FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR EVALUATING THE APPLICABILITY

OF MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR) TECHNOLOGY FOR

TREATMENT OF SOYBEAN PROCESSING WASTEWATER

Dissertation (Phase-I)
For partial fulfillment of

Master of Technology
In

Environmental Engineering

Guided by

Submitted by

ER.DEVENDRA DOHARE

ROHIT TRIVEDI

Asst. Professor,

Student, M. Tech.

Engg. and Applied Mechanics Dept.

S.G.S.I.T.S., Indore (M.P.)

Civil

(Environmental Engg.)
(Roll No. 0801CE13MT16)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING & APPLIED MECHANICS

SHRI G.S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, INDORE (M.P)

JUNE 2014- DECEMBER 2014

SHRI G.S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, INDORE (M.P)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING & APPLIED MECHANICS

RECOMMENDATION
We are pleased to recommend that the dissertation phase -I work submitted by Mr. Rohit
Trivedi entitled Feasibility Studies For Evaluating The Applicability Of Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR) Technology For Treatment Of Soybean Processing Wastewater may
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the degree of master of technology specializing in
environmental engineering.

ER. DEVENDRA DOHARE

DR. S. K. Soni

Asst. Professor,

Professor & Head

Civil & Applied Mech. Dept.

Civil & Applied Mech. Dept.

S.G.S.I.T.S., Indore (M.P.)

S.G.S.I.T.S., Indore (M.P.)

DIRECTOR
S.G.S.I.T.S., Indore (M.P.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The sincere felling of gratitude is expressed to Er. Devendra

Dohare Assistant Professor (CE-AMD) SGSITS, Indore, for his kind
guidance, continued interest and encouragement in the progress of
the work in all places.
I expressed my special thanks to Dr. D. J. Killedar, Professor, CEAMD, SGSITS, for his constant encouragement and support give to
me. I am grateful to him.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere
gratitude to Dr. Jayant Sohoni, DGM (Quality Control) and Mr. T.
Raghvendra Rao, Director, STEPS Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, for
helping and guiding in this dissertation work.
Finally I would like to thank all who helped me directly and
indirectly in completing this work.

Dated :

(Rohit Trivedi)

CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO.
1
INTRODUCTION

SUBJECT

PAGE NO.
1-20

1.1

General Introduction to vegetable (edible) oil industry

1.1.1

Sources and Characteristics of Soybean Process Wastewater

1.2

Introduction to Membrane Bio-Reactor Technology

1.3

Configurations of Membrane Bioreactor

1.3.1

Side stream (Cross-flow) MBR

1.3.2

Submerged (Immersed) MBR

1.4

Configurations of membrane module

1.5

Membrane Materials

10

1.5.1

Polymeric Membranes

10

1.5.2

Ceramic Membranes

11

1.6

History of MBR technology

12

1.7

Present scenario and market status of membrane bioreactors

13

1.8

Advantages and disadvantages of MBRs

13

1.9

Membrane Fouling and Control Strategies

15

CHAPTER NO.
1.9.1
Definition

SUBJECT

PAGE NO.
15

1.9.2

Types of Membrane Fouling

16

1.9.3

Interaction between Foulant and Membrane

17

1.9.4

Fouling Mechanism

17

1.9.5

Factors Affecting Membrane Fouling

18

1.9.6

Mitigation of MBR fouling

19

LITERATURE REVIEW ALONGWITH CRITIQUE

2.1

General

21

2.2

Application of membrane bioreactor technology in treating

high strength industrial wastewater: a performance review

22

2.3

Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment:

applicability and selection of optimal system configuration.

22

2.4

Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater

Treatment: A Critical Review

23

2.5

A review of membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology and

their applications in the wastewater treatment systems

24

2.6

Treatment and recycling of wastewater by submerged hollow

fiber membrane
Treatment of food industry wastewaters in membrane
bioreactor
Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment: A
review with cost considerations

24

2.9

Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR) for treatment of

textile dye wastewater towards developing novel MBR
process

25

2.10

Feasibility study for evaluating the client application of

membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology for decentralized
municipal wastewater treatment in Vietnam

25

2.11

Experimental investigation of oily water treatment by

membrane bioreactor

26

2.7
2.8

21-38

24
25

CHAPTER NO.
SUBJECT
2.12
Performance of Aerobic MBR Treating High Strength Oily
Wastewater at Mesophilic Thermophilic Transitional
Temperatures
2.13
Performance evaluation of a submerged membrane
bioreactor for the treatment of brackish oil and natural gas
field produced water

PAGE NO.
26
27

2.14

Evaluation of using membrane bioreactor for treating

municipal wastewater at different operating conditions

27

2.15

Performance Enhancement of Recirculated Membrane

Bioreactor (RMBR) with Dual Effect of Cross Flow
Velocity and Operating Temperature for Wastewater
Treatment

27

2.16

performance of Lab-Scale Membrane Bioreactor for

Leachate from Go Cat Landfill in Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam
Field testing of polymeric mesh and ash-based ceramic
membranes in a membrane bioreactor (MBR) for
decentralised sewage treatment

28

Sewage treatment in a bioreactor with indigenous

membranes from bagasse ash
Ceramic Membrane Bioreactor: potential applications and
challenges for the future
Treatment of oily wastewater using low cost ceramic
membrane: Comparative assessment of pore blocking and
artificial neural network models
Investigations on the use of different ceramic membranes
for efficient oil-field produced water treatment
Effect of Hydraulic Retention Time and Sludge Retention
Time on Membrane Bioreactor: Performance in Summer
Season
A review of membrane bioreactors and their potential
application in the treatment of agricultural wastewater
Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling

29

Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater

treatment
Recent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs):
Membrane fouling and membrane material
Fouling and Mitigation Strategies in Membrane
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment

34

2.17

2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27

28

30
30
31
32
32
33

35
36

CHAPTER NO.
SUBJECT
2.28
Fouling of membrane bioreactors during treatment of
produced water
2.29
Critique

PAGE NO.
36
37

PROBLEM FORMULATION

39-41

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

42

5.1

Characterization of wastewater

42

5.2

Quantitative parameters investigation

42

5.3

Development and operation of laboratory scale MBR

42

REFRENCES

44-46

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.).

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 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 key-fact 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

1.2

of

Off-line cleaning required every 1 to 2

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

to 0.4 KW.h/m3

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 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, 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 Krzeminski1]
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

/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 will 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)
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.

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

Early 1980s
Mid-1980s

Early-mid1990s

Early
2000s

TechSep (Rhone-Poulenc, later Novasep Orelis) commercializes side stream FS

Pleiade for water reuse in Japan
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.
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 Multitubular 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.
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]

Disadvantages-

i.)

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.

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]
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 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., BaSO4) 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

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.

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 fouling-

The 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 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:
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, cross-flow 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].

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.
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 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
biomass-effluent 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 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 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 m2. To reach the target, different MBR process
parameters like COD, BOD, TOC, pH, conductivity, flux, TMP, MLSS, colour contents, air
supply, O2 consumption, HRT, SRT, drying residue, nutrients etc. have been investigated. It is
reported that under the operating conditions of permeate flux of 4 L/m 2h, 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 8.20.210.50.2 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 20-50% 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.
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 of oily water treatment by membrane
bioreactor
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
Wastewater at Mesophilic Thermophilic Transitional Temperatures

Oily

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 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 80
85% 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 MBR is recommended for application in high strength municipal
wastewater treatment plants that subjected to a variable concentration of COD, BOD and NH3N.
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 30 oC with CFV 1.5 m/s. Flux declination is large
at 30oC as compared to flux declination at 40 oC temperatures for all CFVs. Sludge production in
terms of MLSS, is large at 30oC and minimum at 40oC. This high concentration of MLSS is
responsible for COD removal as well as membrane fouling. Flux declination is high at 30 oC
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 (40oC) 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 30 oC (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.

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.

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 membranebased 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 LikuidCBR 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

M.K. Purkait et al.analysed 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 trans-membrane 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 membrane-based
separation processes.

2.21 Investigations on the use of different ceramic membranes for

efficient oil-field produced water treatment

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.

2.23 A review of membrane bioreactors and their potential application in

the treatment of agricultural wastewater
N. Cicek 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.

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

provided certain terms take finite values fluxes should exist at which there is 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 otherwords, 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. MFbased 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.

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 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 feedwater including BTEX compounds (Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene
and xylene) has been undertaken. Overall the link between the bio transformation 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 that UV-absorbing (and hence ostensibly
aromatic) organic chemical species in the biomass differ substantially for MBRs fed with different
feedwaters.

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 high-flux 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 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. Well-controlled pilotscale 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.

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 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. 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 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. 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 analysed.

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 condition in obtaining quality effluent that
could be reclaimed and reused by operating MBR at different hydraulic retention
time (HRT) and sludge retention time (SRT).
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 fouling mitigation strategies in
operation of laboratory scale membrane bioreactor and to determine critical flux
for the arrangement.
5. To develop a software for MBR design and analysis.
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 submerged in a reactor having facility of aeration just beneath the
membrane module to control fouling by shear. Arrangements to determine flux and
transmembrane 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.

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, 59-68
[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, 3233-3248
[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/Volume-27/Issue3/Editorial-Focus/Desalination/Biomimetic-Membranes-Taking.Html, Accssed On- 18/11/2014.
[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.
[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, 6.37-6.49.
[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, 295
300.
[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.
[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.133139
[39.] 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.
[40.] 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.
[41.] 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