This invention relates to a membrane bioreactor (“MBR”) system to treat wastewater. More particularly, the present invention relates to a MBR system that employs a repetitive back and forth motion (hereafter called the “reciprocating motion” or “reciprocation”) of a submerged membrane to increase filtration and nutrients removal efficiencies instead of membrane air scouring which is commonly utilized in submerged MBR.
The background art contains several examples of MBR systems. These systems utilize biological treatment processes (e.g. activated sludge processes) to remove contaminants from wastewater. Several modified activated sludge processes can be used alone or in series for improved removal of nutrients in the MBR. Known MBR systems also use low pressure microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF) membranes as a physical barrier for a complete solid-liquid separation. The UF or MF membranes can be submerged in a bioreactor or external to the bioreactor. Submerged membranes are typically installed in an aerobic bioreactor or a separate membrane tank. Membrane air scouring is of utmost importance in submerged MBR operation to prevent severe and rapid membrane fouling. By way of these known techniques, MBR systems can achieve secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment.
One advantage of known MBR systems is the direct production of tertiary quality effluent with the treatment of domestic or industrial wastewater. Another reason for the growing interest in MBR technology is its smaller footprint compared to conventional treatment processes. For example, using conventional MBR systems, a treatment plant could potentially double its capacity without increasing its overall footprint. MBR technology is not only limited to domestic wastewater, but it can also be applied to treat industrial wastewater for reuse.
An example of an MBR system is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,867,883 to Daigger. This reference discloses a high-rate biological waste water treatment process for removing organic matter, phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients from municipal waste water. A further MBR system is disclosed is U.S. Pat. No. 8,287,733 to Nick et al. It discloses a system utilizing first and second anoxic basins and first and second aerobic basins. Also disclosed is the use of a membrane chamber for housing a plurality of membrane tanks.
One common drawback of known MBR systems is membrane fouling. This occurs when soluble and particulate materials accumulate on the membrane surface. When such fouling occurs, there is either a marked decline in permeate passing through the membrane or an increase in the transmembrane pressure. In either event, the result is a dramatic reduction in system performance. Membrane fouling is especially problematic in MBR systems given that they generally operate with higher mixed liquor suspended solids (“MLSS”).
One solution to membrane fouling is air scouring. Vigorous air scouring allows for stable flux operation without rapid and permanent fouling and especially cake layer buildup. Given the higher MLSS concentrations at which MBR systems operate, frequent maintenance cleanings and out of tank cleanings are also important to maintain membrane performance in terms of fouling and permeability. Air scouring is not optimal as it is energy intensive. In MBR systems energy consumption is considerably higher than conventional activated sludge systems due to the additional air scouring for the membrane.
Thus, there exists a need in the art for improved MBR systems that eliminate or reduce membrane fouling and that do not rely upon air scouring. The present invention is aimed at fulfilling these and other needs in the art.
It is therefore one of the objectives of this invention to reduce or eliminate membrane fouling in an MBR system.
It is a further object of this invention to provide a MBR system that does not utilize membrane air scouring.
It is also one of the objectives of this invention to reduce or eliminate the presence of dissolved oxygen in return activated sludge (RAS) by not utilizing air scouring in membrane tank, thereby permitting the activated sludge to be returned from a membrane tank to an anoxic or anaerobic treatment tank.
It is still yet another object of this invention to operate MBRs with higher efficiencies in membrane filtration and biological nutrients removal via the reciprocation of a membrane.
The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the more pertinent and important features of the present invention in order that the detailed description of the invention that follows may be better understood so that the present contribution to the art can be more fully appreciated. Additional features of the invention will be described hereinafter which form the subject of the claims of the invention. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conception and the specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
For a fuller understanding of the nature and objects of the invention, reference should be had to the following detailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawings in which:
Similar reference characters refer to similar parts throughout the several views of the drawings.
The present invention relates to membrane bioreactor (“MBR”) system that includes a mechanical apparatus for reciprocating a membrane cage (or membrane cassettes) back and forth. The apparatus eliminates the use of air scouring. Repetitive reciprocation of the membrane cage/cassette creates an inertia force acting on the membrane fibers, which shakes foulants off from the membrane surface. The system includes a membrane cage/cassette containing membrane modules that are submerged in either an aerobic tank or a separate membrane tank. The membrane cage/cassette can be mechanically reciprocated via reciprocation apparatus, which enable the disclosed MBR system to be operated with higher flux and lower fouling than MBR systems using air scoring. Various mechanical means can be employed to create the reciprocating motion. The various details of the present invention, and the manner in which they interrelate, are described in greater detail hereinafter.
An alternative embodiment of such an apparatus is depicted in
Various alternative embodiments of the present process invention are described in connection with
The anaerobic treatment tank 51 receives influent 10 to be treated. Thereafter anaerobic treatment tank 51 biologically treats the influent in the absence of dissolved oxygen to release phosphorous for luxury uptake in the following aerobic conditions. In anoxic tank 52 the wastewater is denitrified in oxygen-depleted conditions. Dissolved oxygen is excluded from anoxic tank 52, although chemically bound oxygen may be present. Nitrification and luxury phosphorous uptake occur in the Aerobic treatment tank 53 in the presence of dissolved oxygen. Filtration in the membrane tank 60 produces effluent 40.
There are two recirculation lines for the activated sludge. A line 31 delivers return activated sludge (or “RAS”) from membrane tank 60 to anoxic tank 52. Additionally, an internal recycle line 32 delivers a portion of the activated sludge from anoxic tank 52 to anaerobic tank 51 to maintain mixed liquor suspended solids (or “MLSS”). In this invention, RAS takes two roles in conventional activated sludge or MBR processes. In prior art systems, the return flow of activated sludge from membrane tank contains dissolved oxygen (“DO”). Thus, in prior art systems, the activated sludge from the membrane tank could not be returned to the anoxic 52 or anaerobic 51 tanks due to the high amounts of dissolved oxygen effects on denitrification or phosphorous release. However, with regard the present invention, since physical membrane reciprocation is utilized instead of vigorous air bubbling, the DO in the RAS is minimal compared to conventional MBR. Therefore, only one sludge return line is required for both sludge and nitrate return in the present invention.
The system depicted in
The present disclosure includes that contained in the appended claims, as well as that of the foregoing description. Although this invention has been described in its preferred form with a certain degree of particularity, it is understood that the present disclosure of the preferred form has been made only by way of example and that numerous changes in the details of construction and the combination and arrangement of parts may be resorted to without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
This is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/874,016, filed Apr. 30, 2013 (allowed), which claims priority to application Ser. No. 61/711,081 filed on Oct. 8, 2012 and entitled “Vibration Membrane Bioreactor System Using Reciprocating Motion To Treat Wastewater.” The entire disclosures of the prior applications are considered part of the disclosure of the accompanying continuation application, and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2024426 | Butler | Dec 1935 | A |
3175687 | Jones | Mar 1965 | A |
3491021 | Huntington | Jan 1970 | A |
4867883 | Daigger et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4872988 | Culkin | Oct 1989 | A |
4952317 | Culkin | Aug 1990 | A |
5014564 | Culkin | May 1991 | A |
5047149 | Degremont | Sep 1991 | A |
5076305 | Williams | Dec 1991 | A |
5480548 | Daigger et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5601719 | Hawkins et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5725767 | Culkin | Mar 1998 | A |
5744037 | Fujimura et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5759401 | Boussely et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5833856 | Liu et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5853589 | Desjardins et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5932099 | Cote et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5958243 | Lawrence et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5985160 | DiLeo et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6156200 | Zha et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6322698 | Rios et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6406629 | Husain et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6409944 | Degremont | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6485645 | Husain et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6712970 | Trivedi | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6872301 | Schepis | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6890431 | Eades et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
7122121 | Ji | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7169301 | Vion | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7175768 | Vion | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7252765 | Barnard | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7282147 | Kirker et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7285215 | Barnard | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7294274 | Kirker et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7297278 | Steele et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7326343 | Nakhla et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7344643 | Elefritz, Jr. et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7445709 | Beaule et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7455765 | Elefritz et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7537696 | Arnaud | May 2009 | B2 |
7561014 | Johnson et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7651620 | Degremont | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7815780 | Djordjevic | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7850851 | Zha et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7887702 | Park et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7931808 | Elefritz, Jr. et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7935259 | Gavalas | May 2011 | B2 |
7951555 | Taylor et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7981287 | Lambert et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8114296 | Chao | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8133396 | Crowell | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8287733 | Nick et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
20050023219 | Kirker et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050077227 | Kirker et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20090211974 | Bonnelye et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100038314 | Vion et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100042389 | Farruggia et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100096325 | Tsukahara et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100108584 | Magnanini | May 2010 | A1 |
20100116736 | Wiemers et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100116737 | Wiemers et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100187186 | Howdeshell et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110084012 | Yang et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110165677 | Brod et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110192801 | Jeanmarie et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120193294 | Amato et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120211407 | Anderson | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120211431 | Hayes et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120211905 | Hayes | Aug 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2994768 | Sep 1992 | JP |
H04260421 | Sep 1992 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Ho et al., “Pilot Demonstration of Energy-Efficient Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Using Reciprocating Submerged Membrane,” Water Environment Research 87(3) (Mar. 2015) 266-273, 8 pages. (Year: 2015). |
Camargo et al. “Treatment of low-strength wastewater using immobilized biomass in a sequencing batch external loop reactor: Influence of the medium superficial velocity on the stability and performance”; Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering; vol. 19, No. 3, 2002, p. 267-275; p. 268, col. 2, paragraph 3. |
Communication dated Jan. 26, 2017 issued by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in counterpart application No. 2,887,437. |
European Search Report corresponding to application No. 13845471.5 dated Feb. 12, 2016. |
European Search Report corresponding to application No. 15170827.8 dated Feb. 2, 2016. |
International Search Report dated Feb. 12, 2014 issued in PCT/US13/63708. |
Slocum, http://web.mitedu/2.75/fundamentals/FUNdaMENTALs/020Book°/020pdf/FUNdaMENTALs°/020Topie/0205.PDF, Jan. 1, 2008, accessed on the Internet on Nov. 14, 2016, 62 pages. |
Kola et al., J. Membrane Science 409-410 (2012) 54-65, 12 pages. |
Ho et al., “Pilot Demonstartion of Energy-Efficient Membrane Reactor (MBR) Using Reciprocating Submerged Membrane,” Water Envoronment Research 87(3) (Mar. 2015) 266-273, 8 pages. |
A. Kola, et al., Application of Low Frequency Transverse Vibration on Fouling Limitation in Submerged Hollow Fibre Membranes, J. Membr_ Sci. (2012), doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.03.017, 12 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180117534 A1 | May 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61711081 | Oct 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13874016 | Apr 2013 | US |
Child | 15853025 | US |