Advertisement

The Impact of High Mixed Liquor Concentration (3-13 gVSS/ℓ) on the Kinetic Rates of the N and P Removal Bioprocesses in Membrane Biological Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Systems

  • V. Parco
  • G. J. G. du Toit
  • G. A. EkamaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 4)

Abstract

The impact of including membranes for solid liquid separation and high volatile suspended solids (VSS) concentration (3-12 gVSS/ℓ) on the kinetics of biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal (BNR) was investigated. To achieve this, a membrane bioreactor (MBR) biological nutrient removal (BNR) activated sludge (AS) system was operated for 450 days in parallel with a conventional BNR system with a settling tank (CAS). The influence of high VSS concentration (up to 12 gVSS/ℓ) in the MBR system on the system performance and the nitrification, denitrification and phosphorus release and uptake kinetic rates were measured with aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic batch tests on mixed liquor (ML) harvested from the MBR system, diluted to different VSS concentrations, and from the CAS system. Also, the limitation of ammonia, oxygen, nitrate and acetate on the kinetic rates was investigated with batch tests. The results show that the BNRAS steady state and kinetic models developed for low VSS concentration BNRAS systems with secondary settling tanks can be applied with reasonable confidence to predict the performance of high VSS concentration BNRAS systems with membranes, except for the maximum specific growth rate of the nitrifiers, which was observed to be significantly lower in the MBR system.

Keywords

Membrane Settling tanks Nitrification Denitrification Biological phosphorus removal Kinetics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Gratitude is expressed to Mr Taliep Lakay and Mr Hector Mafungwa for assistance with operating and testing the MBR and CAS BNR systems. This research was conducted by Geoff du Toit and Valentina Parco, Masters and PhD students respectively in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Cape Town. The research was financially supported by the National Research Foundation, Water Research Commission and University of Cape Town and is published with their permission.

References

  1. Cicek N, Franco JP, Suidan MT, Urbain V, Manem J (1999) Characterization and comparison of membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge system in the treatment of wastewater containing high molecular weight compounds. Wat Environ Res 71(1):64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clayton JA, Ekama GA, Wentzel MC, Marais GVR (1991) Denitrification kinetics in biological N and P removal activated sludge systems treating municipal wastewaters. Wat Sci Tech 23:1025–1035Google Scholar
  3. du Toit GJG, Parco V, Ramphao MC, Wentzel MC, Ekama GA (2007) Design and performance of BNR activated sludge systems with flat sheet membranes for solid liquid separation. Wat Sci Tech 56(6):105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. du Toit GJG, Parco V, Ramphao MC, Wentzel MC, Lakay MT, Mafungwa HZ, Ekama GA (2010) The performance and kinetics of biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal with ultra-filtration membranes for solid-liquid separation. Final WRC Report for Projects K8/814 and K5/1537, Water Research Commission, Private Bag X03, Gezina 0031, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekama GA, Marais GVR (1984) Two improved activated sludge settleability parameters. IMIESA 9(6):20–27Google Scholar
  6. Ekama GA, Dold PL, Marais GVR (1986) Procedures for determining influent COD fractions and the maximum specific growth of the heterotrophs in activated sludge systems. Wat Sci Tech 18(6):91–114Google Scholar
  7. Ekama GA, Wentzel MC (1999) Denitrification kinetics in biological N and P removal activated sludge systems treating municipal wastewaters. Wat Sci Tech 39(6):69–77Google Scholar
  8. Gao M, Yang M, Li H, Yang H, Zhang Y (2004) Comparison between a submerged bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge on treating ammonia-bearing inorganic wastewater. J Biotech 108:265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghyoot W, Vandale S, Verstraete W (1999) Nitrogen removal from sludge reject water with a membrane assisted bioreactor. Wat Res 33(1):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Han SS, Bae TH, Jang GG, Tak TM (2005) Influence of sludge retention time on membrane fouling and bioactivities in membrane bioreactor system. Proc Biochem 40:2393–2400Google Scholar
  11. Holbrook RD, Massie KA, Novak JT (2005) A comparison of membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge mixed liquor and biosolids characteristics. Wat Environ Res 77(4):323–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang X, Gui P, Qiuan Y (2001) Influence of sludge retention time on microbial behaviour in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Proc Biochem 36(10):1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee W, Kang S, Shin H (2003) Sludge characteristics and their contribution to microfiltration in submerged membrane bioreactors. J Membr Sci 216:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li H, Gao M, Yang H, Zhang Y, Kamagata Y (2005) Comparison of nitrification performance and microbial community between a submerged bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge. Wat Sci Tech 51(6–7):193–200Google Scholar
  15. Liebig T, Wagner M, Bjerrum L, Denecke M (2001) Nitrification performance and nitrifier community composition of a cheostat and a membrane-assisted bioreactor for the nitrification of sludge reject water. Bio Biosyst Eng 24:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luxmy BS, Nakajima F, Yamamoto K (2000) Analysis of bacterial community in a membrane separation bioreactors by fluorescent in situ hybridization and DGGE techniques. Wat Sci Tech 41(10–11):259–268Google Scholar
  17. Maharaj S, du Toit GJG, Wentzel MC, Bux F (2007) Molecular approaches to study the dynamics of nitrifying bacteria in a conventional activated sludge system and membrane bioreactor. 4th International Water Association Leading-Edge Conference and Exhibition on Water & Wastewater Technology, Singapore, 3–6 June (Poster)Google Scholar
  18. Manser J, Gujer W, Siegrist H (2005) Consequence of mass transfer effects on the kinetics of nitriefiers. Wat Res 39:4633–4642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monti A, Hall ER, Dawsin RN, Husain H, Kelly HG (2005) Comparative study of biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes with sedimentation and membrane based separation. Biotech Bioeng 94(4):740–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parco V (2006) Bioreattori a membrana per la rimozione biologica dei nutrienti: cinetiche di processo ed efficienze. PhD thesis. University of Palermo, Palermo, Sicily (in Italian)Google Scholar
  21. Parco V, Wentzel MC, Ekama GA (2006) Kinetics of nitrogen removal in a MBR nutrient removal activated sludge system. Desalination 199(1–3):89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parco V, du Toit GJG, Wentzel MC, Ekama GA (2007) Biological nutrient removal in membrane bioreactors: denitrification and phosphorus removal kinetics. Wat Sci Tech 56(6):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramphao MC, Wentzel MC, Ekama GA, Alexander WV (2005) The impact of membrane solid-liquid separation on the design of biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems. Biotech Bioeng 89(6):630–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Randall EW, Wilkinson A, Ekama GA (1991) An instrument for the direct determination of oxygen utilization rate. Water SA 17(1):11–18Google Scholar
  25. Smith S, Jefferson B, Judd SJ (2002) Membrane bioreactors: hybrid activated sludge or a new process? CHISA, Prague, August 2002Google Scholar
  26. Sperandio M, Mass M, Espinoza Bouchot C, Cadassud C (2005) Characterization of sludge structure and activity on submerged membrane bioreactor. Wat Sci Tech 52(10–11):401–408Google Scholar
  27. Standard Methods (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 16th edn., APHA, WEF, AWWA, Washington DC USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Haandel AC, Ekama GA, Marais GVR (1981) The activated sludge process Part 3 - single sludge denitrification. Water Res 15(10):1135–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wentzel MC, Dold PL, Ekama GA, Marais GVR (1985) Kinetics of biological phosphorus release. Wat Sci Tech 17:57–71Google Scholar
  30. Wentzel MC, Dold PL, Ekama GA, Marais GVR (1989) Enhanced polyphosphate organism cultures in activated sludge systems Part III - kinetic model. Water SA 15(2):89–102Google Scholar
  31. Wentzel MC, Ekama GA, Dold PL, Marais GVR (1990) Biological excess phosphorus removal - steady state process design. Water SA 16(1):29–48Google Scholar
  32. Yamamoto K (2002) Membrane bioreactor: an advanced wastewater treatment/reclamation technology and its function in excess sludge minimization. In: Advances in water and wastewater treatment technology, Amsterdam, pp 229–237Google Scholar
  33. Zhang B, Yamamoto K, Ohgaki S, Kamiko N (1997) Floc size distribution and bacterial activities in membrane separation activated sludge processes for small scale wastewater treatment reclamation. Wat Sci Tech 35(6):37–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Research Group, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations