Wastewater Management Fact Sheet

Membrane Bioreactors

INTRODUCTION water discharge applications requiring extensive

nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal.
The technologies most commonly used for per-
forming secondary treatment of municipal ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
wastewater rely on microorganisms suspended in
the wastewater to treat it. Although these tech- The advantages of MBR systems over conven-
nologies work well in many situations, they have tional biological systems include better effluent
several drawbacks, including the difficulty of quality, smaller space requirements, and ease of
growing the right types of microorganisms and automation. Specifically, MBRs operate at
the physical requirement of a large site. The use higher volumetric loading rates which result in
of microfiltration membrane bioreactors lower hydraulic retention times. The low reten-
(MBRs), a technology that has become increas- tion times mean that less space is required
ingly used in the past 10 years, overcomes many compared to a conventional system. MBRs have
of the limitations of conventional systems. These often been operated with longer solids residence
systems have the advantage of combining a sus- times (SRTs), which results in lower sludge pro-
pended growth biological reactor with solids duction; but this is not a requirement, and more
removal via filtration. The membranes can be conventional SRTs have been used (Crawford et
designed for and operated in small spaces and al. 2000). The effluent from MBRs contains low
with high removal efficiency of contaminants concentrations of bacteria, total suspended solids
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, bio- (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and
chemical oxygen demand, and total suspended phosphorus. This facilitates high-level disinfec-
solids. The membrane filtration system in effect tion. Effluents are readily discharged to surface
can replace the secondary clarifier and sand fil- streams or can be sold for reuse, such as irrig-
ters in a typical activated sludge treatment tion.
system. Membrane filtration allows a higher The primary disadvantage of MBR systems is
biomass concentration to be maintained, thereby the typically higher capital and operating costs
allowing smaller bioreactors to be used. than conventional systems for the same through-
put. O&M costs include membrane cleaning and
APPLICABILITY fouling control, and eventual membrane re-
placement. Energy costs are also higher because
For new installations, the use of MBR systems of the need for air scouring to control bacterial
allows for higher wastewater flow or improved growth on the membranes. In addition, the waste
treatment performance in a smaller space than a sludge from such a system might have a low
conventional design, i.e., a facility using secon- settling rate, resulting in the need for chemicals
dary clarifiers and sand filters. Historically, to produce biosolids acceptable for disposal
membranes have been used for smaller-flow sys- (Hermanowicz et al. 2006). Fleischer et al. 2005
tems due to the high capital cost of the have demonstrated that waste sludges from
equipment and high operation and maintenance MBRs can be processed using standard tech-
(O&M) costs. Today however, they are receiving nologies used for activated sludge processes.
increased use in larger systems. MBR systems
are also well suited for some industrial and
commercial applications. The high-quality efflu-
ent produced by MBRs makes them particularly
applicable to reuse applications and for surface

1
MEMBRANE FILTRATION ment is that the membranes prevent passage of
particles the size of microorganisms, or about 1
Membrane filtration involves the flow of water-
micron (0.001 millimeters), so that they remain
containing pollutants across a membrane. Water
in the system. This means that MBR systems are
permeates through the membrane into a separate
good for removing solid material, but the re-
channel for recovery (Figure 1). Because of the moval of dissolved wastewater components must
cross-flow movement of water and the waste be facilitated by using additional treatment steps.
constituents, materials left behind do not accu-
Membranes can be configured in a number of
mulate at the membrane surface but are carried
ways. For MBR applications, the two configura-
out of the system for later recovery or disposal.
tions most often used are hollow fibers grouped
The water passing through the membrane is
in bundles, as shown in Figure 2, or as flat
called the permeate, while the water with the
plates. The hollow fiber bundles are connected by
more-concentrated materials is called the con-
manifolds in units that are designed for easy
centrate or retentate.
changing and servicing.

Figure 2. Hollow-fiber membranes (Image

from GE/Zenon)

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Designers of MBR systems require only basic
information about the wastewater characteristics,
(e.g., influent characteristics, effluent require-
ments, flow data) to design an MBR system.
Depending on effluent requirements, certain
supplementary options can be included with the
MBR system. For example, chemical addition (at
various places in the treatment chain, including:
before the primary settling tank; before the sec-
ondary settling tank [clarifier]; and before the
MBR or final filters) for phosphorus removal can
be included in an MBR system if needed to
Figure 1. Membrane filtration process achieve low phosphorus concentrations in the
(Image from Siemens/U.S. Filter)
effluent.
Membranes are constructed of cellulose or other MBR systems historically have been used for
polymer material, with a maximum pore size set small-scale treatment applications when portions
during the manufacturing process. The require- of the treatment system were shut down and the
2
wastewater routed around (or bypassed) during more than 1.5 to 2 times the average design flow.
maintenance periods. If peak flows exceed that limit, either additional
membranes are needed simply to process the
However, MBR systems are now often used in peak flow, or equalization should be included in
full-treatment applications. In these instances, it the overall design. The equalization is done by
is recommended that the installation include one including a separate basin (external equalization)
additional membrane tank/unit beyond what the or by maintaining water in the aeration and
design would nominally call for. This “N plus 1” membrane tanks at depths higher than those re-
concept is a blend between conventional acti- quired and then removing that water to
vated sludge and membrane process design. It is accommodate higher flows when necessary (in-
especially important to consider both operations ternal equalization).
and maintenance requirements when selecting
the number of units for MBRs. The inclusion of
an extra unit gives operators flexibility and en- DESIGN FEATURES
sures that sufficient operating capacity will be Pretreatment
available (Wallis-Lage et al. 2006). For example,
To reduce the chances of membrane damage,
bioreactor sizing is often limited by oxygen
wastewater should undergo a high level of debris
transfer, rather than the volume required to
removal prior to the MBR. Primary treatment is
achieve the required SRT—a factor that signifi-
often provided in larger installations, although
cantly affects bioreactor numbers and sizing
not in most small to medium sized installations,
(Crawford et al. 2000).
and is not a requirement. In addition, all MBR
Although MBR systems provide operational systems require 1- to 3-mm-cutoff fine screens
flexibility with respect to flow rates, as well as immediately before the membranes, depending
the ability to readily add or subtract units as con- on the MBR manufacturer. These screens require
ditions dictate, that flexibility has limits. frequent cleaning. Alternatives for reducing the
Membranes typically require that the water sur- amount of material reaching the screens include
face be maintained above a minimum elevation using two stages of screening and locating the
so that the membranes remain wet during opera- screens after primary settling.
tion. Throughput limitations are dictated by the
physical properties of the membrane, and the Membrane Location
result is that peak design flows should be no MBR systems are configured with the mem-
Turbidimeter
Mixed Aerobic + ZeeWeed
Anoxic
Pretreated
Wastewater Treated
Feed Water

Sludge
Recycle
Clean in
Place
Tank

Blowers

Sludge Wasted
@ 1 - 1.2 wt% TS

Figure 3. Immersed membrane system configuration (Image from GE/Zenon)

3
 Figure 4. External membrane system configuration (Image from Siemens/U.S. Filter)

branes actually immersed in the biological reac- plate membranes require 2- to 3-mm screening
tor or, as an alternative, in a separate vessel (Wallis-Lage et al. 2006).
through which mixed liquor from the biological
reactor is circulated. The former configuration is System Operation
shown in Figure 3; the latter, in Figure 4. All MBR systems require some degree of pump-
ing to force the water flowing through the
Membrane Configuration membrane. While other membrane systems use a
MBR manufacturers employ membranes in two pressurized system to push the water through the
basic configurations: hollow fiber bundles and membranes, the major systems used in MBRs
plate membranes. Siemens/U.S.Filter’s Memjet draw a vacuum through the membranes so that
and Memcor systems, GE/Zenon’s ZeeWeed and the water outside is at ambient pressure. The
ZenoGem systems, and GE/Ionics’ system use advantage of the vacuum is that it is gentler to
hollow-fiber, tubular membranes configured in the membranes; the advantage of the pressure is
bundles. A number of bundles are connected by that throughput can be controlled. All systems
manifolds into units that can be readily changed also include techniques for continually cleaning
for maintenance or replacement. The other con- the system to maintain membrane life and keep
figuration, such as those provided by the system operational for as long as possible.
Kubota/Enviroquip, employ membranes in a flat- All the principal membrane systems used in
plate configuration, again with manifolds to al- MBRs use an air scour technique to reduce
low a number of membranes to be connected in buildup of material on the membranes. This is
readily changed units. Screening requirements done by blowing air around the membranes out
for both systems differ: hollow-fiber membranes of the manifolds. The GE/Zenon systems use air
typically require 1- to 2-mm screening, while scour, as well as a back-pulsing technique, in
which permeate is occasionally pumped back
4
into the membranes to keep the pores cleared moved by cleaners or that will cause eventual
out. Back-pulsing is typically done on a timer, membrane deterioration.
with the time of pulsing accounting for 1 to 5
percent of the total operating time. - Regular use of mild cleaners. Cleaning so-
lutions most often used with MBRs include
regular bleach (sodium) and citric acid. The
Downstream Treatment
cleaning should be in accord with manufac-
The permeate from an MBR has low levels of turer-recommended maintenance protocols.
suspended solids, meaning the levels of bacteria,
BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus are also low.
Membrane Guarantees
Disinfection is easy and might not be required,
depending on permit requirements.. The length of the guarantee provided by the
membrane system provider is also important in
The solids retained by the membrane are recy- determining the cost-effectiveness of the system.
cled to the biological reactor and build up in the For municipal wastewater treatment, longer
system. As in conventional biological systems, guarantees might be more readily available com-
periodic sludge wasting eliminates sludge pared to those available for industrial systems.
buildup and controls the SRT within the MBR Zenon offers a 10-year guarantee; others range
system. The waste sludge from MBRs goes from 3 to 5 years. Some guarantees include cost
through standard solids-handling technologies prorating if replacement is needed after a certain
for thickening, dewatering, and ultimate dis- service time. Guarantees are typically negotiated
posal. Hermanowicz et al. (2006) reported a during the purchasing process. Some manufac-
decreased ability to settle in waste MBR sludges turers’ guarantees are tied directly to screen size:
due to increased amounts of colloidal-size parti- longer membrane warranties are granted when
cles and filamentous bacteria. Chemical addition smaller screens are used (Wallis-Lage et al.
increased the ability of the sludges to settle. As 2006). Appropriate membrane life guarantees
more MBR facilities are built and operated, a can be secured using appropriate membrane pro-
more definitive understanding of the characteris- curement strategies (Crawford et al. 2002).
tics of the resulting biosolids will be achieved.
However, experience to date indicates that con-
ventional biosolids processing unit operations SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
are also applicable to the waste sludge from Siemens/U.S. Filter Systems
MBRs. Siemens/U.S.Filter offers MBR systems under
the Memcor and Memjet brands. Data provided
Membrane Care by U.S. Filter for its Calls Creek (Georgia) facil-
The key to the cost-effectiveness of an MBR ity are summarized below. The system, as Calls
system is membrane life. If membrane life is Creek retrofitted it, is shown in Figure 5. In es-
curtailed such that frequent replacement is re- sence, the membrane filters were used to replace
quired, costs will significantly increase. secondary clarifiers downstream of an Orbal
Membrane life can be increased in the following oxidation ditch. The system includes a fine
ways: screen (2-mm cutoff) for inert solids removal just
before the membranes.
- Good screening of larger solids before the
membranes to protect the membranes from The facility has an average flow of 0.35 million
physical damage. gallons per day (mgd) and a design flow of 0.67
mgd. The system has 2 modules, each containing
- Throughput rates that are not excessive, i.e.,
400 units, and each unit consists of a cassette
that do not push the system to the limits of
with manifold-connected membranes. As shown
the design. Such rates reduce the amount of
in Table 1, removal of BOD, TSS, and ammonia-
material that is forced into the membrane and
nitrogen is excellent; BOD and TSS in the efflu-
thereby reduce the amount that has to be re-
ent are around the detection limit. Phosphorus is
also removed well in the system, and the effluent
5
 Figure 5. Calls Creek flow diagram (courtesy of Siemens/U.S. Filter)

Table 1.
Calls Creek results 2005
Parameter Influent Effluent
Average Average Max Month Min Month
Flow (mgd) 0.35 -- 0.44 0.26
BOD (mg/L) 145 1 1 1
TSS (mg/L) 248 1 1 1
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 14.8 0.21 0.72 0.10
P (mg/L) 0.88 0.28 0.55 0.12
Fecal coliforms (#/100 mL) -- 14.2 20 0
Turbidity (NTU) -- 0.30 1.31 0.01

has very low turbidity. The effluent has consis- Cauley Creek, Georgia. The Cauley Creek fa-
tently met discharge limits. cility in Fulton County, Georgia, is a 5-mgd
wastewater reclamation plant. The system
Zenon Systems includes biological phosphorus removal, mixed
General Electric/Zenon provides systems under liquor surface wasting, and sludge thickening
the ZenoGem and ZeeWeed brands. The Zee- using a ZeeWeed system to minimize the re-
Weed brand refers to the membrane, while quired volume of the aerobic digester, according
ZenoGem is the process that uses ZeeWeed. to information provided by GE. Ultraviolet disin-
Performance data for two installed systems are fection is employed to meet regulatory limits.
shown below. Table 2 shows that the removal for all parame-

6
 Table 2.
Cauley Creek, Georgia, system performance
Parameter Influent Effluent
Average Average Max Month Min Month
Flow (mgd) 4.27 -- 4.66 3.72
BOD (mg/L) 182 2.0 2.0 2.0
COD (mg/L) 398 12 22 5
TSS (mg/L) 174 3.2 5 3
TKN (mg/L) 33.0 1.9 2.9 1.4
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 24.8 0.21 0.29 0.10
TP (mg/L) 5.0 0.1 0.13 0.06
Fecal coliforms (#/100 mL) -- 2 2 2
NO3-N (mg/L) -- 2.8

ters is over 90 percent. The effluent meets all ers averaged 1,800 kW-hr/million gallons (MG)
permit limits, and is reused for irrigation and treated.
lawn watering.
COSTS
Traverse City, Michigan. The Traverse City
Capital Costs
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) went
through an upgrade to increase plant capacity Capital costs for MBR systems historically have
and produce a higher-quality effluent, all within tended to be higher than those for conventional
the facility’s existing plant footprint (Crawford systems with comparable throughput because of
et al. 2005). With the ZeeWeed system, the facil- the initial costs of the membranes. In certain
ity was able to achieve those goals. As of 2006, situations, however, including retrofits, MBR
the plant is the largest-capacity MBR facility in systems can have lower or competitive capital
North America. It has a design average annual costs compared with alternatives because MBRs
flow of 7.1 mgd, maximum monthly flow of 8.5 have lower land requirements and use smaller
mgd, and peak hourly flow of 17 mgd. The tanks, which can reduce the costs for concrete.
membrane system consists of a 450,000-gallon U.S. Filter/Siemen’s Memcor package plants
tank with eight compartments of equal size. Sec- have installed costs of $7–$20/gallon treated.
ondary sludge is distributed evenly to the Fleischer et al. (2005) reported on a cost com-
compartments. Blowers for air scouring, as well parison of technologies for a 12-MGD design in
as permeate and back-pulse pumps, are housed in Loudoun County, Virginia. Because of a chemi-
a nearby building. cal oxygen demand limit, activated carbon
Table 3 presents a summary of plant results over adsorption was included with the MBR system.
a 12-month period. The facility provides excel- It was found that the capital cost for MBR plus
lent removal of BOD, TSS, ammonia-nitrogen, granular activated carbon at $12/gallon treated
and phosphorus. Figure 6 shows the influent, was on the same order of magnitude as alterna-
effluent, and flow data for the year. tive processes, including multiple-point alum
addition, high lime treatment, and post-
Operating data for the Traverse City WWTP secondary membrane filtration.
were obtained for the same period. The mixed
liquor suspended solids over the period January Operating Costs
to August averaged 6,400 mg/L, while the mixed Operating costs for MBR systems are typically
liquor volatile suspended solids averaged 4,400 higher than those for comparable conventional
mg/L. The energy use for the air-scouring blow- systems. This is because of the higher energy
7
 Table 3.
Summary of Traverse City, Michigan, Performance Results
Parameter Influent Effluent
Average Average Max Month Min Month
Flow (mgd) 4.3 -- 5.1 3.6
BOD (mg/L) 280 <2 <2 <2
TSS (mg/L) 248 <1 <1 <1
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 27.9 < 0.08 < 0.23 < 0.03
TP (mg/L) 6.9 0.7 0.95 0.41
Temperature (deg C) 17.2 -- 23.5 11.5

350 35

Effl. BOD/TSS (mg/L); Infl. and Effl. NH3-N, PO4-P (mg/L); and
300 30

250 25
Influent BOD and TSS (mg/L)

200 20

Flow (MGD)
150 15

100 10

50 5

0 0
Aug-05 Sep-05 Nov-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Apr-06 Jun-06 Jul-06

Inf. BOD Inf. TSS Inf. NH3-N Inf. PO4-P Eff. BOD Eff. NH3-N Eff. TSS Eff. PO4-P Flow (MGD)

Figure 6. Performance of the Traverse City plant

costs if air scouring is used to reduce membrane of the same order of magnitude as those of alter-
fouling. The amount of air needed for the scour- native processes, and they compared favorably to
ing has been reported to be twice that needed to those of processes that are chemical-intensive,
maintain aeration in a conventional activated such as lime treatment.
sludge system (Scott Blair, personal communica-
tion, 2006). These higher operating costs are
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
often partially offset by the lower costs for
sludge disposal associated with running at longer The authors acknowledge Dr. Venkat Mahen-
sludge residence times and with membrane draker, GE/Zenon, Mr. John Irwin, Siemens/
thickening/dewatering of wasted sludge. U.S. Filter, and Mr. Scott Blair and Mr. Leroy
Bonkoski of the Traverse City WWTP for
Fleischer et al. (2005) compared operating costs. their assistance in obtaining data and system
They estimated the operating costs of an MBR information. EPA acknowledges external peer
system including activated carbon adsorption at
$1.77 per 1,000 gallons treated. These costs were
8
reviewers Pat Brooks, Alan Cooper, and Glenn Fleischer, E.J., T.A. Broderick, G.T. Daigger, A.
Daigger for their contribution. D. Fonseca, R.D. Holbrook, and S.N. Murthy.
2005. Evaluation of Membrane Bioreactor
Process Capabilities to Meet Stringent Efflu-
PRODUCT LITERATURE USED
ent Nutrient Discharge Requirements. Water
Enviroquip/Kubota. Sales literature. Environment Research 77:162–178.
Siemens. Product literature. Fleischer, E. J., T. A. Broderick, G. T. Daigger,
<http://www.usfilter.com/en/Product+Lines/ J. C. Lozier, A. M. Wollmann, and A. D.
Envirex_Products/Envirex_Products/ Fonseca. 2001. Evaluating the Next Genera-
envirex_mbr_xpress_packaged_plant.htm>. tion of Water Reclamation Processes. In
Zenon. Case studies: Cauley Creek, Georgia. Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
<http://www.zenon.com/resources/case_studies/ eration 74th Annual Conference & Exposition,
water_reuse/CauleyCreek.shtml>. Atlanta, GA, CD-ROM, October 13–17, 2001.

Zenon. Case studies: Traverse City, Michigan. Hermanowicz, S.W., D. Jenkins, R.P. Merlo, and
<http://www.zenon.com/resources/case_studi R.S. Trussell. 2006. Effects of Biomass Prop-
es/wastewater/TraverseCity.shtml>. erties on Submerged Membrane Bioreactor
(SMBR) Performance and Solids Processing.
Document no. 01-CTS-19UR. Water Envi-
REFERENCES ronment Federation.
Crawford, G., G. Daigger, J. Fisher, S. Blair, and Metcalf & Eddy. 2003. Wastewater Engineering,
R. Lewis. 2005. Parallel Operation of Large Treatment and Reuse. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill,
Membrane Bioreactors at Traverse City. In New York.
Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
eration 78th Annual Conference & Wallis-Lage, C., B. Hemken, et al. 2006. MBR
Exposition, Washington, DC, CD-ROM, Plants: Larger and More Complicated. Pre-
October 29–Nov 2, 2005. sented at the Water Reuse Association’s 21st
Annual Water Reuse Symposium, Holly-
Crawford, G., A. Fernandez, A. Shawwa, and G. wood, CA, September 2006.
Daigger. 2002 Competitive Bidding and
Evaluation of Membrane Bioreactor Equip-
ment—Three Large Plant Case Studies. In
Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
eration 75th Annual Conference &
Exposition, Chicago, IL, CD-ROM, Septem-
ber 28–Oct 2, 2002.
Crawford, G., D. Thompson, J. Lozier, G. Daigger,
and E. Fleischer. 2000. Membrane
Bioreactors—A Designer’s Perspective. In
Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation 73rd Annual Conference &
Exposition on Water Quality and
Wastewater Treatment, Anaheim, CA,
CD-ROM, October 14-18, 2000.

EPA 832-F-07-015
Office of Water
September 2007