Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Energy-positive food wastewater treatment using an anaerobic

membrane bioreactor (AnMBR)
Mohamed Galib a, Elsayed Elbeshbishy a, b, Robertson Reid a, Abid Hussain a,
Hyung-Sool Lee a, *
a
b

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L3G1, Canada
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 March 2016
Received in revised form
7 July 2016
Accepted 31 July 2016

An immersed-membrane anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) achieved 88e95% of COD removal for
meat-processing wastewater at organic loading rate (OLR) of 0.4e3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1. Membrane ux
was stable for low OLR (0.4 and 1.3 kgCOD m
3 d
1), but irrecoverable fouling occurred at high OLR of
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1. Methane gas yield of 0.13e0.18 LCH4 g
1CODremoved was obtained, which accounted
for 33e38% of input COD, the most signicant electron sink. Dissolved methane was only 3.4e11% of
input COD and consistently over-saturated at all OLR conditions. The least accumulation of dissolved
methane (25 mg L
1 and saturation index 1.3) was found for the highest OLR of 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1
where biogas production rate was the highest. Energy balances showed that AnMBR produced net energy benet of 0.16e1.82 kWh m
3, indicating the possibility of energy-positive food wastewater
treatment using AnMBRs.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Anaerobic membrane bioreactor
Wastewater
Energy efciency
Membrane ux
Dissolved methane

1. Introduction
Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) that combine
anaerobic wastewater treatment with membrane separation has
gained signicant attention due to high efuent quality, accurate
control of microorganism retention in bioreactors, lack of aeration,
less sludge production, and methane energy recovery (Kim et al.,
2011a,b; Kim et al., 2011a,b; McCarty et al., 2011). Many studies
have evaluated AnMBR performance with a variety of wastewater
streams, which include domestic wastewater, landll leachate,
animal manure, kraft evaporate condensate, brewery wastewater,
and slaughterhouse wastewater, and so on (Bohdziewicz et al.,
2008; Liao et al., 2006; Padmasiri et al., 2007; Saddoud and
Sayadi, 2007; Torres et al., 2011; Zayen et al., 2010). Nutrients
removal in AnMBR is limited, and thus domestic wastewater
treatment with AnMBRs is challenging (McCarty et al., 2011; Yeo
et al., 2015). In comparison, AnMBR application for industrial and
agricultural wastewater including slaughterhouse wastewater
streams seems practical because there are no uniform regulations
on the wastewater and the surcharge levied could vary depending

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hyungsool@uwaterloo.ca (H.-S. Lee).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.098
0301-4797/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

upon the province and municipality (Bustillo-Lecompte and

Mehrvar, 2015; Speece, 1983; Wu and Mittal, 2011). Nevertheless,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) are
among the main water quality parameters for surcharge regulations on industrial wastewater in Canada (Bustillo-Lecompte and
Mehrvar, 2015; Masse and Masse, 2000; Wu and Mittal, 2011).
Generally, over 300 mgL
1 of BOD and SS concentration in industrial wastewater, manufacturers should pay surcharge fees
considering wastewater ow rate. Hence, AnMBRs can be ideal for
meeting surcharge regulations due to high removal for BOD,
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and SS. Literature has reported
COD removal of 87e95% and perfect SS removal (Lin et al., 2013;
Saddoud and Sayadi, 2007; Stuckey, 2012).
Another merit of AnMBR is to decouple hydraulic retention time
(HRT) from solid retention time (SRT). This decoupling feature can
allow operation of AnMBRs with high organic loading rate (OLR),
indicating small footprint of AnMBRs. Previous works reported
industrial wastewater treatment with AnMBR run at a high OLR of
up to 25 kgCOD m
3 d
1 (Torres et al., 2011; Van Zyl et al., 2008);
however, these high OLR-AnMBRs were typically applied for industrial wastewater containing simple organics (acids or alcohols)
(Liao et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2010). The OLR for AnMBRs is relatively
low for protein-rich wastewater, such as slaughterhouse or meatpacking wastewater (Fuchs et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2015;

478

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

Saddoud and Sayadi, 2007). Saddoud and Sayadi (2007) reported

the maximum OLR of 8 kgCOD m
3 d
1 for an AnMBR treating
slaughterhouse wastewater. However, Jensen et al. (2015) recently
reported that the maximum achievable OLR was only
3.5 kgCOD m
3 d
1 for treatment of cattle slaughterhouse wastewater using an AnMBR. There are no clear trends of maximally
achievable OLR due to complexity and heterogeneity in protein-rich
wastewater, but it seemed that proteins would simulate cake formation on membranes, causing irreversible fouling (e.g., pore
blockage) (Gao et al., 2011; Le-Clech et al., 2006; Lin at al. 2010; Lin
et al., 2013; Meng et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2014).
Proteins in slaughterhouse or meat-packing wastewater are
relatively resistant to complete biodegradation, as compared to
simple organics or carbohydrates (Chan and Chen, 2004; Suzuki
et al., 2006). Slowly biodegradable or non-biodegradable organics
in wastewater can deteriorate efuent quality from AnMBRs. For
instance, high permeate COD from 338 to 4556 mgL
1 was
observed for treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater (Saddoud
and Sayadi, 2007). The COD concentration in membrane permeates was as high as 2034 mgL
1 in an AnMBR treating slaughterhouse wastewater (Jensen et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2009). In
comparison, high quality of permeate COD with less than
300 mgL
1 was obtained in AnMBRs treating kraft evaporation
condensate (Liao et al., 2006; Lin et al., 2009; Xie et al., 2010) where
methanol is a main organic source. For accelerating AnMBR application to slaughterhouse wastewater treatment, it seems essential
to investigate the maximum OLR at which the requirement of
permeate COD level (e.g., <COD 300 mgL
1) is met without severe
membrane fouling.
Most of AnMBR studies on industrial wastewater treatment
have not considered dissolved methane, while its accumulation in
permeates was signicant for dilute wastewater treatment (Smith
et al., 2013; Yeo et al., 2015; Yeo and Lee, 2013; Yoo et al., 2012).
Dissolved methane concentration was as high as 35.1 mgL
1, accounting for 24e58% of the total methane produced from an
AnMBR (Yeo et al., 2015). The quantication of aqueous methane in
membrane permeates is of critical importance as the release of
methane gas from dissolved methane in permeates to atmosphere
may impact the environmental sustainability of AnMBRs considering the climate change effects of methane gas. Hence, understanding of dissolved methane is essential to accelerate
deployment of AnMBRs to slaughterhouse wastewater treatment
and improve methane gas recovery; however, to our knowledge
there are no publications on energy balances considering dissolved
methane in AnMBRs treating slaughterhouse wastewater.
The goals of this study are ve-fold. The rst is to assess the
maximum OLR and membrane ux for an AnMBR treating meatpacking wastewater. The second is to investigate methane gas
yield from the wastewater. The third is to quantify dissolved
methane and dene the implication of dissolved methane on the
total methane molecules. The fourth is to identify potential foulants
in extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), and the nal is to
evaluate if AnMBRs can be energy-neutral or epositive wastewater
treatment technology, considering aqueous methane and membrane fouling behaviors.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. AnMBR set-up
This study used a lab-scale cylindrical AnMBR with a total volume of 5.75 L (inner diameter 10.3 cm and height 69.0 cm) and a
working volume of 5 L. The reactor body was made of a polyvinylchloride tube resting on a steel stand (Fig. 1). It had several
ports on the side for connection of a feed line, a bulk sludge

recirculation line and monitoring sensors. The four openings on the

top were used for biogas recirculation (in and out), permeate production and a pressure gauge (see Fig. 1). A hollow-bre ultraltration membrane module (ZeeWeed 500D, GE Water and Process
Technologies) was immersed inside the anaerobic reactor to achieve the solid-liquid separation. The average pore size of the
membrane was 0.04 mm, and the total surface area of the module
was 0.046 m2. A pH probe (SOTA DJ, Innovative Sensors Inc, USA)
and a temperature sensor (WD 08491-14, Oakton Instruments,
USA) were inserted in the reactor and were connected to a
controller. Pressure gauges (PX76, Omega Engineering, USA;
68075-32, Cole Parmer, Canada) were installed in the reactor and
the permeate line in order to measure the transmembrane pressure
(TMP). Data from the pressure devices were monitored with a data
acquisition system (USB 6341, National Instruments, USA) connected to a personal computer using LabView 2012 software. Two
digital peristaltic pumps (Masterex L/S 7523-80, Cole-Parmer,
Canada) with time control were used for pumping feed and
permeate. Additional peristaltic pumps (Masterex L/S 7554-90,
Cole-Parmer, Canada) were installed for biogas and liquid circulation. A gas counter (MGC-1 V3.1, Ritter, Germany) was installed on
an outlet line branching from the biogas recycle loop to quantify the
net biogas production.
2.2. Inoculum, feed wastewater, and operating conditions
The AnMBR was inoculated with 2.5 L of anaerobic digester
sludge (MLVSS 11, 500 820 mgL
1; average SRT 15 days) from Galt
Wastewater Treatment Plant (Cambridge, ON). A 2.5 L of meatprocessing wastewater sampled from Conestoga Meat Packers
(Breslau, ON) was added as the feed. The reactor was operated in
batch mode for approximately one month before continuous mode
operations. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the feed wastewater. Wastewater was collected weekly, stored at 4  C, and
screened with 1 mm metallic mesh before being fed to the AnMBR.
The AnMBR was operated at ambient temperature (24 2  C)
and neutral pH. Hydraulic retention time (HRT) was stepwise
decreased to operate at 5, 2, and 1 days, corresponding to average
organic loading rates of 0.4 (Phase I), 1.3 (Phase II), and
3.1 kgCOD m
3 d
1 (Phase III), respectively. The solid retention time
(SRT) was xed at 50 days during the 38 week-long experiment.
Table 2 summarizes the operating conditions of the AnMBR. Feed
and permeate were pumped synchronously with two peristaltic
pumps. The pumps were operated at 7 min on (permeate production) and 3 min off (relaxation) per cycle, pumping at rates of 0.9,
2.4 and 4.9 mL min
1 to maintain the permeate ux of 1.17, 3.13 and
6.4 L m
2h
1 (LMH) during each HRT condition. This intermittent
permeation can mitigate membrane fouling (Liu et al., 2012). The
permeate was monitored using a digital scale (Adam GBK 35a, UK).
The biogas and the bulk liquid inside the reactor were circulated
using a single peristaltic pump at a rate of 0.9 L min
1 and
1 L min
1, respectively. The resulting specic gas demand per
membrane surface area (SGD) was estimated at 1.15 m3 m
2 h
1.
The simultaneous circulation of bulk liquid and biogas minimized
cake formation by creating a shear ow over the membrane surface
and thereby assisting in the reduction of membrane fouling.
Maintenance cleaning of the membranes was performed once
every week with citric acid solution (2000 mgL
1, pH 2.5) followed
by sodium hypochlorite solution (200 mgL
1, pH 8.75); the recirculation of the biogas and the liquid, and maintenance cleaning
conditions optimized from previous works were applied to operation of the AnMBR (Yeo et al., 2015; Yeo and Lee, 2013). Each
cleaning solution was pumped in reverse direction (back pulse)
through the membranes in four cycles. Each cycle consists of
pumping the chemical solutions at a ux of 30 LMH for 40 s, and

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

479

Fig. 1. Lab-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR).

Table 1
The characteristics of meat-processing wastewater.
Parameter

Feed wastewater Avg STD

TSS, mg/L
VSS, mg/L
TCOD, mg/L
SCOD, mg/L
pH
NH3-N, mg/L
PO3

4 P, mg/L
Alkalinity, mg/L (as CaCO3)

1640 98
1460 59
4398 305
651 29
6.6
77 24
101 13
811 112

Where: TSS represents total suspended solids, VSS represents volatile suspended
solids, TCOD represents total chemical oxygen demand, SCOD represents soluble
chemical oxygen demand.

Table 2
Operating conditions of the AnMBR.
Parameter

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Period of operation (day)

HRT (day)
SRT (day)
Feed ow rate (L/day)
Permeate ow rate (L/day)
Sludge wasting (L/d)
Flux (LMH)

0e75
5
50
1.0
0.9
0.1
1.17

76e210
2
50
2.5
2.4
0.1
3.13

211e264
1
50
5.0
4.9
0.1
6.4

945404, Fisher, USA). The pellets were centrifuged again and supernatant were disposed of leaving only pellets which were resuspended in 20 mL of NaCl solution and mixed again with the
vortex mixer. Finally 10 mL of the re-suspended pellets were mixed

with 10 mL of 2% EDTA solution, and stored for 3 h at 4 C. The
pellets were then centrifuged at 10,000 rpm (10,621g) and the
supernatant was collected and ltered with 0.2 mm lter (PTFE
syringe lter, VWR). This whole extraction procedure was performed twice to improve EPS yield. The EPS was characterized by
measuring the concentrations of proteins and carbohydrates, given
that two substances form the major component of EPS (Malamis
and Andreadakis, 2009; Sheng et al., 2010). Proteins were
measured using the Pierce BCA test kit (Pierce BCA Protein Assay,
Thermo Scientic, USA) with bovine serum albumin as the standard. Carbohydrates were measured using phenol-sulphuric acid
method (DuBois et al., 1956) with glucose as the standard.

2.4. COD balances in the AnMBR

COD balances were established at a steady-state AnMBR to track
distributions of substrate electrons in each organic loading rate,
according to equation (1).

Q L $CODin Q L $CODpermeate CODAnMBR $Q w Q methane gas

then relaxing for 3 min. Tap water was pumped at the same ux to
clean residue chemicals in the membranes and tubing lines for the
second and the nal cycles; the sequence of maintenance cleaning
was citric acid, tap water, sodium hypochlorite, and tap water.
Previous studies consistently showed no effect of the cleaning
procedure on methane production and permeate quality (Yeo et al.,
2015; Yeo and Lee, 2013).
2.3. EPS quantication
Mixed liquor samples of 20 mL were taken from the AnMBR,
centrifuged at 10,000 rpm (10,621g) and a temperature of 4  C for
15 min with a high-speed centrifuge (Sorvall RC-5B Plus, USA).
Remaining pellets were re-suspended in NaCl solution (0.85%w/v)
and shaken for 3 min with a vortex mixer (Standard Vortex Mixer

Q L $COD
methane
(1)

1

Where, CODin: COD concentration in AnMBR feed (mgCOD L ),

CODpermeate: measured COD concentration in the permeate from
the steady-state AnMBR (mgCOD L
1) (CODpermeate does not
include dissolved methane), CODAnMBR: COD concentration of
mixed liquor in the steady-state AnMBR, Qw: sludge wasting rate
(Lh
1), QL: ow rate of feed and permeate (Lh
1), Qmethane gas: the
production rate of methane gas from the steady-state AnMBR
(mgCOD h
1), and CODD-methane: dissolved methane concentration
in the permeate (mgCOD L
1). The COD for biomass growth was
calculated with daily wasting sludge (i.e., MLVSS) for the steadystate AnMBR, given that the chemical formula of microorganisms
is C5H7O2N (1 g VSS 1.42 g COD). For phase I, a pseudo steadystate condition was considered for calculations.

480

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

2.5. Flux, transmembrane pressure and permeability in the AnMBR

The most common parameters to monitor membrane performance are ux, transmembrane pressure (TMP) and permeability.
Depending on the mode of operation, proper functioning of the
membrane can be characterized by monitoring changes in ux or
TMP. During the constant pressure mode of operation, membrane
ux was calculated with the monitored ow rate data using
equation (2):


J Q permeate A

(2)

Where, J is the ux (Lm
2h
1), Qpermeate is the permeate ow rate

(Lh
1), and A is the membrane surface area (m2).
Under the constant ow-rate mode of operation, TMP as kPa is
calculated from the pressure data using equation (3):


TMP

Pressurefeed Pressureconcentrate
2



Pressurepermeate
(3)

Membrane performance in the AnMBR was evaluated with the

permeability (ux/TMP) and fouling index (FI) at different operating conditions.
FI was calculated using equation (4):

FI

TMPfinal time
TMPinitial time

Dt

(4)

2.6. Chemical analysis

The volatile fatty acids (VFAs) were determined after ltering
the samples through 0.45 mm by titrimetric method with a threepoint calibration using a modied Kapp equation (Buchauer, 1998).
Biogas was sampled through a septum from the reactor gas recirculation line with a gas-tight syringe (Gastight Syringe 1.0 mL
81301, Hamilton, USA) and its composition (methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen) was analyzed with a gas chromatograph
equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (GC-TCD) (SRI GC
310C, USA). The GC-TCD was installed with a packed column (PorapakQ, 6 ft x 1/8 inches, 80/100 mesh, Agilent Tech., USA) and
helium (99.999%, PraxAir, Canada) was used as the carrier gas with
a ow rate of 10 mL min
1 under a pressure of 21 psi. The column


oven temperature and detector temperature were 41 C and 200 C,
respectively.
Dissolved methane was measured using a headspace method
(Yeo et al., 2015; Yeo and Lee, 2013). Briey describing, 10 mL
permeate was collected using a syringe. The permeate was immediately injected into a 20 mL glass vial that had been purged with
CO2 and sealed with a butyl rubber stopper. The vial was then
shaken with a vortex mixer for 10 min allowing thermodynamic
equilibrium of methane molecules between the liquid and gas
phases. The gas in the headspace of the vial was then collected with
a gas-tight syringe (Hamilton Gastight Syringe, 1.0 mL, USA) and
analyzed with the GC-TCD (SRI GC 310C, USA). Dissolved methane
concentration was calculated using equation (5).


1000mg
CCH4  P  KCH4  MWCH4 
1g


1000mg
 T0
CCH4  Vhead  MWCH4 
1g
1

Vhead  22:4L=1mol  1000mL=1L  T1


CH4 aq

(5)

Where, CH4 (aq) concentration of dissolved methane in

AnMBR permeate (mgL
1), CCH4 methane percentage in headspace of vial, P pressure (1 atm), KCH4 Henry's law constant at

25 C (1.3  10
3 mol/L-atm), MWCH4 molecular weight of
methane (16 g mol
1), Vhead volume of headspace in vial (10 mL),
T0 273.15 K and T1 298.15 K.
The concentration of dissolved methane at thermodynamic
equilibrium in the AnMBR was computed with Henry's law
(CH4,eq kH,CH4  PCH4); CH4,eq: dissolved methane concentration

at equilibrium (mgL
1), kH,CH4: Henry's law constant at 25 C for

3

atm
methane (1.3  10
mol/L
), partial pressure of methane in
headspace of the AnMBR (atm). The pressure inside the reactor was
kept at 1.010 0.003 atm during experiments. Methane saturation
index (the ratio of measured CH4(aq) to CH4(aq) at thermodynamic
equilibrium) was assessed for each organic loading rate.
Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), mixed liquor volatile
suspended solids (MLVSS), total suspended solids (TSS), volatile
suspended solids (VSS), total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD) and
soluble COD (SCOD) were measured using the Standard Methods
(APHA-AWWA-WEF, 1992). Alkalinity was measured using method
2320 B of the Standard Methods. The SCOD was measured after
ltering the samples through 0.45 mm membrane lters. The pH
was measured with a bench-top pH meter (710A, Orion, USA).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. COD removal and biomass concentration
Permeate COD concentration was consistently less than
200 mgL
1 for Phase I and II (OLRs 0.4 and 1.3 kgCOD m
3 d
1),
although inuent COD uctuated from 2050 to 6880 mgL
1. An
average COD permeate of 96 28 mg L
1 and 170 36 mg L
1 was
obtained in phases I and II (Fig. 2). For Phase III (OLR
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1), permeate COD increased to 380 71 mgL
1,
with severe membrane fouling (discussed later). An immediate
increase in permeate COD was observed at the beginning of each
phase due to increase in OLR. The permeate COD stabilized with the
progress of each phase. The average TCOD removal efciency for
phase I, II and III was estimated at 94.5, 93.5 and 87.5%, respectively
(Fig. 3). No suspended solids were ever detected in the AnMBR
permeate due to perfect separation of particulate matter through
ultraltration membranes, although inuent TSS concentration was
signicantly changed from 290 to 2580 mgL
1. Biomass concentration in the AnMBR was relatively stable at 1720 to 2140 mg
MLVSSL
1 (MLSS 1920e2630 mgL
1) because of separation of microorganisms with the membranes and endogenous respiration
and cell decay stimulated by a long SRT of 50 days. Several literature
showed that permeate with COD of less than 400 mgL
1 is challenging at high OLR (over 3 kgCOD m
3 d
1) (Jensen et al., 2015;
Saddoud and Sayadi, 2007), probably due to slowly biodegradable
fractions of organic compounds in slaughterhouse wastewater
(Jensen et al., 2015; Pozo et al., 2003).
3.2. Dissolved methane accumulation
Fig. 4 showed that dissolved methane concentration decreased
with increasing OLR. The dissolved methane concentrations were
54 5, 34 16 and 25 5 mgL
1, respectively, for 0.4, 1.3 and
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1. Dissolved methane was consistently oversaturated for all three OLRs. Saturation index was as high as 3 in
the lowest OLR of 0.4 kgCOD m
3 d
1. Signicant accumulations of
dissolved methane in the AnMBR permeates well accord to the
literature (Smith et al., 2013; Yeo et al., 2015; Yeo and Lee, 2013; Yoo
et al., 2012). Physical factors (e.g., temperature, viscosity, etc.) can
affect the solubility of methane molecules in the permeates.

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

481

Fig. 2. Inuent and efuent COD proles at different OLRs.

Fig. 3. Average OLR and TCOD removal efciency.

However, temperature was constant at 24 2  C during experiments. The change of viscosity in mixed liquor of the AnMBR would
not be substantial due to a moderate range of biomass concentration (MLSS 1920e2630 mgL
1), which implies that viscosity change
of the mixed liquor would be negligible (Scott and Hughes, 1996).
Hence, the impact of temperature and viscosity on dissolved
methane would be trivial for this work. Yeo et al. (2015) mathematically and experimentally demonstrated that biogas production
rate, that is proportional to OLR and methanogenesis rate, was the
most important mass transport factor for methane molecules in
AnMBRs, consequently governing dissolved methane concentration
in AnMBR permeates. This study also presents the same trend to the
literature, as shown in Fig. 4: the least accumulation of dissolved

methane (saturation index 1.3) at the highest OLR of

3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1 where biogas production rate was the fastest at
2.8 0.6 LCH4(g) d
1.

3.3. Methane gas production and COD balances

Methane gas production rate increased from 0.26 0.13 to
2.18 0.29 L d
1 proportional to OLR (see Fig. 5). The methane gas
yields, normalized with the mass of COD removed, were 0.18 0.13,
0.13 0.04 and 0.18 0.08 LCH4 g
1CODremoved for 0.4, 1.3, and
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1, respectively. The methane yield observed in
this study was less than the literature (Fuchs et al., 2003; Saddoud
and Sayadi, 2007) reporting methane yields of 0.2e0.3 LCH4

482

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

Fig. 4. The evolution of dissolved methane and biogas production rate to organic
loading rate for the AnMBR.

g
1CODremoved. The relatively low methane yield in our study implies that the meeting-processing wastewater contains slowly
biodegradable or non-biodegradable organics (Huang et al., 2011)
which is measured with COD but do not contribute to methane
production.
The COD mass (electron) balances are shown in Fig. 6. The
largest electron sink was methane gas, ranging from 33 to 38% of
the input COD. The second largest sink was COD in liquid (AnMBR
permeate and wasted sludge), amounting to 12e20% of the input
COD; permeate COD was 4.3, 6.0, and 12.5% of the input COD,
respectively, for Phase I, II, and III. Dissolved methane (permeate
and wasted sludge) was found to be as high as 11% of the input COD
in the lowest OLR of 0.4 kgCOD m
3 d
1. However, it reduced by
3.4% of the input COD in the highest OLR of 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1.
Dissolved methane fraction of the total methane was as high as 25%
for the lowest OLR, but it became small at 8% for OLR
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1. Hence, operation of AnMBRs at high OLR can
improve methane gas production and minimize dissolved methane
accumulation in membrane permeates.

Fig. 5. Methane production rate and methane percentage of biogas for AnMBR.

Fig. 6. COD mass balances in the AnMBR for the three phases. Phase I: 0.4 Kg COD m
3 d
1, Phase II: 1.3 Kg COD m
3d
1 and Phase III: 3.2 Kg COD m
3d
1.

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

3.4. Membrane performance

Permeate uxes were stable at 1.14 0.02 and 3.15 0.04 LMH
for Phase I and II (0.4 and 1.3 kgCOD m
3 d
1), respectively (see
Fig. 7a). These steady uxes indicate that weekly membrane
maintenance cleaning, scouring of membrane surface with biogas
and application of intermittent pumping strategy helped keep
stable membrane ux and mitigate membrane fouling when
membrane ux was less than 3.15 LMH. Consequently a low fouling
index of 0.16e0.18 kPa min
1 was estimated for Phase I and II,
respectively. In comparison, the permeate ux for Phase III
(3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1 and set ux 6.4 LMH) gradually declined which
indicated the development of irrecoverable fouling over time. After
~50 days of operation in Phase III, the permeate ux declined
sharply to 3.98 LMH, and the maintenance cleaning did not recover

483

ux to the set value of 6.4 LMH. The fouling index consequently

increased to 6.0 kPa min
1.
Fig. 7-b shows membrane permeability and TMP change for a
permeate production cycle towards the end of phases I, II, and at
the beginning and end of phase III. At the ends of Phase I and II and
at the beginning of Phase III (OLR 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1), TMP
remained below 2 kPa. However, at the end of Phase III when the
permeate ux declined to 3.98 LMH, TMP reached higher than
40 kPa (over the recommended limit of 30 kPa by a membrane
manufacturer). Similar trends were observed for membrane
permeability and fouling index. The membrane permeability (Flux/
TMP) remained fairly consistent at 1.2 and 2.6 LMH/kPa for Phase I
and II, respectively, while a sharp drop in permeability was
observed from 3.8 LMH/kPa to 0.09 LMH/kPa for Phase III. Fouling
index was also low at 0.16e0.18 kPa min
1 at Phase I and II, but it

Fig. 7. Membrane ux, TMP and membrane permeability for the AnMBR operated at different organic loading rates.

484

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

increased by 6.0 kPa min
1 for the highest set ux of 6.4 LMH
(Phase III).
3.5. EPS quantication
Fig. 8 presents the evolutions of EPS to OLR. Protein contents in
EPS slightly increased with increasing OLR. The protein contents
increased by 10% when OLR increased from 0.41 to
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1. In comparison, carbohydrate contents in EPS
were constant to OLR change (only 3% difference). For these reasons, the proteins to carbohydrates (P/C) ratio in EPS was not
changed much to OLR increase. The P/C ratio ranged from 6.1 to 6.5,
which is close to the literature (D'Abzac et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2011).
This study presented relatively high protein content in EPS over the
literature, probably due to high protein content in slaughterhouse
wastewater (De Lange et al., 2003). This wastewater feature explains high protein concentration and high P/C ratio in EPS. Literature reported that the sludge having high P/C ratio will have
higher stickiness and favor the development of cake formation
(Arabi and Nakhla, 2008; Gao et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2013). Therefore, high P/C ratio in EPS would accentuate membrane fouling in
the AnMBR. Signicant irreversible membrane fouling was
observed for high OLR of 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1 (set ux of 6.4 LMH) in
this study.
3.6. Energy balances in the AnMBR
The energy content of methane produced at OLR of 0.4, 1.3 and
3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1 was estimated to be approximately 1,900, 5000
and 20,000 kJ m
3, respectively. The energy consumption for
AnMBR was estimated as described in Kim et al., 2011a,b, which
included energy requirement for liquid recirculation, biogas
scouring and permeation (Table 3). An energy consumption of 0.39,
0.39 and 0.40 kWh m
3 was computed for Phases I, II and III,
respectively. This means that the AnMBR can provide net energy
benet of 0.13e5.1 kWh m
3. Our study clearly indicates that
AnMBRs treating meat-processing wastewater can be an energy-

independent wastewater treatment technology. If an energy conversion efciency of ~40% from heat to electric energy is assumed,
the electric energy recovered as methane from AnMBR is computed
at 0.2e1.83 kWh m
3, resulting in a net energy benet of
0.16 kWh m
3 and 1.82 kWh m
3 for phases II and III. Although the
energy benet was the highest at the OLR of 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1,
severe irreversible fouling was observed at this OLR where membrane ux was set at 6.4 LMH. To keep energy benet sustainably
the AnMBR should be operated at membrane ux less than 6.4 LMH
in which no serious membrane fouling occurs, together with relatively small accumulation of dissolved methane.
4. Conclusion
The AnMBR successfully treated meat-processing wastewater,
achieving COD removal of 88e95% for 0.4 to 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1.
Methane gas yield was relatively low at 0.13e0.18 LCH4
g
1CODremoved, indicating the presence of non-biodegradable organics in the wastewater. Membrane ux was stable for low OLR,
but it was deteriorated for 3.2 kgCOD m
3 d
1. Dissolved methane
was consistently over-saturated during experiments, but the least
accumulation of dissolved methane (25 mgL
1 and saturation index
1.3) was found at the highest OLR. Methane gas was the major
electron sink, but dissolved methane was not trivial, accounting for
3.4e11% of input COD. The energy analysis indicated that AnMBR
can produce net energy benet of 0.16e1.83 kWh m
3, suggesting
that AnMBRs can realize energy-positive wastewater treatment.Where: HRT represents hydraulic retention time, SRT represents
solid retention time, LMH represents permeate ux in Lm
2h
1.
Acknowledgement
This work was nancially supported by Ministry of Economic
Development and Innovation entitled Development of sustainable
anaerobic wastewater treatment technologies: recovery of valueadded products. We appreciate the kind contribution of GE Water and Process Technologies to this work by providing membrane
modules.
References

Fig. 8. Proteins and carbohydrates in EPS and proteins to carbohydrates (P/C) ratio in
EPS.

Table 3
Energy consumption for AnMBR at different phases.
Energy consumption (KWh m
3)

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Liquid recirculation
Biogas scouring
Permeation (10
4)

0.11
0.27
1

0.11
0.27
5.3

0.11
0.27
123

APHA-AWWA-WEF., 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater, eighteenth ed. Washington DC, USA.
Arabi, S., Nakhla, G., 2008. Impact of protein/carbohydrate ratio in the feed
wastewater on the membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors. J. Membr. Sci.
324, 142e150.
Bohdziewicz, J., Neczaj, E., Kwarciak, A., 2008. Landll leachate treatment by means
of anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Desalination 221, 559e565.
Buchauer, K., 1998. A comparison of two simple titration methods to determine
volatile fatty acids in inuents to waste water and sludge. Water SA 24, 49e56.
Bustillo-Lecompte, C.F., Mehrvar, M., 2015. Slaughterhouse wastewater characteristics, treatment, and management in the meat processing industry: a review
on trends and advances. J. Environ. Manage. 161, 287e302.
Chan, R., Chen, V., 2004. Characterization of protein fouling on membranes: opportunities and challenges. J. Membr. Sci. 242, 169e188.
D'Abzac, P., Bordas, F., Van Hullebusch, E., Lens, P.L., Guibaud, G., 2010. Extraction of
extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) from anaerobic granular sludges:
comparison of chemical and physical extraction protocols. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 85 (5), 1589e1599.
De Lange, C.F.M., Morel, P.C.H., Birkett, S.H., 2003. Modeling chemical and physical
body composition of the growing pig. J. Anim. Sci. 81, 159e165.
DuBois, M., Gilles, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A., Smith, F., 1956. Colorimetric
method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 28 (3),
350e356.
Fuchs, W., Binder, H., Mavrias, G., Braun, R., 2003. Anaerobic treatment of wastewater with high organic content using a stirred tank reactor coupled with a
membrane ltration unit. Water Res. 37 (4), 902e908.
Gao, W.J., Lin, H.J., Leung, K.T., Schraft, H., Liao, B.Q., 2011. Structure of cake layer in a
submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor. J. Membr. Sci. 374, 110e120.
Huang, Z., Ong, S.L., Ng, H.Y., 2011. Submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor for
low-strength wastewater treatment: effect of HRT and SRT on treatment performance and membrane fouling. Water Res. 45 (2), 705e713.

M. Galib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 182 (2016) 477e485

Jensen, P.D., Yap, S.D., Boyle-Gotla, A., Janoschka, J., Carney, C., Pidou, M.,
Batstone, D.J., 2015. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors enable high rate treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Biochem. Eng. J. 97, 132e141.
Kim, J., Kim, K., Ye, H., Lee, E., Shin, C., Mccarty, P., Bae, J., 2011a. Anaerobic uidized
bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45,
576e581.
Kim, M.-S., Lee, D.-Y., Kim, D.-H., 2011b. Continuous hydrogen production from tofu
processing waste using anaerobic mixed microora under thermophilic conditions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (14), 8712e8718.
Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., Fane, T., 2006. Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in
wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 284, 17e53.
Liao, B.-Q., Kraemer, J.T., Bagley, D.M., 2006. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors:
applications and research directions. Crit. Rev. Env. Sci. Tec. 36 (6), 489e530.
Lin, J.-C., Lee, D.-J., Chihpin, H., 2010. Membrane fouling mitigation: membrane
cleaning. Sep. Sci. Technol. 45, 858e872.
Lin, H., Peng, W., Zhang, M., Chen, J., Hong, H., Zhang, Y., 2013. A review on
anaerobic membrane bioreactors: applications, membrane fouling and future
perspectives. Desalination 314, 169e188.
Lin, H.J., Gao, W.J., Leung, K.T., Liao, B.Q., 2011. Characteristics of different fractions of
microbial ocs and their role in membrane fouling. Water Sci. Technol. 63 (2),
262e269.
Lin, H.J., Xie, K., Mahendran, B., Bagley, D.M., Leung, K.T., Liss, S.N., Liao, B.Q., 2009.
Sludge properties and their effects on membrane fouling in submerged
anaerobic membrane bioreactors (SAnMBRs). Water Res. 43 (15), 3827e3837.
Liu, Y., Liu, H., Cui, L., Zhang, K., 2012. The ratio of food-to-microorganism (F/M) on
membrane fouling of anaerobic membrane bioreactors treating low-strength
wastewater. Desalination 297, 97e103.
Malamis, S., Andreadakis, A., 2009. Fractionation of proteins and carbohydrates of
extracellular polymeric substances in a membrane bioreactor system. Bioresour.
Technol. 100 (13), 3350e3357.
Masse, D.I., Masse, L., 2000. Characterization of wastewater from hog slaughterhouse in eastern Canada and evaluation of their in-plant wastewater treatment
systems. Can. Agri. Eng. 42 (3), 139e146.
McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., Kim, J., 2011. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy
producerecan this be achieved? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17), 7100e7106.
Meng, F., Chae, S.-R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H.-S., Yang, F., 2009. Recent advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): membrane fouling and membrane
material. Water Res. 42, 1489e1512.
Padmasiri, S.I., Zhang, J., Fitch, M., Norddahl, B., Morgenroth, E., Raskin, L., 2007.
Methanogenic population dynamics and performance of an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) treating swine manure under high shear conditions.
Water Res. 41 (1), 134e144.
lu, H., Orhon, D., Diez, V., 2003. Biodegradability of
Pozo, R.d., Tas, D.O., Dulkadirog
slaughterhouse wastewater with high blood content under anaerobic and
aerobic conditions. J. Chem. Technol. Biotech. 78 (4), 384e391.

485

Saddoud, A., Sayadi, S., 2007. Application of acidogenic xed-bed reactor prior to
anaerobic membrane bioreactor for sustainable slaughterhouse wastewater
treatment. J. Hazard. Mat. 149 (3), 700e706.
Scott, K., Hughes, R., 1996. Industrial Membrane Separation Technology. Springer,
USA.
Sheng, G.-P., Yu, H.-Q., Li, X.-Y., 2010. Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) of
microbial aggregates in biological wastewater treatment systems: a review.
Biotech. Adv. 28 (6), 882e894.
Smith, A.L., Skerlos, S.J., Raskin, L., 2013. Psychrophilic anaerobic membrane
bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater. Water Res. 47 (4), 1655e1665.
Speece, R.E., 1983. Anaerobic biotechnology for industrial wastewater treatment.
Env. Sci. Technol. 17 (9), 416e427.
Stuckey, D.C., 2012. Recent developments in anaerobic membrane reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 122, 137e148.
Suzuki, Y., Tsujimoto, Y., Matsui, H., Watanabe, K., 2006. Decomposition of
extremely hard-to-degrade animal proteins by thermophilic bacteria. J. Biosci.
Bioeng. 102 (2), 73e81.
Torres, A., Hemmelmann, A., Vergara, C., Jeison, D., 2011. Application of two-phase
slug-ow regime to control ux reduction on anaerobic membrane bioreactors
treating wastewaters with high suspended solids concentration. Sep. Purif.
Technol. 79 (1), 20e25.
Van Zyl, P.J., Wentzel, M.C., Ekama, G.A., Riedel, K.J., 2008. Design and start-up of a
high rate anaerobic membrane bioreactor for the treatment of a low pH, high
strength, dissolved organic waste water. Water Sci. Tech. 57 (2), 291e295.
Wang, Z., Ma, J., Tang, C.Y., Kimura, K., Wang, Q., Han, X., 2014. The effect of solids
retention time on dissolved methane concentration in anaerobic membrane
bioreactors. J. Membr. Sci. 468, 276e307.
Wu, P.F., Mittal, G.S., 2011. Characterization of provincial inspected slaughterhouse
wastewater in Ontario, Canada. Can. Biosys. Eng. 53 (6), 9e18.
Xie, K., Lin, H.J., Mahendran, B., Bagley, D.M., Leung, K.T., Liss, S.N., Liao, B.Q., 2010.
Performance and fouling characteristics of a submerged anaerobic membrane
bioreactor for kraft evaporator condensate treatment. Environ. Technol. 31 (5),
511e521.
Yeo, H., An, J., Reid, R., Rittmann, B.E., Lee, H.-S., 2015. Contribution of liquid/gas
mass-transfer limitations to dissolved methane oversaturation in anaerobic
treatment of dilute wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (17), 10366e10372.
Yeo, H., Lee, H.-S., 2013. The effect of solids retention time on dissolved methane
concentration in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Environ. Technol. 34,
2105e2112.
Yoo, R., Kim, J., McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., 2012. Anaerobic treatment of municipal
wastewater with a staged anaerobic uidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-MBR)
system. Bioresour. Technol. 120, 133e139.
Zayen, A., Mnif, S., Aloui, F., Fki, F., Loukil, S., Bouaziz, M., Sayadi, S., 2010. Anaerobic
membrane bioreactor for the treatment of leachates from Jebel Chakir
discharge in Tunisia. J. Hazard. Mat. 177, 918e923.