Reduced sludge production in a two-stage membrane-assisted bioreactor

Abstract The performance of different two-stage systems was compared for the treatment of synthetic wastewater. The first stage was a completely mixed reactor without sludge retention for the stimulation of dispersed bacterial growth. The second stage was an activated sludge system in which growth of protozoa and metazoa was stimulated. Solid-liquid separation was achieved either by sedimentation (conventional activated sludge (CAS) system) or submerged membrane filtration (membrane-assisted bioreactor (MBR) system). Some 80% of the chemical oxygen demand (COD) was removed in the first stage at volumetric loading rates up to 1.6 g COD l −1 d −1 . In case the subsequent stage was conventional activated sludge, a further COD decrease was noticed. In case of a subsequent MBR system, however, the dissolved COD concentration tended to increase due to the retention of organics by the membrane. In the first stage of both systems, most of the nitrogen and phosphate was used for biomass incorporation. Increased mineralization by protozoa and metazoa in the second stage resulted in a partial release of nitrogen and phosphate to the effluent. The MBR system yielded a 20–30% lower sludge production than the CAS system under similar conditions of solids retention time and organic loading rate. This was attributed to the higher amount of predators in the second stage of the MBR configuration. However, the increased grazing of predators on nitrifying bacteria can result in overgrazing of the latter population. Overall, the two-phase system based on conventional activated sludge had as major point of weakness the wash-out of suspended solids, while the one based on the MBR was hampered by too intensive grazing on the nitrifiers, increased N and P concentrations and wash-out of soluble but humified COD.

[1]  Jens Aage Hansen,et al.  Nitrogen in organic wastes applied to soils , 1989 .

[2]  Krist V. Gernaey,et al.  Nitrification monitoring in activated sludge by oxygen uptake rate (OUR) measurements. , 1996 .

[3]  Thomas Welander,et al.  Influence of Predators on Nitrification in Aerobic Biofilm Processes , 1994 .

[4]  B. Griffiths The Effect of Protozoan Grazing on Nitrification - Implications from the Application of Organic Wastes Applied to Soils , 1990 .

[5]  W. Verstraete,et al.  Biochemical Ecology of Nitrification and Denitrification , 1977 .

[6]  J. M. Bremner,et al.  Steam distillation methods for determination of ammonium, nitrate and nitrite , 1965 .

[7]  D. Patterson Free-Living Freshwater Protozoa , 1991 .

[8]  J. Hunik Engineering aspects of nitrification with immobilized cells , 1993 .

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

[10]  Thomas Welander,et al.  Reducing sludge production in aerobic wastewater treatment through manipulation of the ecosystem , 1996 .

[11]  W. H. Rulkens,et al.  Using metazoa to reduce sludge production , 1997 .

[12]  Yuhei Inamori,et al.  Control of the Growth of Filamentous Microorganisms Using Predacious Ciliated Protozoa , 1991 .

[13]  H. J. Laanbroek,et al.  Effects of Grazing by Flagellates on Competition for Ammonium between Nitrifying and Heterotrophic Bacteria in Chemostats , 1992, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[14]  Miroslav Macek,et al.  Bacteria and Protozoa Population Dynamics in Biological Phosphate Removal Systems , 1994 .

[15]  W. Gujer,et al.  Activated sludge model No. 3 , 1995 .