(

Evaluation of Laboratory and Plant Scale Membrane

Bioreactors in Treating Textile Wastewater
T. A. Ferdian*, A. Reza* and T. Setiadi**

* Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha
No. 10 Bandung 40132, Indonesia
**Centre for Environmental Studies-PSLH, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Sangkuriang 42A, Bandung, Indonesia
(E-mail: tjandra@che.itb.ac.id)

Abstract
The Membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology has being developed in many countries in the world.
Due to its ability to produce a high quality effluent, the MBR technology can be applied to improve
the environment and it can also help reducing the water resources needed through water recycling.
Apparently, this technology has not yet been widely applied to the textile wastewater treatment in
Indonesia since there are a number of factors, such as economy and technical reasons. From the
technical point of view, there is still a lack of information available on factors influenced the MBR
performance in treating textile wastewater. Thus, this study was aimed to evaluate both the lab-
scale and plant scale submerged hollow fibre MBR performance on textile wastewater treatment.
The lab-scale MBR, which had an operating volume of 5 L and an aeration system at the bottom,
was operated in the fed-batch mode and fed with 2 L/day of textile wastewater from a textile mill
outside Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. It was operated in 25 days where permeate was extracted at
a constant flux between 5-6 LMH (L/m2/h) and HRT (hydraulic retention time) of 2.53 days. The
MBR lab-scale result was compared to the plant-scale performance which operated in a constant
flux of 5.6 LMH and HRT of 4.2 days. The result shows that the operation at the laboratory and
plant scale were relatively at a stable flux (5-6 LMH) and TMP (trans membrane pressure) was
never exceeded 0.7 bar (52.5 cmHg) during the 25 days experiment, so it did not indicate the
occurrence of membrane fouling. Extracellular polymeric substances in the laboratory scale sludge
was dominated by polysaccharides, while it was dominated by proteins in the plant scale. The
filament index of laboratory sludge was 5; while on plant-scale was 4 according to the Eikelboom
category, and sludge in both plants were dominated by the same filamentous microorganisms, i.e.
Sphaerotilus natans. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the laboratory and
plant scale MBR effluent quality, i.e. the COD removal of 85-91%, and 74- 93 % on the lab-scale,
and plant-scale, respectively.

Keywords
Laboratory scale, plant scale, membrane bioreactor, textile wastewater

INTRODUCTION
The clean water needs in the developing countries are more difficult to achieve because of an
increase trend on population, urbanization, water usage percapita and water pollution. This
encourages many governments on establishing stricter regulations on water resources and water
pollution (Copeland and Taylor, 2004). For example, excessive water use could be reduced by the
water-saving campaign and groundwater use restriction. Wastewater efluent standards are also
tightened up to protect water resources, such as river, lake and sea from pollution. These water
management regulations made industries do their best efforts on finding a better wastewater
treatment technology.

The most common wastewater treatment technology applied in industries in the last half of 20th
century was activated sludge processes - ASP (Davis, 2010). With the limitation of water resource
availability in many urban areas of developing countries, industries make best efforts to use their
wastewater as a no-other-choice resource. Therefore, the conventional ASP technology will not be
enough to deal with this kind of situation, a better and realible treatment technology should be
applied. The membrane bioreactor (MBR) is one of the advanced technology in wastewater
treatment nowadays. MBR that combined the activated sludge process and membrane separation
process was first developed by Dorr-Oliver (Judd, 2006).
Currently, the MBR technology has been widespread applications but it is still developed in many
countries around the world. Its applications can be beneficial to environment preservation, because
it can produce a high quality effluent which is safe to discharge to water bodies or recycling
purposes. However, it has been known that the main problem in membrane bioreactor operation is a
membrane fouling. Fouling is a process leading to deterioration of flux because of surface or
internal blocking of the membrane. Variety of substances might exist or appear in water, thus it
could increase the membrane resistance by adsorption on the membrane surface, adsorption on the
surface of the membrane pores, or by closing the pore membrane entirely. The LCOCD (Liquid
Chromatography Organic Carbon Detection) analysis showed that the retention of substances > 5
kDa was greater than 90% (Fane, et al. 2000). Among the factors affecting membrane fouling,
extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), which consists of polysaccharides and proteins as major
components, is considered as the main contributor. EPS is produced by microorganisms in MBR,
mainly by bacteria (Bella et al., 2000; Mehrez et al., 2007) and/or filamentous bacteria (Wang et al.,
2010).

In Indonesia particularly, the MBR technology has been studied to treat industrial wastewater such
as hazardous waste landfill leachate (Setiadi and Fairus, 2003) and textile mill wastewater (Setiadi,
et al., 2005). However, this technology has not yet been widely applied to the textile wastewater
treatment in Indonesia since there are a number of factors, such as economy and technical reasons.
From the technical point of view, there is still a lack of information available on factors influenced
the MBR performance in treating textile wastewater. Thus, this study was aimed to evaluate both
the lab-scale and plant scale submerged hollow fibre MBR performance on textile wastewater
treatment in Indonesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Feed wastewater
Wastewater fed into the membrane bioreactors at both laboratory scale and plant scale obtained
from a textile mill in West Bandung, Indonesia. The average characteristics of raw wastewater are
shown in Table 1. Before feeding to the MBR, the raw wastewater both in laboratory and plant
scale was neutralized into pH of 7 by adding a required amount of sulfuric acid solution. In the
plant scale, there was a mean to reduce oil and grease content and then the wastewater was
equalized in an equalization basin. The wastewater used in the laboratory scale was collected from
the equalization basin.

Table 1 Wastewater characteristics

Parameter Unit Value
BOD520 mg/L 200
COD mg/L 610,9
TSS mg/L 61
Phenol (total) mg/L 0,01
Chromium (total) mg/L < 0,06
Ammonia (as N) mg/L 1,09
Sulfides mg/L 0,11
Oil and grease mg/L 13
pH 9,04
MBR setup
The MBR experimental set up in the laboratory scale is shown in Figure 1. Hollow fiber UF
membrane modules made of PES (polyethersulfone) with 0.1 m pore size and surface area 0.1 m2
installed in a laboratory scale bioreactor with submerged configuration. The reactor has a maximum
working volume of 10 L. Textile wastewater was stored in the 5 L container and neutralized to pH
of 7 before feeding to the bioreactor using a peristaltic pump. The sludge was not acclimatized, due
to it was collected from the plant-scale system. Permeate was extracted by using a diaphragm pump
with a constant flux between 5-6 LMH (L/m2/h). Backwash was conducted periodically every 10
minutes by pumping back a portion of the permeate through the membrane for 1 minute. Aeration
and mixing was carried out by passing air through air diffusers located at the bottom of bioreactor.
An analog manometer installed at effluent stream to monitor TMP (trans-membrane pressure).
Pressure data were recorded manually at the end of each filtration (right before backwash).

Figure 1 Flow diagram of lab-scale textile wastewater treatment

The schematic diagram of plant scale is shown in Figure 2. The configuration in the plant scale was
more complicated than that of laboratory one. In the plant scale, wastewater having undergone a
series of pretreatment (oil and grease reduction, equalization and neutralization) fed into two
aerobic tanks (Aerobic Tank 1 and Aerobic Tank 2). In both tanks, the wastewater was mixed with
activated sludge and aerated using surface aerators. Mixed liquor from the Aerobic Tank 1 was
pumped into the Aerobic Tank 2 before feeding into the membrane bioreactor (UF Tank). Permeate
was extracted by using a centrifugal pump through the 0.1 m pore size PVDF (polyvinylidene
fluoride) ultrafiltration membrane with a total surface area of 7200 m2, while the returned activated
sludge (RAS) was pumped back into the Aerobic Tank 1 and 2. Permeate was extracted by using a
centrifugal pump at a constant flux of 5.6 LMH. Backwash was conducted periodically every 10
minutes by pumping back a portion of the permeate through the membrane for 30 seconds. Aeration
and agitation were conducted with air flowing through the disc-diffusers located at the bottom of
the membrane aeration basin. Comparison between the operating conditions in the laboratory
experiments and plant scale are summarized in Table 2.

Analytical method
Characteristics of wastewater and permeate were analyzed in accord with the Standard Methods
(1989). EPS (extracellular polymeric subtances) analysis was conducted with Dubois test for
polysaccharides (Dubois et al., 1956), as well as Bradford (Bradford et al., 1974) and Lowry
(Lowry, 1951) test for proteins.
 transfer pump ufpump

surface aerator

dosing

UF

transfer pump scrapper disc diffuser

uf backwash uf backwash
Aeration tank2 pump tank
dimension: #21x11 m

sludge recycle

mixer transfer pump

surface aerator

diffuser blower
pit tank equalization tank
dimension: 20x5x5 m
uf blower RECYCLE/
EFFLUENT
neutralization tank
dimension: 5x3x3 m

storage tank

sludge pump Aeration tank1

dimension: #16x15 m

sludge pump

Figure 2 Flow diagram of plant-scale textile wastewater treatment

Table 2 Laboratory and plant scale MBR experimental operating conditions

Values
Operating Conditions Unit
Lab-scale Plant-scale
Flux L. m-2. h-1 5-6 5,6
filtration/backwash
Filtration/backwash duration 10/1 10/0,5
(minute/minute)
Hydraulic retention time 4,2
Days 2,5 - 3
(HRT)
Sludge retention time (SRT) Days 25 -
F:M ratio kg COD. kg MLSS-1. day-1 0,05 0,15 0,05 0,14
Aeration vvm 0,2 0,4 Maks. 0,125
Dissolved oxygen (DO) mg. L-1 6-8 2-4
Temperature C 25 27,5 31
pH - 7-8 7-8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Flux and trans-membrane pressure (TMP)

Flux value between laboratory scale and plant scale was nearly equal and relatively stable at the
whole period of experimentation. This occurred because the flux at both scale was kept constant, so
that the membrane cleaning caused by fouling was determined based on TMP parameters only. Flux
that were in the range of 5-6 LMH (liter/m2/hour) can be classified as a low flux, compared with
flux at a textile wastewater treatment reported by Brik et al. (2006) of 18 LMH or Bella et al.
(2007) of 19 LMH. This low flux prompted the TMP never exceeded 45.9 cmHg at the laboratory
scale. However the membrane operation time, between two consecutive chemical cleaning, at the
plant scale was fairly short, i.e. about every two weeks in the plant membranes and no chemical
cleaning for the laboratory membranes during 25 days of operation. This might be caused of
different membrane type and age of membrane between the laboratory and plant scale. PVDF
membranes used at the plant scale and the PES membranes used in the laboratory scale. In addition,
the plant-scale membranes having experienced several fouling and chemical cleaning many times,
had been approximately operated for 3 years while the laboratory-scale membranes merely 6
months old.

Mixed Liquor Suspended Solid

MLSS comparison between laboratory and plant scale is shown in Fig 3. The MLSS measurement
was carried out in the day 9 and 25 of operation. It can be seen that there was no significant
differences between laboratory and plant scale MLSS. MLSS values had been stable at the end of
the laboratory-scale experiments with a value of between 2500-3000 mg / L, while plant scale
values was kept constant to reduce membrane fouling intensity.

Figure 3 The MLSS in the laboratory and plant-scale at different days of operation

.
Extracelluler Polymeric Substances (EPS)
Figure 4 shows that the sludge in laboratory-scale experiments contained more polysaccharide (as
glucose) than that of plant-scale sludge. On the other hand, the plant-scale sludge has had more
protein (either with Lowry or Bradford method) than that of lab-scale one. Further discussion would
be given in later to clarify the comparison of laboratory and plant floc forms.

40
30
mg/L

20
10
0
Glucose Protein - Protein -
Lowry Bradford
Plant Lab

Figure 4. The comparison of EPS in the plant and laboratory sludge

EPS presence in the activated sludge may reduce permeate flux due to the membrane fouling. This
could be seen with the increase in resistance, being represented by the trans-membrane pressure.
However, because of the low EPS generated in the experimentation, therefore the fouling occurred
relatively insignificant in this experiment. It is in accordance with the finding of Ramesh et al.
(2006) that polysaccharides were a major cause of fouling at a low F/M ratio indicated by a high
polysaccharide concentration in Dubois test. The low concentration of polysaccharide might be due
to they were consumed again by microorganisms as substrates.

Flocs comparison
The comparison of microbial flocs and filamentous microorganisms in the sludge between
laboratory and plant scale at the end of the experiment is shown in Table 3. It can be seen that both
lab and plant-scale sludge having small flocs with bridging interflocs type. Chang et al. (2002)
reported that the particle and floc size of sludge greatly affected the membrane fouling in MBR
process. If the size is too small, then the floc and particles could pass through the pores of the
membrane. However, most bacteria and floc size are much larger than membrane (MF or UF) pore
size so it is more likely that the floc made a cake deposition on membrane surface, which then led to
a membrane fouling.

Table 3 Microphotograph of activated sludge floc

Magn. Lab-scale Plant-scale

40x

100x

The figure shows also that the number of filamentous microorganisms in the lab-scale sludge were
more abundant than that of the plant-scale one. The filament index of laboratory sludge was 5;
while on plant-scale was 4 according to the Eikelboom category (Eikelboom, 2000). This occurance
could be several reasons, either a shorter SRT or less nutrient in the lab-scale operation. Moreover,
in the both laboratory and plant scale operation, it is found that the same filamentous
microorganism, i.e. Sphaerotilus natans, dominated in both sludge. Richard (2003) reported that
Sphaerotilus natans might dominate at a low dissolved oxygen concentration.

Effluent Quality
The laboratory and plant scale MBR effluent quality in the 25th day of operation were summarized
in Table 4.
Table 4 MBR performances during the 25th days of operation
Values
Parameter Unit Plant Lab
Feed
effluent effluent
BOD520 mg/L 200 - 25
COD mg/L 610,9 155,8 94,3
TSS mg/L 61 88 4
Phenol
mg/L 0,01 - -
(Total)
Chromium
mg/L <0,06 < 0,06 < 0,06
(Total)
Ammonia mg/L 1,09 0,55 0,62
Sulfides mg/L 0,11 0,05 0,03
Oil and fat mg/L 13 - -
pH 9,04 8,25 8,21
Based on Table 5, the laboratory-scale MBR effluent had met all of the quality standards according
to KEP-51/MENLH/10/1995 Appendix B.IX for the Indonesian textile mill effluent standard. On
the other hand, the plant scale MBR effluent met most the quality standards except TSS (total
suspended solids / total suspended solids) and COD (chemical oxygen demand) parameters. This
was caused by there was a damaged in several membrane fibers at the plant during the 25th day of
operation, thus the sludge were carried out to the effluent. This problem could not be directly
repaired because it was hard to find the leak point in big numbers of membranes. BOD520
(biological oxygen demand over 5 days at 20 oC) of plant-scale effluent was not detected due to
inaccurate analysis. The COD test was also conducted on day 21th and 24th samples, as shown in
Table 5. Based on the table, both lab and plant scale COD removal ranged from 88.1% to 93.1%.
The removal percentages are within COD removal in wastewater treatment reported by Brik et.al.
(2006), i.e between 60% and 95%.

Table 5. The COD removal throughout MBR operation

Sample Average COD
% Removal
Day Wastewater (ppm)
Raw 986 -
21 Lab effluent 90 90,9
Plant effluent 117 88,1
24 Raw 592 -
Lab effluent 54 91,0
Plant effluent 41 93,1

Moreover, the color reduction did not have a significant difference between laboratory scale and
plant scale. According to Brik et al. (2006), textile wastewater color reduction was not influenced
by feed concentration and microbial biodegradation but the color adsorption phenomena into the
biomass. It was proven by a similar color reduction percentage between the laboratory scale and
plant scale might be due to the comparable value of MLSS in both operations. The similar MLSS
has caused the quantity of dye adsorbed by the biomass in activated sludge did not differ
significantly. Other evidence was the reddish color floc visible under the microscope resembled the
color of the wastewater fed in this experiment.

Conclusions
From the experiment, the conclusions are described as follows:
1) Textile wastewater treatment at the laboratory and plant scale were operated at a relatively stable
flux (5-6 LMH) and TMP (trans membrane pressure) was never exceeded 0.7 bar (52.5 cmHg)
during the 25 days experiment, so it did not indicate the occurrence of membrane fouling.
2) Extracellular polymeric substances in the laboratory scale sludge was dominated by
polysaccharides, while it was dominated by proteins in the plant scale.
3) The filament index of laboratory sludge was 5; while on plant-scale was 4 according to the
Eikelboom category.
4) Both the laboratory and plant scale activated sludge were dominated by the same filamentous
microorganisms, i.e. Sphaerotilus natans.
5) There was no significant difference between the laboratory and plant scale MBR effluent
quality, i.e. the COD removal of 85-91%, and 74- 93 % on the lab-scale, and plant-scale,
respectively.
References
Bella, G. D., Durante, F., Torregrossa, M., Viviani, G., Mercurio, P., & Cicala, A. 2000. The role of fouling
mechanisms in a membrane bioreactor. Wat. Sci. Tech., 55(8-9), 455-464.
Bradford, M. 1974. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein
utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Chem. 72, 248254.
Brik, M., Schoeberl, P., Chamam, B., Braun, R. & Fuchs, W. 2006. Advanced treatment of textile
wastewater towards reuse using a membrane bioreactor. Process Biochemistry, 41,1751-1757.
Chang, I.S., Clech, P.L., Jefferson, B. & Judd, S. 2002. Membrane Fouling in Membrane Bioreactors
forWastewater Treatment, J. Env. Eng. 128(11), 1018-1029.
Copeland, B.R. & Taylor, M.S. 2004. Trade, Growth, and the Environment, J. Economic Literature, 42(1), 7-
71.
Davis, M.L. 2010. Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice. McGraw Hill, New
York.
Dubois, M., Gilles, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A. & Smith, F.S. 1956. Colorimetric method for
determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem, 28(3), 350356.
Eikelboom, D.H. 2000. Process Control of Activated Sludge Plants by Microscopic Investigation. IWA
Publishing, London.
Fane, A. G., Beatson, P. & Li, H. 2000. Membrane fouling and its control in environmental applications.
Wat. Sci. Tech, 41(10-11), 303-308.
Judd, S. 2006. The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors in Water and
Wastewater Treatment, Elsevier, Great Britain.
Lowry, O. H., N. J. Rosebrough, A.L. Farr & R. J. Randall, 1951. Protein measurement with the Folin-
Phenol reagents. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265-275.
Mehrez, R., Ernst, M. & Jekel, M. 2007. Development of a continuous protein and polysaccharide
measurement method by Sequential Injection Analysis for the application in membrane bioreactor
systems. Wat. Sci. Tech., 56(6), 163171.
Richard, M. G. 2003. Activated Sludge Microbiology Problems and Their Control, Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, USA
Ramesh, A., Lee, D.J., Wang, M. L., Hsu, J.P., Juang, R.S.. Hwang, K.J., Liu, J.C. & Tseng, S.J. 2006.
Biofouling in Membrane Bioreactor, Sep. Sci. Tech., 41(7), 1345-1370.
Setiadi, T. & Fairus, S. 2003. Hazardous Waste Landfill Leachates Treatment using Activated Sludge
Membrane System, Wat. Sci. Tech., 48(08), 111-117.
Setiadi, T., Suwardiyono & Wenten, I.G. 2005. Treatment of Textile Wastewater by a Coupling of Activated
Sludge process with Membrane Separation. J. Wat. Env. Tech., 3(1), 125-132.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 1989. 17th Edition, American Public
Health Association, Washington D.C., USA.
Wang, Z., Wang, P., Wang Q, Wu, Z, Zhou Q. & Yang, D. 2010. Effective Control of Membrane Fouling by
Filamentous Bacteria in a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor, Chem. Eng. J., 158(3), 608-615.