Energy consumption in terms of shear stress for two types of membrane bioreactors used for municipal wastewater treatment processes

Open access


Two types of submerged membrane bioreactors (MBR): hollow fiber (HF) and hollow sheet (HS), have been studied and compared in terms of energy consumption and average shear stress over the membrane wall. The analysis of energy consumption was made using the correlation to determine the blower power and the blower power demand per unit of permeate volume. Results showed that for the system geometries considered, in terms the of the blower power, the HF MBR requires less power compared to HS MBR. However, in terms of blower power per unit of permeate volume, the HS MBR requires less energy. The analysis of shear stress over the membrane surface was made using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling. Experimental measurements for the HF MBR were compared with the CFD model and an error less that 8% was obtained. For the HS MBR, experimental measurements of velocity profiles were made and an error of 11% was found. This work uses an empirical relationship to determine the shear stress based on the ratio of aeration blower power to tank volume. This relationship is used in bubble column reactors and it is extrapolate to determine shear stress on MBR systems. This relationship proved to be overestimated by 28% compared to experimental measurements and CFD results. Therefore, a corrective factor is included in the relationship in order to account for the membrane placed inside the bioreactor.

[1] Judd S.: The MBR Book Elsevier, 2006.

[2] Mosdorf R., Wyszkowski T., Dąbrowski K.: Multifractal properties of large bubble paths in a single bubble column. Archives of Thermodynamics 32(2011), 1, 3-20

[3] Buwa V.V., Ranade V.V.: Dynamics of gas-liquid flow in a rectangular bubble column: experiments and single/multi-group CFD simulations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 5(2011) 4715-4736.

[4] Svendsen H.F., Jakobsen H.A., Torvik R.: Local flow structures in internal loop and bubble column reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 47(2009) 3297-3304.

[5] Judd S.J.: A review of fouling of membrane bioreactors in sewage treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 49(2004), 2, 229-235.

[6] Liao B.Q., Bagley D.M., Kraemer H.E., Leppard G.G., Liss S.N.: A review of biofouling and its control in membrane separation bioreactors. WaterEnviron.Res. 76(2004) 5, 425-436.

[7] Bellara S.: Gas sparging to enhance permeate flux in ultrafiltration using hollow fibre membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 121(1996), 2, 175-184.

[8] Berube P.R., Afonso G., Taghipour F., Chan C.C.V.: Quantifying the shear at the surface of submerged hollow fiber membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 279(2006), 1-2, 495-505.

[9] Cui Z.F., Wright K.I.T.: Flux enhancements with gas sparging in downwards crossflow ultrafiltration: Performance and mechanism. J. Membr. Sci. 117(1996), 1-2, 109-116.

[10] Cui Z.F., Chang S., Fane A.G.: The use of gas bubbling to enhance membrane processes. J. Membr. Sci. 221(2003) 1-2 109-116.

[11] Katsoufidou K., Yiantsios S.G., Karabelas A.J.: A study of ultrafiltration membrane fouling by humic acids and flux recovery by backwashing: Experiments and modeling. J. Membr. Sci. 266(2005), 1-2, 40-50.

[12] Yeo A.P.S., Law A.W.K., Fane A.G.: Factors affecting the performance of a submerged hollow fiber bundle. J. Membr. Sci. 280(2006), 1-2, 969-982.

[13] Yeo A.P.S., Law A.W.K., Fane A.G.: The relationship between performance of submerged hollow fibers and bubble-induced phenomena examined by particle image velocimetry. J. Membr. Sci. 304(2007), 1-2, 125-137.

[14] Ducom G., Puech F.P., Cabassud C.: Air sparging with flat sheet nanofiltration: A link between wall shear stresses and flux enhancement. Desalination 145(2002), 1-3, 97-102.

[15] Ducom G., Puech F.P., Cabassud C.: Gas/liquid two-phase flow in a flat sheet filtration module: Measurement of local wall shear stresses. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 81(2003), 3-4, 771-775.

[16] Judd S.: Theoretical and experimental representation of a submerged membrane bio-reactor system. Membr. Technol. 135(2001), no. 135, 4-9.

[17] Verrecht B., Judd S., Guglielmi G., Brepols C., Mulder J.W.: An aeration energy model for an immersed membrane bioreactor. Water Res. 42(2008), 19, 4761-4770.

[18] Tchobanoglous G., Burton F.L., Stensel H.D.: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. McGraw-Hill, Boston 2003.

[19] Yang F., Bick A., Shandalov S., Brenner A., Oron G.: Yield stress and rheological characteristics of activated sludge in an airlift membrane bioreactor. J. Membr. Sci. 334(2009), 83-90.

[20] Laera G., Giordano C., Pollice A., Saturno D., Mininni G.: Membrane bioreactor sludge rheology at different solid retention times. Water Res. 41(2007), no. 18, 4197-4203.

[21] Pollice A., Giordano C., Laera G., Saturno D., Mininni G.: Rheology of sludge in a complete retention membrane bioreactor. Environ. Tech. 27(2006), no. 7, 723-732.

[22] Rosenberger R., Kubin K., Kraume M.: Rheology of Activated Sludge in Membrane Bioreactors. Engineering in Life Sciences 2(2002), no. 9, 269-275.

[23] Sanchez J., Perez A., Rodriguez Porcel E.M., Casas Lopez J.L., Fernandez Sevilla J.M., Chisti Y.: Shear rate in stirred tank and bubble column bioreactors. Chem. Eng. J. 124(2006), 1.

[24] Legrand J., Dumont E., Comiti J., Fayolle F.: Diffusion coefficients of ferricyanide ions in polymeric solutions - comparison of different experimental methods. Electrochim. Acta 45(2000), 11, 1791-1803.

[25] Dumont E., Fayolle F., Legrand J.: Flow regimes and wall shear rates determination within a scraped surface heat exchanger. J. Food Eng. 45(2000), 4, 195-207.

[26] Dumont E., Fayolle F., Sobolik V., Legrand J.: Wall shear rate in the Taylor- Couette-Poiseuille flow at low axial Reynolds number. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 45(2002), 3, 679-689.

[27] Rosant J.M.: Liquid-wall shear stress in stratified liquid/gas flow. J. Appl. Electrochem. 24(1994), 7, 612-618.

[28] Fulton B., Redwood J., Tourais M. and Bérubé P.R.: Distribution of Surface Shear Forces and Bubble Characteristics in Full-Scale Gas Sparged Submerged Hollow Fiber Membrane Modules, Desalination, 2011, 281, 128-141.

[29] Bentzen T.R., Ratkovich N., Rasmussen M.R., Heinen N., Hansen F.: Energy efficient aeration in a single low pressure hollow sheet membrane filtration module. G W F - Wasser, Abwasser 152(2011), 104-107.

[30] Kulkarni A.V., Roy S.S., Joshi J.B.: Pressure and flow distribution in pipe and ring spargers: Experimental measurements and CFD simulation. Chem. Eng. J. 133(2007) 1-3, 173-186.

[31] Taha T., Cui Z.F.: Hydrodynamic analysis of upward slug flow in tubular membranes. Desalination 145(2002), 1-3, 179-182.

[32] Ratkovich N., Hunze M., Nopens I.: Hydrodynamic study of a Hollow Fiber membrane system using experimental and numerical derived surface shear stresses. Multiphase Science and Technology (in press).

[33] Argyrous G.: Statistics for Research: With a Guide to SPSS, 2nd edn, Sage, London 2005.

Archives of Thermodynamics

The Journal of Committee on Thermodynamics and Combustion of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.319
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.598

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 223 223 14
PDF Downloads 56 56 4