Journals / Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 18

Membrane Bioreactor and Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor Performance Comparison under the Same Conditions

Membran Biyoreaktör ve Dinamik Membran Biyoreaktör Performansının Aynı Koşullarda Kıyaslanması

Pages
30–41
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For both membrane modules, offline chemicalcleaning employment with NaOCl and sulfuric acid, respectively, almost completely eliminated foulants and it was found thatchemically washed membranes showed pressure close to that of the new membrane.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims comparative evaluation of two different membrane modules, 0.45 µm and non-woven dynamic membrane, in AeMBRfor synthetic wastewater treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Filtration performances of both membrane materials were compared under same operationalconditions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For both membrane modules, offline chemicalcleaning employment with NaOCl and sulfuric acid, respectively, almost completely eliminated foulants and it was found thatchemically washed membranes showed pressure close to that of the new membrane.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims comparative evaluation of two different membrane modules, 0.45 µm and non-woven dynamic membrane, in AeMBRfor synthetic wastewater treatment. Filtration performances of both membrane materials were compared under same operationalconditions. Throughout the filtration process, 99% and 95% chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiencies were achievedrelying upon 0.45 µm and non-woven dynamic membrane, respectively. AeMBR was successfully operated at 10 LMH and no chemicalcleaning was employed for 30 days. It was perfectly operated up to 15 LMH and then 20 LMH. The turbidity and trans-membranepressure (TMP) of 0.45 µm was usually higher at the begging compared with the dynamic membrane despite membrane clogging rateswere comparable. Capillary suction time (CST), soluble microbial product (SMP), extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), specificresistance to filterability (SRF), attenuated total reflectance fourier transformed-infrared spectroscopy (ATR FT-IR) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analyzes were performed to understand the characterization of the cake deposited on membranes.16S rDNA region shown significant result in terms of air/ambient temperature change. For both membrane modules, offline chemicalcleaning employment with NaOCl and sulfuric acid, respectively, almost completely eliminated foulants and it was found thatchemically washed membranes showed pressure close to that of the new membrane.

Özet

Bu çalışma, sentetik atık su arıtımı için aerobik membran biyoreaktörde (AeMBR), 0,45 µm ve dokuma olmayan membran olmak üzere iki farklı membran modülünün karşılaştırmalı değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Her iki membran malzemesinin filtrasyon performansları aynı operasyonel şartlar altında karşılaştırılmıştır. Filtreleme işlemi boyunca, 0,45 µm ve dokuma olmayan membran olmak üzere sırasıyla %99 ve % 95 kimyasal oksijen ihtiyacı (KOİ) giderim verimleri elde edilmiştr. AeMBR, 10 LMH'de başarıyla işletilmiş ve 30 gün boyunca hiçbir şekilde kimyasal yıkama uygulanmamıştır. Reaktör, 15 LMH akıya kadar mükemmel bir şekilde işletilmi ve sonra 20 LMH’de işletime devam edilmiştir. 0.45 µm membranın bulanıklık ve trans-membran basıncı değerleri, dokuma olmayan membrana nispeten başlarda genellikle yüksek sonuçlar vermiştir. Membranlar üzerinde oluşan kek tabakasının karakteristik özelliklerini belirlemek üzere kapiler emme süresi (CST), çözünür mikrobiyal ürün (SMP), hücre dışı polimerik bileşenler (EPS), süzülmeye karşı spesifik direnç (SRF), fourier dönüşümlü kızılötesi spektroskopisi (FT-IR) ve denatüre gradyan jel elektroforezi (DGGE) aanalizleri yapılmıştır. 16S rDNA bölgesi, hava/ortam sıcaklığı değişikliği açısından önemli sonuç göstermiştir. Her iki membran modülü için, sırasıyla NaOCl ve sülfürik asit ile yapılan kimyasal temizleme istihdamı, neredeyse tamamen tıkanmaları ortadan kaldırmış ve kimyasal olarak yıkanmış membranların, yeni membranlarınkine yakın basınç gösterdiği bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

VERAL, M. A., KIZILET, A., ÇINAR, Ö. (2022). Membrane Bioreactor and Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor Performance Comparison under the Same Conditions. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 18, 30–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/457426

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. An, Y., Wang, Z., Wu, Z., Yang, D., & Zhou, Q. 2009 Characterization of Membrane Foulants in an Anaerobic Non-Woven Fabric Membrane Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatmen Chemical Engineering Journal 155(3): 709–15.
  2. Arhin, S. G., Banadda, N., Komakech, A. J., Kabenge, I., & Wanyama, J. 2016 Membrane Fouling Control in Low Pressure Membranes: A Review on Pretreatment Techniques for Fouling Abatement. Environmental Engineering Research 21(2): 109–20.
  3. Azami, Hamed, Mohammad Hossein Sarrafzadeh, and Mohammad Reza Mehrnia. 2012 Soluble Microbial Products (SMPs) Release in Activated Sludge Systems: A Review. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 9(30). Barker, Duncan J., and David C. Stuckey. 1999 A Review of Soluble Microbial Products (SMP) in Wastewater Treatment Systems. Water Research 33(14): 3063–82.
  4. Chae, So Ryong, Yong Tae Ahn, Seok Tae Kang, and Hang Sik Shin. 2006 Mitigated Membrane Fouling in a Vertical Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (VSMBR). Journal of Membrane Science 280(1–2): 572–81.
  5. Chen, G. W., W. W. Lin, and D. J. Lee. 1996 Capillary Suction Time (CST) as a Measure of Sludge Dewaterability. Water Science and Technology 34(3–4–4 pt 2): 443–48.
  6. Chen, Yuanxin, and W. S.Winston Ho. 2016 High-Molecular-Weight Polyvinylamine/Piperazine Glycinate Membranes for CO2 capture from Flue Gas. Journal of Membrane Science. Chu, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., Zhao, Y., Dong, B., & Zhang, H. 2014 Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor for Wastewater Treatment: Operation, Critical Flux, and Dynamic Membrane Structure. Journal of Membrane Science 450: 265–71.
  7. Chu, Libing, and Shuping Li. 2006 Filtration Capability and Operational Characteristics of Dynamic Membrane Bioreactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Separation and Purification Technology 51(2): 173–79.
  8. Çınar, Ö., Yaşar, S., Kertmen, M., Demiröz, K., Yigit, N. Ö., & Kitis, M. 2008 Effect of Cycle Time on Biodegradation of Azo Dye in Sequencing Batch Reactor. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 86(6): 455–60.
  9. Croue, J. P., M. F. Benedetti, D. Violleau, and J. A. Leenheer. 2003 Characterization and Copper Binding of Humic and Nonhumic Organic Matter Isolated from the South Platte River: Evidence for the Presence of Nitrogenous Binding Site. Environmental Science and Technology 37(2): 328–36.
  10. Drews, A., Vocks, M., Iversen, V., Lesjean, B., & Kraume, M. 2006 Influence of Unsteady Membrane Bioreactor Operation on EPS Formation and Filtration Resistance. Desalination 192(1–3): 1–9. Ersah