Aggravation of membrane fouling and methane leakage by a three-phase separator in an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor

Highlights

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.

Abstract

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.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Anaerobic membrane bioreactor / Three-phase separator / Membrane fouling / Methane leakage / Sludge property

References

[1] Ao L, Liu W J, Qiao Y, Li C P, Wang X M (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] Buntner D, Sanchez A, Garrido J M (2013). Feasibility of combined UASB and MBR system in dairy wastewater treatment at ambient temperatures. Chemical Engineering Journal, 230: 475–481

[4] Chen M Y, Lee D J, Tay J H (2006). Extracellular polymeric substances in fouling layer. Separation Science and Technology, 41(7): 1467–1474

[5] Chen R, Nie Y, Hu Y, Miao R, Utashiro T, Li Q, Xu M, Li Y Y (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] Chen X, Li G, Lin H, Li Y, Ma Y, Dai R, Zhang J (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] Chen Y L, Rossler B, Zielonka S, Lemmer A, Wonneberger A M, Jungbluth T (2014). The pressure effects on two-phase anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 116: 409–415

[8] Chen Z B, Xiao T T, Hu D X, Xu J, Li X, Jia F Q, Wang H X, Gu F G, Su H Y, Zhang Y (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] Chen Z W, Luo J Q, Hang X F, Wan Y H (2018b). Physicochemical characterization of tight nanofiltration membranes for dairy wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 547: 51–63

[10] Chu H P, Li X Y (2005). Membrane fouling in a membrane bioreactor (MBR): Sludge cake formation and fouling characteristics. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 90(3): 323–331

[11] Crone B C, Garland J L, Sorial G A, Vane L M (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] Du D L, Zhang C Y, Zhao K X, Sun G R, Zou S Q, Yuan L M, He S L (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] Ersahin M E, Ozgun H, Tao Y, van Lier J B (2014). Applicability of dynamic membrane technology in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 48: 420–429

[14] Ersahin M E, Tao Y, Ozgun H, Gimenez J B, Spanjers H, van Lier J B (2017). Impact of anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor configuration on treatment and filterability performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 526: 387–394

[15] Ghangrekar M M, Asolekar S R, Joshi S G (2005). Characteristics of sludge developed under different loading conditions during UASB reactor start-up and granulation. Water Research, 39(6): 1123–1133

[16] Hori T, Haruta S, Ueno Y, Ishii M, Igarashi Y (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] Huang Z, Ong S L, Ng H Y (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] Ince O, Anderson G K, Kasapgil B (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] Lee W, Kang S, Shin H (2003). Sludge characteristics and their contribution to microfiltration in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 216(1–2): 217–227

[20] Lemmer A, Chen Y, Lindner J, Wonneberger A M, Zielonka S, Oechsner H, Jungbluth T (2015). Influence of different substrates on the performance of a two-stage high pressure anaerobic digestion system. Bioresource Technology, 178: 313–318

[21] Li Y, Liu H, Yan F, Su D, Wang Y, Zhou H (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] Li Y, Sun Y M, Li L H, Yuan Z H (2018). Acclimation of acid-tolerant methanogenic propionate-utilizing culture and microbial community dissecting. Bioresource Technology, 250: 117–123

[23] Liao B Q, Kraemer J T, Bagley D M (2006). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Applications and research directions. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 36(6): 489–530

[24] Martin Garcia I, Mokosch M, Soares A, Pidou M, Jefferson B (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] Meng F, Zhang H, Yang F, Zhang S, Li Y, Zhang X (2006). Identification of activated sludge properties affecting membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors. Separation and Purification Technology, 51(1): 95–103

[26] Metzger U, Le-Clech P, Stuetz R M, Frimmel F H, Chen V (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] Ng K K, Shi X, Ng H Y (2015). Evaluation of system performance and microbial communities of a bioaugmented anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating pharmaceutical wastewater. Water Research, 81: 311–324

[28] Ozgun H, Tao Y, Ersahin M E, Zhou Z, Gimenez J B, Spanjers H, van Lier J B (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] Padmasiri S I, Zhang J, Fitch M, Norddahl B, Morgenroth E, Raskin L (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] Rincon B, Raposo F, Borja R, Gonzalez J M, Portillo M C, Saiz-Jimenez C (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] Ruigomez I, Gonzalez E, Guerra S, Rodriguez-Gomez L E, Vera L (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] Smith A L, Skerlos S J, Raskin L (2013). Psychrophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater. Water Research, 47(4): 1655–1665

[33] Wang W, Wang S, Ren X, Hu Z, Yuan S (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] Wang W, Wu B, Pan S, Yang K, Hu Z, Yuan S (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] Xia T, Gao X, Wang C, Xu X, Zhu L (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] Yen F C, Chang T C, Chien C H, Laohaprapanon S, Natarajan T S, Sheng-Jie Y (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] Zhang J, Chua H C, Zhou J, Fane A G (2006). Factors affecting the membrane performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 284(1–2): 54–66

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51878232), Science and technology project of Anhui provincial housing and urban rural development office (No. 2017YF-05), and CAS Key Laboratory of Urban Pollutant Conversion, University of Science and Technology of China (No. KF201702).

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1131-6 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2019 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature