Pilot scale treatment of polluted surface waters using membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR).

Table 1. Operation conditions during the MABR process study.

Treatment period	Time (d)	HRT (h)	Influent NH4^+-N (mg- N/L)	NH4^+-N loading (g- N m^−2day^−1)	Influent COD (g-COD m^−2 day^−1)	COD loading (g-COD m^−2 day^−1)	Influent C/N ratio	Hydraulic loading (m^3 m^−2 d^−1)	Aeration pressure (MPa)	Aeration velocity (cm/min)
Initial phase	27–49	16	25	0.88	200	7.05	8	0.035	0.01–0.02	0.005–0.02
Stage I	50–65	48	25	0.29	200	2.35	8	0.012	0.01	0.005
Stage II	66–75	36	25	0.39	200	3.13	8	0.016	0.01	0.005
Stage III	76–84	24	25	0.59	200	4.7	8	0.024	0.01	0.005
Stage IV	85–90	12	25	1.18	200	9.4	8	0.047	0.01	0.005
Stage V	91–113	36	25	0.39	50	0.78	2	0.016	0.01	0.005
Stage VI	114–125	36	25	0.39	87.5	1.37	3.5	0.016	0.01	0.005
Stage VII	126–142	36	25	0.39	125	1.96	5	0.016	0.01	0.005
Stage VIII	143–156	36	25	0.39	200	3.13	8	0.016	0.01	0.005

Figure 2. DO concentration in the MABR process under different operating conditions.

Figure 3. Effects of intra-membrane air velocity and intra-membrane air pressure on denitrification rate in MABR process.

Figure 4. Variations of TOC, NH₄⁺-N and TN with operation time at different hydraulic loadings. TOC concentration and TOC removal efficiency (a); NH₄ ⁺-N and NH₄⁺-N removal efficiency (b); TN and TN removal efficiency (c).

Figure 5. Average N concentration at different hydraulic loading rates and TN removal efficiency.

Figure 6. TOC, NH₄⁺-N and TN removal in MABR system under different influent C/N ratios.

Figure 7. TOC concentration in the influent and effluent and TOC removal efficiency (a) and nitrogen concentration of effluent (b).

Figure 8. Variations of TN removal efficiencies at different operation stages.

Table 2. Comparison of different techniques for nitrogen removal from surface waters.

Process and techniques	Scale	C/N	HRT	TN removal rate (%)	References
MABR	Pilot-scale	8	36 h	60.3	This work
Integrated EFB	Lab-scale	1^a	7 days	52.7	[6]
Tidal flow CWs	Lab-scale	2–12	36 h	50-82	[43]
Bioreactor	Lab-scale	2.6^a	3.5 h	2.2–56.1	[10]
MBBR^c	Pilot-scale	14.5^a	2 h	71.4^b	[44]
MBR^d	Lab-scale	2.6	1 h	98 ± 1^b	[45]

^aMean value.

^bNH₄⁺-N removal efficiency, high NO₃⁻-N residue in the effluent.

^cMoving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR).

^dMembrane bioreactor (MBR).

Li X-N, Song H-L, Li W, et al. An integrated ecological floating-bed employing plant, freshwater clam and biofilm carrier for purification of eutrophic water. Ecol Eng. 2010;36(4):382–390.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhi W, Ji G. Quantitative response relationships between nitrogen transformation rates and nitrogen functional genes in a tidal flow constructed wetland under C/N ratio constraints. Water Res. 2014;64:32–41.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cao W, Zhang H, Wang Y, et al. Bioremediation of polluted surface water by using biofilms on filamentous bamboo. Ecol Eng. 2012;42:146–149.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang S, Wang Y, He W, et al. Responses of biofilm characteristics to variations in temperature and NH4(+)-N loading in a moving-bed biofilm reactor treating micro-polluted raw water. Bioresource Technol. 2013;131:365–373.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li X-y, Chu HP. Membrane bioreactor for the drinking water treatment of polluted surface water supplies. Water Res. 2003;37(19):4781–4791.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar