A ceramic membrane bio-reactor (CMBR) process was first used to treat wastewater collected from a campus of Guilin University of Technology (GUT). A CMBR with a submerged flat-sheet ceramic membrane module was designed for a Qmax of 300 m3/d. With a stable flux at about 33 L/m2 h, the transmembrane pressure was maintained at −10 kPa until the end of the experiment. The results showed that the CMBR process is a robust system capable of producing high-quality service water from campus wastewater. By using the CMBR process, the treated water met the Chinese national standards for landscaping irrigation.
INTRODUCTION
In China, the number of universities increased to 2, 762 by 2011, almost 2.7 times the number in 1998, to accommodate the increasing numbers of students (China Education Annuals 2011). For example, the number of campuses for Guilin University of Technology (GUT) went from two to four, increasing the campus surface area from 5.3 × 105 m2 to 2.7 × 107 m2. Green areas occupy over 50% of the surface area. The annual irrigation water needed for the green areas is estimated to be 7.3 × 104 m3. Tap water is often used for this irrigation. However, as there is a lack of potable water in most Chinese cities, this use is wasteful. Every day, 8 × 106 m3/d of wastewater is generated from the university campuses. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to recycle this wastewater.
Recently, attention has been increasing towards the use of membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology for wastewater recycling due to its higher efficiency in pollutant removal, compact size, and lower energy consumption (Melin et al. 2006; Chon et al. 2015; Judd 2015; Khalid et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2015). The material of the ultra-filtrating membrane, the most important part of the MBR technology, has evolved from polypropylene to polyethylene (PE) and, finally, to polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Tatsuki & Kenji 1999; Jeffrey et al. 2000). Currently, PVDF membranes are widely used because of economic considerations. A PVDF membrane generally has a hollow fibrous or flat-sheet structure. A hollow fibrous membrane can easily break up during operation, with the fracture not easily found, causing a deterioration in water quality. A ceramic membrane is a type of solid membrane. MBR technology based on a ceramic membrane has a very low running cost. The membrane can be recycled, which corresponds with the national industrial policy of promoting a circular economy featuring energy conservation and emission reduction. The ceramic membrane can be used as the recycling membrane module in the treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater. Compared to conventional organic membranes, the advantages of a flat ceramic membrane are: (1) High permeability performance: the water permeability can be increased by backwashing, (2) Energy-saving and cost reducing: the aeration consumption due to membrane cleaning can be reduced by 50%, (3) Durability: the ceramic membrane has a long operating life and potentially can withstand a pH range of 1–14, (4) Easy maintenance and management: the membrane could be backwashed automatically, and (5) No pollution: the ceramic membrane is made of an environmentally-friendly material that will not create secondary pollution.
This paper describes how a flat-sheet ceramic membrane, which can be produced at a low cost, was used as a membrane module to get a higher permeate flux. The newly-developed ceramic membrane bioreactor (CMBR) process, which consisted of a 1 mm screen, raw water tank, and submerged flat-sheet ceramic membrane module, was evaluated for the treatment of campus wastewater.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
CMBR
The campus wastewater used in the system was from the primary sedimentation tank of the wastewater treatment plant. First, the wastewater was pumped into the clean screening equipment by a sinking pump, and then it went through the 1 mm screen into the raw water tank. The screen removed the large particles and solid impurities before the wastewater entered the raw water tank. The raw water tank served as a storage pool for the wastewater that was used in the system.
Wastewater composition
The GUT campus wastewater included domestic water from the student dormitories, and water from public use. The water from the student dormitories included drinking water and undrinkable water for washing. The undrinkable water included water used for irrigation, firefighting, and cleaning. Different departments and buildings have different water utilization structures, and the amount of water used for the same purposes is also different. The amounts of water used and discharged by different parts of the GUT Yanshan campus are listed in Table 1.
The amount of water used and discharged by different parts of Yanshan campus
Parts . | Index . | Unit . | The amount of water used . | Maximum amount . | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Used (m3) . | Discharged (m3) . | ||||
Students' dormitory | 200 L/(person·d) | person | 30,000 | 6,000 | 4,800 |
Dining Hall | 20 L/(person·d) | person | 31,875 | 637.5 | 510 |
Teaching and Office Buildings | 50 L/(person·d) | person | 31,875 | 1,593.6 | 1,275 |
Laboratories | 170 L/(room·d) | room | 18 | 3.1 | 2.5 |
Infirmary | |||||
Medical stuff | 50 L/(person·d) | person | 12 | 0.6 | 4.8 |
Patients | 20 L/(person·d) | person /d | 270 | 5.4 | |
Irrigation | 3 L/(m2·d) | m2 | 540,270 | 1,620.8 | evaporation |
Playground | 3 L/(person·d) | person | 30,000 | 90 | 72 |
Subtotal | 9,951 | ||||
Unexpected amount (10%) | 995.1 | ||||
Total amount | 10,946.1 |
Parts . | Index . | Unit . | The amount of water used . | Maximum amount . | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Used (m3) . | Discharged (m3) . | ||||
Students' dormitory | 200 L/(person·d) | person | 30,000 | 6,000 | 4,800 |
Dining Hall | 20 L/(person·d) | person | 31,875 | 637.5 | 510 |
Teaching and Office Buildings | 50 L/(person·d) | person | 31,875 | 1,593.6 | 1,275 |
Laboratories | 170 L/(room·d) | room | 18 | 3.1 | 2.5 |
Infirmary | |||||
Medical stuff | 50 L/(person·d) | person | 12 | 0.6 | 4.8 |
Patients | 20 L/(person·d) | person /d | 270 | 5.4 | |
Irrigation | 3 L/(m2·d) | m2 | 540,270 | 1,620.8 | evaporation |
Playground | 3 L/(person·d) | person | 30,000 | 90 | 72 |
Subtotal | 9,951 | ||||
Unexpected amount (10%) | 995.1 | ||||
Total amount | 10,946.1 |
In most Chinese universities, cooking is forbidden in student dormitories because of the risk of natural gas leakage. Therefore, only personal hygiene and laundry washing generate wastewater from the dormitories. Three canteens serve all the university students at GUT Yanshan campus. Leftover food was collected in the trash. Tableware were washed by the canteen workers. Oil separation units were used to separate the oil from the wastewater according to Chinese law. The average concentration of oil in the inlet of the aeration chamber was 12.53 mg/L during dry weather and 7.67 mg/L during storm water conditions. Unlike municipal wastewater (Jeffrey et al. 2000), nitrogen concentrations were relatively high throughout the test period (average: TN = 76 mg/L). Table 2 shows the concentrations of relevant parameters measured at the inlet of to the CMBR throughout the test period.
Composition of wastewater in winter and summer time at GUT
Parameter . | Unit . | Winter time . | Summer time . |
---|---|---|---|
COD | mg/L | 167.5–401.1 | 101.2–521.0 |
BOD5 | mg/L | 113.6–252.1 | 36.1–241.1 |
SS | mg/L | 90–120 | 37.7–120 |
TN | mg/L | 48.2–80.8 | 47.4–122.7 |
TP | mg/L | 3.6–8.0 | 5.5–11.3 |
pH | 6.34–7.44 | 6.60–7.56 | |
Temperature | °C | 11–16 | 20–28 |
Oil | mg/L | 3.39–20.46 | 1.2–21.18 |
Parameter . | Unit . | Winter time . | Summer time . |
---|---|---|---|
COD | mg/L | 167.5–401.1 | 101.2–521.0 |
BOD5 | mg/L | 113.6–252.1 | 36.1–241.1 |
SS | mg/L | 90–120 | 37.7–120 |
TN | mg/L | 48.2–80.8 | 47.4–122.7 |
TP | mg/L | 3.6–8.0 | 5.5–11.3 |
pH | 6.34–7.44 | 6.60–7.56 | |
Temperature | °C | 11–16 | 20–28 |
Oil | mg/L | 3.39–20.46 | 1.2–21.18 |
Analytical method
CODCr, SV30, SS, BOD5, oil: Filtered CODCr (1 μm) was measured by the closed reflux colorimetric method (APHA 1995). SS and volatile suspended solids in effluent and sludge samples were measured in accordance with Standard Methods (Wenjie et al. 2009, 2011). Oil was measured by infrared spectrophotometry (ET1200, EURO-TECH). Total nitrogen (TN) was determined by the persulfate method (Jin et al. 2015; Wenjie et al. 2014, 2015) using the UV spectrophotometric screening method (Yue & Wenjie 2016) for quantification of TN as NO3-N (the oxidization product of the persulfate digestion). The pH was measured by using a pH meter (9010, Jenco, USA), and dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured by using a DO meter (6010, Jenco, USA).
The total sludge content was estimated as mixed-liquor suspended solids (MLSS). For determination of MLSS, a sludge sample of known volume was washed twice by centrifugation (1,000× g for 15 min), decanted and re-suspended in deionized water, dried to a constant weight at 105 °C, and then cooled to room temperature using desiccation prior to weighing.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reactor performance
As shown in the Figure 3(b), the effluent BOD5 remained almost stable within an acceptable inflow BOD5 of 113.57–252.1 mg/L. The mean percentage of the BOD5 removal rate was 94.5%, and the mean value of the BOD5 concentration in the effluent was closer to 0 mg/L.
Transmembrane pressure and flux
Transmembrane pressure (TMP) is an important indicator of how much a membrane is clogged by particles. In this study, backwashing was adopted to prevent the clogging of the membrane. During the operation period, the membrane was backwashed for 1 h each week to maintain its functionality.
SV30, MLSS and viscosity
SV30 increased quickly at the initial stage of operation, and the value remained above 95% for most of the test. There was essentially no change in the SV30 value after the sludge was discharged from the system.
Along with the increases in the sludge concentration, the volume of the sludge floc also increased, as did the viscosity (Figure 7). On day 90, DO was increased to inhibit the growth of filamentous bacteria. This caused the viscosity to decrease and mostly level off at a relatively low value.
The results show that the CMBR had stable removal efficiencies for organic compounds. Affected by the temperature and concentrations of the sludge, the CODCr of at the outlet in winter was higher than that in summer, with mean values of 44.8 mg/L and 34.3 mg/L, respectively. The outlet was always free of solids. Thus, except for the coliform group, all effluent values met the standards specified in Table 3 for the use of treated water for irrigation. The filtrate tank is a possible the pollutant source. Therefore, disinfection should be carried out before used.
Effluent properties of the CMBR process and requirements on effluent quality for the reuse as irrigation purpose
Item . | Filtration water . | Reclaimed water regulationa . |
---|---|---|
Turbidity (NTU) | <0.5 | Less than 10 |
Coliform Group (CFU) | <60 | Less than 3 (/1 L) |
BOD5 (mg/L) | <0.5 | Less than 20 |
CODCr (mg/L) | <40 | – |
NH4-N (mg/L) | <20 | Less than 20 |
TN (mg/L) | <15 | – |
TP (mg/L) | <3 | – |
Item . | Filtration water . | Reclaimed water regulationa . |
---|---|---|
Turbidity (NTU) | <0.5 | Less than 10 |
Coliform Group (CFU) | <60 | Less than 3 (/1 L) |
BOD5 (mg/L) | <0.5 | Less than 20 |
CODCr (mg/L) | <40 | – |
NH4-N (mg/L) | <20 | Less than 20 |
TN (mg/L) | <15 | – |
TP (mg/L) | <3 | – |
aRefer to GB/T18920—2002, reuse of recycling from urban/water quality standard for urban miscellaneous water consumption.
In addition, no oil accumulation was detected in the aeration tank (Figure 8). It can be deduced that oil-degrading microorganisms were successfully cultivated in the CMBR process. The CMBR process ran with a stable flux of about 33 L/m2 h, with the TMP maintained at −10 kPa until the end of the experiment period. To our knowledge, this is the highest flux observed in wastewater treatment to date.
The CMBR plant construction total investment composed of infrastructure cost, design cost, and equipment expenses, was US$85,937. The operation costs, including electricity, chemical costs, and labor costs, are estimated to be about US$0.056/m3. Once the treated water is substituted appropriately for potable water, investment recovery takes only 3 years.
As shown in Table 4, the flat-sheet type of ceramic membrane used in this study had more advantages that that of the other type of organic membranes (PVDF and PE) (Meng et al. 2017). For domestic wastewater treatment, high fluxes of up to 42 L/m2 h can be achieved with this type of membrane, whereas only 25 L/m2 h and 17 L/m2 h fluxes are possible for flat-sheet type organic membranes and hollow-fiber type membranes, respectively. Long life, about two times longer than organic membranes, is another merit for flat-sheet ceramic membranes. The operating cost and maintenance are also superior. The footprint of a flat-sheet ceramic membrane is higher than that of a flat-sheet organic membranes but lower than that of a hollow-fiber type organic membrane. The flat-sheet ceramic membrane can be recycled after used. Therefore, flat-sheet ceramic membranes, as demonstrated in this study, are a good prospect for use in the MBR process.
Comparison of membranes
Membrane Type . | Flat-sheet Type . | Hollow-fiber Type . | |
---|---|---|---|
Material . | Ceramic . | Polymer (PVDF, PE) . | Polymer (PVDF) . |
Flux (Domestic wastewater) | ++ + 42 L/m2 h | ++ 25 L/m2 h | + 17 L/m2 h |
Stable | ++ Permeability was recovered after inline cleaning | ++ | ++ |
Life-time | 15 years | 8 years | 7 years |
Operating cost | ++ + 50% reduction of energy consumption | ++ | ++ |
Maintenance | ++ + Automatic backwash and inline cleaning Easy to wash the surface of membrane | ++ Backwash is impossible | + Washing is not effective due to the hollow-fiber structure |
Footprint | ++ Higher flux than Flat-sheet polymer | + | ++ + |
Recycle | ++ + Recyclable | − Incineration disposal | − Incineration disposal |
Membrane Type . | Flat-sheet Type . | Hollow-fiber Type . | |
---|---|---|---|
Material . | Ceramic . | Polymer (PVDF, PE) . | Polymer (PVDF) . |
Flux (Domestic wastewater) | ++ + 42 L/m2 h | ++ 25 L/m2 h | + 17 L/m2 h |
Stable | ++ Permeability was recovered after inline cleaning | ++ | ++ |
Life-time | 15 years | 8 years | 7 years |
Operating cost | ++ + 50% reduction of energy consumption | ++ | ++ |
Maintenance | ++ + Automatic backwash and inline cleaning Easy to wash the surface of membrane | ++ Backwash is impossible | + Washing is not effective due to the hollow-fiber structure |
Footprint | ++ Higher flux than Flat-sheet polymer | + | ++ + |
Recycle | ++ + Recyclable | − Incineration disposal | − Incineration disposal |
CONCLUSIONS
The CMBR process has proven to be a robust system, capable of producing high quality service water from campus wastewater. Even under difficult local conditions, such as varying inlet concentrations, the quality requirements for the use of treated wastewater were met throughout the whole test period after disinfection. Fresh water demand can be reduced significantly if this service water is used for irrigation. Fluxes above 33 L/m2 h, with MLSS at about 12,000 mg/L, were maintained. By using the CMBR process, treated water meets the Chinese national standards for landscaping irrigation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by Guilin Scientific Research and Technology Development Program (No. 2016012303), Guangxi Scientific Experiment Center of Mining, Metallurgy and Environment (KH2012ZD004), the project of high level innovation team and outstanding scholar in Guangxi colleges and universities (002401013001).