
(PAO) to survive under the appropriate operational conditions. This combination can also make it possible that the
solids retention time (SRT) is independent of hydraulic
retention time (HRT). Furthermore, the intermittent suction
and the introduction of air diffusers near the membrane had
been reported as the effective methods to reduce fouling and
prolong membrane operation time and lifespan [1316]. It
also allowed good growth of strains with different doubling
times.
The performance of the SBMBR and a conventional
membrane bioreactor (CMBR) on nutrient removal was
compared at different influent COD/TN ratios from 3.4 to
28.2. The suitable operation parameters under each
condition were selected and membrane fouling monitored
at the same time.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Reactors set-up and operation
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of experimental
apparatus consisting of two 11 L Plexiglas reactors.
Temperature was controlled at 25
1 8C using thermostats.
A balance-box with a float-ball valve was used to control
water level of the two reactors. The membrane module used
in the two systems was a bundle of U-shaped hollow fibre
membranes made of polyethylene (DAIKI, Japan) with a
pore size of 0.1 mm and a filtration area of 0.15 m2.
SBMBR and CMBR were in continuous operation in
parallel for about 8 months. The variation of operational
parameter is listed in Table 1. The exchange ratio f B is
defined as the ratio between the volume discharged per cycle
and the entire working volume of the reactor. The water fed
rate of the two systems was the same and the SRT was 60
days.
In the SBMBR system, the water was fed to the reactor
during the anaerobic phase and the discharging of water
occurred during the aerobic phase. To make it work this way
a timer-controlled power supply system was used and a Yshaped filter was installed before the electromagnetic valve
that connected to the influent pipeline. An agitator was used
for mixing during the anaerobic phase. The alternating
aerobic and anaerobic conditions in the SBMBR was created
by the on and off control of the air pump. The air pump and
peristaltic pump worked simultaneously during the aerobic
phase, while the electromagnetic valve placed in the influent
pipeline was closed. This resulted in discharge of water and
the descending of water level in the reactor. For the anoxic/
anaerobic phase, the air pump and peristaltic pump were
closed and the agitator started to work to keep a complete
mixing of sludge and water. The feed water flowed into
the SBMBR by gravitational force. Its level was controlled

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental process.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

89

Table 1
Operation parameters in the experiment
Phase

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII

Operational days (days)

112
1330
3172
73110
111168
169175
176209
210236

TNin (mg/L)
16.5
22.9
47.1
75.6
75.6
75.6
122.8
122.8

(2.4)
(1.8)
(6.7)
(8.1)
(8.1)
(8.1)
(7.2)
(7.2)

COD/TN

28.2
19.4
9.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
3.4
3.4

(3.1)
(1.5)
(2.7)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)

HRT (h)

22
22
22
22
22
11
11
7.3

fB
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
12.2
24.2
24.2
36.4

Cycle time of SBMBR (min)

Anaerobic

Aerobic

60
60
60
60
40
40
40
40

60
60
60
60
120
120
120
120

Standard deviation is given between parentheses; TNin, influent TN concentration.

by the balance-box during this time. When this anaerobic

phase was over the next cycle began with the aerobic phase.
The CMBR was operated continuously in aerobic
environment through the whole experimental period. The
influent and the effluent were not interrupted. Other
conditions were the same as the SBMBR.
2.2. Feed medium
Synthetic wastewater fed to the reactors consisted of
sucrose, NH4Cl, KH2PO4 and mineral solution containing
MgSO47H2O, CaCl22H2O, FeSO42H2O and NaCl. The
initial complete influent contained 400 mg COD/L, 20 mg
NH4+-N/L and 4 mg PO4+-P/L. Holding the COD and TP
influent concentration, a gradual increase of TN concentration was adopted during the experiment (Table 1).
2.3. Inocula
Two reactors were seeded with sludge from the feedback
sludge tank of the municipal wastewater treatment plant
located in Chun-liu, Dalian, pre-incubated before being
equally divided into the above two reactors. The sludge
concentration in both reactors was 2 g/L MLSS to ensure the
same behavior of the sludge.
2.4. Analyses
Ammonia nitrogen (NH4+-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N),
nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N), total phosphorus (TP) and COD
were analyzed according to the standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater (APHA) [17]. The
total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) contents
were determined with a Total Organic Carbon analyzer
(TOC-VCPH, SHIMADZU). Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) were determined using the method reported
by Zhang et al. [18].
2.5. Experiments carried out
2.5.1. Comparison experiments
These experiments were conducted for the comparison
between the capacities of SBMBR and CMBR in the

removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. For the SBMBR, the

effluent of one cycle was collected in a beaker and the
mixture used for analysis, while the instantaneous effluent
was used for CMBR.
2.5.2. Cyclic studies
This test was carried out when the performance of
SBMBR was stable. It was applied to the SBMBR for
optimizing nutrient removal, which includes a series of
sampling and analysis during one cycle. t = 0 min was set for
the starting of the anaerobic phase. The sampling was done
by manual adjustment peristaltic pump during the anaerobic
phase. Cyclic studies could clarify the transformation of
various pollutions during the cycle time and provide
information for adjusting the operation parameters.
2.5.3. Specific nitrification rate test
The specific nitrification rate (mmol NH4+-N/g VSS) was
determined using two 0.5 L reactors in duplicate for the
sludge-nitrification performance in SBMBR and CMBR.
Fifty millilitres mixed liquor was centrifuged at 3500 rpm
for 10 min and the liquid phase was decanted. The
concentrated sludge was resuspended in 400 mL synthetic
wastewater with 50 mL pH 7.0 phosphoric acid buffer
solution added. The temperature was constant at 25 8C. The
air was injected. At intervals of 30 min samples were taken
and immediately filtered. The content of NH4+-N was
measured. According to the NH4+-N decreasing rate,
specific nitrification rate could be calculated.

3. Results
3.1. Performance of the SBMBR and CMBR
3.1.1. Organic substance removal
Fig. 2 presents the varieties of COD concentration and its
removal efficiency of the two systems during the whole
operation period. Both SBMBR or CMBR showed good
performance in organic carbon removal. The COD removals
averaged at 97.7 and 94.9%, respectively. These results
indicated that change of COD/TN ratio in influent did not


90

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

Fig. 2. Comparison of COD concentrations and removal efficiencies in the two systems. Symbols: (*) CMBR effluent; (~) SBMBR effluent; (*) CMBR
COD removal; (~) SBMBR COD removal.

affect COD removal efficiency significantly for both

reactors.
3.1.2. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal
Fig. 3 illustrates the profile of NH4+-N, TN and TP
concentrations as well as their removal efficiencies in the
two systems during the whole experiment. It can be seen that
in SBMBR, when COD/TN >19.4 (phases I and II) a high
NH4+-N removal efficiency (>90%) has been achieved. TN
and TP removal in this period averaged at 91.5 and 93.3%,
respectively. NH4+-N removal efficiency decreased to about
80% when the influent COD/TN ratio reduced to 9.4 (phase
III). On increasing the air flow rate from 100 to 150 L/h, the
NH4+-N removal increased rapidly to over 90% and the
effluent NH4+-N concentration decreased to below 1 mg/L.
This indicates that the higher TN load was the more drastic
competition for dissolve oxygen between heterotrophic
bacteria with nitrifying bacteria. The increased intensity of
injected air enhanced the penetrability of oxygen into
biological flocs, with benefits for both types of organism. TN
removal efficiency declined temporarily but soon recovered.
The removal of TP did not make significant change during
this period.
It was after 73 days when the influent COD/TN ratio
tuned down to 6.3 that the NH4+-N removal efficiency of
SBMBR started a sharp decrease and the maximum effluent
NH4+-N concentration had reached to 76.1 mg/L (phase IV).
On the 111th day, the SBMBR cycle time was adjusted to
40 min anaerobic and 120 min aerobic (total 160 min) from
60 min anaerobic and 60 min aerobic (total 120 min)
(Table 1). This step was to enhance nitrification. Nitrification improved and the NH4+-N removal efficiency increased
to 95% (Fig. 3(a)). But the average TN removal efficiency
was only 31.9% in this period as shown in Fig. 3(b) (phase
V). In order to enhance denitrification and increase the
organic carbon supply, a higher f B (24.2%) was adopted on
the 169th day. The TN load was 0.22 kg TN/(m3 days).
Denitrification was enhanced and TN removal efficiency
was improved to 67.6%. As to NH4+-N, the average removal

efficiency climbed to 93.1%, was not effect by load increase

(phase VI). Since the influent COD/TN ratio decreased
further to 3.4 (TN load was 0.33 0.36 kg TN/(m3 days)) on
the 176th day, an even lower NH4+-N and TN removal
efficiency was obtained, averaged at 75.2 and 20.7%,
respectively (phase VII). On the 210th day, the f B was raised
again to enhance TN removal (TN load was 0.50
0.60 kg TN/(m3 days)). TN removal was enhanced to
36.4%, while a low removal efficiency of NH4+-N
(<50%) occurred, and the effluent average concentration
reached 70.1 mg/L (phase VIII). This result indicates that a
favorable nitrogen removal could not be reached under this
low COD/TN ratio.
After lengthening the aerobic time on the 111th day, the
SBMBR phosphorus removal worsened and the average
removal efficiency was 49.9%. Since the higher f B was adopted
on the 169th day and organic carbon supply increased and
the phosphorus removal recovered. Except phase V, the
SBMBR phosphorus removal efficiency was kept at about 90%
and the average removal efficiency was 91.4%.
As far as the CMBR was concerned, the TN and TP
removal efficiency was 30.5 and 35.3%, respectively, when
the influent COD/TN ratio was 19.4 and 28.2. During this
time the NH4+-N average removal efficiency was 93.3%.
This result indicated that the limiting step of nitrogen
removal in the CMBR was denitrification. TN concentration
in effluent was close to the level in the influent at COD/
TN = 6.3 and TP removal efficiency fluctuated from 14 to
95% under influent experiment conditions.
3.2. Cyclic studies of SBMBR
During phases IIII a higher removal efficiency of NH4+N, TP and TN persisted in the SBMBR. The DO cyclic test
of SBMBR on the 28th day (Fig. 4(a)) showed that after the
aerobic period the massive high volume influent can
decrease the DO concentration quickly in reactor, thus
sufficient anaerobic time was ensured, which contributed to
higher nitrogen and phosphorus removal in the SBMBR.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

91

Fig. 3. The comparison of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and removal efficiencies in the two systems: (a) NH4+-N, (b) TN and (c) TP. Symbols: (
*) CMBR effluent; (~) SBMBR effluent; (*) CMBR removal efficiency; (~) SBMBR removal efficiency.

The cyclic test on the 109th day (Fig. 4(b)) showed that
the time was not long enough for NH4+-N removal when
COD/TN ratio was 6.3 with the aerobic time-controlled at
1 h (i.e. nitrification under this condition was not complete).
The anaerobic time 60 min has a margin for denitrifying and
phosphorus release. A shorter anaerobic time was therefore
adopted in the following days to avoid the secondary
phosphorus release. The cycle time was adjusted to 40 min

anaerobic and 120 min aerobic from 60 min anaerobic and

60 min aerobic.
This and the cyclic test on the 167th day (Fig. 4(c))
indicates that nitrification is complete within 120 min
aerobic time but denitrification was restrained. In order to
enhance denitrification without changing anaerobic time, a
higher f B (24.2%) was adopted to increase the organic
carbon supply.


92

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

Fig. 5. Ammonia nitrogen degradation rate.

decrease pH value. The existence of an anoxic phase in the

SBMBR provides a condition for denitrification, which
counteracted the alkalinity consumption of nitrification. The
effluent pH value of this reactor remained 7.08.0 during the
whole experiment, which was just suitable for the
nitrification reactions. The case in the CMBR was different.
It suited the nitrification reaction but hardly any denitrification occurred. The higher influent TN load the more
alkalinity was consumed. An obvious decline of effluent pH
value was observed and a low pH value (5.06.0) appeared
even at the COD/TN ratio of 9.4. Therefore, the nitrification
activity was inhibited which led to a lower NH4+-N removal.
The specific nitrification rate test demonstrated that pH
value could affect the activity of nitrobacteria but not be the
destructive factor.
3.4. Sludge characterization

Fig. 4. DO profile on the 28th (a) and nutrient profiles on the 109th (b) and
167th (c) day, respectively, during cyclic tests. Symbols: (*) TP; (
~) NH4+-N; (5) NO3-N.

3.3. Specific nitrification rate test

In Fig. 5, the NH4+-N concentration versus time profile
from SNR batch test is shown. For CMBR and SBMBR, the
specific nitrification rate were 0.56 and 0.40 mmol NH4+-N/
(g VSS days), respectively. This indicates that in comparison with SBMBR, the sludge in the CMBR possesses a
higher nitrification activity.
As the pH value was considered, the optimal pH range for
the nitrobacteria is 7.08.0 and the result of nitrification is to

Sludge in the two reactors appeared different because of

the different operation mode. The colour of the sludge was
khaki in the CMBR and filemot in the SBMBR. Microscopic
examination revealed a different community structure
between the two systems. Categories of microbes were
plentiful in the CMBR. Filamentous fungi and protozoa
organisms, including Ciliates (mainly Aspidisca and
Lionotus), Amoebae (mainly Amoeba radiosa) and Rotifers
were observed abundantly. Metazoans including Aeoloosma
hemprichii also appeared in this system. In the SBMBR, the
dominant community of bacteria existed as Epistylis and
Vorticella. A small quantity of Aspidisca and Rotifers was
found in this ecosystem. Fig. 6 displays the microscopy
photographs of sludge in both reactors.
3.5. Membrane fouling
Membrane fouling is one of the main problems of MBR
systems. The avoidance of fouling or reduction of its severity
has been pursued for a long time. Researchers have reported
that intermittent suction and low trans-membrane pressure

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

93

Fig. 7. Trans-membrane pressure (TMP) profiles.

(TMP) helped to prevent irreversible damage to the

membranes [16,19]. It has also been reported that
extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) in MBR can
increase the viscosity of the mixed liquid and the membrane
filtration resistance, which would accelerate membrane
fouling [2023].
In this work, two parameters, TMP and EPS, were
introduced to reflect the membrane fouling of the two
experimental systems. As slight difference of TMP
(TMP < 1 kPa) was observed between CMBR and SBMBR
until a higher f B (Table 1) was conducted in phase VIII. It
can be seen from Fig. 7 that a rapid increase of TMP
occurred in the CMBR from less than 10 to about 60 kPa.
Hydrocleaning was carried out on the 225th day and then the
membrane filtration performance recovered. There is no
significant increase of TMP value observed in the SBMBR
before the 225th day. The sharp increase of TMP 1754 kPa
between the 226th and 227th day was caused by the
malfunction of the air-injection system. When the malfunction was overcame and the membrane was cleaned with tap
water, the membrane filtration performance recovered. This
demonstrated that the membrane-fouling rate in the CMBR
is greater than in the SBMBR, although the membrane

Fig. 6. Microscopically photographs of sludge in both reactors.

Fig. 8. The comparison of EPS concentration in mixed liquid.


94

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

flux of the SBMBR was more than 1.332 times of the

CMBR.
At the beginning of experiment, the MLSS was about
2 g/L in both systems. The activated sludge was discharged
according to the same SBR during all experiments. At the
end of the experiment, the MLSS was almost the same in the
SBMBR and the CMBR, which reached to around 5.6 g/L.
The EPS concentrations in both sludge systems varied
between 340 and 500 mg/L as shown in Fig. 8. A higher
concentration persisted in the SBMBR than in the CMBR
during the whole experimental examination. These results
did not agree with the literature that there is a direct
correlation between EPS concentration and membrane
fouling.

4. Discussion
The CMBR and SBMBR have higher organics removal,
the average COD removal were 94.9 and 97.7%, respectively. COD removal decreased to about 80% as the
experiment was close to the end (Fig. 2). The influent of the
SBMBR is high and of high flow at the beginning of
anaerobic time and fresh nutrients was not put into the
reactor during one cycle. The microorganism in the SBMBR
experienced following the log phase, stationary phase and
death phase. The influent of the CMBR was continuous.
Along with the MLSS increasing and F:M decreasing, the
microorganism of CMBR would get into death phase for
long time for lack of nutrients, need to rely on themselves for
obtaining energy, the products of metabolism were
accumulated and led to worsening of the quality of the
final effluent in CMBR.
After lengthening the aerobic time on the 111th day,
enhanced nitrification resulted in a high nitrate concentration in the anaerobic phase. Consequently, there is a
competition for the organic carbon between denitrifying
bacteria and PAOs. The denitrifying bacteria using nitrate as
electron acceptor can obtain more energy and were more
competitive, thus organic carbon was not converted into
VFAs with inhibition of phosphorus release of PAOs and
formation of PHB. During phase V, the phosphorus removal
worsened and the average removal efficiency decreased to
49.9%. The sequencing batch operation of the SBMBR in
this experiment can increase organic carbon supply of one
cycle by increase f B and, does not require an exogenous
supply of organic carbon. After adjusting f B, on 169th day,
the TP average removal efficiency increased to about 90%
and TN removal improved.
The CMBR showed some nitrogen and phosphorus
removal by the existing anaerobic microenvironment, but
the capacity was lower than that of the SBMBR. The reasons
are: first, the sequencing batch operation of the SBMBR can
offer alternative anaerobic/aerobic environments; second,
the influent was high and of high volume at the beginning of
anaerobic time in the SBMBR and sufficient anaerobic time

is ensured. Third, f B and cycles of the SBMBR can be

adjusted easily according to the nitrogen and phosphorus
concentration in the influent.
Attached Ciliates were always the dominant community
in the SBMBR, which indicated that the sequencing batch
operation is suitable for growth of attached Ciliates. The
sludge floc would be bigger and tighter when the attached
Ciliates are dominant. The liquid filter capacity is better and
this is one reason why the membrane-fouling rate of the
SBMBR is lower than that of the CMBR. Another reason
might be attributed to the sequencing batch operation mode.
Agitation was introduced into the anaerobic phase when the
suction was discontinued. As a result, the aggregation of
substance onto the membrane surface was reduced but the
diffusion of adsorbents from the membrane surface back to
the liquid was enhanced. Therefore, EPS in the SBMBR was
always higher than that in the CMBR, but the membranefouling rate of the SBMBR was lower than that in the
CMBR.

5. Conclusions
Nutrient removal from synthetic wastewater was studied
using membrane bioreactors in both sequencing batch and
continuous operations. The main findings from this study are
as follows:
(1) Both SBMBR and CMBR showed good performance on
organic substance removal during the whole experimental period. The average COD removals were 97.7
and 94.9%, respectively. Change of COD/TN ratio in
influent did not affect COD removal efficiency
significantly in either reactor.
(2) The SBMBR demonstrated a good performance on
nitrogen and phosphorus removal at different influent
COD/TN ratios. Even running at low COD/TN ratio
(COD/TN = 6.3) with 0.22 kg TN/(m3 days), in suitable operation conditions, TN and NH4+-N removal
efficiencies were maintained above 65 and 90%,
respectively. As to TP, the removal efficiency was
maintained at approximately 90% all through the
whole experiment except for the starved organic
substrate feeding.
(3) The variation of influent COD/TN ratio affected the
CMBR more extensively than the SBMBR. TP removal
efficiency fluctuated between 14 and 95% under influent
experiment conditions and the TN concentration in the
effluent was close to that in the influent at the feed ratio
COD/TN = 6.3.
(4) Specific nitrification rate tests demonstrated that the pH
value could affect the activity of nitrifying bacteria with
no irreversible harm.
(5) The sequencing batch operation mode can reduce
membrane fouling although a higher EPS existed in the
SBMBR system.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
H.-M. Zhang et al. / Process Biochemistry 41 (2006) 8795

Acknowledgements
This research was partly supported by a grant from
Chinese National Science Foundation Committee (Grant
No. 50308004). Special thanks go to Dr. Chu LiBing for her
kind help and valuable discussion.

References
[1] Pochana K, Keller J. Study of factors affecting simultaneous nitrification and denitrification (SND). Water Sci Technol 1999;39(6):618.
[2] Cicek N, Winnen H, Suidan MT, Wrenn BE, Urbain V, Manem J.
Effectiveness of the membrane bioreactor in the biodegradation of
high molecular weight compounds. Water Res 1998;32(5):155363.
[3] Konopka A, Zakharova T, Oliver L, Camp D, Turco RF. Biodegradation of organic wastes containing surfactants in a biomass recycle
reactor. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996;62:32927.
[4] LaPara TM, Konopka A, Nakastu CH, Alleman JE. Thermophilic
aerobic treatment of a synthetic wastewater in a membrane-coupled
bioreactor. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2001;26:2039.
[5] Muller EB, Stouthamer AH, van Verseveld HW, Eikelboom MDH.
Aerobic domestic wastewater treatment in a pilot plant with complete
sludge retention by cross-flow filtration. Water Res 1995;29(4):
117989.
[6] Chiemchaisri C, Yamamoto K, Vigneswaran S. Household membrane
bioreactor in domestic wastewater treatment. Water Sci Technol
1993;27(1):1718.
[7] Knoblock MD, Sutton PN, Gupta K, Janson A. Membrane biological
reactor system for the treatment of oily wastewaters. Water Environ
Res 1994;66(2):1339.
[8] Machenbach I. Membrane technology for dyehouse effluent treatment.
Membr Technol 1998;96:710.
[9] Yeom I-T, Nah Y-M, Ahn K-H. Treatment of household wastewater
using an intermittently aerated membrane bioreactor. Desalination
1999;124(13):193204.

95

[10] Ueda T, Hata K. Domestic wastewater treatment by a submerged

membrane bioreactor with gravitational filtration. Water Res 1999;
33(12):288892.
[11] Ng WJ, Ong SL, Gomez MJ, Hu JY, Fan XJ. Study on a sequencing
batch membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Water Sci
Technol 2000;41(1011):22734.
[12] Bae T-H, Han S-S, Tak T-M. Membrane sequencing batch reactor
system for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Process Biochem 2003;39(2):22131.
[13] Ueda T, Hata K, Kikuoka Y. Treatment of domestic sewage from rural
settlements by a membrane bioreactor. Water Sci Technol 1996;34(9):
18996.
[14] Bentez J, Rodrguez A, Malaver R. Stabilization and dewatering of
wastewater using hollow fiber membranes. Water Res 1995;29(10):
22816.
[15] Chiemchaisri C, Yamamoto K. Performance of membrane separation
bioreactor at various temperatures for domestic wastewater treatment.
J Membr Sci 1994;87:11929.
[16] Krampe J, Krauth K. Sequencing batch reactor with submerged hollow
fibre membranes for the biomass separation. Water Sci Technol
2001;43(3):1959.
[17] APHA/AWWA/AWEF. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, 18th ed. Washington, DC; 1992.
[18] Zhang X, Bishop PL, Kinkle BK. Comparison of extraction methods
for quantifying extracellular polymers in biofilms. Water Sci Technol
1999;39(7):2118.
[19] Yamamoto K, Hiasa M, Mahmood T, Matsuo T. Direct solidliquid
separation using hollow fiber membrane in an activated sludge aeration tank. Water Sci Technol 1989;21(4):4354.
[20] Chang I-S, Lee C-H. Membrane filtration characteristics in membrane-coupled activated sludge systemthe effect of physiological
states of activated sludge on membrane fouling. Desalination 1998;
120:22133.
[21] Cho BD, Fane AG. Fouling transients in nominally sub-critical flux
operation of a membrane bioreactor. J Membr Sci 2002;209:391403.
[22] Nagaoka H, Yamanishi S, Miya A. Modeling of biofouling by extracellular polymers in a membrane separation activated sludge system.
Water Sci Technol 1998;38(45):497504.