Membrane technology costs and me

Judd, Simon

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.027

Cited by 127 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent developments of intermittent or cyclic aeration have been considered as an efficient method to control membrane fouling with less energy consumption . The effective aeration reduction was demonstrated commercially by GE: intermittent coarse bubble aeration strategy was used by 10 s on—10 s off and 10 s on—30 s off, decreasing specific aeration demand per membrane area (SAD m) initially by 50–75%, with no apparent detriment to the flux or significant impact on the fouling rate . Lorain et al tested a pilot scale MBR with sequenced aeration cycles of 5 s on and 25 s off, which could reduce SAD m from 0.5 m 3 /m 2 ·h to 0.260 m 3 /m 2 ·h by nearly 50%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel aeration of a large‐scale flat sheet MBR: A CFD and experimental investigation

Wang

Field

2018

AIChE Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having previously established that the hydrodynamic effect introduced by slug bubbles is more effective and economic in fouling amelioration in flat sheet MBRs (FSMBR) than conventional bubbling, this work is focused on its implementation in a commercial FSMBR. The overall objective is to enhance the hydrodynamic effect on fouling control through the use of two‐stage large‐sized bubble development (coalescence and split). Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was used to predict hydrodynamic features and substantial agreement was observed with experimental measurements. The critical height for bubble development space was determined to be circa 250 mm. Slug bubbles could be introduced into 14 channels, resulting in six‐fold stronger shear stress than that from single bubbles. Energy demand could be reduced by circa 50% compared with industry average usage and the shear stresses developed would, for most applications, be sufficient to ameliorate fouling. Furthermore, the specific air demand per permeate would be halved. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 64: 2721–2736, 2018

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel aeration of a large‐scale flat sheet MBR: A CFD and experimental investigation

Wang

Field

2018

AIChE Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) has emerged as a reliable treatment technology alternative to conventional treatment such as Activated Sludge (Metcalf and Eddy, 2007). The use of membrane technology is increasing in the water industry as a state of art technology for its robustness and capacity to produce high-quality water (Metcalf and Eddy, 2007;Judd, 2017) and other unique advantages such as small spatial footprint and good disinfection capability (Abegglen, 2006;Metcalf and Eddy, 2007;Tadkaew et al, 2007;Skouteris et al, 2014). Earlier MBRs would be used for centralised/large scale applications but now it is being used for decentralised wastewater systems (Tadkaew et al, 2007).…”

Section: Membrane Bioreactor (Mbr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The short distances between wastewater generation and the recycled water facility make reuse of wastewater (permeate-final effluent of MBR plants) convenient in decentralised water recycling systems. Many developing countries such as China, Japan, India are also using this technology for the tertiary treatment of wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 2007;Judd, 2017;Kumar, 2013;Thippeswamy, 2018). Research carried out in Singapore by Public Utility Board (PUB) revealed that MBR is a robust and optimised technology, which can reduce energy more than other technologies and has exceptional ease of operation (PUB, 2011).…”

Section: Membrane Bioreactor (Mbr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

How scale and technology influence the energy intensity of water recycling systems-An analytical review

Paul

Kenway

Mukheibir

2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many cities are moving towards increased use of recycled water to meet water demand due to freshwater scarcity, population growth, urbanisation and climate change. Water recycling requires substantial energy. Water utilities are facing serious challenges providing cost-effective and reliable water services under rising energy cost. Energy is further linked with global climate change through carbon intensive Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) emissions. However, few studies have attempted to understand the energy use of water recycling systems and how energy intensity of those systems varies with scale and technology. In this paper, we undertook a comprehensive and systematic literature and data review to understand the energy intensity of water recycling systems. We used four "cases": (1) Centralised Potable (2) Centralised Non-Potable, (3) Decentralised Potable and (4) Decentralised Non-Potable systems to structure our work. Our analysis demonstrates how energy intensity of water recycling systems decreases with increasing size for a wide range of scale and for different treatment technologies. The treatment energy intensity for centralised systems having capacity less than 5 MLD varies from 0.48 to 2.0 kWh/kL for non-potable and 0.75 to 2.0 kWh/k for potable; for capacities between 5 and 200 MLD varies from 0.2 to 0.9 kWh/kL for potable and from 0.25 to 0.75 kWh/ kL for non-potable; and for any capacity greater than 200 MLD, the treatment energy intensity is less than 0.8 kWh/kL for potable and 0.55 kWh/kL for non-potable systems. But current centralised water recycling systems have a treatment energy intensity from 0.65 to 1.4 kWh/kL for Potable for capacity from 21 to 378 MLD and from 0.6 to 1.0 kWh/kL for non-potable systems for 6 to 350 MLD. In the case of decentralised systems, smaller systems consume higher energy than centralised systems but larger decentralised Systems (mid-size) have lower energy intensity. Though the treatment energy intensity of a centralised system is low, the reuse of treated water for non-potable water requires a dual pipe system which involves a good amount of pumping energy due to the long distance between the treatment plant and the users. Pumping energy, in this case, can vary from 0.19 to 1.43 kWh/kL. The selected treatment technology and train have also influence on the energy use. The present trend of water recycling is to produce high-quality recycled water for all non-potable reuse using Advanced Water Treatment but all non-potable water uses do not necessarily require such high quality water. Little attention has been given to introducing 'fit for purpose' water reuse using appropriate technologies and larger decentralised water recycling systems that have the potential to reduce energy intensity for cost-effective urban water services.

show abstract

“…Since the discovery of the phase inversion technique by Loeb-Sourirajan in the 1960s, various types of the membrane have been produced, and numerous modules have been developed for various industrial applications [1]. Recently, membrane mechanism has been widely utilized for water and wastewater treatment [2,3], gas separation [4], food and beverage processing [5], and in the pharmaceutical industry for enzyme and protein concentration [6], Membrane technology offers better control of the treatment rate and product quality, thereby making it very attractive for replacing conventional separation technology, when applicable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication of Polyethersulfone Membranes Using Nanocarbon as Additive

Arahman¹

2018

GEOMATE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Membrane-based processes have become the most dominant technology for water or wastewater treatment. To maintain optimum performance, a membrane should have high permeability and selectivity, good hydrophilicity, in combination with stable mechanical properties. Generally, the membrane produced from pure polyethersulfone (PES) has good mechanical properties, but low hydrophilicity. Modifications of the PES membrane with hydrophilic additives can increase its hydrophilicity. Nevertheless, incorporating additives may decrease its mechanical properties. The objective of this study is to enhance the overall properties of PES membrane by incorporating nanocarbon as an additive. The goal is to obtain a membrane with high permeability and selectivity, good hydrophilicity, as well as superior mechanical properties. Four PES membranes were equipped via the dry-wet inversion method using two solvents (n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)). The nanocarbon additive was fabricated from palm fruit-shell biomass wastes. The results show that the type of solvent affects the pore structure of the membrane surface. The membranes prepared using the PES-NMP system have dense structures with small nodules that appear in the upper skin layer, while the membranes from the PES-DMSO system have a spherulite-like structure. The membrane structures changed significantly when the nanocarbon particles were added to the polymer solution, particularly in terms of the shape and size of the microvoids. The finger-like structure found in the membranes prepared from PES-NMP or PES-DMSO systems disappears after the nanocarbon was added to the system. Furthermore, the accretion of nanocarbon to the polymer system increases the water permeability, hydrophilicity, and mechanical properties of the resulted membrane.

show abstract

Membrane technology costs and me

Cited by 127 publications

References 45 publications

Novel aeration of a large‐scale flat sheet MBR: A CFD and experimental investigation

Novel aeration of a large‐scale flat sheet MBR: A CFD and experimental investigation

How scale and technology influence the energy intensity of water recycling systems-An analytical review

Fabrication of Polyethersulfone Membranes Using Nanocarbon as Additive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About