Your web browser is out of date.

Update your browser for better security, speed and to get the best experience on this website.

Update your browser
Blue foot membranes july 2021 936x520

Recalcitrant micropollutants and MBRs

Posted on

Unless they’ve spent the last 1015 years living in a cupboard, pretty much anyone working in municipal wastewater will at least be aware of the issue of micropollutants: trace quantities of anthropogenic materials which are onerous to the environment.

Various impacts from different organic compounds or trace metals have been identified, the most eye-catching being the endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) which can apparently cause fish to change gender. Whilst incurring an impact even at exceedingly low concentrations (tens of nanograms per litre), EDCs appear to be well removed by advanced wastewater treatment processes such as MBRs.

Improved removal of micropollutants?

MBRs are often mooted as offering a means for improved removal of micropollutants, as indicated in Faisal Hai’s excellent article on the subject. Because of the increased solids retention time and concentration, MBRs provide more intensive biotreatment than a conventional activated sludge process.

However, there are some trace compounds which are simply not conducive to biotreatment at all, and it is such materials which cause the biggest headache. Not the least of these, certainly in the UK but probably elsewhere as well, is metaldehyde.

Metaldehyde is an active constituent of slug pellets. It is not particularly biodegradable, and activated carbon capacities for the compound are not especially high either. Available treatment options thus appear to be limited to advanced oxidation, which seems to be reasonably effective provided the UV transmittance of the water is sufficiently high. This then would imply that upstream clarification using a membrane process and/or GAC removal of the residual organics might be required in any case. A recently-published cost analysis suggests that the total treatment costs for achieving around 80% removal of the compound would be in the region of 4060 p/m3 an astronomical sum of money with an appreciable carbon footprint associated with it.

So, what next for these particularly recalcitrant residuals? There is perhaps a reasonable case for setting a limit to the allowable carbon footprint for a wastewater treatment works, since it is presumably no more desirable to punch ever larger holes in the ozone layer than it is to discharge microscopic residues of pesticides into water courses. Time, and legislation, will tell.

Comments

All comments are moderated and may be edited or deleted at any time. You must not post anything that is defamatory, illegal, offensive or which contravenes our privacy policy guidelines. Email addresses are only used for comments purposes. Contact info@thembrsite.com to remove or edit a comment.

About this page

This page was last updated on 08 June 2021

Disclaimer

Information on this page may have been supplied by third parties. You are reminded to contact any third parties to confirm information is accurate, up to date and complete before acting upon it. TheMBRSite.com accepts no liability for information provided by third parties, actions taken on the basis of this information or information held on third-party websites.