Economic, energy and carbon footprint assessment of integrated forward osmosis membrane bioreactor (FOMBR) process in urban wastewater treatment

The application of forward osmosis (FO) membrane-based technology in urban wastewater treatment has received increased attention, however, its techno-economic feasibility and sustainability have not been fully demonstrated. In this study, the feasibility of FO application in urban wastewater treatment was assessed in terms of economic performance, energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions benchmarked against microfiltration (MF). Three different scenarios of wastewater treatment and water reclamation were proposed: (A) forward osmosis aerobic membrane bioreactor (FOAeMBR); (B) FOAeMBR integrated with reverse osmosis (RO); (C) forward osmosis anaerobic membrane bioreactor (FOAnMBR) integrated with partial nitrification/anammox (PN/AMOX) process. In this study, the wastewater treatment and reclamation costs by using FO in scenarios A and B were more expensive than MF by $0.16 per m3 and $0.75 per m3 respectively due to the larger surface area of FO membrane required. In scenario C, the wastewater treatment cost of using FO ($1.11 per m3) was equivalent to MF. This was due to the good rejection performance of FO and its ability to concentrate wastewater, hence, resulting in a higher efficiency of (PN/AMOX) in comparison to MF. In addition, the application of FO in scenario C generated total GHG emissions to be as low as 0.93 kg CO2 equivalent m−3, which was 1.5 and 4.1 times lower than scenarios A and B respectively. The minimal net energy consumption and low carbon footprint of FO application in scenario C suggests this integration will likely be a feasible membrane-based technology for the next generation of wastewater treatment.

[1]  Gideon Oron,et al.  Economic Assessment of an Integrated Membrane System for Secondary Effluent Polishing for Unrestricted Reuse , 2012 .

[2]  Adam Teusner,et al.  Augmenting water supply by combined desalination/water recycling methods: an economic assessment , 2017, Environmental technology.

[3]  Zhenyu Li,et al.  Indirect desalination of Red Sea water with forward osmosis and low pressure reverse osmosis for water reuse , 2011 .

[4]  M. Wilf,et al.  Design considerations for wastewater treatment by reverse osmosis. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[5]  K. Koch,et al.  A novel concept to integrate energy recovery into potable water reuse treatment schemes , 2018 .

[6]  Shiao‐Shing Chen,et al.  Application of forward osmosis on dewatering of high nutrient sludge. , 2013, Bioresource technology.

[7]  M. Bilad,et al.  Direct sewage up-concentration by submerged aerated and vibrated membranes. , 2012, Bioresource technology.

[8]  May-Britt Hägg,et al.  Pressure Retarded Osmosis and Forward Osmosis Membranes: Materials and Methods , 2013 .

[9]  Pierre Le-Clech,et al.  Efficiently Combining Water Reuse and Desalination through Forward Osmosis—Reverse Osmosis (FO-RO) Hybrids: A Critical Review , 2016, Membranes.

[10]  S. Okabe,et al.  Anammox-based technologies for nitrogen removal: Advances in process start-up and remaining issues. , 2015, Chemosphere.

[11]  F. Kargı,et al.  Salt inhibition on biological nutrient removal from saline wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor , 2004 .

[12]  Fenglin Yang,et al.  Toward energy-neutral wastewater treatment: A membrane combined process of anaerobic digestion and nitritation–anammox for biogas recovery and nitrogen removal , 2015 .

[13]  Grietje Zeeman,et al.  Autotrophic nitrogen removal from low strength waste water at low temperature. , 2012, Water research.

[14]  Sheng Chang.  Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors (AnMBR) for Wastewater Treatment , 2014 .

[15]  S. Kentish,et al.  Crosslinked PEG and PEBAX Membranes for Concurrent Permeation of Water and Carbon Dioxide , 2015, Membranes.

[16]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO) , 2010 .

[17]  Yongzhen Peng,et al.  Biological nitrogen removal from sewage via anammox: Recent advances. , 2016, Bioresource technology.

[18]  K. Svardal,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants , 2016 .

[19]  Pierre Le-Clech,et al.  Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for seawater desalination , 2015 .

[20]  Mira Petrovic,et al.  Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) as an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology , 2008 .

[21]  João C. Diniz da Costa,et al.  Processing municipal wastewaters by forward osmosis using CTA membrane , 2014 .

[22]  Sangho Lee,et al.  Economic Evaluation of a Hybrid Desalination System Combining Forward and Reverse Osmosis , 2015, Membranes.

[23]  Guanglei Qiu,et al.  Direct and complete phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater using a hybrid microfiltration-forward osmosis membrane bioreactor process with seawater brine as draw solution. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  Helge Brattebø,et al.  Energy consumption, costs and environmental impacts for urban water cycle services: Case study of Os , 2011 .

[25]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Activity and growth of anammox biomass on aerobically pre-treated municipal wastewater , 2015, Water research.

[26]  Ho Kyong Shon,et al.  Physicochemical pretreatment of seawater: fouling reduction and membrane characterization , 2009 .

[27]  Zhiguo Yuan,et al.  Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater treatment processes , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Study of integration of forward osmosis and biological process: Membrane performance under elevated salt environment , 2011 .

[29]  Shane A. Snyder,et al.  Costs of Advanced Treatment in Water Reclamation , 2014 .

[30]  Johannes S. Vrouwenvelder,et al.  Water harvesting from municipal wastewater via osmotic gradient: An evaluation of process performance , 2013 .

[31]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  The forward osmosis membrane bioreactor: A low fouling alternative to MBR processes , 2009 .

[32]  Shihu Hu,et al.  Identifying novel wastewater treatment options through optimal technology integration , 2015 .

[33]  M. Loosdrecht,et al.  Sewage Treatment with Anammox , 2010, Science.

[34]  L. Güereca,et al.  Methane correction factors for estimating emissions from aerobic wastewater treatment facilities based on field data in Mexico and on literature review. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[35]  J S Vrouwenvelder,et al.  Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis - low pressure reverse osmosis system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery. , 2016, Water research.

[36]  Long D. Nghiem,et al.  Factors governing the pre-concentration of wastewater using forward osmosis for subsequent resource recovery. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[37]  Anthony G Fane,et al.  Impacts of salinity on the performance of high retention membrane bioreactors for water reclamation: A review. , 2010, Water research.

[38]  Xinhua Wang,et al.  Osmotic membrane bioreactors assisted with microfiltration membrane for salinity control (MF-OMBR) operating at high sludge concentrations: Performance and implications , 2017 .

[39]  Tai‐Shung Chung,et al.  Techno-Economic Evaluation of Various RO+PRO and RO+FO Integrated Processes , 2018, Membrane Technology for Osmotic Power Generation by Pressure Retarded Osmosis.

[40]  Yueping Ren,et al.  Impacts of sludge retention time on sludge characteristics and membrane fouling in a submerged osmotic membrane bioreactor. , 2014, Bioresource technology.