| Literature DB >> 24355199 |
Majid Hosseinzadeh1, Gholamreza Nabi Bidhendi, Ali Torabian, Naser Mehrdadi.
Abstract
The evaluation of a membrane bioreactor (MBR) for pretreatment of reverse osmosis (RO) in order to reuse and reclamation of industrial town wastewater treatment plant was investigated in this study. Performance of MBR effluent through water quality in term of parameters such as chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN) and total coliform (TC) were measured. Also Silt density index (SDI) was used as indicator for RO feed water. The results of this study demonstrated that MBR produce a high quality permeate water. Approximately 75%, 98%, 74% and 99.9% removal of COD, TSS, TN and TC were recorded, respectively. Also SDI of the permeate effluent from membrane was below 3 for most of the times. It means that pilot yield a high quality treated effluent from the membrane module which can be used as RO feed water.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24355199 PMCID: PMC3880036 DOI: 10.1186/2052-336X-11-34
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Health Sci Eng
Shokouhieh effluent characteristics
| pH | | 7.3 ± 0.62 |
| SS | mg/L | 223 ± 32 |
| COD | mg/L | 250 ± 64 |
| T-N | mg/L | 51 ± 30 |
| TC | MPN/100 mL | 1.75×106 ± 35×104 |
Figure 1Membrane bioreactor pilot scale in Shokouhieh wastewater treatment plant: (a) Schematic process flow diagram; (b) picture of MBR module in operation.
Specification of membrane
| Membrane configuration | | Flat sheet |
| Cut off | kDalton | 150 |
| Pore size | μm | 0.4 |
| Dimensions (Width × Height) | mm | 240×200 |
| Effective surface area | m2 | 0.048 |
| Material | - | EPS |
| Membrane charge | - | Neutral |
| pH resistance range | - | 4-11 |
Operation condition for MBR
| Mode of operation | | continuous |
| Operating temperature | °C | 22-27 |
| Permeate flow rate | L/hr | 4 |
| Filtration flux | L/m2/hr | 83 |
| pH in reactor | - | 6.4-7.8 |
| HRT | hr | 8 |
| SRT | day | 25 |
| MLSS | mg/L | 1700-2450 |
| MLVSS | mg/L | 1510-2230 |
| Mixed liquor DO | mg/L | 2-4 |
Figure 2MBR mixed liquor and permeate water.
Figure 3Concentration of SS, COD, TN and TC in inlet and the outlet versus the time of operation and their removal percentage.
Figure 4TMP changes with time.
Figure 5Field emission scanning electron microscopy image of membrane surface: (a) before operation; (b) after operation.
Results of XRF analysis for foulants
| 1 | 42.05 | 0.352 | 0.317 | 0.253 | 0.842 | 0.877 | 0.702 | 0.287 | 53.45 | 0.624 | 0.021 | 0.225 |
| 2 | 41.599 | 0.393 | 0.325 | 0.221 | 0.821 | 0.856 | 0.603 | 0.231 | 54.15 | 0.431 | 0.076 | 0.294 |
| 3 | 46.251 | 0.392 | 0.294 | 0.18 | 0.851 | 0.811 | 0.522 | 0.229 | 49.066 | 1.000 | 0.065 | 0.339 |
| Ave. (%) | 43.3 | 0.379 | 0.312 | 0.218 | 0.838 | 0.848 | 0.609 | 0.249 | 52.222 | 0.685 | 0.054 | 0.286 |
Figure 6SDI trend of MBR permeate.