The authors consider cost information from installations across Spain, and compare this with corresponding information for the more conventional activated sludge (CAS) technologies. The CAPEX and OPEX − capital and operating expenditure − information was used to generate cost curves as a function of flow capacity or population equivalent (p.e.) for both technology types.
MBR membranes are prone to fouling generally, and biofouling in particular, by organic matter originating from the microbial cells. These biofoulants vary in concentration with the activated sludge characteristics, such as the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration and solids retention time (SRT) (and so the food/microorganism (F/M) ratio), as well as the feedwater chemistry.
Although a number of studies have compared the MBR system performance with that of the conventional or classical activated sludge (CAS) process in treating municipal wastewater, none have attempted a simultaneous comparison of their environmental, techno-economic and social acceptance aspects.
Feasibility, optimisation and costs | Alternative membrane technologies and applications
MBRs use more energy compared with classical activated sludge (CAS) because the aeration requirements are greater. Aeration is needed both for the biological and membrane tanks for degrading the organics and scouring the membrane respectively. Typically, aeration energy consumption accounts for 70–80% of total energy used for the municipal wastewater treatment process, with 40–60% consumed by the process biology.
Membrane operation | Process biology | Feasibility, optimisation and costs
A study carried out by Andrade and co-authors assessed the viability of a two-stage membrane bioreactor−nanofiltration scheme (MBR−NF) for treating dairy wastewater. Of key concern was the quality of the treated water with respect to its potential reuse and the overall cost of the scheme.
Feasibility, optimisation and costs | Pre-treatment and post-treatment | Water quality and treatability
China features many of the largest municipal wastewater MBRs in the world. Apart from their capacity, some also are ambitious in their construction. The below-ground installation at Kunming City, commissioned in 2012, is one such example. At an ADF (average daily flow) capacity of 150,000 m3/d and a peak daily flow of 195,000 m3/d, it is a substantial plant.
Membrane operation | Feasibility, optimisation and costs | Pre-treatment and post-treatment | Water quality and treatability
