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
Advert

Anaerobic MBRs and non-potable water reuse: a good match?

Created
Updated
Schematic of AnMBR
Credit: Huang et al, 2024

Yu Huang, Paul Jeffrey and Marc Pidou

Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, UK. This feature was adapted from a review article by the authors, Huang, Y., Jeffrey, P., and Pidou, M. (2024). Municipal wastewater treatment with anaerobic membrane bioreactors for non-potable reuse: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 54(10), 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2023.2279886

1. Introduction

1.1 Water reuse

Recent years have seen major advances in regulatory frameworks at national and international levels supporting water reuse by setting quantitative limits for water quality parameters such as organics, solids, nutrients and pathogenic indicators (CNEPA, 2021; EUPC, 2020; USEPA, 2012). These standards demand more advanced purification than that attainable by conventional wastewater treatment, and has led to the widespread implementation of membrane technology − including MBRs − in indirect potable reuse (IPR) projects.

1.2 Anaerobic MBRs

Anaerobic MBRs (AnMBRs) offer a low-energy option for producing a potentially reusable product water from a wastewater feed. AnMBRs, and anaerobic processes generally, offer the advantage of reduced energy consumption (due to the avoidance of air pumping) and reduced sludge yields compared with aerobic processes. As an anaerobic process, AnMBRs generate a methane-rich biogas, the latent energy of which can offset the energy demand of wastewater treatment. They also convert nutrients to chemically-available forms such as ammonia and phosphate, facilitating nutrient recovery through, for example, precipitation and/or reuse of the nutrient-rich effluent in agriculture.

Integrating the anaerobic bioreactor with a membrane offers similar advantages to the aerobic MBR process, namely:

  • decoupling the hydraulic and solids retention times
  • reducing the overall process footprint, and
  • producing a clarified, largely disinfected and potentially reusable product water from a wastewater feed – provided the high nutrient content can be managed in the case of the anaerobic process.

The development and implementation of AnMBRs for water reuse is, as with most water process technologies, largely driven by legislation. It is therefore informative to consider the relevant water quality standards which apply to non-potable reuse (NPR).

2. NPR water quality standards

Water quality standards identify maximum allowable pollutant levels for water delivered for different uses, where uses with a higher likelihood of human contact are generally subject to more stringent control (Tables 1a−1g). Levels of indicator bacteria, invariably faecal coliforms or E Coli, are for example prescribed for uses such as toilet flushing, recreational use and irrigation in many countries. Additional protection against microbial risk is often through a stipulated chlorine residual in the delivered water, typically with a required concentration above 1mg/L. However, there is significant variation in other parameter values across the different applications (e.g. TSS, organic matter and nutrients), with nutrients appearing only in the Chinese regulations.

Sponsored Link
sponsored
SPERTA - 'Your reliable MBR membrane manufacturer' - The perfect solution for your wastewater treatment needs. Achieve better effluent quality with SPERTA >>>
Table 1a. Environmental uses, NPR
Parameter USA China Australia

[a] colony-forming unit, CFU/100 mL or most probable number, MPN/100 mL; [b] case-by-case basis; med median value; max maximum value; min minimum value

pH-6.0−9.0[b]
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤30≤10 (6)[b]
COD (mg/L)-≤40 (30)[b]
TSS (mg/L)≤30≤20 (10)[b]
Colour (colour or Hazen units)-≤30[b]
TN (mg N/L)-≤15[b]
NH3-N (mg N/L)-≤5[b]
TP (mg P/L)-≤1 (0.5)[b]
Faecal coliforms [a]≤200 (7d med) ≤800 (max)≤1000 (200)<10000 CFU/100ml
Chlorine residual (mg/L); Contact time≥1.0 (90 min)≥0.5-
Table 1b. Recreational uses, NPR
Parameter USA (restricted area) USA (unrestricted area) China Japan (unrestricted area)

nd not detectable

pH-6.0−9.06.0−9.05.8−8.6
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤30≤10≤6-
COD (mg/L)--≤30-
TSS (mg/L)≤30---
Colour (colour or Hazen units)--≤30≤10
Turbidity (NTU or mg-kaolin/L)-≤2 NTU≤5 NTU<2 mg-kaolin/L
NH3-N (mg N/L)--≤5-
TN (mg N/L)--≤15-
TP (mg P/L)--≤1 (0.5)-
Faecal coliforms [a]≤200 (7d med) ≤800 (max)nd (7d med), ≤14(max)≤50 (nd)-
E. coli [a]---nd
Chlorine residual (mg/L); Contact time≥1.0; 90min≥1.0; 90min≥0.05 >0.1 free, >0.4 combined
Table 1c. Landscape irrigation, NPR
Parameter USA (restricted area) China Japan Australia

[a] colony-forming unit, CFU/100 mL or most probable number, MPN/100 mL

pH6.0−9.06.0−9.05.8−8.6-
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤30≤20-≤20
COD (mg/L)-≤1000--
TSS (mg/L)≤30--≤30
Colour (colour or Hazen units)-≤30≤40-
Turbidity (NTU or mg-kaolin/L)-≤10 NTU≤2 mg-kaolin/L-
NH3-N (mg N/L)-≤20--
Faecal coliforms [a]-≤200--
E. coli [a]≤200 (7d med) ≤800 (max)--≤ 1000 (if not disinfected)
Total coliforms (MPN/100 mL)--≤1000 (temporary)-
TDS (mg/L)-≤1000--
Chlorine residual (mg/L); Contact time≥1.0; 90min---
Table 1d. Agriculture irrigation, NPR
Parameter USA (FCR) USA (FCP/FCN) China (farming/forestry) China (animal husbandry) Australia (FCR) Australia (FCP/FCN) EU (FCR) EU (FCP/FCN)

[a] colony-forming unit, CFU/100 mL or most probable number, [b] case-by-case basis; FCR Food crops consumed raw; FCP Food crops consumed after processing; FCN: Non-food crops; nd not detectable.

pH6.0−9.06.0−9.05.5-8.5[b]--
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤10≤30≤35≤10[b]<20≤10≤25
COD (mg/L)--≤90≤40[b]--≤125
TSS (mg/L)-≤30≤30[b]<30≤10≤35
Colour (colour or Hazen units)--≤30[b]---
Turbidity (NTU or mg-kaolin/L)--≤10 NTU[b]-≤5-
NH3-N (mg N/L)--≤10≤10[b]---
Faecal coliforms [a]nd (7d med) ≤14 (max)≤200≤10000≤2000[b]---
E. coli [a]----< 1< 100≤10 or nd≤100 (FCP, <1000 (FCN)
Chlorine residual (mg/L); Contact time≥1.0 (90min)≥1.0 (90min)----
Sponsored Link
sponsored
SPERTA - 'Your reliable MBR membrane manufacturer' - The perfect solution for your wastewater treatment needs. Achieve better effluent quality with SPERTA >>>
Table 1e. Toilet flushing, NPR
Parameters USA China Japan Australia

[a] colony-forming unit, CFU/100 mL or most probable number, [b] case-by-case basis; FCR Food crops consumed raw; FCP Food crops consumed after processing; FCN: Non-food crops; nd not detectable; pou point of use

pH6.0-9.06.0-9.05.8-8.6[b]
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤10≤10-[b]
TSS (mg/L)-≤1500-[b]
Colour (colour or Hazen units)-≤30-[b]
Turbidity (NTU or mg-kaolin/L)≤2 NTU≤5 NTU≤2 mg-kaolin/L[b]
NH3-N (mg N/L)-≤10-[b]
Faecal coliforms [a]nd (7d med) ≤14 (max)--[b]
E. coli [a]--nd< 1
Total coliforms (MPN/100 mL)-≤3--
TDS (mg/L)-≤1500--
Chlorine residual (mg/L); Contact time≥1.0; 90min≥1.0; 30min. ≥0.2 (at pou) >0.1 free, >0.4 combined-
Table 1f. Street cleaning and fire-fighting, NPR
Parameter China Japan Spain Australia

[a] colony-forming unit, CFU/100 mL or most probable number; nd not detectable

pH6.0−9.06.0−9.05.8−8.6-
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤10≤15--
TSS (mg/L)-≤1500-≤20
Colour (colour or Hazen units)-≤30--
Turbidity (NTU or mg-kaolin/L)≤2 NTU≤10 NTU≤2 mg-kaolin/L≤10 NTU
NH3-N (mg N/L)-≤10--
Faecal coliforms [a]nd (7d med) ≤14 (max)---
E. coli [a]--nd≤200
Total coliforms (MPN/100 mL)-≤3--
Table 1g. Industrial uses, NPR
Parameter USA (once-through cooling) China (cooling) China (washing) China (boiler feed) EU
pH6.0−9.06.5−8.56.5−9.06.5−8.5
BOD5 (mg O2/L)≤30≤15≤15≤15
COD (mg/L)-≤60≤60≤60
TSS (mg/L)≤30---
Colour (colour or Hazen units)-≤10≤30≤10
Turbidity (NTU or mg-kaolin/L)-≤5 NTU≤5 NTU≤5 NTU
NH3-N (mg N/L)-≤10≤10≤10
Faecal coliforms (CFU/100 mL or MPN/100 mL)≤200≤2000≤2000≤2000
E. coli (CFU/100 mL or MPN/100 mL)----
Chlorine residual (mg/L); Contact time≥1.0; 90min---

BOD5 is universally used to represent organic matter in the NPR reuse standards, the permitted limit ranging from 6 to 30mg/L (Table 2) according to the end use application; e.g. toilet flushing (Table 1e) has a lower limit than irrigation (Tables 1c and 1d). Emerging organic contaminants such as pharmaceutical residues, endocrine disruptors, and personal care product residues are poorly covered in NPR standards.

Table 2. Summary of range of permitted limits for BOD concentration
Limit Region: application

RA Restricted area; UA Unrestricted area; FCR Food crops with raw consumer; FCP Food crops consumed after processing; FCN Non-food crops; AH Animal husbandry; OC Once-through cooling; RCT Recirculation cooling towers; SMF Street maintenance and firefighting.

≤35China: Agricultural (Farming & Forestry)
≤30USA: Environmental, Recreational (RA), Landscape irrigation (RA), Agricultural (FCP & FCN), Industry (OC & RCT)
≤25EU: Agricultural (FCP & FCN), Industry
≤20China: Landscape irrigation. Australia: Landscape irrigation, Agricultural (FCP & FCN)
≤15China: SMF, Industry (cooling & washing & Boiler)
≤10USA: Recreational (UA), Toilet flushing, SMF, Agricultural (FCR). China: Environmental, Toilet flushing, Agricultural (AH). Israel: Recreational, Landscape irrigation (UA & RA), Toilet flushing (UA). Canada: Toilet flushing. EU: Agricultural (FCR)
≤6China: Environmental (lakes), Recreational

3. AnMBR research outcomes

Whilst there has been considerable research into AnMBRs for wastewater treatment generally, full-scale implementation has been largely based on the treatment of high-strength industrial effluents. Implementation for water reuse specifically has been very limited.

Assessing the suitability of the AnMBR technology for municipal wastewater NPR can be carried out by considering the individual systems studied and reported on at bench/pilot scale and the treated water quality achieved from these studies with respect to the individual determinants. The systems considered based on an exhaustive review of the research literature are listed in Table 3, with each assigned a unique code summarising the system characteristics with reference to reactor and membrane configuration, anti-fouling strategy, and other facets. For example, GS-F1 indicates an AnMBR operated with gas sparging (GS) for fouling control and a flat sheet (F) membrane module; PFPS-H1 concerns a plug flow (PF) partially stirred (PS) bioreactor with a hollow fibre (H) membrane.

Table 3. Summary of reactor and membrane characteristics in reviewed research articles
Code Reference Reactor Membrane configuration/material

Shear application GS: Gas sparging; PS: Particle sparging; RM: Rotating membrane; DM: Dynamic membrane; GL: Gas lifting; NGS: Non gas sparging

Membrane configuration F: Flat sheet; H: Hollow fibre; C: Ceramic; T: Tubular; CT: Ceramic tubular; SiCF: Silicon Carbide ceramic flat sheet

Carrier PAC: Powdered activated carbon; GACF: Granular activated carbon, fluidised

Mixing AN: AnMBR with no sparging; PFPS: Plug flow, partially stirred; CSTR: Continuously stirred tank reactor; FBR: Fluidised-bed reactor; DFF: Downflow floating media filter; UASB: Upflow anaerobic sludge bed

Solids and reactor configuration CG: Conventional granular; SG: Sponge-assisted granular; GSG: Granular sludge with gas sparging; GSF: Flocculant sludge with gas sparging; SAFMBR: Staged anaerobic fluidized MBR

AN-F1 Vyrides, et al., 2010AnMBR without spargingFlat sheet
AN-H1 Pretel et al., 2016AnMBR without spargingHollow fibre
AN-H2 Ferrari et al., 2019AnMBR without spargingHollow fibre
AN-H3 Ding et al., 2019AnMBR without spargingHollow fibre
AN-H4 Ding et al., 2019AnMBR without spargingHollow fibre
CG-H1 Chen et al., 2017Conventional granular sludgeHollow fibre
CSTR-H1 Wei et al., 2014Completely stirred tank reactorHollow fibre
DFF-T1 Seib et al., 2016Downflow floating media filterTubular
FBR-CT1 Seib et al., 2016Fluidised-bed reactorCeramic tubular
GACF-H1 Evans et al., 2019Granular activated carbon, fluidisedHollow fibre
GL-T1 Dolejs et al., 2017Gas liftingTubular
GS-C1 Song et al., 2018aGas spargingCeramic
GSDM-F1 Hu et al., 2020Gas sparged dynamic membraneFlat sheet
GS-F1 Martinez-Sosa et al., 2011Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F10 Kunacheva et al., 2017Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F11 Chen et al., 2019Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F3 Zhou et al., 2016Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F4 Thanh et al., 2017Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F5 Kunacheva et al., 2017Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F6 Trzcinski & Stuckey, 2016Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F7 Fox & Stuckey, 2015Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F8 Zhang et al., 2017Gas spargingFlat sheet
GS-F9 Xiao et al., 2017Gas spargingFlat sheet
GSF-H1 Wang et al., 2019Flocculant sludge with gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-FPAC1 Akram & Stuckey, 2008Gas sparging, with powdered activated carbonFlat sheet
GSG-H1 Wang et al., 2018Granular sludge with gas spargingHollow fibre
GSG-H2 Martin et al., 2013Granular sludge with gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H1 Giménez et al., 2011Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H3 Robles et al., 2013Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H5 Mei et al., 2018Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H6 Dong et al., 2016Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H7 Gouveia et al., 2015Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H8 Gouveia et al., 2015Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H9 Wang et al., 2019Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H10 Evans et al., 2019Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H11 Khan et al., 2019Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H12 Peña et al., 2019Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H13 Seco et al., 2018Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H14 Gu et al., 2019Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H15 Wang et al., 2018Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-H16 Martin et al., 2013Gas spargingHollow fibre
GS-SiCF1 Cho et al., 2019Gas spargingSilicon carbide flat sheet
GS-T1 Cerón-Vivas & Noyola, 2017Gas spargingTubular
NGS-T1 Cerón-Vivas & Noyola, 2017Non gas spargingTubular
PFPS-H1 Bair et al., 2015Plug flow, partially stirredHollow fibre
PS-H1 Shin et al, 2014Particle spargingHollow fibre
RM-H1 Ruigómez et al., 2016Rotating membraneHollow fibre
SAFMBR-1 Chen et al., 2019Staged anaerobic fluidized MBRHollow fibre
SGH1 Chen et al., 2017Sponge-assisted granularHollow fibre
UASB-H1 Petropoulos et al., 2019Upflow anaerobic sludge bedHollow fibre
Sponsored Link
sponsored
M|MBR Systems’ modular MBR solutions get fully functioning wastewater treatment running in weeks, not months. Learn more.

Details of the plant design and operational parameters are listed in Table 4. Table 5 provides the overall purification performance and methane yield. Whilst water reuse regulations typically target BOD5 as the organic content indicator, most research studies focusing on wastewater treatment for discharge use COD: only 16 of the 50 studies reported the effluent BOD5 concentration compared to 37 reporting COD. For the purposes of the evaluation, BOD5 values were estimated from the reported COD values assuming a BOD5/COD ratio of 0.3 (±0.1) – the mean ratio of those 16 studies where both COD and BOD5 data were available.

Table 4. AnMBR design and operating parameters of reviewed research articles
Code V, L A, m^2 HRT, h SRT, d OLR, kgCOD/m3/d T, degC Flux, L/m^2/h

V Reactor volume; A Membrane surface area; HRT hydraulic retention time; SRT Solids retention time; OLR Organic loading rate; N/A Not available

GS-F13503.5196800.85357
GS-H180030127013310
GS-H313003012701.23310
GS-H5255.42N/A3356
GS-H65505.497012317
GS-H7250.937infinite21817
GS-H82840.9313.5N/A2.251813
PS-H1176039.55361.75306
RM-H1500.9332701.751910
GS-C1200.0996215N/A352
GS-H1542.50.938N/AN/A16.310
GSG-H1150.938N/AN/A1112
GSF-H1150.938N/AN/A1112
GS-H9N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A23.5N/A
GS-H10130012.913601.320.67.6
GACF-H1990603.9111.422.57.9
PFPS-H1171413.250.41401602
CSTR-H120.0031210000.8356
DFF-T12.30.0598N/AN/A256
FBR-CT12.30.058N/AN/A256
UASB-H1N/AN/A0.32N/A1.6157
NGS-T17000.2388N/AN/A202.5
GS-T17000.2388N/AN/A19.62.5
CGH130.0612N/AN/A205.3
SGH130.0612N/AN/A205.3
ANH1900312240N/A2515.8
GL-T1130.06630N/A0.619354.5
ANH25.40.125301031.3342.1
ANF150.112N/A2359
GS-F33.20.112200N/A36.530
GS-F43.20.16100N/A36.530
GS-F530.1166200N/A3515
GS-F630.15N/AN/AN/AN/A
GS-FPAC130.1625016355
GS-F730.112N/AN/AN/A6
GS-H16100012.516100N/A256
GSG-H2850.9316100N/A256
GS-F8N/A0.116150N/A3526
GS-F93.20.116213N/A355
GS-F1030.1164200N/A3515
GS-H113.50.088600.5522N/A
GS-H123181.866N/AN/A2412
GS-F113.50.086120N/A3515
GS-H1313003124.41400.4927N/A
GS-SiCF15006.028.225033510.1
GSDM-F13.50.028infinite0.882022.5
SAFMBR-190.1584.5N/A1.83N/A5.6
ANH380.212300N/A351.68
ANH480.212300N/A251.68
GS-H1450.786.4N/AN/A3010
Average3236.2121952.1289.7
Table 5. AnMBR purification performance of reviewed research articles
Code Influent CODin CODout BODin BODout TSSin TSSout N-NH3in N-NH3out TPin TPout pH MY

All concentration units mg/L other than pH and MY; MY Methane yield (L CH4/g CODremoved); RS Raw sewage; SS Settled sewage; FS Faecal sewage; SW Synthetic wastewater; SPE Synthetic primary effluent; OFMSW Organic fraction of municipal solid waste; MRW Mixed raw sewage; CSW Concentrated synthetic wastewater

GS-F1RS6308039625N/AN/A61.567.48.27.16.80.27
GS-H1RS44577N/AN/A186N/A2733.42.73.16.720.07
GS-H3RS459100N/AN/A242N/A28.6N/A3.1N/A6.75N/A
GS-H5RS39650N/AN/AN/AN/A36.734.210.46.56.90.12
GS-H6RS38336.21417.7N/AN/A40285.12.76.750.1
GS-H7SS89212257336123N/A71741023.8N/A0.25
GS-H8SS9781204745683N/A7583.210107.20.23
PS-H1SS2801416010165NDN/A34N/A3.76.70.215
RM-H1RS1462129N/AN/A960N/A38.936.222.5207.50.212
GS-C1SW6252.3101.5N/AN/AN/AN/A34.7346.3195.4213.77N/A
GS-H15SS2214110611N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A8.2N/A
GSG-H1SS168398810105NDN/AN/AN/AN/A8.1N/A
GSF-H1SS2083413813127NDN/AN/AN/AN/A7.7N/A
GS-H9RSN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A5.33N/A34.9N/A9.42N/AN/A
GS-H10SS6205825025330N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
GACF-H1SS2102914015120N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
PFPS-H1FS2700N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.35
CSTR-H1SW40050N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A70.3
DFF-T1SPE500142354120N/A43N/A2.5N/AN/AN/A
FBR-CT1SPE500252358120N/A43N/A2.5N/AN/AN/A
UASB-H1SS10039.6N/AN/A244N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A70.09
NGS-T1RS525150N/AN/A51516N/AN/AN/AN/A7.9N/A
GS-T1RS65778N/AN/A130747N/AN/AN/AN/A7.8N/A
CGH1SW330N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A6.05N/A3.35N/A7N/A
SGH1SW330N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A6.05N/A3.35N/A7N/A
ANH1RS643N/AN/AN/A260N/A49.6N/A5N/AN/A0.35
GL-T1SW100055400N/AN/AN/AN/A33N/A167.750.19
ANH2SW172086N/AN/AN/AN/A39N/A60N/AN/AN/A
ANF1SW465N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A10N/A8N/AN/AN/A
GS-F3SW46015N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A6.80.3
GS-F4SW500N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7N/A
GS-F5SW46615N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A70.252
GS-F6OFMSW1410400N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
GS-FPAC1SW400070N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7N/A
GS-F7SW460N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A6.95N/A
GS-H16SS338541671084ND3540N/AN/A8.1N/A
GSG-H2SS338471671184ND3539N/AN/A8.1N/A
GS-F8SW500N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7N/A
GS-F9SW500N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A100N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
GS-F10SW48412N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7N/A
GS-H11SW550N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7N/A
GS-H12RS1729150N/AN/A964N/A55.469.169.5512.67.22N/A
GS-F11SW34720N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
GS-H13SS5105930514342242.847.95.56.7N/AN/A
GS-SiCF1MRW113861N/AN/A942N/A9N/A14N/A70.09
GSDM-F1SW29273.2N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
SAFMBR-1SW11510.65361.242N/A74N/A5N/A7N/A
ANH3SW570.4140.94N/AN/AN/AN/A36.0344.934.846.08N/AN/A
ANH4SW570.4140.94N/AN/AN/AN/A36.0342.844.845.79N/AN/A
GS-H14SW40918N/AN/AN/AN/A43.941.94.84.4N/A0.28
AverageN/A807682372033918416418237.220.212

3.1 AnMBR purification performance

The 50 systems captured demonstrate significant variability in the ranges of pollutant removal efficacy across the various parameters (Fig. 1), as well as differences in the reference parameters selected.

Fig. 1 Box-and-whisker plot of purification performance data across the 50 studies. n represents the number of data sets available for each parameter, the round blue markers is the mean value for each parameter. The box represents the distribution of the concentration for the first quartile (bottom), median (middle) and third quartile (top) of the data, and the error bar represent the maximum and minimum concentrations. Credit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024
Fig. 1 Box-and-whisker plot of purification performance data across the 50 studies. n represents the number of data sets available for each parameter, the round blue markers is the mean value for each parameter. The box represents the distribution of the concentration for the first quartile (bottom), median (middle) and third quartile (top) of the data, and the error bar represent the maximum and minimum concentrations.
Box-and-whisker diagram, summary of AnMBR purification performanceCredit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024
Sponsored Link
sponsored
Looking to upgrade your treatment plant? Click the link to discover CERAFILTEC’s advanced ceramic membranes—sustainable, reliable, and built for long-term efficiency. CERAFILTEC. Clean water, everywhere.

3.1.1 Total suspended solids

Two studies reported relatively high effluent TSS concentrations of 16 (NGS-T1) and 15 mg/L (GS-T1). These unusual values, which would prevent the effluent being used for a number of purposes, were attributed to biofilm growth on the permeate pipe walls, so can be considered anomalies. All other systems report permeate TSS concentrations below the stated permitted limits for every reuse purpose, with five reporting non-detectable permeate TSS and GS-H9 and GS-H13 reporting 5.33 and 2 mg/L respectively.

3.1.2 Pathogens

Very few of these studies reported pathogen concentrations, although those that had (GS-F1 and GS-H12) recorded mean faecal coliforms levels below 50 CFU/100 mL. This would be sufficient to meet the 200 CFU/100 mL stipulated for some agricultural uses (except the non-detectable limit required for the irrigation of raw consumed food crops) and for industrial reuse, but not for toilet flushing or street cleaning and fire-fighting where supplementary chemical disinfection would be required.

3.1.3 Nutrients

Since AnMBRs do not remove nutrients reported effluent NH3-N concentrations are generally high, ranging from 28 to 83.2 mg/L. TP concentrations range from 2.7 to 23.8 mg/L. None of the AnMBR systems could directly produce an effluent satisfying the NH3-N and TP consents stipulated in the Chinese reuse standards. However, the lack of nutrient removal may not preclude the reuse of the permeate water for agricultural and landscape irrigation. The clarification provided by the AnMBR technology would be expected to expedite the recovery of the nutrients in relatively pure form for reuse as chemical fertilisers.

3.1.4 Organic matter

Overall organic matter removal across all studies where data is available is summarised in Figure 2, together with the BOD5 limits taken from the various NPR standards. With reference to the BOD5 limit of the NPR reuse standards listed in Tables 1a−1g, there are 32, 31 and 30 of the 37 systems which could respectively meet the BOD5 limit of 35, 30 and 25 mg/L with no further treatment required. The consents of 20 and 15 mg/L, where most standards for agricultural irrigation lie, can be met by 24 and 22 systems respectively, and 12 systems are able to meet the consent of 10 mg/L − which includes direct human contact reuse applications. Finally, six systems meet the strictest BOD5 limit of 6 mg/L for non-potable reuse purposes in all standards.

Only the EU and Chinese standards have a COD consent. Agricultural reuse has the most wide-ranging limit for different purposes; 33 systems satisfy the EU’s COD limit of 125 mg/L for agricultural irrigation (except where raw consumed food crops are involved). There are 30 and 13 AnMBRs that can respectively satisfy the COD limit set by the Chinese agricultural reuse standards of 90 mg/L for farming and forestry and 40 mg/L for animal husbandry (Table 1d). Overall these results show that, despite the wide variability in effluent quality reported across the different studies, AnMBRs can apparently be operated to ultimately meet the organics limit for any non-potable reuse standard.

Fig. 2 Treated BOD5 concentration reported for AnMBR systems against non-potable water reuse standards Credit: Huang et al, 2024
Fig. 2 Treated BOD5 concentration reported for AnMBR systems against non-potable water reuse standards
Overall organic matter removal vs NPR standardsCredit: Huang et al, 2024

3.2 Impact of operational variables and system characteristics

A review of the COD removal rate vs. the anti-fouling strategy (Fig. 3) and installed membrane configuration (Fig. 4) respectively indicate that neither influence organic removal. Counter-intuitively, COD removal appears to slightly decrease with decreasing membrane pore size, according to the data based on the same hollow fibre configuration.

Fig. 3 %COD removal vs. anti-fouling strategy Credit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024
Fig. 3 %COD removal vs. anti-fouling strategy
%COD removal vs. anti-fouling strategyCredit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024
Fig. 4 %COD removal vs. installed membrane material and pore size Credit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024
Fig. 4 %COD removal vs. installed membrane material and pore size
%COD removal vs. installed membrane material and pore sizeCredit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024

There is a faintly discernible trend of increasing %removal with increasing COD concentration (Figs. 4 and 5), as expected from basic equilibrium thermodynamics. The lowest COD effluent concentrations were generally recorded for synthetic wastewater (Fig. 5), possibly reflecting their increased biodegradability (BOD/COD = 0.5−0.7) compared with real wastewaters (BOD/COD = 0.3−0.5).

Fig. 5 %COD removal vs. influent COD concentration for different feedwater matrices Credit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024
Fig. 5 %COD removal vs. influent COD concentration for different feedwater matrices
%COD removal vs. influent COD concentration for different feedwater matricesCredit: Adapted from Huang et al, 2024

Most systems reviewed operated with an HRT of 4 to 12 h, with the average being around 8 h. As with other correlations, there was no apparent relationship between COD removal and HRT across all studies, although HRTs longer than 15 h appeared to offer more predictable performance – 84% removal or more. Against this, a principal component analysis suggested a clear link between HRT and methane yield.

Overall it is not clear as to whether a specific membrane material/configuration, process configurationAugsburger or process operation conditions can offer a significant improvement in performance with respect to COD removal and product water quality. Overall the permeate quality attained nonetheless meets water quality objectives for most reuse applications.

Energy recovery efficiency is affected by the same factors as for classical anaerobic treatment. It is known that biogas produced by AnMBRs contains >70% methane, the yield increasing linearly with organic loading rate. Up to 98% of the influent COD can be converted into biogas − equivalent to seven times the energy required for system operation. In practice, however, actual biogas yields are limited both by the high solubility of CH4 in water (22.7 mg/L at 20°C), a significant loss for low-strength feedwaters, and process limitations caused by inhibitory substances such as sulphate. As with classical anaerobic treatment, AnMBRs are generally more viable for warmer climates.

A number of post-treatment options have been trialled for AnMBR permeate (Table 6). These have variously targeted:

  • Removal of trace organic matter, including biorefractory micropollutants, using activated carbon (Mai et al., 2018)
  • Advanced oxidation of micropollutants in the presence of ammonia (Augsburger et al., 2021)
  • Removal of organic and inorganic residuals using nanofiltration (Wei et al., 2015) or reverse osmosis membranes (Mamo et al, 2018)
  • Extraction of dissolved methane and/or ammonia using membrane contactors (Rongwong et al., 2019; Song et al., 2018b)
  • Capture of nutrients for their reuse using ion exchange processes (Huang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2016)
  • Removal of nutrients using algal photobioreactors (Ruiz-Martinez et al., 2012)
  • Precipitation of phosphate by coagulant dosing (Penetra et al., 1999)
Table 6. AnMBR permeate polishing studies
Technology Target component & % removal Advantages Disadvantages Reference(s)

GAC Granular activated carbon; PAC Powdered activated carbon; VOC Volatile organic compounds; PhCs Pharmaceutical compounds; DOC Dissolved organic carbon; AOCs Aromatic organic compounds; NOM Natural organic matter; AC Activated carbon; MW Molecular weight; EDs Endocrine disruptors; PCPs Personal care products; MD Membrane distillation; NF Nanofiltration membrane; FO Forward osmosis membrane; RO Reverse osmosis membrane; IEX Ion-exchange; TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen; OMPs Organic micropollutants; AOP Advanced oxidation process; IEX Ion exchange; HAIX Hybrid anion exchange; HRT Hydraulic retention time

GAC80% COD, Phenols; VOC; PhCs; Metals; EDs; PCPsWide targeting range, easy to apply, low cost, effective elimination of PhCs, EDs and PCPsLimited adsorption of low MW compoundsMai et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2012; Snyder et al., 2007; Trzcinski et al., 2011; Vyrides et al., 2010
PAC84% COD; Phenols; 80% DOC; VOC; PhCs; Metals; EDs; PCPsWide targeting range, effective removal of traces of organic carbon, effective elimination of PhCs, EDs and PCPsLimited adsorption of low MW compoundsSee above
Carbon NanotubesCOD; Phenols; VOC; PhCs; Metals; AOCs; NOM; EDs; PCPsWide targeting range, no diffusion required compared to AC, effectively eliminate PhCs, EDs and PCPsHigh manufacturing costAmin et al., 2014
MD98% COD; 10% NH4+; >99% PO43−; 65% dissolved methane; 76− 100% OMPsComplementary performance with AnMBR for energy and water recoveryFlux strongly depends on the temperature and pressure, require further treatment for TNJacob et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2015; Song et al., 2018b; Xie et al., 2016
NFCOD; NH4+; Up to 95% PO43−; Multivalent ions; 80−92% OMPsProduces high quality effluent for reuseLower energy demand than RO, effluent contains monovalent ionsWei et al., 2015
RO88% COD; >99%TOC; 91% TKN; 99% PO43−; Multivalent ions; Monovalent ions; >90% OMPsProduces very high quality effluent with almost complete removal of organics and nutrientsVery high energy demand, limited removal on hydrophilic organics with low MWsGrundestam & Hellström, 2007; Gu et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020
Microalgae67% NH4+; 98% PO43−; COD; 0−8% OMPsSuitable for high quality effluent from AnMBR, Generated biomass could be used to generate renewable biofuelNeed optimum operation condition, poor removal on OMPsRuiz-Martinez et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2022
IEX (Zeolites); IEX (HAIX)83−94% NH4+; 97% PO43− (PhosXnp)Selectively removal and recovery of nutrients, short contact time, low footprintRegeneration dominates operational cost and energy consumptionDeng et al., 2014; Sendrowski & Boyer, 2013
Coagulation-Flocculation (FeCl3)96% PO43−Widely applied to Aerobic system for enhanced chemical phosphorus removalProduces excess solids wastePenetra et al., 1999
Membrane Contactor98.9% Dissolved Methane; 90% NH4+; Up to 100% OMPsHigh methane and ammonium recoveryMembrane fouling and wetting, economic viability unclear, requires further treatment for TPChristiaens et al., 2019; Cookney et al., 2016; Rongwong et al., 2019
Membrane biofilm reactor96% NH4+; 98% dissolved methane; 90% nonpolar, hydrophobic and hydrophilic OMPs; 22–69% negatively charged and acidic OMPsCan remove both dissolved methane and TNRequire both energy and membrane cost, also further treatment for TPChen et al., 2015; Sanchez-Huerta et al., 2022
Sponsored Link
sponsored
M|MBR Systems’ modular MBR solutions get fully functioning wastewater treatment running in weeks, not months. Learn more.

4. Conclusions

Outcomes from a wide range of predominantly bench-scale studies suggest that AnMBRs can produce effluent from municipal wastewater feeds satisfying most consents for non-potable reuse, other than for certain applications where limits on nutrient concentrations are imposed. AnMBRs provide a clarified effluent which permits simpler and more effective nutrient recovery, removal/destruction of residual dissolved organics and/or purification by dense membrane processes such as nanofiltration or reverse osmosis. Against this, the extraction of the residual dissolved methane, which can potentially make up a significant proportion of the latent energy from the original organic carbon, presents a significant challenge. Despite this, there is clearly scope for improving the effectiveness of the process through the further development of both the biological process and membrane configurations.

References

Akram, A., & Stuckey, D. C. (2008). Flux and performance improvement in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) using powdered activated carbon (PAC). Process Biochemistry, 43(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2007.10.020

Amin, M. T., Alazba, A. A., & Manzoor, U. (2014). A review of removal of pollutants from water/wastewater using different types of nanomaterials. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2014, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/825910

Augsburger, N., Zaouri, N., Cheng, H., & Hong, P. Y. (2021). The use of UV/H2O2 to facilitate removal of emerging contaminants in anaerobic membrane bioreactor effluents. Environmental Research, 198(November 2020), 110479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110479

Bair, R. A., Ozcan, O. O., Calabria, J. L., Dick, G. H., & Yeh, D. H. (2015). Feasibility of anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) for onsite sanitation and resource recovery (nutrients, energy and water) in urban slums. Water Science and Technology, 72(9), 1543–1551. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.349

Cerón-Vivas, A., & Noyola, A. (2017). Fouling membrane in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating municipal wastewater. Water Practice and Technology, 12(2), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2017.036

Chen, C., Guo, W. S., Ngo, H. H., Liu, Y., Du, B., Wei, Q., Wei, D., Nguyen, D. D., & Chang, S. W. (2017). Evaluation of a sponge assisted-granular anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SG-AnMBR) for municipal wastewater treatment. Renewable Energy, 111, 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.055

Chen, L., Hu, Q., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Wang, Y., & Liu, S. (2019). Effects of salinity on the biological performance of anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Journal of Environmental Management, 238, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.012

Chen, X., Guo, J., Xie, G. J., Liu, Y., Yuan, Z., & Ni, B. J. (2015). A new approach to simultaneous ammonium and dissolved methane removal from anaerobic digestion liquor: A model-based investigation of feasibility. Water Research, 85, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.08.046

Cho, K., Seo, K. W., Shin, S. G., Lee, S., & Park, C. (2019). Process stability and comparative rDNA/rRNA community analyses in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor with silicon carbide ceramic membrane applications. Science of the Total Environment, 666, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.166

Christiaens, M. E. R., Udert, K. M., Arends, J. B. A., Huysman, S., Vanhaecke, L., McAdam, E., & Rabaey, K. (2019). Membrane stripping enables effective electrochemical ammonia recovery from urine while retaining microorganisms and micropollutants. Water Research, 150, 349–357. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.11.072

CNEPA. (2021). Water reuse guidelines GB/T 41016-17-18 2021.

Cookney, J., Mcleod, A., Mathioudakis, V., Ncube, P., Soares, A., Jefferson, B., & McAdam, E. J. (2016). Dissolved methane recovery from anaerobic effluents using hollow fibre membrane contactors. Journal of Membrane Science, 502, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.037

Dong, Q., Parker, W., & Dagnew, M. (2016). Long term performance of membranes in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating municipal wastewater. Chemosphere, 144, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.077

Deng, Q., Dhar, B. R., Elbeshbishy, E., & Lee, H. S. (2014). Ammonium nitrogen removal from the permeates of anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Economic regeneration of exhausted zeolite. Environmental Technology (United Kingdom), 35(16), 2008–2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.889759

Ding, Y., Liang, Z., Guo, Z., Li, Z., Hou, X., & Jin, C. (2019). The performance and microbial community identification in mesophilic and atmospheric anaerobic membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment associated with different hydraulic retention times. In Water (Switzerland) (Vol. 11, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010160

Dolejs, P., Ozcan, O., Bair, R., Ariunbaatar, J., Bartacek, J., Lens, P. N. L., & Yeh, D. H. (2017). Effect of psychrophilic temperature shocks on a gas-lift anaerobic membrane bioreactor (Gl-AnMBR) treating synthetic domestic wastewater. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 16, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.12.005

EUPC. (2020). Regulation EU 2020/741, Minimum requirements for water reuse. European Commission, 177/33(May 2020), (EU 2020/741). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0741&from=EN

Evans, P. J., Parameswaran, P., Lim, K., Bae, J., Shin, C., Ho, J., & McCarty, P. L. (2019). A comparative pilot-scale evaluation of gas-sparged and granular activated carbon-fluidized anaerobic membrane bioreactors for domestic wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology, 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.072

Ferrari, F., Balcazar, J. L., Rodriguez-Roda, I., & Pijuan, M. (2019). Anaerobic membrane bioreactor for biogas production from concentrated sewage produced during sewer mining. Science of the Total Environment, 670, 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.218

Fox, R., & Stuckey, D. (2015). MS-2 and T4 phage removal in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR): Effect of gas sparging rate. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 90(3), 384–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4586

Giménez, J. B., Robles, A., Carretero, L., Durán, F., Ruano, M. V., Gatti, M. N., Ribes, J., Ferrer, J., & Seco, A. (2011). Experimental study of the anaerobic urban wastewater treatment in a submerged hollow-fibre membrane bioreactor at pilot scale. Bioresource Technology, 102(19), 8799–8806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.014

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, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.002

Grundestam, J., & Hellström, D. (2007). Wastewater treatment with anaerobic membrane bioreactor and reverse osmosis. Water Science and Technology, 56(5), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.574

Gu, J., Liu, H., Wang, S., Zhang, M., & Liu, Y. (2019). An innovative anaerobic MBR-reverse osmosis-ion exchange process for energy-efficient reclamation of municipal wastewater to NEWater-like product water. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 1287–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.198

Hu, Y., Cheng, H., Ji, J., & Li, Y.-Y. (2020). A review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment with a focus on multicomponent biogas and membrane fouling control. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 6(10), 2641–2663. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00528B

Huang, X., Guida, S., Jefferson, B., & Soares, A. (2020). Economic evaluation of ion-exchange processes for nutrient removal and recovery from municipal wastewater. Npj Clean Water, 3, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-020-0054-x

Jacob, P., Phungsai, P., Fukushi, K., & Visvanathan, C. (2015). Direct contact membrane distillation for anaerobic effluent treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 475, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.10.021

Khan, M. A., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Chang, S. W., Nguyen, D. D., Varjani, S., Liu, Y., Deng, L., & Cheng, C. (2019). Selective production of volatile fatty acids at different pH in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Bioresource Technology, 283, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.073

Kim, H. C., Shin, J., Won, S., Lee, J. Y., Maeng, S. K., & Song, K. G. (2015). Membrane distillation combined with an anaerobic moving bed biofilm reactor for treating municipal wastewater. Water Research, 71, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.048

Kunacheva, C., Soh, Y. N. A., & Stuckey, D. C. (2017). Effect of feed pH on reactor performance and production of soluble microbial products (SMPs) in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Chemical Engineering Journal, 320, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.018

Liu, C., Wang, Q., Huang, F., & Zhang, J. (2016). Removal of phosphorus from anaerobic membrane bioreactor effluent by ion exchange resin. Separation Science and Technology (Philadelphia), 51(17), 2833–2843. https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2016.1210641

Mai, D. T., Kunacheva, C., & Stuckey, D. C. (2018). Post-treatment of anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) effluent using activated carbon. Bioresource Technology, 266(April), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.063

Mamo, J., García-Galán, M. J., Stefani, M., Rodríguez-Mozaz, S., Barceló, D., Monclús, H., Rodriguez-Roda, I., & Comas, J. (2018). Fate of pharmaceuticals and their transformation products in integrated membrane systems for wastewater reclamation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 331, 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.08.050

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.05.008

Martinez-Sosa, D., Helmreich, B., Netter, T., Paris, S., Bischof, F., & Horn, H. (2011). Anaerobic submerged membrane bioreactor (AnSMBR) for municipal wastewater treatment under mesophilic and psychrophilic temperature conditions. Bioresource Technology, 102(22), 10377–10385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.012

Mei, X., Wang, Z., Miao, Y., & Wu, Z. (2018). A pilot-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor under short hydraulic retention time for municipal wastewater treatment: Performance and microbial community identification. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 8(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2017.164

Nguyen, L. N., Hai, F. I., Kang, J., Price, W. E., & Nghiem, L. D. (2012). Removal of trace organic contaminants by a membrane bioreactor-granular activated carbon (MBR-GAC) system. Bioresource Technology, 113, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.10.051

Peña, M., do Nascimento, T., Gouveia, J., Escudero, J., Gómez, A., Letona, A., Arrieta, J., & Fdz-Polanco, F. (2019). Anaerobic submerged membrane bioreactor (AnSMBR) treating municipal wastewater at ambient temperature: Operation and potential use for agricultural irrigation. Bioresource Technology, 282, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.019

Penetra, R. G., Reali, M. A. P., Foresti, E., & Campos, J. R. (1999). Post-Treatment of Effluents from Anaerobic Reactor Treating Domestic Sewage by Dissolved-Air Flotation. Water Science and Technology, 40(8), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1999.0405

Petropoulos, E., Yu, Y., Tabraiz, S., Yakubu, A., Curtis, T. P., & Dolfing, J. (2019). High rate domestic wastewater treatment at 15 °C using anaerobic reactors inoculated with cold-adapted sediments/soils-shaping robust methanogenic communities. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 5(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ew00410b

Pretel, R., Robles, A., Ruano, M. V., Seco, A., & Ferrer, J. (2016). Economic and environmental sustainability of submerged anaerobic MBR-based (AnMBR-based) technology as compared to aerobic-based technologies for moderate-/high-loaded urban wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Management, 166, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.004

Robles, A., Ruano, M. V., Ribes, J., & Ferrer, J. (2013). Performance of industrial scale hollow-fibre membranes in a submerged anaerobic MBR (HF-SAnMBR) system at mesophilic and psychrophilic conditions. Separation and Purification Technology, 104, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2012.12.004

Rongwong, W., Goh, K., Sethunga, G. S. M. D. P., & Bae, T. H. (2019). Fouling formation in membrane contactors for methane recovery from anaerobic effluents. Journal of Membrane Science, 573, 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.12.038

Ruigómez, I., Vera, L., González, E., González, G., & Rodríguez-Sevilla, J. (2016). A novel rotating HF membrane to control fouling on anaerobic membrane bioreactors treating wastewater. Journal of Membrane Science, 501, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.011

Ruiz-Martinez, A., Martin Garcia, N., Romero, I., Seco, A., & Ferrer, J. (2012). Microalgae cultivation in wastewater: Nutrient removal from anaerobic membrane bioreactor effluent. Bioresource Technology, 126, 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.022

Sanchez-Huerta, C., Fortunato, L., Leiknes, T., & Hong, P.-Y. (2022). Influence of biofilm thickness on the removal of thirteen different organic micropollutants via a Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 432, 128698. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128698

Seco, A., Mateo, O., Zamorano-López, N., Sanchis-Perucho, P., Serralta, J., Martí, N., Borrás, L., & Ferrer, J. (2018). Exploring the limits of anaerobic biodegradability of urban wastewater by AnMBR technology. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 4(11), 1877–1887. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ew00313k

Seib, M. D., Berg, K. J., & Zitomer, D. H. (2016). Reduced energy demand for municipal wastewater recovery using an anaerobic floating filter membrane bioreactor. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 2(2), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ew00244c

Sendrowski, A., & Boyer, T. H. (2013). Phosphate removal from urine using hybrid anion exchange resin. Desalination, 322, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.05.014

Shin, C., McCarty, P. L., Kim, J., & Bae, J. (2014). Pilot-scale temperate-climate treatment of domestic wastewaterwith a staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-MBR). Bioresource Technology, 159, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.060

Snyder, S. A., Adham, S., Redding, A. M., Cannon, F. S., DeCarolis, J., Oppenheimer, J., Wert, E. C., & Yoon, Y. (2007). Role of membranes and activated carbon in the removal of endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals. Desalination, 202(1–3), 156–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.12.052

Song, X., Luo, W., Hai, F. I., Price, W. E., Guo, W., Ngo, H. H., & Nghiem, L. D. (2018a). Resource recovery from wastewater by anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Opportunities and challenges. Bioresource Technology, 270, 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.001

Song, X., Luo, W., McDonald, J., Khan, S. J., Hai, F. I., Price, W. E., & Nghiem, L. D. (2018b). An anaerobic membrane bioreactor – membrane distillation hybrid system for energy recovery and water reuse: Removal performance of organic carbon, nutrients, and trace organic contaminants. Science of the Total Environment, 628–629, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.057

Thanh, P. M., Ketheesan, B., Stuckey, D. C., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Dosing of Ethylenediamine-N,N″-disuccinic acid (EDDS) to improve the bioavailability of Fe2+ in the presence of sulfide in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Chemical Engineering Journal, 330, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.07.158

Trzcinski, A. P., Ofoegbu, N., & Stuckey, D. C. (2011). Post-treatment of the permeate of a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) treating landfill leachate. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 46(13), 1539–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2011.609402

Trzcinski, A. P., & Stuckey, D. C. (2016). Effect of sparging rate on permeate quality in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) treating leachate from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Journal of Environmental Management, 168, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.055

USEPA. (2012). EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In Guidelines for water reuse (Issue September).

Vyrides, I., Santos, H., Mingote, A., Ray, M. J., & Stuckey, D. C. (2010). Are compatible solutes compatible with biological treatment of saline wastewater? Batch and continuous studies using submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (SAMBRs). Environmental Science and Technology, 44(19), 7437–7442. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903981k

Wang, K. M., Cingolani, D., Eusebi, A. L., Soares, A., Jefferson, B., & McAdam, E. J. (2018). Identification of gas sparging regimes for granular anaerobic membrane bioreactor to enable energy neutral municipal wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 555, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.03.032

Wei, C. H., Harb, M., Amy, G., Hong, P. Y., & Leiknes, T. O. (2014). Sustainable organic loading rate and energy recovery potential of mesophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology, 166, 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.053

Wu, K., Tizzani, R., Zweers, H., Rijnaarts, H., Langenhoff, A., & Fernandes, T. V. (2022). Removal processes of individual and a mixture of organic micropollutants in the presence of Scenedesmus obliquus. The Science of the Total Environment, 838(Pt 4), 156526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156526

Xiao, Y., Yaohari, H., De Araujo, C., Sze, C. C., & Stuckey, D. C. (2017). Removal of selected pharmaceuticals in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) with/without powdered activated carbon (PAC). Chemical Engineering Journal, 321, 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.118

Xie, M., Shon, H. K., Gray, S. R., & Elimelech, M. (2016). Membrane-based processes for wastewater nutrient recovery: Technology, challenges, and future direction. Water Research, 89, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.045

Zhang, Q., Victor Tan, G. H., & Stuckey, D. C. (2017). Optimal biogas sparging strategy, and the correlation between sludge and fouling layer properties in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAnMBR). Chemical Engineering Journal, 319, 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.02.146

Zhou, Z., Tan, Y., Xiao, Y., & Stuckey, D. C. (2016). Characterization and significance of sub-visible particles and colloids in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (sanmbr). Environmental Science and Technology, 50(23), 12750–12758. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03581

Acknowledgements

This feature was adapted from a review article by the authors, Huang, Y., Jeffrey, P., and Pidou, M. (2024). Municipal wastewater treatment with anaerobic membrane bioreactors for non-potable reuse: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 54(10), 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2023.2279886

About this page

This page was last updated on 17 November 2024

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.

You might also be interested in …

You are in:

Share or bookmark this page