PROJECT PROFILE

The Performance of Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Treating High

Temperature Wastewater

Research Area : Technology and Engineering

Project Leader : Mohd Razman Salim

Team Members: Azmi Aris; Abdullah Al Amri
Research Alliance : Water
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
e-mail : mohdrazman@utm.my

ABSTRACT

Membrane bioreactor technology represents the most rapidly growing membrane technology
in the water sector. In recent years, MBR technologies have been playing a very important
role in water and wastewater treatment. MBRs are used to treat a wide range of municipal
and industrial wastewaters. MBR integrates membrane filtration with biological degradation
system of waste products. It is defined as a modification of the conventional activated sludge
system (AS), where the separation of the treated water from the mixed liquor is
accomplished by a membrane system instead of a clarifier. The two basic MBR process
configurations are external and submerged. The high cost of pumping makes external MBR
system impractical for full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. In this study,
submerged MBR (SMBR) process was developed.

1
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Membrane technology did not exist before the sixties of the last century (Richard, 2000).
Furthermore, Christian (2005) has reported that in three decades, 50% of all separation
processes will be accomplished by membranes. The first systematic studies of membrane
phenomena are ascribed to the 18th-century philosophers and scientists, when Abbe Nolet in
1748 found the word osmosis to describe permeation of liquid through a diaphragm (Richard,
2000). The same researcher also reported that, through the 19th and early 20th centuries,
membranes had no industrial or commercial applications, but they were used as laboratory
tools to study physical and chemical theories.

Since 1960, interest in membrane filtration process has grown gradually, and membrane
technology now is the object of substantial universal research, development, commercial
activity and full-scale application (Joël et. al., 1996). Hence, membrane filtration is on the
edge of becoming a mainstream filtration process and is already competing with the
conventional system techniques (Christian, 2005). Many researchers have defined
membrane with different words. Joël et. al., (1996) defined it as a thin layer of material that
is capable of separation materials as a function of their physical and chemical properties
when a driving force is applied across the membrane. Otherwise, membranes are often
most of the times the first choice because of their decreasing costs, superior performance for
improving a broad range of water qualities, use of less disinfection chemicals and smaller
storage tanks and feed facilities (Christian, 2005).

Membrane filtration process has been utilized in a big range of applications. Membrane
bioreactor (MBR) is one of them. MBR is a modification of the conventional activated sludge
system (AS) using membrane instead of a clarifier to accomplish the process of separating
treated water from the mixed liquor (Cicek et. al., 1999). MBR technology combines the
biological degradation process by AS with a direct solid-liquid separation by micro or
ultrafiltration membrane technology (with a pore-size range of 0.05 to 0.4 μm) (Pierre et. al.,
2006).

Unlike the conventional AS process which depends on a gravity settlement, MBR uses
membrane filtration unit for the separation of biomass. Therefore, it is competent to complete
biomass retention in the bioreactor and thus to retain potentially pathogenic organisms
(Seung., 2004). In AS system, only the fraction of activated sludge that forms flocs and
settles can be retained, while in MBR all components of the biomass that are larger than the
membrane cutoff are retained. Thereby, MBR produces a high-quality and cell-free effluent,
and reduces the need for disinfection necessities of treated wastewater effluents (Cote et.
al., 1998; Jefferson et. al., 2000). Long SRT in the MBR process averts the washout of slow-
2
growing microorganisms such as nitrifying bacteria and other bacteria responsible for
degrading complex compounds. Therefore, MBRs enhance the nitrifying function and
complex organic contaminant degradation ability compared to a conventional biological
wastewater process of AS system at short HRT (Muller et. al., 1995). Beside the superior
effluent quality and the absolute control of solids retention and hydraulic retention times, the
smaller volume and footprint is one of the main advantages of MBR.

MBR is an ideal option for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment applications,
particularly in mesophilic condition. It has been exploited widely to treat various kinds of
wastewater in many cities around the world. Nevertheless, MBR has not yet been utilized in
the treatment applications of high-temperature (35 °C and above) municipal wastewater. This
is more so in arid and dry-hot climate such as the Middle East consisting of countries i.e.
Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. In fact, there is a big usage of
membranes for water and seawater treatment (desalination) in Gulf states, but not for
wastewater treatment. Therefore, it is very important and necessary to study the feasibility of
MBR in treating high-temperature municipal wastewater, especially, when there are no real
studies on such subject.

Many researchers have been exploring the different applications of MBR process during last
two decades. Majority of them focused on the performance of MBR at mesophilic conditions
and low temperatures (Darren et al., 2005; Aloice and Tatsuya, 1996; Zhang et. al., 2006).
Groups of researchers have studied the efficiency of MBR in treating various kinds of
industrial wastewater, while other groups were involved in investigating the phenomena of
membrane fouling (Ognier et al., 2002; Pierre et al., 2006; Fangang et al., 2006). In spite of
the efforts spent on studying the applications of MBR in treating high temperature industrial
and synthetic wastewater (João et. al., 2005 Zhang et al., 2005; Kurian & Nakhla, 2006;), the
application of MBR in treating high temperature municipal wastewater remains very limited.

1.2 Aim and Objectives

Despite the big number of the previous studies related to the subject of MBR applications,
the knowledge area of MBR treating HTMW has not yet been investigated before this study.
The question of “What is the effect of temperature on the performance of MBR process
treating municipal wastewater” has not yet been answered. Thus, the overall aim of this
research was to study and evaluate the feasibility of MBR application process in treating
high-temperature municipal wastewater, for the purpose of reuse and recycle. This can be
achieved by the following specific objectives:-
I. To investigate the effect of high temperatures on the biodegradation process
(biological removal efficiency) and membrane filterability (final removal efficiency) in
MBR system treating municipal wastewater, in terms of COD, NH3-N, SS, Turbidity
and Effluent color.
3
 II. To investigate the effect of high temperatures on an activated sludge properties in
terms of Biomass growth, SVI, Hydraulic viscosity, SMP and EPS ratio, pH and
Supernatant turbidity.
III. To investigate the phenomena of membrane fouling in terms of SMP and EPS ratio,
and TMP and BWP.
IV. To evaluate and compare between the performances of MBR process treating
HTMW at two different (high and low) membrane hydraulic fluxes.
V. To investigate the effect of drastic temperature changes on the performance of
MBR process treating municipal wastewater, in terms of removal efficiencies, AS
properties and membrane fouling phenomena at constant membrane hydraulic flux.

1.3 Scope of the study

Although significant work was conducted on MBR applications for high temperature
wastewater treatment, there is a gap in literature in terms of the relationship between
temperature and MBR process in municipal wastewater treatment. Many areas need to be
investigated such as the relationship between the temperature and AS properties, biological
removal efficiency, final removal efficiency, membrane fouling, and the effect of drastic
temperature changes on the MBR process. Therefore, this research was initiated by
conducting a thorough literature review on the use of MBR applications for different kinds of
high temperature wastewater treatment, operational and performance factors influencing the
process, types and efficiencies of removals, membrane fouling phenomena and biomass
characterization. Based on this literature review, the gaps in knowledge and the needs to
fulfill those gaps through this research have been established.

Based on the research objectives, the second task involved development and set up of
appropriate lab-scale experiments and analytical methods to conduct the research. As far as
the constraint and limitation of the study is concerned, the work is only enough for initial
process development and membrane configuration. No analytical data could be established
at this stage of study. .

4
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study perspective

Notwithstanding, the full-scale MBRs have been applied since the early 1970s (Ng, 2002),
studies related to the submerged MBR started two decades ago upon the breakthrough for
the MBR which came in 1989 with the idea of Yamamoto et. al. (1989), to submerge the
membrane in the bioreactor. Until then, researchers had been interested in designing MBRs
with the separation device located external to the reactor and relied on high trans-membrane
pressure to maintain filtration. Many researches have been carried out to study the different
sides of the MBR process and applications. MBR applications for treating different kinds of
wastewater, operational modes and parameters, fouling phenomenon, designing and
modeling have been investigated during the last ten years (Lesjean et. al., 2004; Yaobo et.
al., 2006; Pierre et. al., 2006; Anja et. al., 2006; Sofia et. al., 2004; Jan et. al., 2007; Kim and
Yuan., 2005; Nobuhiro et. al., 2006).

However, until now, there is still a lack of understanding in relation to performance of MBR in
hot climate conditions for domestic wastewater treatment applications. This may be due to
the fact that the origin of this technology was from the European continent. For hot and high-
temperature climate regions like the Gulf States, MBR technology can still be considered as
a new paradigm shift for wastewater treatment applications
.
2.2 Study outline
The experimental work for this study consisted of two parts. The first part is the system
designing, modifying and examining, and the second part is the experimental runs which are
explained in the next paragraph. However due to budget limitation, the study is confined to
system designing and membrane configuration.

2.2.1 Bioreactor configuration

The MBR system and membrane modules were designed and modified by the researcher in
the laboratory of Membrane Research Unit (MRU), Chemical Engineering Faculty, UTM
Malaysia. This phase of system preparation (design, modification and examination) has
taken nearly six months. It consisted of designing the bioreactor and membrane modules,
and selecting the required materials according to the literature review. After that, the system
was built, modified and examined prior to the commencement of the main experimental runs.
The laboratory scale MBR system used in this study consisted of five main parts which are
bioreactor, aeration system, heating system, membrane modules and suction/backwash set
(Figures 2.1 and 2.2).

5
 21
E
SOURCE

19
20
2

18
11

0
9
8

7
04

06
01
4 02
3
03

05
17
5
6

(1) Feeding tank (2) Mixer (3) ِAir compressor (4) Air flow meter (5) Main reactor (6) Aeration tubes
with 1 ml openings (7) Membrane module (8) Water level (9) Water level controller (10) Sampling
port (11) Thermocouple electric heater (12) Sucking automatic valve (13) Backwashing automatic
valve (14) Suction pressure gauge (15) Backwash pressure gauge (16) Suction pump (17)
Backwash pump (18) Programming time controller (19) Operational timer (20) Main reactor profile
(21) Baffle plate

Figure 2.1 Schematic drawing of MBR system used in this study

6
 Figure 2.2 Picture of MBR system used in this study

2.2.2 Main bioreactor

The bioreactor is made from glass with an effective volume of 3.6 L. The bioreactor’s cover is
made from steel and it contains a hole of 2 cm X 8 cm for the purpose of observation and
temperature measurement. The baffle plate (15 cm X 18 cm) fixed in the middle of the
bioreactor divided the bioreactor into two areas to keep the mixed liquor flowing up and down
around the plate. The front area is the membrane submerging area and the back one is the
heater submerging area. The water level controller is located 22 cm from the bottom in the
right side of the bioreactor. The bioreactor contains one 2.5 cm hole at the bottom in the left
side of the bioreactor for membrane module installation and suction/backwash tube fixing. It
is situated 3 cm from the bottom of the bioreactor. The bioreactor contains also two 0.6 cm
holes on the front side for sampling and desludging, and they are situated 6 cm and 1 cm
from the bottom respectively. The effective volume of the bioreactor is 3.8 liters.
7
2.2.3 Aeration system
Aerobic condition was maintained by bubbling ambient air into the bioreactor at a rate of
approximately 9 L/min measured using a hydraulic air flow meter. Aeration system consisted
of compressor, air supply tubes, air flow meter and porous diffusing tubes. The compressor
was self-operating and it’s operating mode was approximately 3.5 min on and 15 min off. The
0.5 mm ID air supply tubes made of polyurethane (Sun-Rise Airkino) were connected from
the compressor to the diffusing tubes through the air flow meter (Dwyer Instrument). The air
flow meter was used to measure and control the air flow into the bioreactor. The three UPVC
65 mm ID diameter diffusing tubes (with many 1 mm pores) were positioned at the bottom of
the bioreactor immediately below the membrane module so that the coarse bubbles would
not only provide oxygen for the microorganisms, but also agitate the membrane fibers to
reduce membrane fouling and prolong membrane service life.

2.2.4 Heating system (instrument)

The electrical heating system used in this study consisted of stainless steel heating electrode
and temperature controller. The heating instrument was fixed on the steel cover of the
bioreactor, whereas the heating electrode was submerged in the mixed liquor to raise up the
bioreactor temperature. The temperature controller located outside the bioreactor was
connected to a submerged sensor which switches the instrument on and of automatically to
keep the temperature of the mixed liquor at a required constant degree.

2.2.5 Membrane modules and specification

The membranes were ordered as a big bundle of commercial membranes, which were then
modified into a laboratory scale modules. Different configurations of such modules have
been modified and examined to select the suitable configuration for the experimental
conditions of this study. Initially, various membrane configurations has been examined by
using tap water and mixed liquor (sludge). Finally, the appropriate membrane module
configuration was selected and used in the main stages of the experimental runs (Figure
2.3).

2.2.6 Suction/backwash set

The suction/backwash set is the part connected to the membrane module in the bioreactor. It
consisted of two opposite-flow MasterFlex tubes (Cat no: 96410-16) for suction and
backwash, two peristaltic MasterFlex pumps (Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, Model
77200-60) for suction and backwash, electrical timing controller to control the operating time
of suction and backwash lines and electrical timer for operating and pause modes. There
were two automatic valves between the membrane module and the suction and backwash
lines. Each valve was opened when the line started working automatically. There was also a
pressure gage between each valve together with pump on the same line.

8
2.2.7 Membrane cleaning chemicals and procedures
Since the hollow fiber membranes have relatively longer service life, the membrane modules
used in this study were cleaned only at the end of each run or phase. After removing the
membrane module from the bioreactor it was flushed under a running tap water to dislodge
and remove the sludge suspended between the fibers. The module then was soaked in 0.5
% w/w NaOCl solution for 24 hours and then it was washed again with tap water and kept
immersed in a sink of tap water until need. Sometimes the module needs to be soaked again
in 0.5 % w/w NaOCl solution for 12 hours.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2.3 Samples of different configurations of membrane modules

9
The hollow fiber membranes used in this study were made of polyethersulfone which are
hydrophilic and high temperature (≤ 100 °C), high pressure and different ranges of pH
tolerant (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Membrane specifications

Manufacturer Aqueusphere
Membrane material Modified Polyethersulfone (PES)
Nominal pore size (µm) 0.1-0.2
Fiber length (mm) 230
External diameter (mm) 0.9
Internal diameter (mm) 0.55
No of fibers in module 100
Total membrane surface area (m²) 0.065
Rm (m‾¹) 0.33 – 0.5
Operating Temperature ≤ 100 °C
Operating differentiate pressure < 5 kPa
pH 2 – 11

2.3 Operational parameters

2.3.1 pH control
The pH of the mixed liquor was continuously measured in order to be kept within the range of
7 ± 1 by the addition of either a 1% HCL solution or a 20 g/L Na2CO3 solution and also the pH
of influent and effluent. For pH measurement Thermo Orion pH Meter Model 420 was used.

2.3.2 Dissolved oxygen (DO)

DO was monitored using YSI 5100 DO meter. The membrane of the DO probe was replaced
after four weeks to maintain the freshness. The DO probe was washed after each use and
stored in a half water filled BOD bottle to maintain the moisture of the membrane.

2.3.3 Temperature (T)

Temperature was monitored continuously using Consort C535 Multi-Parameter analayser to
measure influent, mixed liquor and effluent temperature.

2.3.4 Transmembrane pressure (TMP) and backwash pressure (BWP)

Both TMP and BWP were monitored by using two different pressure gages negative and
positive respectively. The pressure gages are fixed on the suction and backwash lines
between the peristaltic pumps and the submerged membrane module in the bioreactor.

10
3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Membrane Bioreactors

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are based on a combination of activated sludge processes
and membrane filtration in one treatment step. An ultrafiltration or microfiltration membrane
separates the activated sludge from the effluent. The membrane can be applied within the
bioreactor (submerged configuration) or externally through recirculation. Since external
settlers, or any other post treatment step, become superfluous by using a membrane for the
suspended solid and effluent separation, the required space for an installation is small and
sludge concentration in the aeration tanks can be two to three times higher than in
conventional systems. Furthermore, the effluent quality is significantly better as all
suspended and colloidal material such as micro contaminants, bacteria and viruses are
removed (Ujang and Anderson, 2000; Trussell et al., 2005).

Biological processes in a MBR are often comparable or better than in conventional activated
sludge systems (Ujang et. al., 2005 a, b and c). Due to the long sludge ages, N-removal is
more efficient because the slow growing autotrophic bacteria are kept efficiently in the
system. Denitrification can occur by introducing anoxic tanks or intermittent aeration (Drews
et. al., 2005; Gander et. al., 2000). Figure 3.1 shows a typical MBR system.

Permeate
Feed

Membrane
e

Aeration
Figure 3.1 Typical membrane bioreator systme (Ujang and Anderson, 2000)

3.2 Membrane Bioreactor Technology and Process

3.2.1 Membrane Definition and Technology

Membrane basically, can be defined as a barrier, which separates two phases and restricts
transport of various chemical in selective manner (Paul and Yampol, 1994). It can be also
defined as a material that separates particles and molecules from liquids and gaseous. The
membrane separation process is based on the presence of semi permeable membrane. The
principle is quite simple: the membrane acts as a very specific filter that allows water to flow
11
through, while it catches suspended solids and other substances (Figure 3.2). There are two
factors that determine the effectiveness of a membrane filtration process; selectivity and
productivity. Selectivity is expressed as a parameter called retention or separation factor,
while productivity is expressed as a parameter called flux.

Permeate (treated water) Feed (wastewater)

Productivity Selectivity

Figure 3.2 Schematic shape for membrane filtration process

3.2.2 Types of Membrane

There are many types of membrane modules used in MBR system according to the design
and pore size. Membrane types according to the design are tubular, plate and frame, rotary
disk and hollow fiber (Figure 3.3). The tubular membrane configuration is commonly used to
enhance turbulent flow and mechanical cleaning. The plate and frame shaped membranes
are inexpensive and usually disposable. The rotary disk membrane gives an acceptable
membrane surface area. The module of hollow fiber is considered as a self-supporting
membrane and presents the highest membrane surface area of all the membrane module
types (Seung, 2004).

a) b)
Figure 3.3 Hollow fiber membrane. a) fiber magnified several hundred times, b) a cross
section of a membrane (Zenon, 2007)

12
Otherwise, there are four main types according to the pore sizes, which are Reverse
Osmosis (RO), Nanofiltration (NF), Ultrafiltration (UF) and Microfiltration (MF). MF
significantly removes particulate contaminants (clay, algae, bacteria and microorganisms)
with minimal energy consumption among membrane family (Meier-Haack et. al., 2003; Ujang
et. al., 2002). The range with pore size higher than that of MF is a granular media such as
what is used in the conventional activated sludge system. For example, granular-sand filters
(Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Membrane classification according to the pore size and retention capability
(Zenon, 2007).

3.2.3 Membrane Bioreactor: Definition and Properties

As an alternative technology to the activated sludge process, researchers have been
interested for about 35 years in integrating membranes with biological processes, to produce
MBR system, which consists of bioreactor and membrane filtration unit (Christian, 2005).
MBR for wastewater treatment is one of the fastest growing technologies in municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment, especially for effluent reuse (Ng et al., 2004).

There are several drawbacks and disadvantages with the conventional system of municipal
and domestic wastewater treatment. The production of sludge is high, nutrients could not be
sufficiently removed and large footprint land areas required. Moreover, high numbers of
filamentous bacteria causes bulking and severe solid-liquid separation problems, what
reflects on effluent quality as a high concentration of suspended solid (Seung, 2004).
However, MBR system can overcome all these problems and provide an improved effluent
quality.

13
MBR is a technology that will influence the future of wastewater treatment. MBR improves
the quality of effluent by providing enhanced organic matter and nutrient removal, greatly
reduces the quantity of solids discharged and remove pathogens, what eliminates the need
for disinfection. All these advantages come with a smaller plant footprint, saving land costs
(Dagmara et. al., 2005). There are many advantages and properties associated with the
MBR, which make it a reliable option over other treatment techniques such as:
 Small footprint requirement that reduces the cost of whole project (Dagmara et. al.,
2005; Judd, 2006)
 Compact system, thus easy to operate, monitor and maintain (Satoshi et. al., 2004)
 High effluent quality and good disinfection capability, which are often difficult to be
effectively met by conventional activated sludge system (Judd, 2006; Zhang et. al.,
2006; Pierre et. al., 2006)
 High capacity, which ranges from less than 1 m³/day to greater than 100,000 m³/day
(Zhang et. al., 2006)
 Complete physical retention of bacterial flocs, viruses, particulate matters and all
suspended solid within the bioreactor (Pierre et. al., 2006; Chiemchaisri et. al., 1992)
 Ability to accumulate and successfully operate with relatively high mixed liquor
suspended solids (MLSS) concentration (up to 30 g/L), which allows long sludge
retention time (SRT; up to 200 days) in moderately sized bioreactor (Davies et. al.,
1998; Darren et. al., 2006)
 High volumetric loading and low-sludge production, which reduces the cost of sludge
disposal (Cicek, 2003; Judd, 2006)
 High nitrification activity rates owing to small floc size of the biomass (Zhang et. al.,
1997; Cicek et. al., 1999)
 Eliminate process problems and difficulties associated with settling, which are the
most troublesome part of wastewater treatment (Cicek, 2003)
 Low-pressure system, thus reduces energy and operating cost (Sandeep et. al.,
2002)
 SImple to be controlled and modeled (Ng et. al., 2004)
 Relatively, simple cleaning materials and procedures, thus reduces maintenance cost
(Ujang, 2000b)
 Becoming cheaper over the years (Stephen et. al., 2004)

3.3 MBR Types

According to its position, MBR system can be classified into two major groups: internal
(submerged) and external (sidestream or recirculated). Based on the electron acceptor for
the biological reaction, the MBR system can be classified into two groups: aerobic and
anaerobic MBR (Seung, 2004).

14
3.3.1 Internal and External
The first group is the internal (submerged) MBR, in which membrane filtration unit is
integrated into biological reactor to treat and separate biomass (Engelhardt et. al., 1998).
Recently, this type of MBR has become a promising alternative to the conventional
treatment, thus it has been developed to simplify the system and reduce the operational cost
(Darren et. al., 2006). The driving force across the membrane in the submerged MBR is
achieved by creating a negative pressure on the permeate side of the membrane unit
(Yamamoto et. al., 1989 and Chiemchaisri et. al., 1993). The second group, is the external
(sidestream) MBR, in which, the mixed liquor is recirculated through a membrane filtration
unit. The driving force in sidestream MBR, is the pressure obtained by high cross flow
velocity through the membrane filtration unit (Winnen et. al., 1996 and Urbain et. al., 1996).
Although, the high cost of mixed liquor recirculation in sidestream MBR, higher effluent
fluxes, easier maintenance and less complicated configuration make it desirable (Seung,
2004). Figure 3.4 (Paul et. al., 2006), simply shows the two types of MBR.

a) Internal:

Bioreactor ►
Influent Effluent

Wastewater Submerged Treated water

membrane

Air sparging (Aeration)

b) External:

Sidestream membrane
Bioreactor
Effluent
Influent

Treated water
Wastewater

Recirculation

Air sparging (Aeration)

Figure 3.4 Simplified schematics of MBR configurations (internal and external)

(Paul et. al., 2006)

15
For moderate to large-scale municipal wastewater treatment, submerged systems are
preferred over sidestream configuration, due to small footprint and reactor requirements.
Even though the submerged type is younger than other, approximately 55% of MBR
installations are in submerged type while the remainder are in the sidestream type
(Stephenson et. al., 2000).

3.3.2 Aerobic MBR

The aerobic MBR has been applied quite widely to domestic, municipal wastewater treatment
instead of the conventional activated sludge system (Gander et. al., 2000; Jefferson et. al.,
2000; Ueda and Hata, 1999 and Murakami et. al., 2000). Darren et. al., (2005) reported that,
their laboratory-scale aerobic MBR system managed to remove 98% of the suspended solid
and achieving a remarkable COD removal efficiency of 96% in treating high strength
synthetic wastewater. However, phosphorus removal in MBR varied from 12% (Cote et. al.,
1997) to 74% (Ueda and Hata, 1999). The concentration of the MLSS is reported to be 10
g/l and up to 50 g/l in some studies (Muller et. al., 1995 and Scholz and Fuchs, 2000).

Aerobic MBR has been applied to treat a wide range of industrial wastewater, such as oily
(Scholz and Fuch, 2000 and Seo et. al., 1997) and tannery wastewaters (Yamanoto and Win,
1991). Despite the high strength of the industrial wastewater, many studies have reported
high COD removal efficiency with high organic loading rate (Scholz and Fuch, 2000;
Yamanoto and Win, 1991; Kurian and Nakhla, 2006 and Rozich and Bordacs, 2002).
Aerobic biological process operated at high temperatures is highly advantageous in treating
high temperature, high strength industrial wastewaters due to its ability to integrate the
advantages of conventional aerobic and anaerobic processes that include rapid
biodegradation kinetics and low biological solids production respectively (Rozich and
Bordacs, 2002). The low yield of 0.03 g VSS/g COD, observed by Kurian and Nakhla (2006)
reveals that the aerobic MBR is a potential solution to difficulties related to high sludge
generation in conventional systems treating high strength wastewaters.

3.3.3 Anaerobic MBR

Although, the disadvantages of anaerobic MBR such as lower growth rate, high MLSS
concentration requirement and long HRT to prevent the biomass from washout, there are
advantages of the anaerobic MBR over the aerobic one, which are biogas recovery, lower
sludge production and lower energy consumption regarding to the absence of aeration
process (Seung, 2004). Although, anaerobic MBR to date is less explored than aerobic
MBR, it is a promising system for different strength wastewater treatment with simultaneous
energy recovery and less excess sludge production (Dongen et. al., 2004). Due to the poor
settleability in gravity settlers and the strong potential for odors, the use of anaerobic process
previously was unfeasible for nutrient and COD removal in municipal wastewater (Seung,
2004). Thus, many researchers have been studying the anaerobic MBR in the application of
16
high strength industrial wastewater treatment (Choo et. al., 1996). COD removal efficiency in
anaerobic MBR was 97% at high loading rate and >90% at low loading rate (Strohwald and
Ross, 1992). However, the theoretical range of biogas production is 65-75%, while
Strohwald and Ross (1992) in treating brewery wastewater reported the removal of between
20 and 47% mass of feed COD. 50% of biogas produced from industrial wastewater was
found to be methane content according to Kang et. al., (2002) and it could be more than that
depending on the type of the treatment application.

3.4 MBR Performance and Operating Factors

This section describes the performance of MBR, such as in terms of sludge production,
COD, nitrogen and phosphorus, and the factors affecting the permeate flux rate.

3.4.1 Sludge Production

Low sludge production was observed in the MBR processes because of limited energy
source (Witzig et. al., 2002), mechanical shear caused by pumping (Choo and Lee, 1996;
Kang et. al., 2002; Kim et. al., 2001), or attachment on to the surface of membrane (Choo
and Lee, 1996). In addition, the sludge age also influences the biomass production. Chaize
and Huyard (1991) demonstrated that sludge production was greatly reduced if the sludge
age is between 50 and 100 days. The performance of MBR process has been shown to be
satisfactory for at least two months when the sludge is completely retained (Chiemchaisri et.
al., 1993). However, it is unclear if the accumulation of inert material has a negative effect on
the treatment performance. The ratio of VSS to total suspended solids (TSS) in MBR MLSS
was reported in the range of 0.46 – 0.55 (Seung, 2004), which is much lower than the 0.75 –
0.90 observed in activated sludge MLSS.

3.4.2 Removal Efficiency

a. COD Removal
The MBR system is capable of achieving COD removal by both physical and biological
mechanisms. The biological COD removal occurs in the bioreactor. The biological COD
removal efficiency can be calculated from the difference of soluble CODs in the feed and the
mixed liquor divided by soluble COD in the feed (Ng et. al., 2000). The membrane filter offers
the physical barrier against particulates and some soluble organic carbon and inert fractions
of the mixed liquor (Chang et. al., 2001). The biological COD removal increases with time,
but the physical COD removal by membrane decreases over time because of the age of the
membrane and sloughing of some biomass on permeate side of the membrane (membrane
fouling). Chang et. al. (2000) proposed the mechanisms of COD removal by membrane to be
due to three mechanisms; sieving method depending on membrane pore size and cut-off,
adsorption into membrane pores and surface, and sieving and/or adsorption onto the cake
layer.
17
The COD concentration also can be reduced by gas production under anaerobic conditions
(Anderson et. al., 1986; Choo and Lee, 1996; Kang et. al., 2002). Strohwald and Ross (1992)
also showed that about half of influent COD was converted to methane gas and the ratio
increased slightly with the increase of HRT. Sufficient biomass can ensure good performance
in COD removal and better quality effluent. If enough biomass concentration is present, the
increased TSS concentration in the bioreactor does not significantly affect COD removal.

The changes in HRT and SRT do not significantly influence the COD removal in the MBR.
However, Darren et. al. (2006) observed slight difference in overall COD removal efficiencies
of MBRs treating the same wastewater at different HRTs. Overall COD removals were
97.63%, 96.88% and 96.54% at 24h, 12h and 6h respectively. In previous studies, some
researchers reported that the filtration membranes in submerged MBR were more severely
fouled at high sludge concentration (Magara and Itoh, 1991; Manen and Sanderson 1996),
while others suggested that higher sludge concentration resulted in less fouling under certain
conditions (Defrance and Jaffrin 1999; Lee et. al., 2001).

The effect of high temperature on the removal efficiencies in MBR was studied by Zhang et.
al. (2006). The removal efficiency was more than 97% at 35 and 40 °C, while it was 93% at
45 °C. The same researchers reported that the richness in microbial diversity reduces in high
temperature treatment because of the sudden changes in operational conditions. This
microbial diversity decay could cause lower removal of pollutants (Tripathi and Grant.1999;
LaPara et. al., 2000). In all previous studies, mesophilic activated sludge processes have
produced higher COD removal than thermophilic processes (Zhang et. al., 2006).

b. Nitrogen Removal
Nitrification
Nitrification is the conversion to nitrate by microorganisms. This is achieved in two stages
with the conversion from ammonia to nitrite by Nitrosomonas followed by the conversion from
nitrite to nitrate by Nitrobacter or Nitrospira. The nitrite concentrations do not build up in most
biological treatment systems because Nitrobacter or Nitrospira immediately converts this
compound to nitrate. Both nitrifying organisms are autotrophs which use inorganic carbon
(carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, or carbonate) for cell synthesis, and ammonia or nitrite to
derive energy. They grow slower than most of the heterotrophic microorganisms. Fan et. al.
(1996) found 0.1 to 0.2 d-1 of nitrifier growth rates in an MBR treating municipal wastewater.
As nitrifiers are slower in their growth than heterotrophs, longer sludge ages are required in
order to achieve full nitrification (>90%). The high nitrification can be observed in the aerobic
MBR because membrane separation entirely confines the nitrifying bacteria within the
bioreactor independent of sludge concentration. In addition, as sludge production is low in
MBR, nitrifying bacteria face less competition from heterotrophic bacteria which also
consume ammonia. Cote et. al. (1997) reported that ammonia removal efficiency was
18
improved by increasing the sludge age from 10 days to 50 days. Xing et. al. (2001) observed
a high nitrification rate at 3.75 hours of HRT and 5 days of SRT.

There are three substrates for completing nitrification, which are carbon dioxide, ammonia
and oxygen. Nitrification is inhibited at low DO level (< 1 mg/L), but it is completely recovered
again after DO level increase (Chiemchaisri et. al., 1992). Nitrification is inhibited due to high
free ammonium concentration (> 8.4 mg/L) and high DO demand (Ng., 2000). The
nitrification has been reported to be increased with increase in temperature up to
approximately 30 °C, and slowed down as the temperature increases beyond that. At low
temperature, nitrification is more severely affected than denitrification due to temperature
changes (Fdz-Polanco et. al., 1994).

Denitrification
Denitrification is the reduction of the oxidized nitrogen to N2 gas (Yamamoto et. al., 1989;
Chiemchaisri et. al., 1992). This process requires a suitable electron donor, which is usually
an organic compound. The optimal pH for denitrification is neutral to slightly alkaline (Metcalf
and Eddy., 1991). The reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas by the denitrification produces
alkalinity, resulting in elevated pH.

Denitrification is one of the most efficient methods for removal of excessive amounts of
nitrates in the wastewater. Denitrifying bacteria are mostly facultative anaerobes and
heterotrophs. In order to achieve denitrification, intermittent aeration mode, which gives
anoxic conditions, can be applied to aeration tank in an MBR system without the
deterioration of permeate quality (Chiemchaisri et. al., 1992; Ueda et. al., 1996).

Traditionally, nitrification and denitrification are used for nitrogen removal from wastewater.
However, these processes may not be energy effective because these processes require
aeration for oxidizing ammonia to nitrate (nitrification) and COD for reducing nitrate to
nitrogen gas (denitrification). In addition, major denitrification gas product can be N2O, which
is known as a very strong greenhouse, not N2 at the higher nitrite concentration (Zeng et. al.,
2003).

c. Phosphorus Removal
The enhanced biological phosphorus removal can be obtained from the selective enrichment
of bacteria accumulating inorganic polyphosphate with a cyclic regime of alternating
anaerobic and aerobic condition (Zhao et. al., 1994). Under anaerobic condition, the
intracellular poly-β-hyroxy-alkanoates (PHA) are formed from the substrate and the stored
polyphosphate is hydrolyzed to soluble orthophosphate. Under aerobic condition, the stored
PHA is consumed for growth and maintenance of the cell as well as the uptake of the soluble

19
orthophosphate. Biological phosphorus removal is usually integrated with biological nitrogen
removal in wastewater treatment.

Intermittent aeration can achieve nitrogen and phosphorus removal by enhancing the
process of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification (SND), phosphorous uptake and
phosphorus release in the same reactor. However, even though intermittent aeration was
successful in removing nitrogen, phosphorus removal was difficult to achieve at the same
time. It was probably due to incomplete denitrification (Seung. 2004).

In MBR systems, phosphorus removal ranged from 11.9 % to 75 %. Using the intermittent
aeration submerged MBR, Seo et. al., (1997) obtained 66 % phosphorous removal.
However, the filtration operation was limited to during the aeration period only in the
intermittently aerated and submerged MBRs. Therefore, a continuous aerated MBR with a
separated anoxic tank can improve the phosphorus removal efficiency. Cho et. al., (2003)
reported 93 % phosphorus removal with a sequencing anoxic/anaerobic membrane
bioreactor, since it’s removal under the continuous aeration is rather low.

3.4.3 Membrane Fouling in MBR

MBR technology represents the most rapidly growing membrane technology in the water
sector, with an estimated global market of US$ 216.6 million in 2005 rising at annual growth
rate of 10.9% and an expected value of US$ 363 million in 2010 (Hanft, 2006). However, as
for all membrane processes, MBR is ultimately restricted by the tendency of the membrane
for fouling, which causes a reduction in permeability and demands frequent physical and
chemical membrane cleaning (Guglielmi et. al., 2007). All factors affecting the performance
of MBR could contribute in producing the phenomena of membrane fouling. Thus, membrane
fouling is an ideal application to study the factors affecting the performance of the MBR
process.

Koros et. al., (1996), has defined the term of membrane fouling as “the process resulting in
loss of performance of a membrane due to the deposition of suspended or dissolved
substances on its external surface, at its pores openings or within its pores”, what results as
an increasing in transmembrane pressure TMP.

Membrane Fouling
Particle separation and water permeation involve various mass transport steps in membrane
filtration processes. Mass transfer can be limited by the attachment, accumulation or
adsorption of materials on the membrane surface and/or within membrane pores. As a result,
increase in hydraulic resistance over time is expected. This phenomenon is called membrane
fouling (Zhou et. al., 2001). Fouling have various origins as classified here (Mulder, 2000;
Duranceau, 2001). Biofouling: adhesion and accumulation of microorganisms, biopolymers
20
(Extracellular polymeric substances and soluble microbial products), Bacterial fouling;
Particle and colloidal fouling: deposition of clay, particles humic substances, debris and
silica; Crystalline fouling (scaling): deposition of mineral due to excess of the solutes.

Fouling affects the performance of the membrane either by deposition of a layer onto the
membrane surface or by blockage or partial blockage of the pored (Field et. al., 1995). Three
fouling mechanisms were introduced for membrane filtration in general that can be applied
for MBR as well (Knyazkova et. al., 1999) (Figure 3.5):

 Pre closure or pore narrowing: when diameter of particles is smaller that diameter of
pores, particles could enter the pores. As a result some of the entered particles pass
the membrane and some foul inside the pores and reduce the open cross-sectional
area for flow.

 Pore plugging: for the case when diameters of particles are similar to those of the
pores, particles block the pores.

 Cake formation: for the case when diameters of particles are bigger than diameter of
pores, particles deposit on the membrane surface. This leads to cake build-up (cake
formation).

a) Pore Plugging

b) Cake Formation

c) Pore Closure
Figure 3.5 Three main mechanisms for membrane fouling

21
Fouling inside membrane pores by salt precipitates and small colloids is considered an
irreversible process. On the other hand, flux decline due to the development of cake on the
membrane surface is largely reversible. The indicator of this form of fouling is long-term
decline in the flux rate.

3.4.4 Fouling Characteristics and Mechanisms

Biofouling
Biofilm is a matrix of cells and cellular products, such as biopolymers (EPS and SMP),
attached to a solid surface of membrane (Hardorfer et. al., 1999). Mostly, microorganisms
are growing as sessile communities and this could be due to the protective nature of biofilm
growth (Walker et. al., 2000). In MBR processes, a high concentration of microorganisms is
used to biodegrade the nutrients in the wastewater, as a result MBR processes provide a
good environment for biofouling formation (Flemming, 2000).

Most of the studies on macromolecular fouling (with biological origin), have been based on
protein and carbohydrate fouling which are the major components of biopolymers (EPS and
SMP) found in MBR. In number of studies fouling was evaluated by protein and carbohydrate
in fouling layers and permeate solution (Ji and Zhou., 2006; Zhang et. al., 2006; Janga et. al.,
2007). Presence of both protein and carbohydrates around the biological cells was proposed
as a key parameter in the flocs formation and it may have a significant role in MBR fouling
(Gorner et. al., 2003). It was observed that by changing the concentration of protein from 20
to100 mg/L, the specific resistance value increased by a factor of 10.

During protein filtration, different fouling phenomena can be expected including protein
adsorption, deposition and mass-transfer limitation due to concentration polarization or
boundary layer effects. Protein adsorption is a specific interaction between proteins and
membrane polymer that could occur in the absence of convective flow through the
membrane (Bowen et. al., 1991). Protein deposition refers to any additional protein that fouls
on the membrane surface during filtration. It is ultimately forms on the upper surface of the
membrane as a cake formation. This layer could be very effective on flux decline; two orders
of magnitude decline in the permeate flux as a result of protein deposition was reported
(Opong et. al., 1991). It was reported that permeability of protein deposition is dependent on
pH value (Palecek et. al., 1994). Protein deposition was a minimum at the protein iso-electric
point and decreased with the increase in ionic strength. It was also found that by reducing
the electrostatic repulsion between proteins, more compact deposit layer would be expected.
Protein denaturation and/or aggregation is one of the most widely suggested mechanisms in
the initial stage of protein fouling during membrane microfiltration (Kelly et. al., 1993).

22
Direct relationships between the carbohydrate level in soluble microbial products SMP
solution and fouling rate was observed in filtration of municipal wastewater (Lesjean et. al.,
2005). Fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors (MBRs) was studied for flux stepping
filtration on seven biomasses under different operating conditions (Germain et. al., 2005).
Similar result was observed recently by Janga, et. al. (2007), where concentration of
carbohydrate was reported as the highest in comparison with other foulants in the feed
solution. Another study was carried out on SMPs in MBR at different sludge retention time
(SRT) (Liang et. al., 2007). Protein and carbohydrate were reported as components of SMP.
However it was shown that hydrophilic neutrals such as carbohydrates were the main
foulants of SMP. Similar results were was claimed in MBR (Wang et. al., 2006). In this
research statistical analysis was used intensively, and carbohydrate found to have significant
influence on membrane fouling.

Several researches were carried out by using sodium alginate as a model solution for
carbohydrate to be able to analyze the effect of carbohydrate individually on fouling. Alginate
was chosen as a model EPS and fouling mechanism was studied during the dead end
unstirred microfiltration of sodium alginate (Ye et. al., 2005). It was observed that the fouling
layer formed in the long term subcritical flux operation appeared to be irreversible, while
fouling layers formed in the short term dead end constant pressure or flux stepping tend to
be more reversible. Combination of pore blockage and cake formation was proposed as a
possible fouling mechanism.

Bacterial fouling is the other form of biofouling which is considered as a problem in UF and
MF systems. The surface of bacteria cells consist of a peptidoglycan layer covalently linked
with different membrane proteins and anionic polymers. Irreversible adhesion of one or more
bacteria to the membrane surface, initiate the membrane biofouling. It is followed by growth
and multiplication of the sessile cells at the expense of feed water nutrients (Ridgway et. al.,
1999).

The formation of biofouling and biofilm on the membranes can be divided into three steps:
the initial step is the development of conditioning layer. This layer is caused by the
adsorption of macromolecules, organic acids and lipopolysaccharides on the membrane
surface. Attachment of microorganisms to this conditioning film is the second step; this step
appeared to occur rapidly. The rate is highly dependent on the concentration of
microorganism, type and nutritional status of the microorganisms in the process water. The
third step is the colonization and multiplication of the microorganisms on the membrane
surface and formation of irreversible blocking of the membrane (Kabsch-Korbutowicz, 1992).

Bacteria use different complex strategies to adhere to different surfaces. For example,
bacterial fimbriae, flagella or fibrils are long filamentous projections of the cell surface that
23
can act as bridging structures to overcome repulsive electrostatic interactions between
negatively charged bacteria and negatively charged surfaces (Zeman et. al., 1996).
Membrane surface charge is an important factor in some selected biofouling , but it is not
applicable for all kinds of biofoulings (Bharwada et. al., 2000).

Once microorganisms are bound to the membrane surface, they can grow and use the
nutrients in the process stream. Feed stream with high levels of total organic carbon cause a
severe biofouling. Adherent bacteria produce a variety of exopolysaccharides, which then
become part of extracellular slime or biofilm on the membrane surface. It is believed that this
complex layer is acting as an ion-exchange resin for enhanced nutrition. This layer also
improves the long term aggregation and adhesion of these bacteria. The bacteria within the
biofilm are more resistant to bacterial agents. As a result, it may be difficult to remove this
layer by physical or chemical cleaning methods (Zeman et. al., 1996).

It was shown that the biofilm consisting of variety of bacterial types can provide a different
hydraulic resistance to the permeate flux (Hodgson et. al., 1993). There is a very close
relationship between MBR process conditions and microorganism distribution. It was shown
that the biofouling on the membrane is depending upon membrane operating condition as
well as the properties of the activated sludge in the MBR systems (Choi et. al., 2006). The
biofouling phenomenon in suspended and attached growth MBR was evaluated
(Sombatsompop et. al., 2006). It was observed that increase in fouling was associated with
increasing MLSS concentration.

Particle and Colloidal Fouling

The contents in MBR filtration feed solution is mostly particles such as microorganism cells,
inorganic and organic particles. These particles are retained by membrane and generally
formed a cake layer on the membrane surface. This cake layer decreases the hydraulic
permeability of the membrane. The characteristics of the cake layer are dependent on the
operating conditions and the property of the particulates.

Crystalline Fouling (Scaling)

Mineral material deposition on the membrane surface is called crystalline fouling which is
due to high concentration or charge interaction between membrane and filtrate ions. It is the
most common form of fouling in desalination plants. However, due to high biological fouling
in MBR, crystalline fouling has not been taken into consideration and this factor was rarely
reported in the literature.

3.4.5 Factors Affecting MBR Fouling

The three main factors affecting the rate of fouling in MBR will be detailed in the following
sections and include (Hillis, 2000):
24
  Membrane properties (membrane material, pore size and distribution and
module configuration).

 Mixed liquor characteristics (nature and concentration of the bulk fluid such as
MLSS concentration, EPS and particle size distribution).

 Operating conditions (factors such as permeate flux, cross flow velocity or

aeration intensity, hydraulic retention time (HRT), and SRT).

3.5 Membrane Properties

3.5.1 Hydrophobicity
Hydrophilicity is related to the chemical characteristics of the membrane which allows the
material around the membrane, to wet the membrane and form a water film or coating on
their surface. Hydrophobic materials have little or no tendency to adsorb water, and water
tends to stay on their surface. On the other hand, by increasing the hydrophilicity of a
material, the association between water, through hydrogen bonding, and hydrophilic material
increases. For microfiltration (MF) membranes, hydrophobicity influence wettability, applied
pressure requirements for liquid flow through the membrane and fouling propensity (Meng et.
al., 2006a).

Hydrophobicity of the surface of membranes influences fouling. Many natural products, due
to dipole or multiple chemical bonds in their structure, are negatively charged while
particulate foulants in aqueous media are more generally hydrophobic. As a result, particles
attach to any material less hydrophilic than water. By attachment of the particles to the
membrane surface, less exposure of hydrophobic particles can be achieved. More fouling
was observed during the hydrophobic membrane filtration in comparison with the hydrophilic
one (Belfort et. al., 1994; Chang et. al., 1999; Judd and Till., 2000; Choi et. al., 2002). For
wastewater treatment, the membrane should preferably be hydrophilic (Fane et. al., 1991).

3.5.2 Membrane Charge

The potential electric field created by this charge can attract or repel charged species in
water. Since the natural organic macromolecules in water and wastewater are generally
negatively charged , the negative or neutral membrane are preferred in order to limit the
particle adsorption (Cardew and Lee., 1998).

3.5.3 Membrane Pore Size

In practical, the type of membrane filtration is chosen according to particles size distribution
and purpose of filtration. During the MF and UF, membrane filtration was compared (Palecek
et. al., 1994). It was found that UF membranes are less prone to fouling by macromolecules,
since the smaller pores are more impenetrable. It was shown that, initial fouling is expected

25
on larger pore size membranes as a result of pore blocking (Hong et. al., 2002). It has been
demonstrated that MF has a higher permeate flux than UF membrane at the same condition
due to larger pore size in the former situation. The permeate flux for MF declines much
quicker than UF. The performance of nanofiltration MBR in domestic wastewater treatment
was examined (Choi et. al., 2007). By analyzing the molecular weight of dissolved organic
matter from nanofiltration MBR, it was shown that the pore size increased over operating
time. The influence of membrane pore size modification on membrane performance was
investigated and It was shown that the flux can be increased and decreased by stretching
membranes (Worrel et. al., 2007).

Limited number of studies has been done on the optimal membrane pore size for wastewater
treatment. The pore size membranes for the current commercial submerged MBR processes
are approximately 0.04-0.4μm.

3.6 Mixed Liquor Characteristics

3.6.1 Mixed Liquor Suspended Solid (MLSS) Concentration

In the development of MBR technology, many studies focused on the effect of MLSS
concentration on the membrane fouling and controversial findings about the effect of this
parameter have been reported. The MLSS concentration in MBRs is not a dominant factor
influencing the overall membrane fouling unlike the dead-end membrane filtration (Chang et.
al., 2005). It is reported that membrane fouling took place more rapidly at high MLSS
concentrations (Chang et. al., 2002). Exponential relationship between MLSS concentration
and membrane fouling resistance was reported (Meng et. al., 2006b). On the other hand,
some authors have reported positive impact of MLSS (Defrance and Jaffrin., 1999). Also
some researchers reported insignificant impact of MLSS on fouling behavior (Hong et. al.,
2002; Le-Clech et. al., 2003; Lesjean et. al., 2004; Lesjean et. al., 2005). At MLSS
concentrations of higher than 30,000 mg/L, no significant effect of MLSS on irreversible
fouling was observed (Lubbecke et. al., 1995). All these experiments were carried out on
different range of MLSS concentration.

3.6.2 Viscosity
In both processes, conventional activated sludge and MBR, biomass viscosity is closely
related to its concentration and has been reported as a foulant parameter (Yeom et. al.,
2004). A critical MLSS concentration is the point under which the viscosity rises slowly and
increases exponentially above (Itonaga et. al., 2004). The significance of MLSS viscosity is
that it modifies bubble size, inhibits hollow fibers movement in submerged bundles and
reduces the efficiency of oxygen mass transfer (Wicaksana et. al., 2006 and Germain and
Stephenson. 2005). Therefore, the main result of high biomass viscosity would be high
membrane fouling rate.
26
3.6.3 Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS)
Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) have been identified as the main foulants in
membrane bioreactor (MBR) operation (Rosenberger et. al., 2003; Janga et. al., 2007). EPS
are high molecular-weight mucous secretions from microbial cells. EPS matrix is very
heterogeneous and can be characterized by its relative levels of polysaccharides, proteins,
and more rarely lipids and nucleic acids (Nuengjamnong et. al., 2005; Janga et. al., 2007).
For membrane units filtering activated sludge, biofouling remains a major issue as organic
adsorption and deposition on membrane surface significantly reduce hydraulic performances,
leading to rise in operational and maintenance costs.

EPS are produced by most bacteria and participate in the formation of microbial aggregates
whether the bacteria grow in suspended culture or in biofilms (Flemming et. al., 2001). EPS
are mainly responsible for the structural and functional integrity of biofilms and are
considered as the key components that determine the physicochemical and biological
properties of biofilms. In general, the proportion of EPS in biofilms can vary between roughly
50 and 90% of the total organic matter (Nielsen et. al., 1997). They consist of insoluble
materials such as sheaths capsular polymers, condensed gels, loosely bound polymers and
attached organic material; these are produced by active secretion, shedding of cell surface
material or cell lysis (Janga et. al., 2005).

Chang and Lee (1998) measured the EPS content quantitatively by separating the activated
sludge broth into three portions, i.e., cell, bulk, and EPS fraction. It was found that EPS was
the major contributing component to the total fouling resistance. EPS matrixes are multiple
and they include aggregation of bacterial cells in flocs and biofilms. They make a protective
barrier around the bacteria, as a result retention of water and adhesion to surface is
expected (Laspidou and Rittmann., 2002). EPS can form a highly hydrated gel matrix that
microbial cells are embedded in, due to its heterogeneous and changing nature (Nielson and
Jahn., 1999). Therefore the EPS content of activated sludge was suggested as one of the
probable index for the membrane fouling in an activated sludge MBR system. In addition,
bioflocs attached to the membrane can be very effective in MBR by playing as a nutrient
source during the biofilm formation on the membrane surface (Ishiguro et. al., 1994;
Flemming et. al., 1997).

EPS can be classified as extracted (eEPS) which are artificially produced from the biological
cell floc and the soluble EPS which are present in the activated sludge supernatant and are
not associated with the cell (soluble microbial products or SMP) (Le-Clech et. al., 2006). The
term ”EPS” is used as a general parameter to characterize the biopolymers in the reactor
(Figure 3.6). So far no standard method for extraction exists, during the studies on the effects
of EPS in MBR fouling; as a result it is difficult to make a comparison between research
groups. Due to the simplicity, the heating method is sometimes preferred to extract the eEPS
27
(Figure 3.7). The eEPS is then characterized in terms of protein (eEPSp) and carbohydrate
contents (eEPSc) by using colorimetric methods: Lowry (Lowry et. al., 1951) and Dubois
(Dubois et. al., 1956) protocols respectively. The eEPS solution also can be characterized in
terms of total organic carbon (TOC) (Cho et. al., 2005; Nagaoka and Nemoto., 2005). It was
observed that eEPSp is more hydrophobic and eEPSc is more hydrophilic (Liu and Fang.,
2003). By comparing the results in literature, higher level of eEPSp was generally reported in
comparison to that of eEPSc (Le-Clech et. al., 2006).
Deionised
Water
Heating
10min
Centrifug 80 °C
Mixing
5 min Centrifug
5000 g 10 min 10 min
7000g
MLSS Filtration
Sample Filtration 1.2μm
1.2μm

SMP eEPS

SMPp SMPc eEPSp eEPSc

Figure 3.6: Heating method for EPS and SMP extraction and measurement (Le-
Clech et. al., 2006)

EPS

Hydrolysi
eEPS s

Active Cell SMP Substrat

e

Diffusion

Figure 3.7: Simplified representation of EPS, eEPS and SMP (Le-Clech et. al.,
2006)

3.6.4 Soluble Microbial Products (SMP)

SMP are defined as soluble cellular components that are released during cell lysis, diffuse
through the cell membrane, are lost during synthesis (Laspidou and Rittmann., 2002; Li et.
28
al., 2005). In MBR systems, they can also be provided from the feed substance. During
filtration, adsorption of SMP on the membrane surface and blocking of the membrane pores
are expected; it leads to the formation of gel structure on the membrane surface where they
possibly provide a nutrient source for biofilm formation and a hydraulic resistance to
permeate flow (Rosenberger et. al., 2005). Four MBR case study based on SMP analysis
was also studied; in order to show the feasibility and relevance of liquid phase analyses on
MBR filterability and potentially standardize the method.

In order to separate the water phase from the biomass, three different methods were
investigated. It was found that simple filtration through the filter paper is the most effective
method in comparison with centrifugation and sedimentation (Evenblij and van der Graaf.,
2004).

Similar to eEPS, SMP solution is characterized with its protein and carbohydrate contents
(Evenblij and van der Graaf., 2004), with its TOC level (Gao et. al., 2004) or rarely with
SUVA measurement (Shin and Kang., 2003). It is observed that there is no significant
change in SMP characterization during a weekly measurement from the same reactor; also
in terms of molecular weight distribution, SMP feature larger macromolecules (Brookes et.
al., 2003). Similar analysis was carried out on submerged MBR (Janga et. al., 2007). It was
observed that most of the SMPp in the reactor existed at a MW above 10 kDa and over 86%
of SMPc contain in the permeate, had a MW below 1kDa.

Direct linear relationships between loss of MBR hydraulic performances and SMP
concentration have been reported for an anaerobic MBR, (Fawehinmi et. al., 2004a). It was
observed that for MBR sludge level of EPS was unchanged while the SMP components
could be accounted for higher membrane fouling (Cabassud et. al., 2004). During this study,
biological activities were observed which was indicating the presence of free bacteria in the
MBR supernatant. It could also be another reason for membrane fouling. Creation of fouling
layer on the membrane surface would act as a second membrane that can increase the
adsorption of macromolecules and/or the retention (Rosenberger et. al., 2006). As the
permeate flows through the membrane, the formation of a biofilm could also assist in the
degradation of macromolecules; interaction between the macromolecules and other solutes
such as humics and divalent cations within the membrane pores may be the explanation for
reduction of membrane pore size over time.

According to the results presenting the direct relationship between the carbohydrate contents
in SMP solution with fouling rate (Lesjean et. al., 2005), filtration index and CST (Evenblij et.
al., 2005), critical flux (Le-Clech et. al., 2005) and specific flux (Rosenberger et. al., 2005),
SMPc can be revealed as the major foulant in MBR systems.

29
3.6.5 Particle Size
For MBR systems, the sludge particle size is around 20-40 μm (Zhang et. al., 1997). In this
range of particles, shear-induced diffusion dominates the particle back-transport (Belfort et.
al., 1994). It was shown that shear-induced hydrodynamic diffusivity is positively proportional
to the square of the particle diameter multiplied by shear rate (Eckstein et. al., 1977).
Therefore, easier detachment of particle with a larger size from the membrane surface is
expected.

3.6.6 Temperature
The effect of temperature on membrane filtration process affects the permeate fluid viscosity
(Mulder, 2000). For comparing the hydraulic performance obtained at different temperatures,
normalization of the operating flux at reference temperature (25ºC) is commonly used.

Effect of temperature was investigated during the filtration of municipal wastewater through
MBR pilot plant (Jiang et. al., 2005). Two sets of temperatures (17-18°C and 13-14°C) were
used. The higher resistances were observed at lower temperature and it was explained by
four following phenomena occurred in the system: (1) the viscosity of sludge was calculated
within that temperature range, and it was increased for 10% as a result of reducing the shear
stress generated by coarse bubbles, (2) building up of deflocculating tend to happen at low
temperature, releasing EPS to the solution and reducing biomass floc size, (3) particle back
transport velocity which was calculated with the Brownian diffusion coefficient (linearly
related to temperature), and it was observed to be less at low temperature, and (4) by
decreasing the temperature, biodegradation of COD was also decreased; resulting in higher
concentration of particle COD and solute in the reactor (Jiang et. al., 2005). The last
phenomenon was also reported in other research with higher SMP which was measured in
an anaerobic MBR and operated at 20°C (Fawehinmi et. al., 2004b). Since all of these
factors are directly linked to membrane fouling, greater deposition of materials on the
membrane surface at lower temperatures is expected (Rosenberger et. al., 2006).

3.6.7 pH
The influence of pH on membrane fouling has been widely investigated, since pH influences
the electrostatic interaction between particles and particles-membrane. MF of Bovine serum
albumin (BSA) and lysozyme solutions were carried out at different pH values (Ouammou et.
al., 2006). After analyzing the results in terms of blocking filtration laws and substantial
changed in the fouling behavior, it was observed that fouling was a function of the solution
pH.

3.7 Design and Operating Conditions

Several design and operation parameters including the shear rate, the imposed flux and SRT
are likely to influence the membrane fouling of MBR processes:
30
3.7.1 Shear Rate /Aeration
High shear rates generated at the membrane surface, remove deposited material and as a
result it reduces the hydraulic resistance of the fouling layer. With the high concentration of
activated sludge within the bioreactor, high intensity scouring of the membrane is necessary
to maintain permeate flux rates. Air scouring or circulation flow generate a crossflow velocity,
which directly affect the cake layer formation over the membrane (Chang et. al., 2000). Both
experimental and empirical studies have revealed the influence of cross-flow velocity or
aeration on membrane fouling (Bouhabila et. al., 1998). The effect of aeration on cake
removal and TMP in submerged MBR pilot plant was examined (Ueda et. al., 1997). It was
shown that fouling was reduced at higher air flow rate conditions. When hollow fibers were
used fouling limitation by aeration was also due to agitation of the membrane (Wicaksana et.
al., 2005). For reducing membrane fouling it is suggested to increase the air flow rate or
increase the aeration intensity by concentrating on membrane modules over a small floor
area (Wicaksana et. al., 2005).

3.7.2 Critical Flux and Determination Methods

Permeate flux determines the fouling rate (Zeman et. al., 1996). It is generally found that
membrane fouling increases with increasing flux (Judd, 2004). However it has been reported
that fouling is not observed when the flux is retained below the critical flux (Chang et. al.,
2002).

Initially, the concept of critical flux was introduced by Field et. al. (1995). According to this
hypothesis, the critical flux is the maximum flux, below which a decline of flux with time does
not occur. Another definition is that it is a point at which fouling become irreversible (Howell,
2004). This concept has been applied for systems involving macromolecules, colloids,
particles, bacteria and biomass.

The lateral migration theory has been used to explain the flux-paradox phenomena for
colloidal suspension and it was proposed that when the lift velocity (VL) at the colloidal cake
surface equals or exceeds the oppositely-directed membrane permeation velocity (J), fouling
would not be expected to occur (Green and Belfort., 1980). Based on this theory it was
mentioned that if J is less than VL, particle would not deposit on the membrane surface
(Fig.3.8 (a)) (Kwon et. al., 1998). This situation is below critical flux. On the other hand, the
deposition of particles appears when J exceeds VL (Fig.3.8 (b)).

31
 (a) Below critical flux (b) Above critical flux
Figure 3.8: Different circumstances of critical flux in microfiltration.

There are two forms of critical flux: strong and weak. The strong form states that the
subcritical flux-TMP relationship shows a straight line of the same slope as that of pure water
for the same operating pressure, while the weak form shows a straight line, the slope of
which differs from that of pure water. Any deviation from the straight line for either form
indicates above critical flux conditions.

The concept of critical flux has been applied to systems involving macromolecules, colloids,
particulates, bacteria and biomass. In order to indicate the fouling, in each flux step, flux was
increased and decreased while TMP was recorded; the difference between TMPs called
deviation. If deviation equaled to zero, it was presumed that no fouling had occurred. The
point, in which deviation increases, is called critical flux.

The measurement of particle mass balance is another method in which the loss of mass in a
bulk liquid above the membrane is measured by detecting concentration differences in the
bulk fluid. The maximum flux at which no particle deposit on a membrane occurred (no
difference in concentration of feed) can be determined as a critical flux (Kwon et. al., 2000).

3.7.3 Sludge Retention Time (SRT)

SRT is directly linked to the net production of excess sludge; it affects biological performance
by altering sludge composition (Bouhabila et. al., 2001). MLSS, particle size distribution and
EPS level in MBR processes, are influenced by SRT; as a result SRT is an important
parameter in membrane fouling (Chang et. al., 2002). At long SRT (30 days), slow fouling
rate was reported (Fan et. al., 1999). However, the link between the SRT and fouling rate
has not been completely clarified. Both decrease in EPS concentration (Chang et. al., 1998)
and slight increases in mean particle size (Huang et. al., 2001) were reported at greater
sludge ages, even though these effect were relatively small. On the other hand, it was
reported that total amount of EPS is independent of the SRT from 4 to 20 days (Liao et. al.,

32
2001). It was found that physicochemical properties of sludge surfaces, such as
hydrophobicity and surface charge are influenced by the SRT (Liao et. al., 2001). It was also
established that at higher SRT, less negatively charged and more hydrophobic are expected
than at lower SRT.

3.8 Limitation and cleaning procedures

The cleaning procedures used to remove membrane fouling when it occurs are two types:
physical and chemical. However, there are other methods that could be used to prevent
fouling before it occurs in what is known as fouling limitation.

3.8.1 Limitation
The major techniques for extending the life of membrane as long as possible before fouling
are three. These techniques are (Pierre et. al., 2006):

 Optimizing the anti-fouling properties and characteristics of membrane by

increasing the membrane hydrophilicity and addition of TiO2 nanoparticles to
the casting solution of membrane.

 Optimizing the operating condition of the MBR by injecting air to the reactor
(aeration), operating MBR at low fluxes and modifying SRT and reactor
design.

 Modifying the biomass characteristics by adding ferric chloride, aluminum and

adsorbents.

3.8.2 Cleaning procedures

Physical cleaning
Physical cleaning techniques for fouling removal in MBR process are membrane relaxation
and backwashing. The membrane relaxation is a pause of filtration for a short while after a
period of suction (for example 10 min suction followed by 30 sec pause). The backwashing
(backflushing) is a pumping of permeate again in reverse to the reactor through the
membrane (for example 10 min suction followed by 30 sec backwashing) (Pierre et. al.,
2006).

Chemical cleaning
In addition to the physical cleaning techniques, chemical cleaning is also recommended.
The prevalent chemical cleaning agents used in the normal condition are sodium
hypochlorite (for organic foulants) and citric acid (for inorganics). These chemical cleaning
techniques include (Pierre et. al., 2006):

33
  Chemically enhanced backwash (daily), to intensify the efficiency of the
backwash.

 Maintenance with higher chemical concentrations (weekly), to maintain the

permeability and decrease the frequency of the intensive cleaning.

 Intensive chemical cleaning (once or twice a year), to recover the filtration

ability of the membrane.

3.9 High-temperature treatment (thermophilic treatment)

Thermophilic reactor coupled with membrane (thermophilic MBR) is not a new concept and it
has been experimented by Lopetegui and Sancho (2003) and Klatt and Lapara (2003), by
using an immersed membrane to treat high-temperatures wastewater.

High-temperature treatment is considered to be feasible for wastewaters with high oil and
grease content, owing to the strong solubility of this contaminant at higher temperatures.
Despite this advantage in thermophilic treatment, many researchers (Çetin and Sürücü,
1990; Barr et. al., 1996; Tripathi and Allen, 1999 and Lapara and Alleman, 1999) have
reported the deterioration of sludge settleability with raising temperature. This inability of
sludge separation from effluent liquid combined with low sludge yields could result as a
biomass washout and low quality effluent. However, membrane technology was successfully
employed to overcome this problem.

Thermophilic treatment is an attractive alternative for industries producing hot process waters
and wastewaters. Operation under thermophilic conditions can be very useful for aerobic
industrial wastewater treatment systems in different ways (Zhang, et. al., 2005). High COD
removal efficiency and low sludge net yield are the obvious advantages of thermophilic
treatment (Couillard and Zhu, 1993; Tardif and Hall, 1997). Moreover, membrane could
suffer from fouling problems at low temperatures than high temperatures (Jiang et. al., 2005).
Otherwise, the combination of the thermophilic aerobic process and a membrane bioreactor
effectively solves the problem of solid-liquid separation. The thermophilic MBR process has
high biomass concentrations and high loading rates, and it produces good-quality effluent
(Ramaekers et. al., 2001 and Huuhilo, et. al., 2002). Tardif and Hall (1997) had compared
different alternatives for recirculated newsprint whitewater treatment and found MBR to be
the most reliable under high temperatures.

34
4. FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter discussed the results obtained from the experimental works during the five
stages of start-up, 25 °C, 35 °C, 45 °C and drastic temperature changes. The chapter is
divided into three main headings, which are start-up, membrane fouling phenomenon and
removal efficiency. The discussion is done by analyzing the results using different computer
programs such as Excel and Statistic Plus. Comparison between the results obtained was
also carried out to determine the differences between the parameters under varying
conditions.

4.2 Start-up
After accomplishing the stage of system design and set-up, this stage of start-up was began.
In this stage the performances of the membrane bioreactor system were investigated. The
connections between the reactors were checked and any malfunctions in the design and
installation of the reactors were rectified. It included also, selection of the perfect membrane
module configuration after examining four of them. Moreover, some necessary tests such
Critical Flux, KCW, KSludge, TMPCW, TMPSludge and dP/dt were determined. The system was
operated by using tap water for one week and then by using municipal AS brought from
Muscat City for more than two months to acclimatize and to allow bacterial growth to occur in
the reactor.

4.2.1 Membrane Module Configurations

Four membrane module configurations were designed and modified by the researcher in the
laboratory of Membrane Research Unit (MRU) in UTM. These membrane module
configurations were installed in the system and examined by using tap water each for one
day to compare between their performances and select the optimal. Among the four
configurations two were selected to be examined using real sludge, where the better one
would be selected. The parameters used in the selection process were flow stability, air
bubble suction, fibers swaying mode and membrane fouling (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Parameters used for selection process of membrane module configurations
Parameter Description
Flow stability Continuity of identical water quantity drawn out from the
system (effluent flow) during a certain period of time,
measured in L/min
Air bubble suction Draw of air scored by bubble course during suction process,
what reduces system flow out amount (effluent quantity)
Swaying Fibers movement in swaying motions due to air bubbles
Membrane fouling Membrane pores clogging causing increasing TMP

35
Module configuration 1
This configuration has the suction line located on the top right (Figure 4.1). The performance
of this module was quite satisfactory but resulting in substantial increase in TMP which was
not justified. Although the medium used was tap water, the flow was steady without air in the
out flow and with normal fibers swing, but the TMP was rather higher than the expected
mode. The TMP started with 107 mbar at 10 LMH and increased with the time. This relatively
high TMP could lead to inaccurate readings which may reflect negatively on the efficiency of
the study. Hence, this configuration was eliminated.

Module configuration 2
A drop shape module configuration with the open fiber edges gathered at one end and
connected to the suction line (Figure 4.2). The fibers in this configuration were located
immediately after the aeration tubes and were freely swaying. The fibers in this configuration
were very proximate to the bubbles source (aeration tubes). Therefore, it sucked the air
beside the water what impacted the system out flow and increased the TMP. For these
reasons this configuration was also eliminated.

Module configuration 3
A fixed top, multiple bundle membrane module configuration with a left bottom suction line
(Figure 4.3). Performance of the module was excellent in a medium of tap water. The flow
was smooth and steady without air in the out flow and the fibers swaying was relatively
limited since the top of the module was fixed. Due to the smooth flow, this configuration was
one of the two configurations selected to be applied in activated sludge medium. It was later
eliminated due to early membrane fouling as a result of rapid increased in TMP. The rapid
membrane fouling was caused by sludge attachment within the fibers due to their limited
swaying movements.

Module configuration 4
A module similar to module configuration 1 but with a suction area at the left bottom (Figure
4.4). The module performance was the best in both tap water and sludge mediums. The flow
was very smooth in the tap water medium and was steady in the sludge medium. There was
no sucked air in the out flow and the fibers motion was more free. This configuration
exhibited reasonable increase in TMP, which was 20 mbar and 100 mbar at 10 LMH and 15
LMH respectively with low fouling rates during a period of five days for each flux. This
configuration was the most workable and suitable, thus it was selected to be used in this
study.

36
Figure 4.1 Membrane module configuration 1

Figure 4.2 Membrane module configuration 2

37
 Figure 4.3 Membrane module configuration 3

Figure 4.4 Membrane module configuration 4

After membrane configuration has been established, the study was continued without any
grant available.
38
5. CONCLUSION

In this study, a laboratory scale membrane bioreactor system was designed, fabricated and
employed for treating high temperature municipal wastewater at two different hydraulic
fluxes. The study was mainly carried out to investigate the effect of temperature changes on
the performance of MBR in treating municipal wastewater at low and high hydraulic fluxes.
However the experimental works could not be carried out to completion, since only the
membrane configuration was established. Further works were carried out without any grant
allocation. Therefore, the conclusions that can be drawn were based on membrane
configuration, and the recommendations for the future works were listed.

5.1 Conclusions
The conclusions that can be summarized were as follows:

Start up stage
i. Membrane module configuration with a suction area in the left bottom was the most
workable and suitable. Thus it was selected to be used in this study. The module
performance was the best in both mediums of tap water and sludge. It’s flow was very
smooth in the tap water medium and it was steady in the sludge medium. There was
no sucked air in the out flow and the fibers motion was more free. This configuration
exhibited reasonable increase in TMP, which was 20 mbar and 100 mbar at 10 LMH
and 15 LMH respectively with low fouling rates during a period of five days for each
flux.
ii. TMP increased gently until the flux of 12 LMH was achieved. Then, it ascended
significantly beyond the flux of 14 LMH until the peak point. In clean water, TMP was
zero up to the flux of 11 LMH and then increased gradually to 0.062 bar at 24 LMH.
While, in a sludge medium it was zero up to 8 LMH then increased linearly up to 14
LMH. Above a flux value of 14 LMH, a distinct break occurred in the curve with a
substantial change in TMP beyond flux of 16 LMH. With in the area of 14 to 16 LMH,
the curves of flux-permeability and flux-fouling rate crossed each other. Thus, the
critical flux is within the range of 14 to 16 LMH or presumably is 15 LMH, an interval
corresponding to the results indicated by Defrance and Jafferin (1999), Ognier et. al.
(2004) and Yang et. al. (2006).

5.2 Recommendations
i. By using the same system that was used in this study, a study can be carried out to
compare between the performances of different membrane modules (hollow fiber, flat
sheet and stainless steal) in treating municipal wastewater at high temperatures.

39
 ii. By modifying the system that was used in this study via adding anaerobic reactor
before the aerobic one, a study can be carried out to investigate the P Bio and Fin
removal efficiencies. The study also can extend the period of the stages to estimate
the acclimatization of the MBR system with the new conditions on the long term. The
periods can be eight weeks instead of four. The obtained results then can be
compared with the results obtained by this study.

6. RESEARCH OUTPUT
6.1 Citation Details of Articles
6.2 Citation Details of Conference Papers
6.3 Citation Details of Other Publications - books / standards etc. (Please specify)
6.4 Details of IPR (Please specify)

Due to the incompletion of study i.e. for only one year duration with allocation of
RM10,000, the research output is only the establishment of membrane configuration
and bioreactor design. No published papers could be made at the end of the study.

7. HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT

7.1 Details of Human Capital Development (Name and qualification sought)

One postgraduate student at PhD level is envisaged. However after a one year
period, the study was continued without any funding.

8. AWARDS / ACHIEVEMENT
8.1 Details of Recognition Received
No available recognition received.

40
REFERENCES

Aloice, W, M. and Tatsuya, N. (1996). Effects of Temperature and pH on the Growth of

Hetertrophic Bacteria in Waste Stabilization Ponds. Water Res. 30(2), 447-455.
American Public Health Association, APHA. (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. (21th ed). Washington, D.C: APHA.
Anderson, G. K., Saw, C. B. and Fernandes, M. I. A. P. (1986). Applications of Porous
Membrane for Biomass Retention in Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes.
Process Biochemistry, 21, 174-184.
Anja, D., Martin, V., Vera, I., Boris, L. and Matthias, K. (2006). Influence of unsteady
membrane bioreactor operation on EPS formation and filtration resistance. Desalination,
192, 1–9.
Barr, T. A.; Taylor, J. M.; Duff, S. J. B. (1996). Effect of HRT, SRT and Temperature on the
Performance of Activated Sludge Reactors Treating Bleached Kraft Mill Effluent. Water
Res, 30(4) 799-810.
Belfort, G., R. H. Davis and A. L. Zydney (1994). "The behavior of suspensions and
macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration." Journal of Membrane Science
96(1-2): 1-58.
Bharwada, U. J., J. M. Sumerfield, S. D. Coker and T. A. Marsh (2000). "Strategies for
combating biofouling in membrane systems." Ultrapure Water 17: 40-47.
Bouhabila, E. H., R. Ben Aim and H. Buisson (1998). "Microfiltration of activated sludge using
submerged membrane with air bubbling (application to wastewater treatment)."
Desalination 118(1-3): 315-322.
Bowen, P. T., M. K. Jackson and R. A. Corbitt (1991). "Sludge Treatment, Usage, and
Disposal." Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 63(4): 406- 414.
Brookes, A., S. Judd, E. Reid, E. Germain, S. Smith, H. Alvarez-Vazquez, P. Le-Clech, T.
Stephenson, E. Turra and B. Jefferson (2003). Biomass characterisation in membrane
bioreactors. IMSTEC, Sydney, Australia.
Cabassud, C., A. Massé, M. Espinosa-Bouchot and M. Spérandio (2004). Submerged
membrane bioreactors: interactions between membrane filtration and biological activity.
Water Environment - Membrane Technology Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Cardew, P. T. and M. S. Lee (1998). Membrane processes: a technology guide, North West
Water Ltd,.
Çetin, F.D. and Sürücü, G. (1990). Effects of Temperature and pH on the Settlability of
Activated Sludge Flocs. Water Sci. Technol, 22(9) 249-254.
Chaize, S. and Huyard, A. (1991). Membrane Bioreactor on Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Sludge Production and Modeling Approach. Water Science and Technology, 23, 1591-
1600.

41
Chang, I. S., Bag, S. O. and Lee, C. H. (2000). Effect of Membrane Fouling on Solute
Rejection During Membrane Filtration of Activated Sludge. Process Biochemistry, 36, 55-
65.
Chang, I. S., Bag, S. O. and Lee, C. H. (2001). Effect of Membrane Fouling on Solute
Rejection During Membrane Filtration of Activated Sludge. Process Biochemistry, 36,
855-860.
Chang, I. S., C. H. Lee and K. H. Ahn (1999). "Membrane filtration characteristics in
membrane-coupled activated sludge system: The effect of floc structure on membrane
fouling." Separation Science and Technology 34(9): 1743-1758.
Chang, I. S., Le-Clech, P., Jefferson, B. and Judd, S. J. (2002). Membrane fouling in
membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment, Environ. Eng. Sci, 128 (11) 1018–
1029.
Chang, I.-S. and C.-H. Lee (1998). "Membrane filtration characteristics in membranecoupled
activated sludge system -- the effect of physiological states of activated sludge on
membrane fouling." Desalination 120(3): 221-233.
Chang, I.-S. and S.-N. Kim (2005). "Wastewater treatment using membrane filtration--effect
of biosolids concentration on cake resistance." Process Biochemistry 40(3-4): 1307-
1314.
Chang, S., P. Le Clech, B. Jefferson and S. Judd (2002). "Membrane Fouling in Membrane
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment." Journal of Environmental Engineering 128(11):
1018-1029.
Chiemchaisri, C., Y.K. Wong, T. Urase and K. Yamamoto. (1992). Organic Stabilization and
Nitrogen Removal in Membrane Separation Bioreactor for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment . Water Science and Technology, 25(10) 231-240.
Chiemchaisri, C., Yamamoto, K. and Vigneswaran, S. (1993). Household Membrane
Bioreactor in Domestic Wastewater Treatment. Water Science and Technology, 27(1)
171-178.
Cho B.D. and Fane A.G. (2002). Fouling transients in nominally sub-critical flux operation of
a membrane bioreactor. Journal of membrane science. 209:391-403.
Cho, J., Ahn, K. H., Seo, Y. and Lee, Y. (2003). Modification of ASM No.1 for a Submerged
Membrane Bioreactor System: Including the Effects of Soluble Microbial Products on
Membrane Fouling. Water Science and Technology, 47 (12), 177-181.
Cho, J., K.-G. Song, S. Hyup Lee and K.-H. Ahn (2005). "Sequencing anoxic/anaerobic
membrane bioreactor (SAM) pilot plant for advanced wastewater treatment."
Desalination 178(1-3): 219-225.
Choi, H., K. Zhang, D. D. Dionysiou, D. B. Oerther and G. A. Sorial (2006). "Effect of
activated sludge properties and membrane operation conditions on fouling
characteristics in membrane bioreactors." Chemosphere 63(10): 1699-1708.

42
Choi, J. G., T. H. Bae, J. H. Kim, T. M. Tak and A. A. Randall (2002). "The behavior of
membrane fouling initiation on the crossflow membrane bioreactor system." Journal of
Membrane Science 203(1-2): 103-113.
Choi, J.-H., K. Fukushi and K. Yamamoto (2007). "A submerged nanofiltration membrane
bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment: the performance of cellulose acetate
nanofiltration membranes for long-term operation." Separation and Purification
Technology 52(3): 470-477.
Choo, K. H. and Lee, C. H. (1996). Membrane Fouling Mechanisms in the Membrane
Coupled Anaerobic Bioreactor. Water Research., 30 (8) 1771-1780.
Christian, P. (2005). Improved Membrane Filtration for Water and wastewater Using Air
Sparging and Backflushing. University of Alaska. PHD, Thesis.
Cicek, N. (2003). A Review of Membrane Bioreactor and Their Potential Application in the
Treatment of Agricultural Wastewater. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 45, 6.37-6.49.
Cicek, N., Franco, J.P., Suidan, M.T., Urban, V. and Manem, J. (1999). Characterisation and
comparison of a membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated-sludge system in
the treatment of wastewater containing high molecular weight compounds. Water
Environment Research. 71(1), 64-70.
Cote, P., Buisson, H. and Arakaki, G. (1997). Immersed Membrane Activated Sludge for the
Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Desalination , 113, 189-196.
Cote, P., Buisson, H. and Paraderie, M. (1998). Immersed Membrane Activated Sludge
Process Applied to the Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Water Science and
Technology, Vol. 38, No. 4-5, pp. 437-442.
Couillard, D. and Zhu, S. (1993). Thermophilic aerobic process for the treatment of
slaughterhouse effluents with protein recovery. Env Pollution, 79, 121-126.
Dagmara, T.; Richard, G. Z.; Anne, B.; Andreas, B.; Stefan, G.; Hongde Z.; Doris, K.;
Thomas, M. (2005). Reduced Fouling Tendencies of Ultrafiltration Membranes in
Wastewater Treatment by Plasma Modification. Can. Univ of Guelph. Scho of Eng., 189
(2), 119–129.
Darren, D. S., Choon, T. H. and Swee, L. K. (2006). Effects of Hydraulic Retention Time on
Behavior of Start-up Submerged Membrane Bioreactor with Prolonged Sludge Retention
Time. Desalination, 195, 209-225.
Davies, W. J., Lee, M. S. and Heath, C. R. (1998). Intensified Activated Sludge Process with
Submerged Membrane Microfiltration. Water Science Technology, 38(4-5).
de Kreuk, M.K., Heijnen, J.J. and van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. (2005). Simultaneous COD,
Nitrogen and Phosphate removal by Aerobic Granular Sludge. Biotechnology
Bioengineering. 90 (6), 761-769.
Defrance L. and Jaffrin M.Y. (1999). Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane
pressure and fixed flux: application to membrane bioreactor used for wastewater
treatment. J. Membrane Sci., 152: 203-210.

43
Defrance, L. and M. Y. Jaffrin (1999). "Reversibility of fouling formed in activated sludge
filtration." Journal of Membrane Science 157(1): 73-84.
Dongen, J., Faisal, I. H. and Kazuo, Y. (2004). Development and Application of Anaerobic
Membrane Bioreactor Systems in the Far-Eastern Countries. University of Tokyo.
Japan. www.geocities.com/faisal_hai/AMBRreview.
Drews, A., Evenblij, H., Rosenberger, S. (2005). Potential and Draw backs of Microbiology-
Membrane Interaction in Membrane Bioreactor. Environmental Progress. 24 (4), 426-
433.
Dubois, M., K. A. Gilles, P. A. Hamilton, P. A. Rebers and F. Smith (1956). "Colorimetric
method for determination of sugars and related substances." Anal. Chem. 28(3): 350-
356.
Duranceau, S. J. (2001). Membrane Practice for Water Treatment. American Water Works
Association, Denver CO.
Eckstein, E. C., P. G. Bailey and A. H. Shapiro (1977). "Self-diffusion of particles in shear
flow of a suspension." Journal of Fluid Mechanics 79(1): 149-164.
Engelhardt, N., Firk, W. and Warnken, W. (1998). Integration of Membrane Filtration into the
Activated Sludge Process in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Water Sci Technol, 38(4-
5),429-436.
Evenblij, H. and J. van der Graaf (2004). "Occurrence of EPS in activated sludge from a
membrane bioreactor treating municipal wastewater." Water Science and Technology
50(12): 293-300.
Evenblij, H., S. Geilvoet, J. H. J. M. van der Graaf and H. F. van der Roest (2005). "Filtration
characterisation for assessing MBR performance: three cases compared." Desalination
178(1-3): 115-124.
Fan, X. J., Urbain, V., Qian, Y. and Manem, J. (1996). Nitrification and Mass Balance with a
Membrane Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Water Science and
Technology, 34 (1-2), 129-136.
Fan, X. J., V. Urvain, Y. Qian and J. Manem (1999). Ultrafiltration of activated sludge with
ceramic membranes in a crossflow membrane bioreactor process. Membrane
Technology in Environmental Management, Tokyo.
Fane, A. G., C. J. D. Fell, P. H. Hodgson, G. Leslie and K. C. Marshall (1991). "Microfiltration
of biomass and biofluids: Effects of membrane morphology and operating conditions."
Filtration and Separation 28(5): 332-340.
Fangang, M., Hanmin, Z., Fenglin, Y., Shoutong, Z, Yansong, L. and Xingwen, Z. (2006).
Identification of activated sludge properties affecting membrane fouling in submerged
membrane bioreactors. Separation and Purification Technology, 51, 95–103.
Fawehinmi, F., P. Lens, T. Stephenson, F. Rogalla and B. Jefferson (2004a). The influence
of operating condition on extracellullar polymeric substances (EPS), soluble microbial
products (SMP) and bio-fouling in anaerobic membrane bioreactors Water Environment -
Membrane Technology Conference, Seoul, Korea.
44
Fdz-Polanco, F., Villarerde, S. and Garcia, P. (1994). Temperature Effect on Nitrifying
Bacteria Activity in Biofilters: Activation and Free Ammonia Inhibition. Water Science and
Technology, 30 (11) 121-130.
Field, R. W., D. Wu, J. A. Howell and B. B. Gupta (1995). "Critical flux concept for
microfiltration fouling." Journal of Membrane Science 100(3): 259-272.
Flemming, H. C. (2000). Membrane Technology in Water and Wastewater Treatment, The
Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.
Flemming, H. C., G. Schaule, T. Griebe, J. Schmitt and A. Tamachkiarowa (1997).
"Biofouling--the Achilles heel of membrane processes." Desalination 113(2-3): 215-225.
Gander, M. A., Jefferson, B. and Judd, S. J. (2000). Membrane Bioreactors for Use in Small
Wastewater Treatment Plants: Membrane Materials And Effluent Quality. Water Science
and Technology, 41(1) 205-211.
Gander, M., Jefferson, B. and Judd, S. (2000). Aerobic MBRs for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment: A Review with Cost Considerations. Separation and Purification Technology.
18 (2), 119-130.
Gao, M., M. Yang, H. Li, Q. Yang and Y. Zhang (2004). "Comparison between a submerged
membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated sludge system on treating ammonia-
bearing inorganic wastewater." Journal of Biotechnology 108(3): 265-269.
Germain, E., T. Stephenson and C. I. Pearce (2005). "Biomass characteristics and
membrane aeration: Toward a better understanding of membrane fouling in submerged
membrane bioreactors (MBRs)." Biotechnology and Bioengineering 90(3): 316-322.
Gorner, T., P. de Donato, M.-H. Ameil, E. Montarges-Pelletier and B. S. Lartiges (2003).
"Activated sludge exopolymers: separation and identification using size exclusion
chromatography and infrared micro-spectroscopy." Water Research 37(10): 2388- 2393.
Green, G. and G. Belfort (1980). "Fouling of ultrafiltration membranes: lateral migration and
the particle trajectory model." Desalination 35: 129-147.
Guglielmi G., Chiarani D., Judd S. J., and Andreattola G. (2007). Flux criticality and
sustainability in a hollow fibre submerged membrane bioreactor for municipal
wastewater treatment. Membrane Science, 289:241-248.
Hanft, S. (2006). Membrane Bioreactors in the Changing World Water Market, C-240 Report,
BCC Inc., Norwalk, USA.
Hardorfer, F. and G. Hartel (1999). "Bacteriophobic membranes for decreasing biofilm
formation in wastewater treatment." Chemical Engineering and Technology 22: 313-316.
Henze, M., Harremoes, P., La Cour Jensen, J and Arvin, E. (2000). Wastewater Treatment.
Biological and Chemical Process. Third Edition.
Hillis, P. (2000). Membrane Technology in Water and Wastewater Treatment, The Royal
Society of Chemistry.
Hodgson, P. H., G. L. Leslie, A. G. Fane, R. P. Schneider, C. J. D. Fell and K. C. Marshall
(1993). "Cake resistance and solute rejection in bacterial microfiltration: The role of the
extracellular matrix." Journal of Membrane Science 79(1): 35-53.
45
Hong, S. P., T. H. Bae, T. M. Tak, S. Hong and A. Randall (2002). "Fouling control in
activated sludge submerged hollow fiber membrane bioreactors." Desalination 143(3):
219-228.
Howell, J. (2004). "Critical Flux Revisited, A critique of critical flux, critical concentrations,
critical Peclet numbers and critical pressure."
Huang, X., P. Gui and Y. Qian (2001). "Effect of sludge retention time on microbial behaviour
in a submerged membrane bioreactor." Process Biochemistry 36(10): 1001-1006.
Huuhilo. T., Suvilampi. J., Puro. L., Rintala. J., Mänttäri. M., Nuortila- Jokinen. J. and
Nyström, M. (2002). Internal Treatment of Pulp and Paper Mill Process Waters With a
High Temperature Aerobic Biofilm Process Combined With Ultrafiltration and/or
Nanofiltration. Paper and Timber, 84, 50-53.
Ishiguro, K., K. Imai and S. Sawada (1994). "Effects of biological treatment conditions on
permeate flux of UF membrane in a membrane/activated-sludge wastewater treatment
system." Desalination 98(1-3): 119-126.
Itonaga, T. Kimura, K. and Watanabe, Y. (2004) Influence of suspension viscosity and
colloidal particles on permeability of membrane used in membrane bioreactor (MBR),
Water Sci. Technol. 50, 301–309.
Jan, B., Andreas, C. and Wolfgang, M. (2007). Modeling submerged hollow-fiber membrane
filtration for wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science 288, 94–111.
Janga, N., X. Ren, K. Choi and I. S. Kim (2005). Comparison of membrane biofouling in
nitrification and denitrification for the membrane bio-reactor (MBR). Proceedings of the
IWA Aspire Singapore.
Janga, N., X. Ren, G. Kim, C. Ahn, J. Cho and I. S. Kim (2007). "Characteristics of soluble
microbial products and extracellular polymeric substances in the membrane bioreactor
for water reuse." Desalination 202(1-3): 90-98.
Jefferson, B., Laine, A. L., Judd, S. J. and Stephenson, T. (2000). Membrane Bioreactors
and Their Role in Wastewater Reuse. Water Science and Technology, 41 (1) 197-204.
Ji, L. and J. Zhou (2006). "Influence of aeration on microbial polymers and membrane fouling
in submerged membrane bioreactors." Journal of Membrane Science 276(1- 2): 168-
177.
Jiang, T., M. D. Kennedy, B. F. Guinzbourg, P. A. Vanrolleghem and J. C. Schippers (2005).
"Optimising the operation of a MBR pilot plant by quantitative analysis of the membrane
fouling mechanism." Water Science and Technology 51(6-7): 19-25.
João, C. T., Rachel, P. R., Cláudio, M. S. and Valter, R. L. (2005). Biological Treatment of
Kraft Pulp Mill Foul Condensates at High Temperatures Using a Membrane Bioreactor.
Process Biochemistry, 40, 1125-1129.
Joël, M., Peter, E. And Mark, R. (1996). The Emergence Of Membrane In Water And
Wastewater Treatment. In: American Water Works Association, American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, Lyonnaise des Eaux and Water Research

46
 Commission of South Africa. Water Treatment Membran Processes. USA: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Judd, S. (2004). "A review of fouling of membrane bioreactors in sewage treatment." Water
Science and Technology 49(2): 229-235.
Judd, S. (2006). The MBR book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors in
Water and Wastewater Treatment, Elsevier, Oxford.
Judd, S. J. and S. W. Till (2000). "Bacterial rejection in crossflow microfiltration of sewage."
Desalination 127(3): 251-260.
Kabsch-Korbutowicz, M. (1992). "Membrane biofouling." Environment Protection Engineering
18: 125-144.
Kang, I. J., Yoon, S. H. And Lee, C. H. (2002). Comparison of the Filtration Characteristics of
Organic and Inorganic Membranes in a Membrane-Coupled Anaerobic Bioreactor. Water
Research, 36, 1803-1813.
Kelly, S. T., W. Senyo Opong and A. L. Zydney (1993). "The influence of protein aggregates
on the fouling of microfiltration membranes during stirred cell filtration." Journal of
Membrane Science 80(1): 175-187.
Kim, A. S. and Yuan, R. (2005). A new model for calculating specific resistance of
aggregated colloidal cake layers in membrane filtration processes, J. Membrane Sci.
249 (2005) 89–101.
Kim, J. S., Lee, C. H. and Chang, I. S. (2001). Effect of Pump Shear on the Performance of a
Crossflow Membrane Bioreactor. Water Research, 35 (9) 2137-2144.
Klatt, C. G. and Lapara, T. M. (2003). Aerobic Biological Treatment of Synthetic Municipal
Wastewater in Membrane-coupled Bioreactors. Biotechnol. Bioengineering, 82(3), 313-
320.
Knyazkova, T. V. and A. A. Maynarovich (1999). "Recognition of membrane fouling: testing
of theoretical approaches with data on NF of salt solutions containing a low molecular
weight surfactant as a foulant." Desalination 126(1-3): 163-169.
Koros, W. J.,Ma, Y. H. and Shimidzu, T. (1996). Terminology for Membranes and Membrane
processes, J. Membr. Sci, 120, 149–159.
Kurian, R. and Nakhla, G. (2006). Performance of Aerobic MBR Treating High Strength Oily
Wastewater at Mesophilic –Thermophilic Transitional Temperatures. University of
Western Ontario. Canada, Water Environment Foundation.
Kwon, D. Y. and S. Vigneswaran (1998). "Influence of particle size and surface charge on
critical flux of crossflow microfiltration." Water Science and Technology 38(4-5): 481-488.
Kwon, D. Y., S. Vigneswaran, A. G. Fane and R. B. Aim (2000). "Experimental determination
of critical flux in cross-flow microfiltration." Separation and Purification Technology 19(3):
169-181.
LaPara, T., Nakatsu, C., Pantea, L. and Alleman, J. (2000). Phylogenetic Analysis of
Bacterial Cmmunities in Mesophilic and Thermophilic Bioreactors Treating
Pharmaceutical Wastewater. Appl. Env. Microbiol., 66, 3951-3959.
47
LaPara, T.M. and Alleman, J.E. (1999) Thermophilic aerobic biological wastewater treatment.
Water Res 33:895–908. Ratsak CH, Maarsen KA, Kooijman S (1996) Effects of protozoa
on carbon mineralization in activated sludge. Water Res 30: 1–12.
Laspidou, C. S. and B. E. Rittmann (2002). "A unified theory for extracellular polymeric
substances, soluble microbial products, and active and inert biomass." Water Research
36(11): 2711-2720.
Le Clech P., Chen V., Tony and Fane A.G. (2006). Review Fouling in membrane bioreactor
used in wastewater treatment. Journal Membrane Science, 284: 17-53.
Le Clech, P., B. Jefferson, I. S. Chang and S. J. Judd (2003). "Critical flux determination by
the flux-step method in a submerged membrane bioreactor." Journal of Membrane
Science 227(1-2): 81-93.
Le-Clech, P., B. Jefferson and S. J. Judd (2005). "A comparison of submerged and
sidestream tubular membrane bioreactor configurations." Desalination 173(2): 113- 122.
Le-Clech, P., H. Alvarez-Vazquez, B. Jefferson and S. Judd (2003). "Fluid hydrodynamics in
submerged and sidestream membrane bioreactors." Water Science and Technology
48(3): 113-119.
Le-Clech, P., V. Chen and T. A. G. Fane (2006). "Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in
wastewater treatment." Journal of Membrane Science 284(1-2): 17-53.
Lee, J., Ahn, W.Y. and Lee, C.H. (2001). Comparison of the Filtration Characteristics
Between Attached and Suspended Growth Microorganisms in Submerged Membrane
Bioreactor, Water Res, 35(10) 2435–2445.
Lee, W., S. Kang and H. Shin (2003). "Sludge characteristics and their contribution to
microfiltration in submerged membrane bioreactors." Journal of Membrane Science
216(1-2): 217-227.
Lesjean, B., Rosenberger, S., Laabs, C., Jekel, M., Gnirss, R. and Amy, G. (2004).
Correlation between membrane fouling and soluble/colloidal organic substances in
membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment. Proc. WEMT 2004, Seoul, 2,
525–532.
Lesjean, B., Rosenberger, S., Laabs, C., Jekel, M., Gnirss, R. and Amy, G (2005).
Correlation between membrane fouling and soluble/colloidal organic substances in
membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment. Water science and
technology; 51(6-7):1-8.
Lesjean, B., S. Rosenberger, J.-C. Schrotter and A. Recherche (2004). "Membrane-aided
biological wastewater treatment -- an overview of applied systems." Membrane
Technology; (8): 5-10.
Li, H., M. Yang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, M. Gao and Y. Kamagata (2005). "Comparison of
nitrification performance and microbial community between submerged membrane
bioreactor and conventional activated sludge system." Water Science and Technology
51(6-7): 193-200.

48
Liang, S., C. Liu and L. Song (2007). "Soluble microbial products in membrane bioreactor
operation: Behaviors, characteristics, and fouling potential." Water Research 41(1): 95-
101.
Liao, B. Q., D. G. Allen, I. G. Droppo, G. G. Leppard and S. N. Liss (2001). "Surface
properties of sludge and their role in bioflocculation and settleability." Water Research
35(2): 339-350.
Liu, Y. and H. H. P. Fang (2003). "Influences of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) on
flocculation, settling, and dewatering of activated sludge." Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology 33(3): 237-273.
Lopetegui, J. and Sancho, L. (2003) Aerated Thermophilic Biological Treatment with
Membrane Ultrafilteration: Alternative to Conventional Technologies Treating Paper Mill
Effluents. Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supply, 3(5-6), 245-252
Lowry, O. H., N. J. Rosebrough, A. L. Farr and R. J. Randall (1951). "Protein measurement
with the Folin phenol reagent." The Journal Of Biological Chemistry 193(1): 265- 275.
Lubbecke, S., A. Vogelpohl and W. Dewjanin (1995). "Wastewater treatment in a biological
high-performance system with high biomass concentration." Water Research 29(3): 793-
802.
Magara, Y. and Itoh, M. (1991). The Effect of Operation Factors on Solid/Liquid Separation
by Ultramembrane Filtration in a Biological Denitrification System for Collected Human
Excreta Treatment Plants. Water Sci. Technol., 23, 1583–1590.
Manen, J. and Sanderson, R. (1996). Water Treatment Membrane Process AWWA.
Research Fundation, McGraw-Hill, New York, Chapter 17.
Meier-Haack, J., Booker, N.A. and Carroll, T. (2003). A Permeability-Controlled Microfiltration
Membrane for Reduced Fouling in Drinking Water Treatment. Water Research, 37, 585-
588.
Meng, F., H. Zhang, F. Yang, S. Zhang, Y. Li and X. Zhang (2006b). "Identification of
activated sludge properties affecting membrane fouling in submerged membrane
bioreactors." Separation and Purification Technology 51(1): 95-103.
Meng, F., H. Zhang, F. Yang, Y. Li, J. Xiao and X. Zhang (2006a). "Effect of filamentous
bacteria on membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactor." Journal of
Membrane Science 272(1-2): 161-168.
Metcalf and Eddy. (1991). Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal and Reuse.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mino, T., van Loosdreacht, M.C.M. and Heijnin, J.J. (1998). Microbiology and Biochemistry of
the Enhanced Biological Phosphate Removal Process. Water Research. 32 (11), 3191-
3207.
Mulder, M. (2000). Basic principles of membrane technology. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

49
Muller, E. B., Stouthamer, A. H., Van Verseved, H. W. and Eikelboom, D. H. (1995). Aerobic
Domestic Wastewater Treatment in a Pilot Plant with Complet Sludge Retention by
Cross-Flow Filtration. Water Research, 29(4) 1179.
Murakami, T., Usui, J., Takamura, K. And Yashikawa, T. (2000). Application of Immersed-
type Membrane Separation Activated Sludge Process to Municipal Wastewater
Treatment. Water Science and Technology, 41(10) 295-301.
Nagaoka, H. and H. Nemoto (2005). "Influence of extracellular polymeric substances on
nitrogen removal in an intermittently-aerated membrane bioreactor." Water Science and
Technology 51(11): 151-158.
Ng, H. and Hermanowicz, W. (2004). Membrane Bioreactor at Short Mean Cell Residence
Times – A New Mode of Operation. IWA Special. Conf. WEMT Seoul, Korea.
Ng, H. Y. (2002). Performance of a membrane bioreactor and a completely mixed activated
sludge system at short solids retention times. PhD theses, University of California,
Berkeley.
Ng, W. J., Ong, S. L., Gomez, M. J., Hu, J. Y. and Fan, X. J. (2000). Study on a Sequencing
Membrane Bioreactor for the Wastewater Treatment. Water Science and Technology, 41
(10-11) 227-237.
Nielsen, P. H., A. Jahn and R. Palmgren (1997). "Conceptual model for production and
composition of exopolymers in biofilms." Water Science and Technology 36(1): 11-19.
Nielson, P. H. and A. Jahn (1999). Extraction of EPS Microbial extracellular polymeric
substances. Springer-Verlag-eds. Berlin, J. Wingender, T.R. Neu and H.C.E. Flemming.
Nobuhiro, Y., Katsuki, K., Taro, M. and Yoshimasa, W. (2006). Difference in membrane
fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) caused by membrane polymer materials.
Journal of Membrane Science, 280, 911–919.
Nuengjamnong, C., J. H. Kweon, J. Cho, C. Polprasert and K.-H. Ahn (2005). "Membrane
fouling caused by extracellular polymeric substances during microfiltration processes."
Desalination 179(1-3): 117-124.
Ognier S., Wisniewski C., and Grasmick A. (2004). Membrane bioreactor fouling in sub-
critical filtration condition: a local critical flux concept. Journal of Membrane Science,
229: 171-177.
Ognier, S., Wisniewski, C. and Grasmick, A. (2002). Characterisation and modeling of fouling
in membrane bioreactor. Desalination 146,141-147.
Opong, W. S. and A. L. Zydney (1991). "Hydraulic permeability of protein layers deposited
during ultrafiltration." Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 142(1): 41-60.
Ouammou, M., N. Tijani, J. I. Calvo, C. Velasco, A. Martin, F. Martinez, F. Tejerina and A.
Hernandez (2006). "Flux decay in protein microfiltration through charged membranes as
a function of pH." Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects
Palecek, S. P. and A. L. Zydney (1994). "Hydraulic permeability of protein deposits formed
during microfiltration: effect of solution pH and ionic strength." Journal of Membrane
Science 95(1): 71-81.
50
Paul, D. R. and Yampol’Skii, Y. P. (1994). Introduction and Perspective. In: Paul, D. R. And
Yampol’Skii, Y. P. Polymeric Gas Separation Membrane. USA, CRC PressInc, 1-7.
Paul, M. Sutton, P. M. and Associates. (2006). MEMBRANE BIOREACTORS FOR Industrial
Wastewater Treatment: Application and Selection of Optional System Configuration.
Water Environment Foundation.
Pierre, L., Vicki, C. and Tony, A. G. F. (2006). Fouling Membrane Bioreactor Used in
Wastewater Treatment. University of New South Wales. In: www.sciencedirect.com.
Australia.
Pierre, L., Vicki, C. and Tony, A. G. F. (2006). Review: Fouling in Membrane Bioreactor Used
in Wastewater Treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 284, 17–53.
Ramaekers, J., vanDijk, L., Lumpe, C., Verstraeten, E. and Joore, L. (2001). Thermophilic
Membrane Bioreactors in the Paper Industry - A Successful Key to in-Mill Water
Treatment. Paper Technology, Sec-tion Bioreactors, 32-10
Richard, W. B. (2000). Membrane Technology and Applications. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Ridgway, H., K. Ishida, G. Rodriguez, J. Safarik, T. Knoell, R. Bold and J. D. Ron (1999).
Biofouling of membranes: Membrane preparation, characterization, and analysis of
bacterial adhesion. Methods in Enzymology, Academic Press. 310: 463-494.
Rosenberger, S. and M. Kraume (2003). Filterability of activated sludge in membrane
bioreactors. Desalination,151(2): 195-200.
Rosenberger, S., C. Laabs, B. Lesjean, R. Gnirss, G. Amy, M. Jekel and J. C. Schrotter
(2006). "Impact of colloidal and soluble organic material on membrane performance in
membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment." Water Research 40(4): 710-
720.
Rosenberger, S., H. Evenblij, S. te Poele, T. Wintgens and C. Laabs (2005). "The importance
of liquid phase analyses to understand fouling in membrane assisted activated sludge
processes--six case studies of different European research groups." Journal of
Membrane Science 263(1-2): 113-126.
Rozich, A. F.; Bordacs, K. (2002). Use of Thermophilic Biological Aerobic Technology for
Industrial Waste Treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 46(4-5, 2nd World Water Congress:
Wastewater Treatment and Sludge Management, 2001), 83-89.
Sandeep, S. and Graham, J. (2002). Microfiltration of Primary Effluent for Clarification and
Microbial Removal. Environmental Engineering Science, 19(6), Carollo Engineers Santa
Ana, CA 92704.
Satoh, H., Nakamura, Y., Ono, H. and Okabe, S. (2003). Effect of Oxygen Concentration on
Nitrification and Denitrification in Single Activated Sludge Flocs. Biotechnology
Bioengineering. 58 (1), 101-116.
Satoshi, O., Mirian, N. H., Yuuki, M. And Yoshimasa, W. (2004). Microbial Community
Structure and Treatment Performance of Membrane Bioreactors Treating Municipal
Wastewater. In: 2nd Seminar on Water Management (Japan), 57-62.

51
Scholz, W. and Fuchs, W. (2000). Treatment of Oil Contaminated Wastewater in a
Membrane Reactor. Water Research, 34(14) 3621-3630.
Seo, G. T., Lee, T. S., Moon, B. H. Choi, K. S. and Lee, H. D. (1997). Membrane Separation
Activated Sludge for Residual Organic Removal in Oil Wastewater. Water Research,
36(12) 275-287.
Seung, H. B. (2004). Aerobic And Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) For Dilute
Municipal Wastewater Treatment. PhD Thesis. Illinois Institute Of Technology. Chicago.
Shin, H.-S. and S.-T. Kang (2003). "Characteristics and fates of soluble microbial products in
ceramic membrane bioreactor at various sludge retention times." Water Research 37(1):
121-127.
Sofia, A., Ng, W. J. and Ong, S. L. (2004). Engineering design approaches for minimum
fouling in submerged MBR. Desalination, 160, 67-74.
Sombatsompop, K., C. Visvanathan and R. Ben Aim (2006). "Evaluation of biofouling
phenomenon in suspended and attached growth membrane bioreactor systems."
Desalination 201(1-3): 138-149.
Stephen, C., Greg, L.. and Ian, L. (2004). Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment – An Australian Perspective. Australia.
Stephenson, T., S. Judd, B. Jefferson and K. Brindle (2000). Membrane Bioreactors for
wastewater treatment. London, IWA Publishing.
Strohwald, N. K. H. and Ross, W. R. (1992). Application of the ADUF Process to Brewery
Effluent on a Laboratory Scale. Water Science Technology, 25(10) 95-105.
Tardif, O. and Hall, E. (1997). Alternatives for treating recirculated newsprint Whitewater at
high temperatures, Water Sci. Technol, 35(2-3),57-65.
Tripathi, C. S. and Grant, A. D. (1999). Comparison of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Aerobic
Biological Treatment in Sequencing Batch Reactors Treating Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill
Effluent. Water Res. 33(3), 836-846
Tripathi. C.S. and Allen, D.G. (1999). Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic aerobic
biological treatment in sequencing batch reactors treating bleach kraft pulp mill effluent.
Water Res 33: 836–846.
Trussell, R.S., Adham, S. and Trussel, R.R. (2005). Process Limits of Municipal Wastewater
Treatment with the submerged Membrane Bioreactor. Environmental Engineering. 131
(3), 410-416.
Ueda, T. and Hata, K. (1999). Domestic Wastewater Treatment by a Submerged Membrane
Bioreactor with Gravitational Filtration. Water Research, 33(12) 2888-2892.
Ueda, T., Hata, K. and Kikuoka, Y. (1996). Treatment of Domestic Sewage from Rural
Settlements by a Membrane Bioreactor. Water Science and Technology, 34 (9), 189-
196.
Ueda, T., K. Hata, Y. Kikuoka and O. Seino (1997). "Effects of aeration on suction pressure
in a submerged membrane bioreactor." Water Research 31(3): 489-494.

52
Ujang, Z. (2005c). Applications of Continuous Submerged MF Followed by RO Membrane for
Wastewater Reclamation. Water Malaysia. 10 (August 2005), 21-31.
Ujang, Z. and Anderson, G.K. (2000). Effect of Operating Parameters on the Separation of
Metal Chelates Using Low Pressure Reverse Osmosis Membrane (LPROM). Water
Since and Technology. 41 (10-11), 135-142.
Ujang, Z., Au, Y.L. and Nagaoka, H. (2002). Comparative Study on Microbial Removal in
Immersed Membrane Filtration (IMF) with and without Powdered Activated Carbon
(PAC). Water Science and Technology, 46 (9) 109-115.
Ujang, Z., Hamdzah, M. and Ozaki, H. (2005b). Revers Osmosis for Micropollutant Rejection:
The Effects of Low Pressure System. Water Malaysia. 10 (August 2005), 33-36.
Ujang, Z., Ng, S.S. and Nagaoka, H. (2005a). Package Plant of Extended Aeration
Membrane Reactors: A Study on Aeration Intensity and Biofouling Control. Water
Science and Technology. 51 (10), 97-104.
van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. and Heijnen, J.J. (1993). Biofilm Bioreactors for Wastewater
Treatment. Trends Biotechnology. 11, 117-121.
Visvanathan, C. and Nhien, T.T.H .(1995). Study on aerated biofilter process under high
temperature conditions. Environ Technol 16: 301–314.
Vogelaar, J.C.T., van Lier, · J.B., Klapwijk, · B., de Vries, M.C. and Lettinga. · G. (2002).
Assessment of effluent turbidity in mesophilic and thermophilic activated sludge reactors
– origin of effluent colloidal material. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 59:105–111.
Walker, J., S. Surman and J. Jass (2000). Industrial biofouling: detection, prevention, and
control. New York, Wiley.
Wang, W., Jung, Y.J., Kiso, Y., Yamada, T. and Min, K.S. (2006). Excess Sludge Reduction
Performance of an Aerobic SBR Process Equipped with a submerged Mesh Filter Unit.
Process Biochemistry. 4 (41), 745-751.
Wang, Z., Z. Wu, G. Yu, J. Liu and Z. Zhou (2006). "Relationship between sludge
characteristics and membrane flux determination in submerged membrane bioreactors."
Journal of Membrane Science 284(1-2): 87-94.
Wicaksana, F., A. G. Fane and V. Chen (2005). "Fibre movement induced by bubbling using
submerged hollow fibre membranes." Journal of Membrane Science 271(1- 2): 186-195.
Witzig, R., Manz, W., Rosenberger, S., Krüger, U., Kraume, M. and Szewzyk, U. (2002).
Microbiological Aspects of A Bioreactor with Submerged Membranes for Aerobic
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Water Research, 36, 394-402.
Worrel, L. S., J. A. Morehouse, L. A. Shimko, D. R. Lloyd, D. F. Lawler and B. D. Freeman
(2007). "Enhancement of track-etched membrane performance via stretching."
Separation and Purification Technology 53(1): 71-80.
Xiang, Z and Junxin, L. (2006). Dyeing and Printing Wastewater Treatment Using a
Membrane Bioreactor With a Gravity Drain. Desalination, (190) 277–286.

53
Xing, C. H., Qian, Y., Wen, X. H., Wu, W. Z. and Sum, D. (2001). Physical and Biological
Characteristics of a Tangential-Flow MBR for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Journal
of Membrane Science, 191, 31-42.
Yamamoto, K. and Win, K. M. (1991). Tannery Wastewater Treatment Using a Sequencing
Batch Membrane Bioreactor. Water Science Technology, 23(7/9) 1639.
Yamamoto, K., Hiasa, M., Mahmood, T. and Matsuo, T. (1989). Direct solid-liquid Separation
Using Hollow Fiber Membrane in an Activated Sludge Aeration Tank. Water Science and
Technology, 21(4-5) 43-54.
Yang Q., Chen J. and Zhang F. (2006). Membrane fouling control in a submerged membrane
bioreactor with porous, flexible suspended carriers. Desalination, 189:292-302.
Yaobo, F., Gang, L., Linlin, W., Wenbo, Y., Chunsong, D., Huifang, X. and Wei, F. (2006).
Treatment and reuse of toilet wastewater by an airlift external circulation membrane
bioreactor. Process Biochemistry, 41, 1364–1370.
Ye, Y., P. Le-Clech, V. Chen, A. G. Fane and B. Jefferson (2005). "Fouling mechanisms of
alginate solutions as model extracellular polymeric substances." Desalination 175(1): 7-
20.
Yeom, I.T., Lee, K.R., Choi, Y.G., Kim, H.S. and Lee, Y. (2004) Evaluation of a membrane
bioreactor system coupled with sludge pretreatment for aerobic sludge digestion, in:
Proceedings of the Water Environment-Membrane Technology Conference, Seoul,
Korea.
Zeman, L. G. and A. L. Zydney (1996). Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration: Principle and
Applications., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Zeng, R. J., Lemaire, R., Yuan, Z. and Keller, Y. J. (2003). Simultaneous Nitrification,
Denitrification, and Phosphorus Removal in a Lab-scale Sequencing Batch Reactor.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 84 (2), 170-178.
Zenon. (2007). Membrane Technology Overview.
http://www.zenon.com/resources/introduction_to_membranes.
Zhang, B., Yamamoto, K., Ohgaki, S. and Kamiko, N. (1997). Floc Size Distribution and
Bacterial Activities in Membrane Separation Activated Sludge Processes for Small-scale
Wastewater Treatment/Reclamation. Water Sci Technol, 35(6) 37-44.
Zhang, J.ab, Chua, H.C.a, Zhou, J.b and Fane, A.G. (2006). "Factors affecting the membrane
preformance in submerged MBR." Journal of Membrane Science 284(1-2): 54-66.
Zhang, S., Qu, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, F., Zhang, X., Furukawa, K. and Yamada, Y. (2005)
Experimental Study on Domestic Sewage Treatment With Metal Membrane Bioreactor,
Desalination, 177, 83-93.
Zhang, S., Yang, F., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Yamada, Y. and Furukawa, K. (2006). Performance
Of A Metalic Membrane Bioreactor Treating Simulated Distillery Wastewater At
Temperatures Of 30 to 45 C, Env. Biological Sci. Techno!., Kumamoto University,
Desalination, 194, 146-155.

54
Zhao, H., Isaacs, S. H., Sǿeberg, H. and Kümmel, M. (1994). A Novel Control Strategy for
Improved Nitrogen Removal in an Alternating Activated Sludge Process. Part I: Process
Analysis. Part II: Control Development. Water Research, 28, 521-542
Zhou, H. and D. W. Smith (2001). "Advanced technologies in water and wastewater
treatment." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 28(1): 49-66.

55