Modelling the energy demands of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment

Martin, I, Pidou, M., Soares, A., Judd, S. and Jefferson, B. (2011) Modelling the energy demands of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. Environmental Technology, 32 9: 921-932. doi:10.1080/09593330.2011.565806


Author Martin, I
Pidou, M.
Soares, A.
Judd, S.
Jefferson, B.
Title Modelling the energy demands of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment
Journal name Environmental Technology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0959-3330
1479-487X
Publication date 2011-01-01
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1080/09593330.2011.565806
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 32
Issue 9
Start page 921
End page 932
Total pages 12
Place of publication Colchester, Essex, United Kingdom
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Language eng
Subject 2304 Environmental Chemistry
2312 Water Science and Technology
2311 Waste Management and Disposal
Abstract A modelling study has been developed in which the energy requirements of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are assessed in order to compare these two wastewater treatment technologies. The model took into consideration the aeration required for biological oxidation in aerobic MBRs (AeMBRs), the energy recovery from methane production in anaerobic MBRs (AnMBRs) and the energy demands of operating submerged and sidestream membrane configurations. Aeration and membrane energy demands were estimated based on previously developed modelling studies populated with operational data from the literature. Given the difference in sludge production between aerobic and anaerobic systems, the model was benchmarked by assuming high sludge retention times or complete retention of solids in both AeMBRs and AnMBRs. Analysis of biogas production in AnMBRs revealed that the heat required to achieve mesophilic temperatures (35C) in the reactor was only possible with influent wastewater strengths above 4-5 g COD L. The general trend of the submerged configuration, which is less energy intensive than the sidestream configuration in aerobic systems, was not observed in AnMBRs, mainly due to the wide variation in gas demand utilized in anaerobic systems. Compared to AeMBRs, for which the energy requirements were estimated to approach 2 kWh m (influent up to 1 g COD L), the energy demands associated with fouling control in AnMBRs were lower (0.80 kWh m for influent of 1.14 g COD L), although due to the low fluxes reported in the literature capital costs associated with membrane material would be three times higher than this.
Formatted abstract
A modelling study has been developed in which the energy requirements of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are assessed in order to compare these two wastewater treatment technologies. The model took into consideration the aeration required for biological oxidation in aerobic MBRs (AeMBRs), the energy recovery from methane production in anaerobic MBRs (AnMBRs) and the energy demands of operating submerged and sidestream membrane configurations. Aeration and membrane energy demands were estimated based on previously developed modelling studies populated with operational data from the literature. Given the difference in sludge production between aerobic and anaerobic systems, the model was benchmarked by assuming high sludge retention times or complete retention of solids in both AeMBRs and AnMBRs. Analysis of biogas production in AnMBRs revealed that the heat required to achieve mesophilic temperatures (35°C) in the reactor was only possible with influent wastewater strengths above 4–5 g COD L−1. The general trend of the submerged configuration, which is less energy intensive than the sidestream configuration in aerobic systems, was not observed in AnMBRs, mainly due to the wide variation in gas demand utilized in anaerobic systems. Compared to AeMBRs, for which the energy requirements were estimated to approach 2 kWh m−3 (influent up to 1 g COD L−1), the energy demands associated with fouling control in AnMBRs were lower (0.80 kWh m−3 for influent of 1.14 g COD L−1), although due to the low fluxes reported in the literature capital costs associated with membrane material would be three times higher than this.
Keyword Energy
Membrane bioreactors
Submerged
Sidestream
Crossflow
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2012 Collection
Advanced Water Management Centre Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 63 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 68 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 18 Oct 2011, 20:08:28 EST by Dr Marc Pidou on behalf of Advanced Water Management Centre