lastID = -289856
Skip to main content Skip to top navigation Skip to site search
Top of page
  • My citations options
    Web Back (from Web)
    Chicago Back (from Chicago)
    MLA Back (from MLA)
Close action menu

You need to login to use this feature.

Please wait a moment…
Please wait while we update your results...
Please wait a moment...
Loading icon
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Book cover
A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2020-01-31 18:48:54 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 18:48:53 Administrator
Description: Access Water
  • Browse
  • Compilations
  • Subscriptions
Log in
0
Accessibility Options

Base text size -

This is a sample piece of body text
Larger
Smaller
  • Shopping basket (0)
  • Accessibility options
  • Return to previous
Description: Book cover
A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes

A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes

A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes

  • New
  • View
  • Details
  • Reader
  • Default
  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • New
  • View
  • Default view
  • Reader view
  • Data view
  • Details

This page cannot be printed from here

Please use the dedicated print option from the 'view' drop down menu located in the blue ribbon in the top, right section of the publication.

screenshot of print menu option

Description: Book cover
A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes
Abstract
The use of membranes is growing in popularity as a means of treating municipal wastewater. Typically, membranes are added-on to an existing wastewater treatment process or may be considered in the design of a greenfield plant. In either case, many times the unit processes are designed independent of one another, which can lead to higher costs of ownership.The most recent improvements to the Fountain Hills Sanitary District WWTP in Fountain Hills, Arizona included, among others, upgrades to the existing activated sludge process, the addition of cloth media filters and a microfiltration system. Each unit process was provided by an independent supplier. Currently, a Multiple Barrier Treatment Process (MBTP) is available that integrates biological treatment with cloth media filtration and membrane separation. This MBTP takes advantage of the intimate knowledge of the interdependence of the unit processes to provide effective treatment at the lowest cost of ownership.The biological process design of the MBTP can be customized to meet the treatment objectives. The separation of aeration and mixing results in process optimization. Another key aspect of the MBTP is the marriage of cloth media filtration and microfiltration. The pile cloth media has unique characteristics that allow high solids loading while maintaining a consistent effluent quality that is low in TSS and turbidity. Because the effluent from the filter is consistent regardless of fluctuations in influent solids loading, it has proven beneficial to the operation of the hollow fiber microfiltration process as membranes perform optimally on feed streams containing low solids and minimal loading variations. A resultant savings in membrane surface area of 50% to 80% can be realized.The consistent, high quality feed to the membrane process allows the membranes to operate at flux rates that are much higher than those typically realized on secondary clarified effluent or direct mixed liquor filtration. In addition, because the cloth media filters are able to meet strict effluent reuse objectives as a stand-alone process, they offer additional flexibility to the plant operator in terms of redundancy and point of discharge.Capital costs are reduced, mainly because of the significant reduction in membrane surface area. The trade-off between cloth media and membrane surface area also serves to dramatically reduce operating costs. Further reductions in operating costs result from the separation of aeration and mixing in the biological reactor portion of the process.
The use of membranes is growing in popularity as a means of treating municipal wastewater. Typically, membranes are added-on to an existing wastewater treatment process or may be considered in the design of a greenfield plant. In either case, many times the unit processes are designed independent of one another, which can lead to higher costs of ownership.The most recent improvements to the...
Author(s)
Ken MikkelsonLloyd JohnsonRon HuberClark Moskop
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 24 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Processes: Physical/Chemical Treatment Processes
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2003
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20030101)2003:10L.333;1-
DOI10.2175/193864703784679053
Volume / Issue2003 / 10
Content sourceWEFTEC
First / last page(s)333 - 333
Copyright2003
Word count393

Purchase price $11.50

Get access
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: Book cover
A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-289856
Get access
-289856
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.

Details

Description: Book cover
A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes
Abstract
The use of membranes is growing in popularity as a means of treating municipal wastewater. Typically, membranes are added-on to an existing wastewater treatment process or may be considered in the design of a greenfield plant. In either case, many times the unit processes are designed independent of one another, which can lead to higher costs of ownership.The most recent improvements to the Fountain Hills Sanitary District WWTP in Fountain Hills, Arizona included, among others, upgrades to the existing activated sludge process, the addition of cloth media filters and a microfiltration system. Each unit process was provided by an independent supplier. Currently, a Multiple Barrier Treatment Process (MBTP) is available that integrates biological treatment with cloth media filtration and membrane separation. This MBTP takes advantage of the intimate knowledge of the interdependence of the unit processes to provide effective treatment at the lowest cost of ownership.The biological process design of the MBTP can be customized to meet the treatment objectives. The separation of aeration and mixing results in process optimization. Another key aspect of the MBTP is the marriage of cloth media filtration and microfiltration. The pile cloth media has unique characteristics that allow high solids loading while maintaining a consistent effluent quality that is low in TSS and turbidity. Because the effluent from the filter is consistent regardless of fluctuations in influent solids loading, it has proven beneficial to the operation of the hollow fiber microfiltration process as membranes perform optimally on feed streams containing low solids and minimal loading variations. A resultant savings in membrane surface area of 50% to 80% can be realized.The consistent, high quality feed to the membrane process allows the membranes to operate at flux rates that are much higher than those typically realized on secondary clarified effluent or direct mixed liquor filtration. In addition, because the cloth media filters are able to meet strict effluent reuse objectives as a stand-alone process, they offer additional flexibility to the plant operator in terms of redundancy and point of discharge.Capital costs are reduced, mainly because of the significant reduction in membrane surface area. The trade-off between cloth media and membrane surface area also serves to dramatically reduce operating costs. Further reductions in operating costs result from the separation of aeration and mixing in the biological reactor portion of the process.
The use of membranes is growing in popularity as a means of treating municipal wastewater. Typically, membranes are added-on to an existing wastewater treatment process or may be considered in the design of a greenfield plant. In either case, many times the unit processes are designed independent of one another, which can lead to higher costs of ownership.The most recent improvements to the...
Author(s)
Ken MikkelsonLloyd JohnsonRon HuberClark Moskop
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 24 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Processes: Physical/Chemical Treatment Processes
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2003
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20030101)2003:10L.333;1-
DOI10.2175/193864703784679053
Volume / Issue2003 / 10
Content sourceWEFTEC
First / last page(s)333 - 333
Copyright2003
Word count393

Actions, changes & tasks

Outstanding Actions

Add action for paragraph

Current Changes

Add signficant change

Current Tasks

Add risk task

Connect with us

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect to us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on YouTube
Powered by Librios Ltd
Powered by Librios Ltd
Authors
Terms of Use
Policies
Help
Accessibility
Contact us
Copyright © 2026 by the Water Environment Federation
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: WWTF Digital Boot 180x150
WWTF Digital (180x150)
Created on Jul 02
Websitehttps:/­/­www.wef.org/­wwtf?utm_medium=WWTF&utm_source=AccessWater&utm_campaign=WWTF
180x150
Ken Mikkelson# Lloyd Johnson# Ron Huber# Clark Moskop. A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Web. 24 Jun. 2026. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-289856CITANCHOR>.
Ken Mikkelson# Lloyd Johnson# Ron Huber# Clark Moskop. A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Accessed June 24, 2026. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-289856CITANCHOR.
Ken Mikkelson# Lloyd Johnson# Ron Huber# Clark Moskop
A Comparison of Municipal Activated Sludge Treatment with Membranes
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
December 22, 2018
June 24, 2026
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-289856CITANCHOR