Effects of hydraulic retention time on net present value and performance in a membrane bioreactor treating antibiotic production wastewater

Highlights

• 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.

Abstract

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.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Antibiotic production wastewater / Net present value / Membrane bioreactor / Hydraulic retention time / Pollutant removal

References

[1] Arnell M, Astals S, Åmand L, Batstone D J, Jensen P D, Jeppsson U (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

[2] Bayat M, Mehrnia M R, Mostoufi N, Hamaneh M R (2015). Investigating wastewater treatment in MBRs using computational fluid dynamics. Journal of Environmental Studies (Northborough, Mass.), 41(1): 1–12

[3] Brepols C, Schäfer H, Engelhardt N (2010). Considerations on the design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Science and Technology, 61(10): 2461–2468

[4] Cai W W, Liu Y (2016). Enhanced membrane biofouling potential by on-line chemical cleaning in membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science, 511(3): 84–91

[5] de Temmerman L, Maere T, Temmink H, Zwijnenburg A, Nopens I (2015). The effect of fine bubble aeration intensity onmembrane bioreactor sludge characteristics and fouling. Water Research, 76(2): 99–109

[6] Fazal S, Zhang B, Zhong Z, Gao L, Chen X (2015). Industrial wastewater treatment by using MBR (membrane bioreactor) review study. Journal of Environmental Protection, 06(06): 584–598

[7] Ferrer J, Pretel R, Durán F, Giménez J B, Robles A, Ruano M V, Serralta J, Ribes J, Seco A (2015). Design methodology for submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR): A case study. Separation and Purification Technology, 141(12): 378–386

[8] Fraga F A, García H A, Hooijmans C M, Míguez D, Brdjanovic D (2017). Evaluation of a membrane bioreactor on dairy wastewater treatment and reuse in Uruguay. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 119(3): 552–564

[9] Garcia X, Pargament D (2015). Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: Economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101(8): 154–166

[10] Gouveia J, Plaza F, Garralon G, Fdz-Polanco F, Peña M (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

[11] Jiang Q, Ngo H H, Nghiem L D, Hai F I, Price W E, Zhang J, Liang S, Deng L, Guo W (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

[12] Judd S J (2017). Membrane technology costs and me. Water Research, 122(10): 1–9

[13] Krzeminski P, Leverette L, Malamis S, Katsou E (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

[14] Liao J, Liu C X, Liu L, Li J, Fan H Y, Ye J Q, Zeng Z C (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

[15] Liu C, Ali S W, Guan L B, Yu F B, Li S P, Wong M H (2012). Biotreatment of o-nitrobenzaldehyde manufacturing wastewater and changes in activated sludge flocs in a sequencing batch reactor. Bioresource Technology, 104(3): 228–234

[16] Lo C H, McAdam E, Judd S (2015). The cost of a small membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology, 72(10): 1739–1746

[17] Maere T, Verrecht B, Moerenhout S, Judd S, Nopens I (2011). BSM-MBR: A benchmark simulation model to compare control and operational strategies for membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 45(6): 2181–2190

[18] Maurer M (2009). Specific net present value: An improved method for assessing modularisation costs in water services with growing demand. Water Research, 43(8): 2121–2130

[19] Meng F G, Zhang S, Oh Y, Zhou Z, Shin H S, Chae S R (2017). Fouling in membrane bioreactors: An updated review. Water Research, 114(1): 151–180

[20] Mortezaei Y, Amani T, Elyasi S (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

[21] Nicolaidis C, Vyrides I (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

[22] Prasse C, Stalter D, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Oehlmann J, Ternes T A (2015). Spoilt for choice: A critical review on the chemical and biological assessment of current wastewater treatment technologies. Water Research, 87(9): 237–270

[23] Pretel R, Shoener B D, Ferrer J, Guest J S (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

[24] Rizzo L, Fiorentino A, Anselmo A (2013). Advanced treatment of urban wastewater by UV radiation: Effect on antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant E. coli strains. Chemosphere, 92(2): 171–176

[25] Sánchez Pérez J A, Román Sánchez I M, Carra I, Cabrera Reina A, Casas López J L, Malato S (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

[26] Shi X, Leong K Y, Ng H Y (2017). Anaerobic treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 245(8): 1238–1244

[27] Sirianuntapiboon S, Kongchum M, Jitmaikasem W (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] Tay J H, Zeng J L, Sun D D (2003). Effects of hydraulic retention time on system performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor. Separation Science and Technology, 38(4): 851–868

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

[30] Verrecht B, Maere T, Nopens I, Brepols C, Judd S (2010). The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Research, 44(18): 5274–5283

[31] Wang H, Tao Y, Gao D, Liu G, Chen C, Ren N Q, van Lier J B, de Kreuk M (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

[32] Wang H C, Cui D, Han J L, Cheng H Y, Liu W Z, Peng Y Z, Chen Z B, Wang A J (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

[33] Wang J X, Li K, Wei Y S, Cheng Y T, Wei D, Li M (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

[34] Wang J X, Wei Y S, Cheng Y T (2014a). Advanced treatment of antibiotic wastewater by nano-filtration: Membrane selection and operation optimization. Desalination and Water Treatment, 52(40–42): 7575–7585

[35] Wang J X, Wei Y S, Li K, Cheng Y T, Li M, Xu J (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

[36] Xing Z, Sun D, Yua X (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] Xiong J, Fu D, Singh R P P (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

[38] Yan X X, Xiao K, Liang S, Lei T, Liang P, Xue T, Yu K C, Guan J, Huang X (2015). Hydraulic optimization of membrane bioreactor via baffle modification using computational fluid dynamics. Bioresource Technology, 175(9): 633–637

[39] Yang L, Wen Q X, Chen Z Q,Duan R, Yang P. (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] Yenkie K M, Wu W Z, Clark R L, Pfleger B F, Root T W, Maravelias C T (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

[41] Yu B, Zheng G D, Wang X D, Wang M, Chen T B (2019). Biodegradation of triclosan and triclocarban in sewage sludge during composting under three ventilation strategies. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 13(3): 41

[42] Yu D W, Chen Y T, Wei Y S, Wang J X, Wang Y W, Li K (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

[43] Zheng X, Zhang Z X, Yu D W, Chen X, Cheng R, Min S, Wang J Q, Xiao Q C, Wang J H (2015). Overview of membrane technology applications for industrial wastewater treatment in China to increase water supply. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105(9): 1–10

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFD0501405), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 21677161), and Major Science & Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment of China (Nos. 2017ZX07102-002 and 2018ZX07105-001).

Electronic Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1280-7 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2020 Higher Education Press