EFFECT OF MLSS CONCENTRATION ON THE START-UP OF A

SUBMERGED MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR

C. A. Prochaska1, A. I. Zouboulis1, P. Samaras2 and D. Zamboulis1, +
1

Division of Chemical Technology, Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,

54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Department of Pollution Control Technologies, Technological Educational Institute of W.
Macedonia, Kozani GR-501 00, Greece

ABSTRACT
A bench scale submerged membrane bioreactor (SBR) was constructed and operated for the
treatment of synthetic wastewater, simulating medium strength municipal wastewater; a hollow
fiber ZENON membrane was used. The experiments were focused towards the evaluation of system
performance, under three different MLSS concentrations (5, 7 and 10 g/L). Biodegradation of the
influent COD and nitrification were obtained. The COD removal efficiency exceeded 90%. A low
rate of biomass growth was observed. The trans-membrane pressure (TMP) was maintained at 0.06
bar during the experiments, whereas pressure increase was not observed, i.e. due to sludge
accumulation in the spaces among the membrane fibers, or due to the fouling of fibers surface.

Presenter, to whom correspondence should be addressed, e-mail: dzamb@chem.auth.gr

1. INTRODUCTION
Submerged membrane bioreactors, which consist of an activated sludge bioreactor and a
submerged microfiltration membrane, is an emerging bio-treatment technology that has
demonstrated great promise. It takes advantage of the rapid development in membrane
manufacturing and has the potential to fundamentally advance the biological treatment process.
Possessing advantages include a high effluent quality, a high biomass concentration without
concern for sludge settling problems, a simple flow configuration and small footprint demand. SBR
has been successfully used in biological wastewater treatment of domestic and industrial effluents
[6] and the reclamation of treated effluents [8]. According to a comprehensive review by
Visvanathan et al. [10], SBR systems have been used to treat various types of wastewater with a
chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration ranging from about 100 to more than 40 000 mg/L
and a hydraulic retention time (HRT) varying from 4 h to several days. For treatment of domestic
wastewater, a sludge concentration from 3000 to 10 000 or higher in MLSS can be maintained in an
SBR [9 and 7]. As large macromolecules would stay within the MBR in contact with biomass for a
longer period than that within a conventional activated sludge process, a COD or BOD removal of
more than 98% can be achieved [10, 9 and 3]. The disinfection of the effluent makes the membrane
bioreactor a highly attractive system in cases where stringent standards have to be met, e.g. for
discharge in bathing water or for water reuse [2]. However, membrane bioreactors still need further
improvement for a more widespread application [4].
Preliminary investigations in our laboratory showed that the quality of the effluent varies
under different operation conditions. Among the important parameter is the suspended solids
concentration. Therefore the preliminary (start up) experiments presented in this study were focused
towards the evaluation of a bench scale membrane bioreactor system performance, for the treatment
of synthetic wastewater simulating medium strength municipal sewage, under three different MLSS
concentrations (5, 7 and 10 g/L).
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A schematic layout of the bioreactor is presented in Figure 1. The working volume of the
bioreactor (process tank) was 5 L. A hollow fiber ZENON membrane module was used.
The module dimensions were 17.5 cm length and 5.6 cm width. The module had an aeration
tube that was also used to attach the module to the support bracket to hold it in place vertically. It
had one hole on top header, both for permeate flow and pressure measurement. The permeate was
drawn only from the top header. The center aeration tube supplied air close to the bottom header
where orifices were located.

Figure 1. Shcematic layout of the reactor set-up

The module specifications and operation characteristics are presented in Table 1. The
process tank was placed on top of a magnetic stirrer (Framo-Geratetechnic M 21/1) and the
wastewater inside the process tank was stirred with a 5 cm long magnet. The air flow rate was
measured by a Meterate G float ST. ST flow meter. A temperature control system was not installed
and temperature fluctuated between 20-25 oC according to ambient conditions. A peristaltic pump
(SEKO PR1) was used to feed the process tank with a flow rate of 0.5 L/h. A peristaltic pump
(Watson Marlow, 503U) was used to generate the necessary trans-membrane pressure by sunction
of the filtrate. The transfilter pressure was monitored by a pressure inducer (-1 to 0 bar) in the
suction line.
TABLE 1. ZW-1, submersible membrane module specifications and operation characteristics
Model
ZW-1, Submersible
Module
Configuration
Outside/In Hollow Fiber
2
Nominal Membrane Surface Area
0.047 m
Membrane Type
Permeate (Fiber Side) Hold-up Volume
Maximum Transmembrane Pressure
Typical Operating TMP
Maximum Operating Temperature
Operating pH range
Maximum Cleaning Temperature
Cleaning pH Range

Zenon Proprietary
10 mL)
62 kPa (0.62 bar)
10-50 kPa (0.1-5.0 bar)
40C (104F)
5-9
40C (104F)
2-10.5

TABLE 1. ZW-1, submersible membrane module specifications and operation characteristics

(continue)
Maximum TMP Back Wash Pressure
55 kPa (0.55 bar)
3
Maximum Aeration Flow per Module
1.8 m /h
Typical Aeration Flow
For obtaining the intitial MLSS concentrations of 5000, 7000 and 10000 mg/L proper
volume of activated sludge obtained from the aeration tank of the local municipal sewage treatment
plant was mixed with the appropriate amount of synthetic sewage. The same synthetic sewage was
used as feedwater. The synthetic sewage simulated medium strength municipal wastewater and was
prepared prior to each feeding by mixing 7 different components with concentrations presented in
Table 2.
TABLE 2. Chemical Composition of synthetic (simulated) sewage
Chemical Component
Concentration g/L
Peptone
0.3
Meat extract
0.21
Urea
0.01
CaCl2 2H2O
0.004
MgSO47H2O
0.002
K2HPO4
0.011
NaCl
0.007
Such synthetic sewage contained approximately, 460 mg/L organic C, 70 mg/L N and 7
mg/L P.
Each of the above 3 experiments (intitial MLSS concentrations of 5000, 7000 and 10000
mg/L) lasted 10 days. The operating cycle that was applied is presented in Table 3.

Function
Feeding
Anoxic
Reaction
Effluent

TABLE 3. Operating cycle of SBR

Aeration
Mixing
No
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Duration
(min)
120
60
1080 (18h)
144

Flux was maintained at 0.021 m3/m2 d-1 throughout the operation. Intermittent sunction
method (8 min sunction followed by 2 min rest) was applied. Hydraulic retention time was 5 days.
The air flow rate was fixed at 1.17 L/min.
At the end of each of the three experiments membrane washing was undertaken by removing
process tank contents, rinse it and soaking the module in 200 ppm NaOCl solution at room
temperature for 24 hours.
Effluent samples were collected and analyzed daily for the determination of the COD, NO3-N, NH4+-N, Total-N, pH and PO4-P concentrations, according to respective Standard Methods

(APHA, 1989). Samples from the process tank were also analyzed for the MLSS and MVLSS
concentrations according to respective Standard Methods (APHA, 1989).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The initial concentration of the mixed liquor in the process tank with respect to the initial
MLSS concentration is presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4. Initial concentration of the mixed liquor in the process tank with respect to the initial
MLSS concentration
Parameter
Initial MLSS
Initial MLSS
Initial MLSS
5000 mg/L
7000 mg/L
10000 mg/L
COD mg/L
NH4-N mg/L

NO3-N
P-PO4
pH
MVLSS

95800
15
66
0.01
7.2
8.3
3112

121230
20
68
0.01
7.4
8.4
5281

191000
31
112
0,01
7.7
8.42
9801

Biodegradation of the influent COD was obtained for all three experimental runs. The
effluent COD concentration was less than 100 mg/L in all cases as shown in Figure 2.
The results of effluent concentrations of TN, NO3-N and NH4-N presented in Figure 3 show
that while the percentage of nitrogen transformed to nitrate through nitrification did not vary among
the three different experimental runs, the percentage of nitrogen removal increased from 28% to
42% and to 60% with the increasing of the MLSS concentration from 5000 to 7000 and to 10000
mg/L respectively, due to the increased volatilization and microorganisms uptake.
Biological filtration for nitrification has been extensively studied in both wastewater and
dinking water treatment [1]. The ammonia removal efficiency usually ranges from 30% to 93% in
biofiltration. Better performance in nitrification in this study could be attributable to the long
retention time provided by the SBR for the population of autotrophic nitrifying bacteria.
Autotrophic nitrifying bacteria grow much slower than heterotrophic carbonaceous bacteria. The
typical maximum specific growth rate coefficients for heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria are
6.00 and 0.77 d1 [5], respectively, suggesting that the minimum sludge retention time (SRT) for
nitrifying bacteria is almost an order of magnitude longer than that for heterotrophic bacteria. With
a SRT longer than 10 days that was provided by the SBR in the present study could allow the
greater accumulation of nitrifying bacteria in the reactor, thus performing nitrification at a faster
rate to approach its completion.
P-removal through incorporation into microorganisms and subsequent accumulation in the
biomass was not observed. Moreover, an increase in the effluent phosphate concentration in respect
to the influent concentration of 6.5 mg/L was observed. The effluent phosphate concentration was
declined with the operation time and reached 6-6.3 mg/L at the 10th day of operation for all the three
experimental runs (Figure 4).
For the three different initial MLSS concentrations of 5, 7 and 10 g/L, a low rate of biomass
growth was observed; MLSS content reached to 5.4, 7.6 and 10.9 g/L respectively, after the 10 days
5

operation period, MVLSS content reached to 3.1, 5.6 and 8.9 g/L, as shown in Figure 5. The
VSS/SS of the sludge was rather stable throughout the study for the three experimental runs.
The trans-membrane pressure (TMP) was maintained at 0.06 bar during the experiments,
whereas pressure increase was not observed, i.e. due to sludge accumulation in the spaces among
the membrane fibers, or due to the fouling of fibers surface.
Initial
MLSS 5000 mg/L

MLSS 7000 mg/L

MLSS 10000 mg/L

Effluent COD concentration (mg/L)

100

80

60

40

20
0

10

Time (DAYS)

Figure 2. Effluent COD concentration with respect to the operation day for the three different initial
MLSS concentrations

Effluent concentration
(mg NH4-N/L)

Effluent concentration
(mg NO3-N/L)

Effluent
concentration
(mg TN mg/L)

Initial
MLSS 5000 mg/L

50

MLSS 7000 mg/L

MLSS 10000 mg/L

40
30
20
10
40
30
20
10
-3

2,0x10

-3

1,5x10

-3

1,0x10

-4

5,0x10

0,0

10

Time (DAYS)

Figure 3. Effluent nitrogen concentration (TN, NO3-N and NH4-N) with respect to the operation day
for the three different initial MLSS concentrations

Initial
MLSS 5000 mg/L

Effluent concentration (mg PO4-P/L)

7,5

MLSS 7000 mg/L

MLSS 10000 mg/L

7,0

6,5

6,0

10

Time (DAYS)

Figure 4. Effluent PO4-P concentration with respect to the operation day for the three different
initial MLSS concentrations

Initial
MLSS 5000 mg/L

Effluent MVLSS
concentration (mg/L)

12000

MLSS 7000 mg/L

MLSS 10000 mg/L

9000

6000

3000

Effluent MLSS
concentration (mg/L)

12000

9000

6000

3000

10

11

Time (DAYS)

Figure 5. Effluent MLSS and MVLSS concentration with respect to the operation day for the three
different initial MLSS concentrations

4. CONCLUSIONS
The experiments were focused towards the evaluation of system performance, under three
different MLSS concentrations (5, 7 and 10 g/L). Biodegradation of the influent COD and
nitrification were obtained even during the first days of operation. The COD removal efficiency
exceeded 90%. Phosphate removal was not observed, even though the phosphate concentration
declined in the effluent with the increase of the operation time (days). For the three different initial
MLSS concentrations of 5, 7 and 10 g/L, a low rate of biomass growth was observed; MLSS
7

content reached to 5.4, 7.6 and 10.9 g/L respectively after a 10 days operation period. The transmembrane pressure (TMP) was maintained at 0.06 bar during the experiments, whereas pressure
increase was not observed, i.e. due to sludge accumulation in the spaces among the membrane
fibers, or due to the fouling of fibers surface. These preliminary experiments showed that these
systems are capable of producing an effluent with a low organic content. However, further
investigation is needed for the optimization of the operating parameters and for the enhancement of
denitrification and phosphate removal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support from the programme PYTHAGORAS II (Environment) is kindly acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Andersson A., P. Laurent, A. Kihn, M. Prevost and P. Servais (2001) Impact of
temperature on nitrification in biological activated carbon (BAC) filters used for drinking
water treatment. Water Res., Vol. 35, pp. 29232934.
2. Cicek N. (2003) A review of membrane bioreactors and their potential application in the
treatment of agricultural wastewater Can. Biosystems Eng., Vol. 45, pp. 637649.
3. Cicek N., H. Winnen, M.T. Suidan, B.R. Wrenn, V. Urbain and J. Manem (1998)
Effectiveness of the membrane bioreactor in the biodegradation of high molecular weight
compounds Water Res., Vol. 32, pp. 15531563.
4. Fuchs W., C. Resch, M. Kernstock, M. Mayer P. Schoeberl. and R. Braun (2005) Influence
of operational conditions on the performance of a mesh filter activated sludge process.
Water Res., Vol. 39, pp. 803-810.
5. Grady Jr C.P.L., G.T. Daigger, H.C. Lim (1999) Biological wastewater treatment New
York: Marcel Dekker.
6. Guender B. (2001) The Membrane-coupled Activated Sludge Process In: Municipal
Wastewater Treatment, Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, US.
7. Rosenberger S., U. Kruger, R. Witzig, W. Manz, U. Szewzyk and M. Kraume (2002)
Performance of a bioreactor with submerged membrane for aerobic treatment of municipal
waste water Water Res., Vol. 36, pp. 413420.
8. Stephenson T, S. Judd, B. Jefferson, K Brindle (2000) Membrane bioreactors for
wastewater treatment London: IWA Publishing.
9. Ueda T. and K. Hata (1999) Domestic wastewater treatment by a submerged membrane
bioreactor with gravitational filtration. Water Res., Vol. 33, pp. 28882892.
10. Visvanathan C., R.B. Aim and K. Parameshwaran (2000) Membrane separation bioreactor
for wastewater treatment Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 30, pp. 148.