1. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China 2. Department of Water Pollution Control Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China 3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
• The membrane bioreactor cost decreased by 38.2% by decreasing HRT from 72 h to 36 h.
• Capital and operation costs contributed 62.1% and 37.9% to decreased costs.
• The membrane bioreactor is 32.6% cheaper than the oxidation ditch for treatment.
• The effluent COD also improved from 709.93±62.75 mg/L to 280±17.32 mg/L.
• Further treatment also benefited from lower pretreatment investment.
A cost sensitivity analysis was performed for an industrial membrane bioreactor to quantify the effects of hydraulic retention times and related operational parameters on cost. Different hydraulic retention times (72–24 h) were subjected to a flat-sheet membrane bioreactor updated from an existing 72 h oxidation ditch treating antibiotic production wastewater. Field experimental data from the membrane bioreactor, both full-scale (500 m3/d) and pilot (1.0 m3/d), were used to calculate the net present value (NPV), incorporating both capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure. The results showed that the tank cost was estimated above membrane cost in the membrane bioreactor. The decreased hydraulic retention time from 72 to 36 h reduced the NPV by 38.2%, where capital expenditure contributed 24.2% more than operational expenditure. Tank construction cost was decisive in determining the net present value contributed 62.1% to the capital expenditure. The membrane bioreactor has the advantage of a longer lifespan flat-sheet membrane, while flux decline was tolerable. The antibiotics decreased to 1.87±0.33 mg/L in the MBR effluent. The upgrade to the membrane bioreactor also benefited further treatments by 10.1%–44.7% lower direct investment.
MBR treating antibiotic wastewater at different HRT
HRT 72
HRT 36
HRT
h
72
36
NPV
€
791181
489252
Total CAPEX
€
435289
247798
Screens
%
0.5
0.7
Membranes
%
29.3
44.7
Tank construction
%
60.4
46.0
Biology blowers
%
0.5
0.6
Membrane blowers
%
0.8
1.1
Permeate pumps
%
0.2
0.3
Mixing equipment
%
7.6
5.8
Total OPEX
€/a
29462
19096
Energy
%
57.3
70.8
Sludge treatment and disposal
%
41.5
27.4
Chemicals
%
1.2
1.9
Tab.2
Fig.3
Fig.4
Process
HRT (h)
MLSS (g/L)
Effluents (mg/L)
Investigation* (€)
pH
COD
NH4+-N
spiramycin
New spiramycin
MBR
36
3.82±0.01
6.68±0.17
280±17.32
11.29±0.85
1.25±0.33
0.62±0.14
318500
OD
72
1.61–2.76
6.55±0.63
709.93±62.75
40.13±9.00
1.21±0.51
0.60±0.29
472600
Tab.3
Fig.5
No.
Item
Treatment for discharging
Treatment for reuse
An-OD
An-MBR
An-OD-PAC-NF
An-MBR-NF
1
Land use (m2)
394225
153510
440280
390705
2
Tank Construction
39425
15350
50170
39070
3
Equipment
–
83650
240000
240000
4
Membrane
78845
30705
91125
78140
5
Other
394225
153510
440280
390705
6
Total Cost
512490
283215
821570
747915
Tab.4
1
M Arnell, S Astals, L Åmand, D J Batstone, P D Jensen, U Jeppsson (2016). Modelling anaerobic co-digestion in Benchmark Simulation Model No. 2: Parameter estimation, substrate characterisation and plant-wide integration. Water Research, 98(4): 138–146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.070
2
M Bayat, M R Mehrnia, N Mostoufi, M R Hamaneh (2015). Investigating wastewater treatment in MBRs using computational fluid dynamics. Journal of Environmental Studies (Northborough, Mass.), 41(1): 1–12
3
C Brepols, H Schäfer, N Engelhardt (2010). Considerations on the design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Science and Technology, 61(10): 2461–2468 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.179
4
W W Cai, Y Liu (2016). Enhanced membrane biofouling potential by on-line chemical cleaning in membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science, 511(3): 84–91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.03.039
5
L de Temmerman, T Maere, H Temmink, A Zwijnenburg, I Nopens (2015). The effect of fine bubble aeration intensity onmembrane bioreactor sludge characteristics and fouling. Water Research, 76(2): 99–109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.057
6
S Fazal, B Zhang, Z Zhong, L Gao, X Chen (2015). Industrial wastewater treatment by using MBR (membrane bioreactor) review study. Journal of Environmental Protection, 06(06): 584–598 https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.66053
7
J Ferrer, R Pretel, F Durán, J B Giménez, A Robles, M V Ruano, J Serralta, J Ribes, A Seco (2015). Design methodology for submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR): A case study. Separation and Purification Technology, 141(12): 378–386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2014.12.018
8
F A Fraga, H A García, C M Hooijmans, D Míguez, D Brdjanovic (2017). Evaluation of a membrane bioreactor on dairy wastewater treatment and reuse in Uruguay. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 119(3): 552–564 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.11.025
9
X Garcia, D Pargament (2015). Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: Economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101(8): 154–166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.015
10
J Gouveia, F Plaza, G Garralon, F Fdz-Polanco, M Peña (2015). Long-term operation of a pilot scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) for the treatment of municipal wastewater under psychrophilic conditions. Bioresource Technology, 185(3): 225–233 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.002
11
Q Jiang, H H Ngo, L D Nghiem, F I Hai, W E Price, J Zhang, S Liang, L Deng, W Guo (2018). Effect of hydraulic retention time on the performance of a hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor system for micropollutants removal from municipal wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 247(3): 1228–1232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.114
P Krzeminski, L Leverette, S Malamis, E Katsou (2017). Membrane bioreactors: A review on recent developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel configurations, LCA and market prospects. Journal of Membrane Science, 527(12): 207–227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.010
14
J Liao, C X Liu, L Liu, J Li, H Y Fan, J Q Ye, Z C Zeng (2019). Influence of hydraulic retention time on behavior of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in aerobic granular reactor treating biogas slurry. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 13(3): 31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1115-6
15
C Liu, S W Ali, L B Guan, F B Yu, S P Li, M H Wong (2012). Biotreatment of o-nitrobenzaldehyde manufacturing wastewater and changes in activated sludge flocs in a sequencing batch reactor. Bioresource Technology, 104(3): 228–234 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.025
16
C H Lo, E McAdam, S Judd (2015). The cost of a small membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology, 72(10): 1739–1746 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.394
17
T Maere, B Verrecht, S Moerenhout, S Judd, I Nopens (2011). BSM-MBR: A benchmark simulation model to compare control and operational strategies for membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 45(6): 2181–2190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.01.006
18
M Maurer (2009). Specific net present value: An improved method for assessing modularisation costs in water services with growing demand. Water Research, 43(8): 2121–2130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.02.008
19
F G Meng, S Zhang, Y Oh, Z Zhou, H S Shin, S R Chae (2017). Fouling in membrane bioreactors: An updated review. Water Research, 114(1): 151–180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.006
20
Y Mortezaei, T Amani, S Elyasi (2018). High-rate anaerobic digestion of yogurt wastewater in a hybrid EGSB and fixed-bed reactor: Optimizing through response surface methodology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 113(11): 255–263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.10.012
21
C Nicolaidis, I Vyrides (2014). Closing the water cycle for industrial laundries: An operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactor system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 92(2): 128–135 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.09.001
22
C Prasse, D Stalter, U Schulte-Oehlmann, J Oehlmann, T A Ternes (2015). Spoilt for choice: A critical review on the chemical and biological assessment of current wastewater treatment technologies. Water Research, 87(9): 237–270 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.023
23
R Pretel, B D Shoener, J Ferrer, J S Guest (2015). Navigating environmental, economic, and technological trade-offs in the design and operation of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs). Water Research, 87(3): 531–541 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.002
24
L Rizzo, A Fiorentino, A Anselmo (2013). Advanced treatment of urban wastewater by UV radiation: Effect on antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant E. coli strains. Chemosphere, 92(2): 171–176 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.03.021
25
J A Sánchez Pérez, I M Román Sánchez, I Carra, A Cabrera Reina, J L Casas López, S Malato (2013). Economic evaluation of a combined photo-Fenton/MBR process using pesticides as model pollutant. Factors affecting costs. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 244–245(9): 195–203 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.11.015
26
X Shi, K Y Leong, H Y Ng (2017). Anaerobic treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 245(8): 1238–1244 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.150
27
S Sirianuntapiboon, M Kongchum, W Jitmaikasem (2006). Effects of hydraulic retention time and media of constructed wetland for treatment of domestic wastewater. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 245(1): 27–37
28
J H Tay, J L Zeng, D D Sun (2003). Effects of hydraulic retention time on system performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor. Separation Science and Technology, 38(4): 851–868 https://doi.org/10.1081/SS-120017630
29
B Verrecht, S Judd, G Guglielmi, C Brepols, J W Mulder (2008). An aeration energy model for an immersed membrane bioreactor. Water Research, 42(19): 4761–4770 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.09.013
30
B Verrecht, T Maere, I Nopens, C Brepols, S Judd (2010). The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Research, 44(18): 5274–5283 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.054
31
H Wang, Y Tao, D Gao, G Liu, C Chen, N Q Ren, J B van Lier, M de Kreuk (2015a). Microbial population dynamics in response to increasing loadings of pre-hydrolyzed pig manure in an expanded granular sludge bed. Water Research, 87(3): 29–37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.008
32
H C Wang, D Cui, J L Han, H Y Cheng, W Z Liu, Y Z Peng, Z B Chen, A J Wang (2019). A2O-MBR as an efficient and profitable unconventional water treatment and reuse technology: A practical study in a green building residential community. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150(4): 104418 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104418
33
J X Wang, K Li, Y S Wei, Y T Cheng, D Wei, M Li (2015b). Performance and fate of organics in a pilot MBR-NF for treating antibiotic production wastewater with recycling NF concentrate. Chemosphere, 121(12): 92–100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.11.034
34
J X Wang, Y S Wei, Y T Cheng (2014a). Advanced treatment of antibiotic wastewater by nano-filtration: Membrane selection and operation optimization. Desalination and Water Treatment, 52(40–42): 7575–7585 https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.833868
35
J X Wang, Y S Wei, K Li, Y T Cheng, M Li, J Xu (2014b). Fate of organic pollutants in a pilot-scale membrane bioreactor-nanofiltration membrane system at high water yield in antibiotic wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology, 69(4): 876–881 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.789
36
Z Xing, D Sun, X Yua (2010). Treatment of antibiotic fermentation wastewater using the combined polyferric sulfate coagulation with fenton-like oxidation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 29(1): 42–51
37
J Xiong, D Fu, R P P Singh (2014). Self-adaptive dynamic membrane module with a high flux and stable operation for the municipal wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 471(8): 308–318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.08.001
38
X X Yan, K Xiao, S Liang, T Lei, P Liang, T Xue, K C Yu, J Guan, X Huang (2015). Hydraulic optimization of membrane bioreactor via baffle modification using computational fluid dynamics. Bioresource Technology, 175(9): 633–637 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.133
39
L Yang, Q X Wen, Z Q Chen, R Duan, P Yang. (2019). Impacts of advanced treatment processes on elimination of antibiotic resistance genes in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 13(3): 32 doi:10.1007/s11783-019-1116-5
40
K M Yenkie, W Z Wu, R L Clark, B F Pfleger, T W Root, C T Maravelias (2016). A roadmap for the synthesis of separation networks for the recovery of bio-based chemicals: Matching biological and process feasibility. Biotechnology Advances, 34(8): 1362–1383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.10.003
41
B Yu, G D Zheng, X D Wang, M Wang, T B Chen (2019). Biodegradation of triclosan and triclocarban in sewage sludge during composting under three ventilation strategies. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 13(3): 41 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1125-4
42
D W Yu, Y T Chen, Y S Wei, J X Wang, Y W Wang, K Li (2017). Fouling analysis of membrane bioreactor treating antibiotic production wastewater at different hydraulic retention times. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 24(10): 9026–9035 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5751-5
43
X Zheng, Z X Zhang, D W Yu, X Chen, R Cheng, S Min, J Q Wang, Q C Xiao, J H Wang (2015). Overview of membrane technology applications for industrial wastewater treatment in China to increase water supply. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105(9): 1–10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.09.012
