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

Labour, waste management and other wastewater treatment costs

Created
Updated
Image of a person sitting at a desk, writing in a notebook. A laptop and mobile phone is on the desk.

1. Labour

While often overlooked in academic papers, the labour costs associated with operating a membrane-based plant can be as significant as the energy cost, according to recent analyses (Qiblawey and Judd, 2019; Judd and Carra, 2021). The labour effort normalised against the size of the plant tends to increase for smaller plants.

Based on the combined data from three different sources, Qiblawey and Judd (2019) determined the labour effort (as full time equivalent or FTE) per installation unit flow capacity to follow a power relationship:

\begin{equation} FTE\ per\ MLD\ flow\ capacity\ =\ 59\ Q^{-0.507} \end{equation}

where MLD refers to megalitres per day and the flow capacity Q takes units of m3/h.

An analysis of data provided by UK water companies relating to the operation of potable water membrane filtration plants by Judd and Carra (2021) indicated the specific labour cost to also follow a power relationship:

\begin{equation} Labour\ cost,\ £/m^3 = k\ Q^{(-n)} \end{equation}

where k = 0.0675−0.0752 and n = 0.613−0.782 depending on the membrane technology installed.

Both of the above analyses indicate the labour effort and associated cost, normalised against either plant flow capacity or permeate product volume, to follow an inverse power relationship with installation size. Compared with other operational expenditure components, such as energy and membrane replacement, there is a significant increase in specific cost for smaller plants.

Fig 1. Labour effort vs iMBR installation flow capacity, Qiblawey and Judd (2019)
Fig 1. Labour effort vs iMBR installation flow capacity, Qiblawey and Judd (2019)
Labour effort vs iMBR installation flow capacity, Qiblawey and Judd (2019)
Fig 2. Labour cost vs potable water membrane installation flow capacity, Judd and Carra (2021). Trends for two different membrane technologies are presented; the open data points refer to the proportion of 'reactive' labour effort
Fig 2. Labour cost vs potable water membrane installation flow capacity, Judd and Carra (2021). Trends for two different membrane technologies are presented; the open data points refer to the proportion of 'reactive' labour effort
Labour cost vs potable water membrane installation flow capacity, Judd and Carra (2021). Trends for two different membrane technologies are presented; the open data points refer to the proportion of “reactive” labour effort.

2. Other wastewater treatment costs

Apart from the principal costs of energy expenditure and labour effort, the other key contributors to operating expenditure are membrane replacement, chemicals consumption and waste management.

Membrane replacement costs decrease with increasing flux, increasing membrane life and decreasing specific membrane cost per unit membrane area. For an MBR, the membrane life for a polymeric membrane challenged with municipal effluent is generally 8−10 years. The life is usually shorter for industrial effluent applications. For ceramic membranes the membrane life is considered to be 50−100% longer than for polymeric membranes, and the net operating flux higher.

Chemicals costs relate primarily to the cleaning reagents used, i.e. hypochlorite and citric acid. The specific chemicals cost thus depends on the concentrations used, the frequency of application and the bulk reagent cost.

Waste management costs are very site specific. The primary waste produced from an MBR is the waste activated sludge (WAS). The cost of managing and disposing of this waste stream thus depends on whether there are on-site facilities for thickening/dewatering or digesting the sludge, or whether it instead has to be tankered off site for processing. If the latter applies then the cost depends on the cost of tankering and end processing.

References

Qiblawey, H., and Judd, S. J. (2019) Industrial effluent treatment with immersed MBRs: treatability and cost, Water Science & Technology, 80(4), 762−772.

Judd, S., and Carra, I. (2021) Low-pressure membrane technology for potable water filtration: true costs. Water Research, 175, 116826.

About this page

'Labour, waste management and other wastewater treatment costs' was written by Simon Judd

This page was last updated on 06 May 2022

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.

© Text copyright Judd & Judd Ltd unless otherwise indicated on this page