28 Feature

Filtration+Separation March 2008

Introduction to membranes – MBRs:

Manufacturers’
comparison: part 1
n the latest article in his series on membrane filtration for water
I and wastewater treatment, Graeme Pearce takes a look at the
various manufacturers in this field and the solutions they offer.

Background this series, and the pros and cons of the five to chlorine. PE is normally made as an MF
polymer families used for fabricating UF/MF membrane, and even then, it has relatively low
This paper is the eleventh in a series of
membranes were considered. However, the permeability, so process fluxes of PE membranes
articles describing membrane filtration
choice of polymer families for MBR is more tend to be at the low end of the range.
technology used for water and wastewater
limited than for the general field of membrane
treatment. The previous papers have provided In the 1990s, polyvinylidene difluoride
filtration, due to the onerous nature of the
an introduction to the field and examined (PVDF) became established in MBRs, firstly
wastewater treatment duty, and the rigours of
the basics of membranes, modules, process as a reinforced capillary fibre in Zenon’s ZW
the operational environment.
design, and operation in water and wastewater 500 product range. Its disadvantage is that it
applications. The series then looked at a An MBR membrane needs to be mechanically is significantly more expensive as a polymer,
comparison of manufacturers’ products for UF robust, chemically resistant to high Cl2 but it has impressive performance in terms
and MF, and is now concluding with a review concentrations used in cleaning, and non- of strength and flexibility, and overcomes
of MBR technology and products. The first of biodegradable. Clean water permeability is price disadvantage by achieving higher flux.
three MBR articles introduced the technology. not as important in an MBR as in membrane In addition, the life of a PVDF membrane is
This article provides an overview of the filtration applications, since the membrane very good, which has an important impact on
comparison of manufacturers’ products, with a transport properties will be strongly influenced operating cost, and hence on total water cost.
detailed supplier review planned for the final by the accumulation of foulant particles at the Several companies now offer PVDF products
article. membrane surface. However, process flux in in both capillary and flat sheet formats, with
treating a wastewater feed is important since the result that PVDF is now the dominant
Membrane selection it will directly affect capital cost, due to its membrane polymer in the MBR market.
effect on membrane area and footprint, and
The issue of membrane material selection was The final significantly used membrane polymer
operating costs due to the effect of membrane
considered in detail in the second article of in MBR is a reinforced polyethersulfone
area on chemical and air use.
(PES), though only one major player currently
The MBR industry first developed in Japan uses this material, i.e. Koch-Puron. PES is
Table 1: Polymer selection
with the use of chlorinated polyethylene (PE) an important polymer in water treatment,
PVDF flat sheet membrane by Kubota, and PE fibres but in wastewater applications, its lack of
• Limited ability to modify properties by Mitsubishi Rayon Engineering (MRE). PE flexibility limits the possibility of using air
• Excellent strength, flexibilty and has reasonable strength and flexibility, and scour. Reinforcing the capillary does allow air
reasonable permeability the different modifications made by the two scour, though at the expense of permeability.
• Coarse UF with broad psd or MF companies to the basic polymer improved The main polymer options for MBR are
PE properties like wettability and resistance summarised in Table 1.
• Inexpensive. with reasonable strength
and good flexibility can be made
hydrophilic
• Susceptible to oxidation, but
modification can improve Cl2 resistance
PES
Ability to modify properties through
polymer blend
good strength and pemeability UF with
narrow psd or MF Figure 1: MBR format options.
 Feature 29
Filtration+Separation March 2008

Table 2: MBR supplier summary

Market leaders Membrane Pore size μm Membrane Module format Product name Packing Flux lmh
format density, m2/m3
Kubota Cl2 PE 0.4 fs iMBR EK515 120 17-24
Mitsubishi PE 0.4 hf iMBR SUN 485 8.5-12
Mitsubishi PVDF 0.4 hf iMBR SADF approx 200 30-34
GE-Zenon PVDF 0.04 hf iMBR ZW 500d 304 17-24
2nd Tier
Koch-Puron PES 0.05 hf iMBR Puron 260 14-26
Siemens- PVDF 0.04 hf iMBR MemJet B10F 334 17-24
Memcor
Norit PVDF 0.03 tub sMBR AirLift F4385 308 50-60
Toray PVDF 0.08 fs iMBR Toray 135 29

Format options more consistent. However, in some countries, The air lift format is the enigmatic newcomer. It
storm run off can dilute the wastewater burden has been developed as a low energy alternative
Whereas membrane performance is critical in
and increase flowrates several fold, thereby to the energetically expensive crossflow
membrane filtration, MBRs are more heavily
significantly changing feed characteristics. sidestream format, which has been used
reliant on module and process design, the
historically for the most difficult feeds. The
method of operation, and the performance of Industrial feeds vary widely from one
energy cost of crossflow effectively rules it out
the bioreactor (1). This section examines the application to another, and may combine
as a treatment option for any application other
format options that have emerged in MBR for several sources. In addition, applications
than small scale or where there is no other
design and operation from the various suppliers. such as landfill leachate are notoriously
treatment option. However, the air lift has very
challenging, due to high loadings, and the
In MBR technology, two broad trends have low energy use, and may even undercut the
presence of recalcitrant organics that are
emerged, namely immersed MBRs (iMBR) energy requirements of the immersed options,
difficult to breakdown by the biological
and sidestream MBRs (sMBR). Immersed due to the advantage of containment of the
oxidation process.
technologies tend to be more cost effective for feed inside the tubular membrane. Since air
larger scale lower strength applications, and In general terms, iMBR formats based on lift eliminates operator contact and has good
sidestream technologies are favoured for smaller immersed hollow fibres (iMBR-hf) have been operational characteristics, it could well be that
scale higher strength applications. The original found to provide the most it makes a major impact to the MBR market
sMBR was based on crossflow, which gave high cost effective solution for
performance and high flux, but at a significant large scale, easy to treat
energy cost. The sMBR envelope has been applications. Technology
extended in recent years by the development has been developed with
of the air lift concept, which bridges the gap optimized packing density
between iMBR and crossflow sMBR, and may and aeration bubble
have the potential to challenge immersed size to achieve stable
systems in larger scale applications. performance at minimum
energy use (2). However,
The immersed and sidestream approaches
the iMBR-hf format can
are each commercially available in two
experience operational
configurations making a total of four MBR
difficulties due to fibres
formats. For example, the two immersed formats
becoming matted close to
from Zenon and Kubota use capillary and flat
the potted ends, so pre-
sheet membranes respectively. The sidestream
treatment and removal
approaches of Norit and other smaller suppliers
of hairs and fibres is
also divides into two formats. These are the
essential.
long established traditional method of crossflow,
now used only for the most difficult feeds, and iMBR formats based on
the newer concept of air lift, which uses air to flat sheets (iMBR-fs)
recirculate the feed and thereby significantly have been found to be
reduces energy demand. Both sidestream cost effective for similar
formats use tubular membranes. Figure 1 types of duty, but due to
illustrates how the different technological higher air use and lower
approaches are most cost effectively applied. capex, tend to be selected
The figure represents a spectrum of for small to medium scale
applications, with high flow, easily treated duties. The flat sheet
feeds on the left, moving towards the more format has operational
difficult feeds and lower flow applications on advantages in terms of
the right. Municipal feeds tend to be easier to plugging and cleaning,
treat than industrial feeds, since they normally and has been used with
have lower biological and chemical oxygen somewhat more difficult
demand (BOD and COD), and are generally feeds.
30 Feature
Filtration+Separation March 2008

Table 3: MBR format comparison for the treatment of easy and difficult feeds example, the flat sheet suppliers are now using
1.5 m panels, which reduces air flow by up
Municipal sewage UK landfill leachate to 30% compared to the original 1 m panel.
KW hr/m3 In addition, they also use double deck stacks
Microbiology 0.3 3 wherever possible, which further improves
air usage efficiency. Also, the hollow fibre
iMBR - air for fouling control 0.4 1
companies use intermittent aeration, for
sMBR - Air lift 0.3 0.6 - 1.0? example based on a timer in the case of Zenon,
sMBR - Crossflow 2-4 or in proportion to flow in the case of Koch-
Bio-treatment plus air lift sMBR for municipal sewage = 0.6 kWhr/m 3 P
Puron. These enhancements have significantly
Bio-treatment plus iMBR for landfill leachate = 4.0 kWhr/m 3 P P
reduced air usage and therefore power cost.

Energy comparison of MBR formats

A feed that is easy to treat requires aeration
at an energy cost of 0.3 kWhr/m3 to provide
oxygen for the microbiological degradation of
the organics. At the other end of the treatability
spectrum, the most difficult to treat landfill
leachate may require 10 times as much power for
the microbiology aeration. The energy cost for
the aeration to control membrane fouling in the
MBR is of a similar order to the microbiology
aeration for an east to treat feed, and increases
by 2.5 – 3.0 times for the more difficult feed (4).
Air lift technology has a similar power cost to
the immersed technology.
Crossflow is more energy intensive, but for
the more difficult feeds, it may be the only
option that works reliably. Very high crossflow
Figure 2: Worldwide installations for top 4 players in 2003 (approx 90% of the market).
velocities (up to 5 - 6 m3/hr) may be necessary
to gain control of the fouling, and this is an
expensive way of controlling the process. Air
lift is a more cost effective way of improving
mass transfer through the creation of slug flow
conditions in the lumen of the membrane
tubes (5), but there is a limit to how much
air flow can be used whilst retaining slug flow
conditions. Table 3 compares the energy costs
of bio-treatment and MBR formats. To find the
total cost of energy for the two example feeds,
add the energy for microbiology to the energy
of operation of the selected MBR format.

MBR market characteristics

The MBR market has different characteristics
to the UF/MF market. In UF/MF, there are
Figure 3: Market share of the two MBR leaders. 10-12 significant players with Worldwide
presence, with four market leaders, none
in the longer term. Air lift has also been used applications may vary from the range given of whom dominate the market. Outside of
with tubular ceramic membranes, which though in the table. Capital expenditure (capex) these companies, other regional players are
expensive, show lower fouling propensity than will be determined to a significant extent relatively insignificant.
polymerics (3). Perhaps it deserves a broader by two factors, namely flux which affects
place on the spectrum in Figure 1. membrane area, and packing density which The MBR market is dominated by three
affects footprint. Operating expenditure companies, namely GE-Zenon, Kubota, and
MBR suppliers (opex) is mainly determined by membrane life Mitsubishi Rayon Engineering (MRE). The
and aeration rates. Flux affects the amount first two of these are responsible for the
A summary of the main MBR suppliers is of membrane surface area and membrane majority of worldwide sales, whilst MRE
provided in Table 2. The table shows that replacement cost (assuming membrane life is have up to now mainly focused on sales in
immersed hollow fibre formats, and PVDF consistent between competitors). Flux also Asia. A further three companies have an
membranes dominate, though the supplier affects the amount of air required, which affects international presence, namely Siemens-
with the largest number of installations, power cost. Chemical costs are normally a Memcor, Norit, and Koch-Puron, but sales
Kubota, uses a flat sheet format with PE relatively low proportion of total opex. for these three companies makes up a small
membranes. proportion of the Worldwide market. Figure
Each of the suppliers makes regular
Fluxes are taken from manufacturers’ figures, improvements in air usage, since this has an 2 shows the Worldwide market share for the
and values used by designers for specific important impact on total water cost. For three large players, and includes the market
 Feature 31
Filtration+Separation March 2008

Anaerobic bioreactor
• Improved energy efficiency compared to
current commercial aerobic designs.

Conclusions
• MBRs require robust membranes with good
chemical resistance; PVDF has emerged as
the leading membrane, but modified PE is
also widely used.
• There are several competing formats based on
immersed and sidestream configurations, with
pros and cons for different application types
and plant size.
• Current technology uses more energy than
conventional processes, which tends to limit
applications.
• The market is dominated by a few major
players, but there are many applications and
regional specialists.
• There have been recent promising
developments in MBR, eg the air lift concept,
Figure 4: North American MBR market share, revenue.
anaerobic bioreactors, and ceramics, and
share for the next largest from the following these developments could enable a more
Developments
group, ie Siemens-Memcor, based on (6, 7).
The application of MBR is currently limited
general adoption of MBR technology. •
Contact:
In addition to these international companies, to special circumstances which take advantage Graeme Pearce
there are a further 30 companies in the EU of its compactness and excellent treated Email: [email protected]
market that either have significant regional water quality. Where these issues are not of References
presence, or an applications focus, or a low paramount importance, MBR is not used since
level international presence (8). Many of these although capex may be competitive, operating (1) Fouling control in submerged membrane
companies are significant in local markets, but costs are too high. This is primarily due to bioreactors, S Judd, Water Science and
individually, they have a small share of the high air use compared to conventional aerobic Technology, 51 (6-7), pages 27-34, 2005.
international market treatment, and this results in high energy cost.
(2) Low pressure membrane processes – doing
Kubota has a significantly greater number A radical development is the development more with less energy, A G Fane et al,
of plants than Zenon, with a slightly higher of an anaerobic MBR, which could increase Desalination 185 (2005), 1585-1591.
proportion of industrial plants. Many of the implementation of MBR significantly.
(3) Impact of membrane material on membrane
Kubota’s installations in Japan and Korea Promising research has been carried out on
bioreactor permeability, S J Judd et al,
are for small scale municipal and domestic this concept, and it would appear to offer
Proceedings of the Water Environ. Membrane
applications. MRE also has a very large number the possibility of significantly lower air use
Technology Conference, Seoul, June 2004.
of installations, with a higher proportion of and energy than conventional treatment.
industrial users, mostly with small flowrates. MBR issues can be summarised as follows: (4) Membrane bioreactors in industrial wastewater
treatment – European experience, examples and
Figure 3 shows the market characteristics of Flux trends, P Cornel & S Krause, Water Science and
the two market leaders, Kubota and Zenon,
• Additives can act as flux enhancers. Technology, 53 (3), pp 37-44, 2006.
illustrating the significantly different market
strategy in regard to the size of plant targeted. (5) Flux enhancement by a continuous
• New membrane materials/modified
Kubota is the strongest market player for tangential gas flow in UF hollow fibres; effects
membrane surfaces may improve flux.
industrial and small scale municipal. of slug flow on cake structure, S Laborie, C
• High flux would improve both capex and Cabassud, L Durand, J M Laine, Filtration &
The North American market is dominated
opex due to lower air use. Separation, Oct 1997, 887-891.
by Zenon, and has many more opportunities
in the municipal sector than in industry, as Air usage (6) Critical Review of Membrane Bioreactors;
shown by the revenue share (9) in Figure 4. Worldwide research and Commercial
• Improved efficiency required through better Applications in North America, MBR5,
The EU market is completely different module design.
to the North American market. Firstly, Cranfield University, Jan 2005, N Cicek et al.
there are many more companies present in Oxygen absorption (7) Advances in MBR Technology, S Kennedy,
the market, with 35 players, rather than S Churchouse, Water & Waste Treatment, June
the 6-7 of the US market, and a much • Improved up-take would significantly
2006, 20-25.
broader spread of market share. Many of the increase MBR usage.
significant companies in the EU are regional (8) European Membrane Bioreactor Markets,
or applications specialists, showing that Fouling control Frost and Sullivan, Report B208-15, 2002.
local presence and expertise are valued, and • Improved design and operation strategies (9) The Price is Right for Zenon, Global Water
that niches are important in this market. needed. Intelligence, Vol 7 (3), March 2006, p15.