| Literature DB >> 31003466 |
Thet Lei Yee1, Thusitha Rathnayake2, Chettiyappan Visvanathan3.
Abstract
Anaerobic treatment processes have achieved popularity in treating palm oil mill effluent due to its high treatability and biogas generation. The use of externally submerged membranes with anaerobic reactors promotes the retention of the biomass in the reactor. This study was conducted in thermophilic conditions with the Polytetrafluoroethylene hollow fiber (PTFE-HF) membrane which was operated at 55 °C. The reactor was operated at Organic Loading Rates (OLR) of 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 kg Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)/m3·d to investigate the treatment performance and the membrane operation. The efficiency of the COD removal achieved by the system was between 93-98%. The highest methane yield achieved was 0.56 m3 CH4/kg CODr. The reactor mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) was maintained between 11.1 g/L to 20.9 g/L. A dead-end mode PTFE hollow fiber microfiltration was operated with the constant flux of 3 LMH (L/m2·h) in permeate recirculation mode to separate the clear final effluent and retain the biomass in the reactor. Membrane fouling was one of the limiting factors in the membrane bioreactor application. In this study, organic fouling was observed to be 93% of the total membrane fouling.Entities:
Keywords: anaerobic membrane bioreactor; fouling; microfiltration; organic loading rate; palm oil mill effluent; thermophilic
Year: 2019 PMID: 31003466 PMCID: PMC6523901 DOI: 10.3390/membranes9040055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the -Thermophilic Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor.
Characteristics of the feed POME used in this study compared to previous studies.
| Parameters | Unit | Current Study | Palm Oil Wastewater | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |||
| pH | - | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 4–5 | 3.4–5.2 | 4.75 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Temperature | °C | 55 | - | 80–90 | - | 55.5 | - |
| BOD5 | mg/L | 42,670 ± 2894 | 25,000–65,714 | 25,000–65,714 | 30,000 ± 10,391 | 40,000 | 45,357 |
| COD | mg/L | 60,000 ± 3002 | 44,300–102,694 | 15,000–100,000 | 70,000 ± 7612 | 65,000 | 73,498 |
| Oil & Grease | mg/L | 7102 ± 1740 | 4000–9341 | 130–18,000 | 10,540 ± 1000 | 1500 | 6670.5 |
| TS | mg/L | 44,980 ± 336 | 40,500–72,058 | 11,500–79,000 | - | 45,000 | 56,279 |
| TSS | mg/L | 25,009 ± 4142 | 18,000–46,011 | 5000–54,000 | 28,900 ± 3065 | 20,000 | 32005.5 |
| TVS | mg/L | 37,666 ± 383 | - | 9000–72,000 | - | 26,300 | 41,650 |
| Ammonia-N | mg/L | 85 ± 6 | 35–103 | 4–80 | - | 90 | 69 |
Figure 2Biogas production during the operational period.
Figure 3Variation of biogas production and methane generation during the reactor operation.
Figure 4MLSS and MLVSS concentrations during the TAnMBR operation.
MLVSS /MLSS Ratio: Comparison between the current study and the literature.
| Wastewater | Reactor Configuration | OLR (kg COD/m3·d) | MLSS (g/L) | MLVSS (g/L) | MLVSS/MLSS | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) | AnMBR | 1–11 | 11.76–20.8 | 8.9–17.68 | 0.76–0.85 | [ |
| AnMBR | 14.2–21.7 | 50–57 | - | 0.74–0.82 | [ | |
| Hybrid Membrane Bioreactor | 10.1–11.9 | 15 | 12 | 0.8 | [ | |
| AnMBR | 10.9 ± 1.2 | 9.2 ± 1.2 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | [ | ||
| TAnMBR | 2–10 | 17.5–29.4 | 11.1–20.9 | 0.61–0.74 | This study |
Different anaerobic POME treatment methods and their performance.
| Different Treatment Configurations | OLR (kg COD/m3·d) | COD Removal (%) | Methane Yield (m3 CH4/kg CODr) | Methane Composition (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anaerobic pond | 1.4 | 97.8 | - | 54.4 | [ |
| Anaerobic digester | 2.16 | 80.7 | - | 36 | [ |
| Anaerobic filtration | 4.5 | 94 | - | 63 | [ |
| Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor | 3.33 | 80 | - | 62.5 | [ |
| Anaerobic contact process | 3.44 | 93.3 | - | 63 | [ |
| AnMBR | 1–11 | 96–99 | 0.25–0.57 | - | [ |
| AnMBR | 14.2–21.7 | 91.7–94.2 | 0.24–0.28 | - | [ |
| TAnMBR | 2–10 | 90–98.75 | 0.19–0.56 | 65.1 ± 2.2 | This study |
Figure 5Influent and effluent COD concentrations and removal efficiency during the TAnMBR operation.
Figure 6Variation of the FOS/TAC ratio during the reactor operation.
Figure 7Transmembrane Pressure (TMP) variation vs. time for the TAnMBR.