Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (4) : 50    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1131-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Aggravation of membrane fouling and methane leakage by a three-phase separator in an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor
Chao Pang1,2, Chunhua He1,2, Zhenhu Hu1,2, Shoujun Yuan1,2, Wei Wang1,2()
1. Department of Municipal Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China
2. Key Laboratory of Urban Pollutant Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230009, China
 Download: PDF(1149 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The existence of three-phase separator did not affect COD removal in the EAnCMBR.

The existence of three-phase separator aggravated methane leakage of EAnCMBR.

The existence of three-phase separator aggravated membrane fouling rate of EAnCMBR.

Start-up of EAnCMBR equipped three-phase separator was slightly delayed.

The three-phase separator is a critical component of high-rate anaerobic bioreactors due to its significant contribution in separation of biomass, wastewater, and biogas. However, its role in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor is still not clear. In this study, the distinction between an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor (EAnCMBR) unequipped (R1) and equipped (R2) with a three-phase separator was investigated in terms of treatment performance, membrane fouling, extracellular polymers of sludge, and microbial community structure. The results indicate that the COD removal efficiencies of R1 and R2 were 98.2%±0.4% and 98.1%±0.4%, respectively, but the start-up period of R2 was slightly delayed. Moreover, the membrane fouling rate of R2 (0.4 kPa/d) was higher than that of R1 (0.2 kPa/d). Interestingly, the methane leakage from R2 (0.1 L/d) was 20 times higher than that from R1 (0.005 L/d). The results demonstrate that the three-phase separator aggravated the membrane fouling rate and methane leakage in the EAnCMBR. Therefore, this study provides a novel perspective on the effects of a three-phase separator in an EAnCMBR.
Keywords Anaerobic membrane bioreactor      Three-phase separator      Membrane fouling      Methane leakage      Sludge property     
Corresponding Author(s): Wei Wang   
Issue Date: 26 April 2019
 Cite this article:   
Chao Pang,Chunhua He,Zhenhu Hu, et al. Aggravation of membrane fouling and methane leakage by a three-phase separator in an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 50.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-019-1131-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2019/V13/I4/50
Fig.1  Schematic diagram of R1 (left) and R2 (right).
Fig.2  Effects of a three-phase separator on treatment performance (a) COD removal, (b) VFAs.
Fig.3  Effects of a three-phase separator on TMP changes.
Fig.4  Effects of a three-phase separator on PSD.
Reactor SMP EPS
Protein Polysaccharide (mg/g VSS) P/C Protein Polysaccharide (mg/g VSS) P/C
(mg/g VSS) (mg/g VSS)
R1 4.2±0.0 4.4±0.3 1.1 26.0±0.5 7.9±0.2 3.3
R2 3.8±0.4 2.9±0.3 1.3 46.1±0.4 13.7±0.1 3.4
Tab.1  SMP and EPS compositions in the bulk sludge
Fig.5  Effects of a three-phase separator on methane collection.
Reactor SMA
SMA-acetate
mL CH4/(g VSS·d)		 SMA-H2
mL CH4/(g VSS·d)
R1 227.2±35.2 214.4±9.6
R2 179.9±43.8 220.1±9.8
Tab.2  SMA-acetate and SMA-H2 of sludge
Fig.6  Archaea community structure at genus level in the reactors. “Others” represents all classified taxa that are below 1% in all samples.
1 LAo, W J Liu, Y Qiao, C PLi, X MWang (2018). Comparison of membrane fouling in ultrafiltration of down-flow and up-flow biological activated carbon effluents. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 12(6): 9
2 APHA (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed. Washington DC, USA: America Public Health Association
3 DBuntner, A Sanchez, J MGarrido (2013). Feasibility of combined UASB and MBR system in dairy wastewater treatment at ambient temperatures. Chemical Engineering Journal, 230: 475–481
4 M YChen, D J Lee, J H Tay (2006). Extracellular polymeric substances in fouling layer. Separation Science and Technology, 41(7): 1467–1474
5 RChen, Y Nie, YHu, RMiao, T Utashiro, QLi, MXu, Y Y Li (2017a). Fouling behaviour of soluble microbial products and extracellular polymeric substances in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating low-strength wastewater at room temperature. Journal of Membrane Science, 531: 1–9
6 XChen, G Li, HLin, YLi, Y Ma, RDai, JZhang (2017b). Operation performance and membrane fouling of a spiral symmetry stream anaerobic membrane bioreactor supplemented with biogas aeration. Journal of Membrane Science, 539: 206–212
7 Y LChen, B Rossler, SZielonka, ALemmer, A MWonneberger, TJungbluth (2014). The pressure effects on two-phase anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 116: 409–415
8 Z BChen, T T Xiao, D X Hu, J Xu, XLi, F QJia, H XWang, F GGu, H YSu, YZhang (2018a). The performance and membrane fouling rate of a pilot-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor for treating antibiotic solvent wastewater under different cross flow velocity. Water Research, 135(1): 288–301
9 Z WChen, J Q Luo, X F Hang, Y H Wan (2018b). Physicochemical characterization of tight nanofiltration membranes for dairy wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 547: 51–63
10 H PChu, X Y Li (2005). Membrane fouling in a membrane bioreactor (MBR): Sludge cake formation and fouling characteristics. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 90(3): 323–331
11 B CCrone, J L Garland, G A Sorial, L M Vane (2016). Significance of dissolved methane in effluents of anaerobically treated low strength wastewater and potential for recovery as an energy product: A review. Water Research, 104: 520–531
12 D LDu, C Y Zhang, K X Zhao, G R Sun, S Q Zou, L M Yuan, S L He (2018). Effect of different carbon sources on performance of an A2N-MBR process and its microbial community structure. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 12(2): 4
13 M EErsahin, H Ozgun, YTao, J Bvan Lier (2014). Applicability of dynamic membrane technology in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 48: 420–429
14 M EErsahin, Y Tao, HOzgun, J BGimenez, HSpanjers, J Bvan Lier (2017). Impact of anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor configuration on treatment and filterability performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 526: 387–394
15 M MGhangrekar, S RAsolekar, S GJoshi (2005). Characteristics of sludge developed under different loading conditions during UASB reactor start-up and granulation. Water Research, 39(6): 1123–1133
16 THori, S Haruta, YUeno, MIshii, YIgarashi (2006). Dynamic transition of a methanogenic population in response to the concentration of volatile fatty acids in a thermophilic anaerobic digester. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(2): 1623–1630
17 ZHuang, S L Ong, H Y Ng (2011). Submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor for low-strength wastewater treatment: Effect of HRT and SRT on treatment performance and membrane fouling. Water Research, 45(2): 705–713
18 OInce, G K Anderson, B Kasapgil (1995). Control of organic loading rate using the specific methanogenic activity test during start-up of an anaerobic digestion system. Water Research, 29(1): 349–355
19 WLee, S Kang, HShin (2003). Sludge characteristics and their contribution to microfiltration in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 216(1–2): 217–227
20 ALemmer, Y Chen, JLindner, A MWonneberger, SZielonka, HOechsner, TJungbluth (2015). Influence of different substrates on the performance of a two-stage high pressure anaerobic digestion system. Bioresource Technology, 178: 313–318
21 YLi, H Liu, FYan, DSu, Y Wang, HZhou (2017). High-calorific biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste using a two-phase pressurized biofilm (TPPB) system. Bioresource Technology, 224: 56–62
22 YLi, Y M Sun, L H Li, Z H Yuan (2018). Acclimation of acid-tolerant methanogenic propionate-utilizing culture and microbial community dissecting. Bioresource Technology, 250: 117–123
23 B QLiao, J T Kraemer, D M Bagley (2006). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Applications and research directions. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 36(6): 489–530
24 IMartin Garcia, MMokosch, ASoares, MPidou, BJefferson (2013). Impact on reactor configuration on the performance of anaerobic MBRs: Treatment of settled sewage in temperate climates. Water Research, 47(14): 4853–4860
25 FMeng, H Zhang, FYang, SZhang, YLi, X Zhang (2006). Identification of activated sludge properties affecting membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors. Separation and Purification Technology, 51(1): 95–103
26 UMetzger, P Le-Clech, R MStuetz, F HFrimmel, VChen (2007). Characterisation of polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of different filtration modes. Journal of Membrane Science, 301(1–2): 180–189
27 K KNg, X Shi, H YNg (2015). Evaluation of system performance and microbial communities of a bioaugmented anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating pharmaceutical wastewater. Water Research, 81: 311–324
28 HOzgun, Y Tao, M EErsahin, ZZhou, J B Gimenez, H Spanjers, J Bvan Lier (2015). Impact of temperature on feed-flow characteristics and filtration performance of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket coupled ultrafiltration membrane treating municipal wastewater. Water Research, 83: 71–83
29 S IPadmasiri, JZhang, MFitch, BNorddahl, EMorgenroth, LRaskin (2007). Methanogenic population dynamics and performance of an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) treating swine manure under high shear conditions. Water Research, 41(1): 134–144
30 BRincon, F Raposo, RBorja, J MGonzalez, M CPortillo, CSaiz-Jimenez (2006). Performance and microbial communities of a continuous stirred tank anaerobic reactor treating two-phases olive mill solid wastes at low organic loading rates. Journal of Biotechnology, 121(4): 534–543
31 IRuigomez, E Gonzalez, SGuerra, L ERodriguez-Gomez, LVera (2017). Evaluation of a novel physical cleaning strategy based on HF membrane rotation during the backwashing/relaxation phases for anaerobic submerged MBR. Journal of Membrane Science, 526: 181–190
32 A LSmith, S J Skerlos, L Raskin (2013). Psychrophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater. Water Research, 47(4): 1655–1665
33 WWang, S Wang, XRen, ZHu, S Yuan (2017a). Rapid establishment of phenol- and quinoline-degrading consortia driven by the scoured cake layer in an anaerobic baffled ceramic membrane bioreactor. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 24(33): 26125–26135
34 WWang, B Wu, SPan, KYang, Z Hu, SYuan (2017b). Performance robustness of the UASB reactors treating saline phenolic wastewater and analysis of microbial community structure. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 331: 21–27
35 TXia, X Gao, CWang, XXu, L Zhu (2016). An enhanced anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating bamboo industry wastewater by bamboo charcoal addition: Performance and microbial community analysis. Bioresource Technology, 220: 26–33
36 F CYen, T C Chang, C H Chien , S Laohaprapanon, T SNatarajan, YSheng-Jie (2016). Feasibility of combined upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-aerobic membrane bioreactor system in treating purified terephthalic acid wastewater and polyimide membrane for biogas purification. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 4(4): 4113–4119
37 JZhang, H C Chua, J Zhou, A GFane (2006). Factors affecting the membrane performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 284(1–2): 54–66
[1] Supplementary Material 1 Download
[1] Danyang Liu, Johny Cabrera, Lijuan Zhong, Wenjing Wang, Dingyuan Duan, Xiaomao Wang, Shuming Liu, Yuefeng F. Xie. Using loose nanofiltration membrane for lake water treatment: A pilot study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 69-.
[2] Shuo Wei, Lei Du, Shuo Chen, Hongtao Yu, Xie Quan. Electro-assisted CNTs/ceramic flat sheet ultrafiltration membrane for enhanced antifouling and separation performance[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 11-.
[3] An Ding, Yingxue Zhao, Huu Hao Ngo, Langming Bai, Guibai Li, Heng Liang, Nanqi Ren, Jun Nan. Metabolic uncoupler, 3,3′,4′,5-tetrachlorosalicylanilide addition for sludge reduction and fouling control in a gravity-driven membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 96-.
[4] An Ding, Yingxue Zhao, Zhongsen Yan, Langming Bai, Haiyang Yang, Heng Liang, Guibai Li, Nanqi Ren. Co-application of energy uncoupling and ultrafiltration in sludge treatment: Evaluations of sludge reduction, supernatant recovery and membrane fouling control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 59-.
[5] Caiyun Hou, Sen Qiao, Yue Yang, Jiti Zhou. A novel sequence batch membrane carbonation photobioreactor developed for microalgae cultivation[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 92-.
[6] Xuehao Zhao, Yinhu Wu, Xue Zhang, Xin Tong, Tong Yu, Yunhong Wang, Nozomu Ikuno, Kazuki Ishii, Hongying Hu. Ozonation as an efficient pretreatment method to alleviate reverse osmosis membrane fouling caused by complexes of humic acid and calcium ion[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 55-.
[7] Nathalie Tanne, Rui Xu, Mingyue Zhou, Pan Zhang, Xiaomao Wang, Xianghua Wen. Influence of pore size and membrane surface properties on arsenic removal by nanofiltration membranes[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 19-.
[8] Guangrong Sun, Chuanyi Zhang, Wei Li, Limei Yuan, Shilong He, Liping Wang. Effect of chemical dose on phosphorus removal and membrane fouling control in a UCT-MBR[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 1-.
[9] Lu Ao, Wenjun Liu, Yang Qiao, Cuiping Li, Xiaomao Wang. Comparison of membrane fouling in ultrafiltration of down-flow and up-flow biological activated carbon effluents[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(6): 9-.
[10] Yuqin Lu, Xiao Bian, Hailong Wang, Xinhua Wang, Yueping Ren, Xiufen Li. Simultaneously recovering electricity and water from wastewater by osmotic microbial fuel cells: Performance and membrane fouling[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 5-.
[11] Yulun Nie, Xike Tian, Zhaoxin Zhou, Yu-You Li. Impact of food to microorganism ratio and alcohol ethoxylate dosage on methane production in treatment of low-strength wastewater by a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 6-.
[12] Qingbin Guo, Sheng Chang. Tetra-detector size exclusion chromatography characterization of molecular and solution properties of soluble microbial polysaccharides from an anaerobic membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 16-.
[13] Xudong WANG,Miao ZHOU,Xiaorong MENG,Lei WANG,Danxi HUANG. Effect of protein on PVDF ultrafiltration membrane fouling behavior under different pH conditions: interface adhesion force and XDLVO theory analysis[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 12-.
[14] Haiqing CHANG,Baicang LIU,Wanshen LUO,Guibai LI. Fouling mechanisms in the early stage of an enhanced coagulation-ultrafiltration process[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(1): 73-83.
[15] Xia HUANG, Kang XIAO, Yuexiao SHEN. Recent advances in membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment in China[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2010, 4(3): 245-271.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed