Performance of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) system: flux stability and removal of trace organics.

Results reported here highlight the potential and several challenges in the development of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) process for the treatment of municipal wastewater. Following the initial gradual decline, a stable permeate flux value was obtained after approximately four days of continuous operation. There was evidence of continuous deterioration of biological activity of the OMBR system, possibly due to the build-up of salinity in the reactor. The removal of 25 out of 27 trace organic compounds with molecular weight higher than 266 g/mol was above 80% and was possibly governed by the interplay between physical separation of the FO membrane and biodegradation. In contrast, the removal efficiency values of the other 23 trace organic compounds with molecular weight less than 266 g/mol were very scattered. The removal efficiency of these low molecular weight compounds by OMBR treatment appears to depend mostly on biological degradation.

[1]  Adriano Joss,et al.  Scrutinizing pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wastewater treatment. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Forward osmosis: Principles, applications, and recent developments , 2006 .

[3]  Rong Wang,et al.  Synthesis and characterization of flat-sheet thin film composite forward osmosis membranes , 2011 .

[4]  A. M. Amat,et al.  Solar photocatalysis as a tertiary treatment to remove emerging pollutants from wastewater treatment plant effluents , 2011 .

[5]  Long D. Nghiem,et al.  Combining MBR and NF/RO membrane filtration for the removal of trace organics in indirect potable wa , 2010 .

[6]  J. Qin,et al.  Optimization of operating conditions in forward osmosis for osmotic membrane bioreactor , 2009 .

[7]  Tai-Shung Chung,et al.  Forward osmosis processes: Yesterday, today and tomorrow , 2012 .

[8]  J. Keller,et al.  Understanding the operational parameters affecting NDMA formation at Advanced Water Treatment Plants. , 2011, Journal of hazardous materials.

[9]  Heleen De Wever,et al.  Comparison of sulfonated and other micropollutants removal in membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment. , 2007, Water research.

[10]  C. D. Lundin,et al.  A multi-barrier osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalination and purification of impaired water , 2010 .

[11]  J. Georgiadis,et al.  Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades , 2008, Nature.

[12]  M. Jekel,et al.  Comparison of two treatments for the removal of selected organic micropollutants and bulk organic matter: conventional activated sludge followed by ultrafiltration versus membrane bioreactor. , 2011, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  Brett J. Vanderford,et al.  Analysis of pharmaceuticals in water by isotope dilution liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  H. Ngo,et al.  Comparison of membrane bioreactor systems in wastewater treatment , 2008 .

[15]  J. Müller,et al.  Biodegradation of persistent polar pollutants in wastewater: comparison of an optimised lab-scale membrane bioreactor and activated sludge treatment. , 2006, Water research.

[16]  D.J.H. Harmsen,et al.  Membrane fouling and process performance of forward osmosis membranes on activated sludge , 2008 .

[17]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  A novel ammonia-carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process , 2005 .

[18]  Chettiyappan Visvanathan,et al.  Membrane Separation Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment , 2000 .

[19]  Mira Petrovic,et al.  Analysis of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and removal using a membrane bioreactor , 2006, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

[20]  Stuart J. Khan,et al.  Effect of mixed liquor pH on the removal of trace organic contaminants in a membrane bioreactor. , 2010, Bioresource technology.

[21]  Long D Nghiem,et al.  Removal of trace organics by MBR treatment: the role of molecular properties. , 2011, Water research.

[22]  Long D. Nghiem,et al.  Removal of micropollutants by membrane bioreactor under temperature variation , 2011 .

[23]  A. E. Greenberg,et al.  Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater : supplement to the sixteenth edition , 1988 .

[24]  H Kroiss,et al.  Removal of selected pharmaceuticals, fragrances and endocrine disrupting compounds in a membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment plants. , 2005, Water research.

[25]  J. McCutcheon,et al.  Internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis: role of membrane orientation , 2006 .

[26]  Long D Nghiem,et al.  Simultaneous activated carbon adsorption within a membrane bioreactor for an enhanced micropollutant removal. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[27]  S. Judd.  The status of membrane bioreactor technology. , 2008, Trends in biotechnology.

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

[29]  Tzahi Y Cath,et al.  Removal of natural steroid hormones from wastewater using membrane contactor processes. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

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

[31]  N A T H A N,et al.  Solute Coupled Diffusion in Osmotically Driven Membrane Processes , 2009 .

[32]  Robert L McGinnis,et al.  Desalination by ammonia–carbon dioxide forward osmosis: Influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on process performance , 2006 .

[33]  B. Patterson,et al.  Behaviour and fate of nine recycled water trace organics during managed aquifer recharge in an aerobic aquifer. , 2011, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[34]  R. M. Barrer.  Membrane separation , 1977, Nature.