Main Article Content

Abstract

The performance of a membrane bioreactor (MBR) was compared to that of a conventional activated sludge (CAS) process aiming to identify the best technological option for a municipal sewage treatment plant (STP). The MBR system was fed by the diluted sewage coming from the main municipal sewer network, which contained an averagely lower concentration of organics, inorganics and biological pollutants. While the CAS system was fed by a concentrated sewage coming from household septic tanks, contained averagely high concentration of organics, inorganics and biological pollutants. CAS showed a higher removal amount of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), Fat-Oil-Grease (FOG), nitrogen, phosphorous, helminths ova (HO), and pathogenic bacteria compared to that of the MBR. Nevertheless, the removal efficiencies of nitrogen, HO and pathogenic bacteria in the case of CAS were lower than that of MBR due to the high concentration of those parameters in the influent fed to CAS. However, both the efficiency and the amount of removal for phosphorous in the case of CAS was quite higher than that of MBR due to extended aeration in CAS. The pathogenic bacteria and HO were almost completely removed by the MBR, whereas the effluent of the CAS system required additional disinfection for the reduction of pathogens and HO. In terms of biological efficiency and influent flexibility, both the systems were satisfying the national standards. Overall, the data suggested that CAS possessed a higher capacity of treating concentrated sewage for removing all pollutants to satisfactory limits except complete removal of pathogenic bacteria and HO. It was obvious that MBR possessed a membrane barrier to retain the pathogens and HO; therefore, they could be removed up to very low levels. However, further investigation is necessary to verify the MBR performance using the same concentrated sewage as that of the CAS.

Article Details

Author Biography

Abdullah Al-Mamun, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Current Position  Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Archi. Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman, Sep 2012 to Present
How to Cite
Al-Mamun, A. (2020). Biological efficiency and control of a membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge process for treating municipal wastewater. Journal of Agricultural and Marine Sciences [JAMS], 26(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.24200/jams.vol26iss1pp27-36

References

  1. Al Lawati, M.J., Jafary, T., Baawain, M.S. and Al-Mamun, A., 2019. A mini review on biofouling on air cathode of single chamber microbial fuel cell; prevention and mitigation strategies. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, p.101370.
  2. Al-Mamun, A., 2017. Pesticide degradations, residues and environmental concerns. In Pesticide Residue in Foods (pp. 87-102). Springer, Cham.
  3. Al-Mamun, A., and Baawain, M.S., 2015. Accumulation of intermediate denitrifying compounds inhibiting biological denitrification on the cathode in Microbial Fuel Cell. Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 13, 81, DOI 10.1186/s40201-015-0236-52.
  4. Al-Mamun, A., Baawain, M.S., Al-Muhtase, A.H., Egger, F., and Ng. H.Y., 2017. Optimization of a baffled-reactor microbial fuel cell using autotrophic denitrifying bio-cathode for removing nitrogen and recovering electrical energy. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 120, 93-102.
  5. Al-Mamun, A., Baawain, M.S., Dhar, B., and Kim, I.S., 2017. Improved recovery of bioenergy and freshwater in an osmotic microbial fuel cell using micro-diffuser assisted marine aerobic biofilm on cathode. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 128, 235-242.
  6. Al-Mamun, A., Lefebvre, O., Baawain, M.S., and Ng, H.Y., 2016. A sandwiched denitrifying biocathode in a microbial fuel cell for electricity generation and waste minimization. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13, 1055-1064.
  7. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), AFNOR PR XP X 33-031- Enumeration of viable helminth eggs in sludges - Double flotation method in a Sodium nitrate solution April 2004, ASTM 07066-04, vol. 11.02.
  8. Baawain, M., Al-Mamun, A., Omidvarborna, H. and Al-Sulaimi, I.N., 2019a. Measurement, control, and modeling of H2S emissions from a sewage treatment plant. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(6), pp.2721-2732.
  9. Baawain, M., Al-Mamun, A., Omidvarborna, H., & Al-Jabri, A., 2017. Assessment of hydrogen sulfide emission from a sewage treatment plant using AERMOD. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 189(6), 263.
  10. Baawain, M.S., Al-Mamun, A., Omidvarborna, H., Al-Mujaini, F. and Choudri, B.S., 2019b. Residents' concerns and attitudes towards municipal solid waste management: opportunities for improved management. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 24(1), pp.93-106.
  11. Baawain, M.S., Al-Mamun, A., Omidvarborna, H., Al-Sabti, A. and Choudri, B.S., 2018. Public perceptions of reusing treated wastewater for urban and industrial applications: challenges and opportunities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp.1-13.
  12. Baawain, M.S., Al-Omairi, A. and Choudri, B.S., 2014. Characterization of domestic wastewater treatment in Oman from three different regions and current implications of treated effluents. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(5), 2701-2716.
  13. Barua, S., Zakaria, B. S., Al-Mamun, A., & Dhar, B. R., 2018. Anodic performance of microbial electrolysis cells in response to ammonia nitrogen. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 14(1), 37-43.
  14. Barua, S., Zakaria, B. S., Chung, T., Hai, F. I., Haile, T., Al-Mamun, A., & Dhar, B. R., 2019. Microbial electrolysis followed by chemical precipitation for effective nutrients recovery from digested sludge centrate in WWTPs. Chemical Engineering Journal, 361, 256-265.
  15. Chang, C.Y., Chang, J.S., Vigneswaran, S. and Kandasamy, J., 2008. Pharmaceutical wastewater treatment by membrane bioreactor process–a case study in southern Taiwan. Desalination, 234(1), 393-401.
  16. Chitrakar, P., Baawain, M.S., Sana, A. and Al-Mamun, A., 2019. Current Status of Marine Pollution and Mitigation Strategies in Arid Region: A Detailed Review. Ocean Science Journal, 54(3), pp.317-348.
  17. Collivignarelli, M.C., Abbà, A., Castagnola, F. and Bertanza, G., 2017. Minimization of municipal sewage sludge by means of a thermophilic membrane bioreactor with intermittent aeration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 369-376.
  18. Côté, P., Buisson, H., Pound, C. and Arakaki, G., 1997. Immersed membrane activated sludge for the reuse of municipal wastewater. Desalination, 113(2), 189-196.
  19. De Luca, G., Sacchetti, R., Leoni, E. and Zanetti, F., 2013. Removal of indicator bacteriophages from municipal wastewater by a full-scale membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge process: Implications to water reuse. Bioresource Technology, 129, 526-531.
  20. Drews, A., 2010. Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors—characterization, contradictions, cause and cures. Journal of Membrane Science, 363(1), 1-28.
  21. Eaton, D., Clesceri, S., and Greenberg, E., 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, American Public Health Association and Water Environment Federation.
  22. Gerbersdorf, S.U., Cimatoribus, C., Class, H., Engesser, K.H., Helbich, S., Hollert, H., Lange, C., Kranert, M., Metzger, J., Nowak, W. and Seiler, T.B., 2015. Anthropogenic Trace Compounds (ATCs) in aquatic habitats—Research needs on sources, fate, detection and toxicity to ensure timely elimination strategies and risk management. Environment International, 79, 85-105.
  23. Gonzalez, S., Petrovic, M. and Barcelo, D., 2007. Removal of a broad range of surfactants from municipal wastewater–comparison between membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge treatment. Chemosphere, 67(2), 335-343.
  24. Hoinkis, J. and Panten, V., 2008. Wastewater recycling in laundries—from pilot to large-scale plant. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 47(7), 1159-1164.
  25. Iglesias, R., Ortega, E., Batanero, G. and Quintas, L., 2010. Water reuse in Spain: data overview and costs estimation of suitable treatment trains. Desalination, 263(1), 1-10.
  26. Jafary, T., Daud, W.R.W., Aljlil, S.A., Ismail, A.F., Al-Mamun, A., Baawain, M.S. and Ghasemi, M., 2018. Simultaneous organics, sulphate and salt removal in a microbial desalination cell with an insight into microbial communities. Desalination, 445, pp.204-212.
  27. Jeison, D. and Van Lier, J.B., 2007. Thermophilic treatment of acidified and partially acidified wastewater using an anaerobic submerged MBR: Factors affecting long-term operational flux. Water Research, 41(17), 3868-3879.
  28. Judd, S., 2010. The MBR book: principles and applications of membrane bioreactors for water and wastewater treatment. Elsevier.
  29. Lefebvre O., Al-Mamun A., Ooi W K, Tang Z, Chua D H C, Ng H Y; 2008a. An insight into cathode options for microbial fuel cells. Water Sci. Technol., 57(12), 2031-2037.
  30. Lefebvre, O., Al-Mamun, A., Ng, H.Y., 2008b. A microbial fuel cell equipped with a biocathode for organic removal and denitrification. Water Sci. Technol., 58(4), 881-885.
  31. Lefebvre, O., Nguyen, T.T.H., Al-Mamun, A., Chang, I.S., and Ng, H.Y., 2010. T-RFLP reveals high β-Proteobacteria diversity in microbial fuel cells enriched with domestic wastewater. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 109, 3, 839-850.
  32. Lefebvre, O., Ooi, W.K., Zhe T., Al-Mamun, A., Chua, D., and Ng, H.Y., Optimization of a Pt-free cathode suitable for practical applications of microbial fuel cells. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100, 4907–4910.
  33. Liu, Z.H., Kanjo, Y. and Mizutani, S., 2009. Removal mechanisms for endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in wastewater treatment—physical means, biodegradation, and chemical advanced oxidation: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 407(2), 731-748.
  34. Malpei, F., Bonomo, L. and Rozzi, A., 2003. Feasibility study to upgrade a textile wastewater treatment plant by a hollow fiber membrane bioreactor for effluent reuse. Water Science and Technology, 47(10), 33-39.
  35. Mannina, G., Capodici, M., Cosenza, A., Di Trapani, D. and van Loosdrecht, M.C., 2017. Nitrous oxide emission in a University of Cape Town membrane bioreactor: the effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 180-190.
  36. Melin, T., Jefferson, B., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., De Wilde, W., De Koning, J., Van der Graaf, J. and Wintgens, T., 2006. Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment and reuse. Desalination, 187(1), 271-282.
  37. Metcalf, E., Eddy, H.P. and Tchobanoglous, G., 1991. Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal and reuse. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  38. Mohammed, T.A., Birima, A.H., Noor, M.J.M.M., Muyibi, S.A. and Idris, A., 2008. Evaluation of using membrane bioreactor for treating municipal wastewater at different operating conditions. Desalination, 221(1), 502-510.
  39. Oliver, P., Rodríguez, R. and Udaquiola, S., 2008. Water use optimization in batch process industries. Part 1: design of the water network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(12), 1275-1286.
  40. Papa, M., Alfonsín, C., Moreira, M.T. and Bertanza, G., 2016. Ranking wastewater treatment trains based on their impacts and benefits on human health: a “Biological Assay and Disease” approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 311-317.
  41. Petrović, M., Gonzalez, S. and Barceló, D., 2003. Analysis and removal of emerging contaminants in wastewater and drinking water. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 22(10), 685-696.
  42. Ryue, J., Lin, L., Kakar, F.L., Elbeshbishy, E., Al-Mamun, A. and Dhar, B.R., 2020. A critical review of conventional and emerging methods for improving process stability in thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Energy for Sustainable Development, 54, pp.72-84.
  43. Sawyer, C.N. and Carty, M., 1994. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
  44. Tewari, P.K., Singh, R.K., Batra, V.S. and Balakrishnan, M., 2010. Membrane bioreactor (MBR) for wastewater treatment: Filtration performance evaluation of low cost polymeric and ceramic membranes. Separation and Purification Technology, 71(2), 200-204.
  45. Van den Broeck, R., Van Dierdonck, J., Caerts, B., Bisson, I., Kregersman, B., Nijskens, P., Dotremont, C., Van Impe, J.F. and Smets, I.Y., 2010. The impact of deflocculation–reflocculation on fouling in membrane bioreactors. Separation and Purification Technology, 71(3), 279-284.
  46. Van den Broeck, R., Van Dierdonck, J., Nijskens, P., Dotremont, C., Krzeminski, P., Van der Graaf, J.H.J.M., Van Lier, J.B., Van Impe, J.F.M. and Smets, I.Y., 2012. The influence of solids retention time on activated sludge bioflocculation and membrane fouling in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Journal of Membrane Science, 401, 48-55.
  47. Weiss, S. and Reemtsma, T., 2008. Membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment–A viable option to reduce the amount of polar pollutants discharged into surface waters?. Water Research, 42(14), 3837-3847.
  48. Zanetti, F., De Luca, G. and Sacchetti, R., 2010. Performance of a full-scale membrane bioreactor system in treating municipal wastewater for reuse purposes. Bioresource Technology, 101(10), 3768-3771.