Extractive membrane bioreactor EMB

The chapter focuses on membrane bioreactors where a UF or MF membrane is employed for biomass retention and filtration. However, membrane bioreactors where the membrane provides a support for biofilms are an alternative form of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment application. Two processes, in particular, the membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) and the extractive membrane bioreactor (EMB), have seen significant interest in recent years. Figure 36.4 shows these two technologies schematically. The application of biofilms reactors for wastewater treatment systems is advantageous in view of... 

Hollow fiber extractive membrane bioreactors (EMB), have been modelled by Pavasant et al [5.104]. For this purpose the authors employed a diffusion-reaction model for the membrane to describe the dynamic biofilm growth. The wastewater and the biological treatment compartments were considered completely mixed. Pavasant et al [5.104] report... 

A cost analysis of an extractive membrane bioreactor (EMB) for wastewater treatment has been reported by Freitas dos Santos and Lo Biundo [6.24]. The EMB studied was similar with those reported in Chapter 4. Calculations were carried out for a feed flowrate of 1 m h of wastewater polluted with dichloromethane at a concentration of 1 g l A minimum pollutant removal rate of 99 % and 8000 h of operation per year were considered. As expected, the analysis indicated that the costs are strongly dependent on the pollutant flow entering the bioreactor to be transformed. Two key parameters, namely the total membrane area required and the external mass transfer coefficient, were studied. The results show that the costs and membrane area decrease significantly as the mass transfer coefficient increases from 0.5 x 10 to 2.0 x 10 m-s (these values are typical for large units, while laboratory measured values harbor around 5x10 m-s [624]). Using a mass transfer coefficient of 1.0 x 10 m s the authors calculated the costs and the membrane area required for different wastewater flowrates. These results are shown in Fig. 6.3. 

---