lastID = -295360
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...
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Book cover
Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2022-06-14 20:15:19 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-06-14 20:15:18 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-26 23:28:13 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-01-31 22:04:31 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 22:04:30 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 22:04:29 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
Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization

Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization

Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization

  • 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
Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization
Abstract
Hollow fiber membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were evaluated in full scale to study methods of reducing their aeration and air scour energy requirements. The changes were modeled to determine methods to optimize the aeration and air scour energy consumption and compare the total to the aeration energy requirements of conventional activated sludge (CAS), IFAS and MBBR systems. The research found that the aeration and air scour energy required for an MBR can be reduced to within 33% above conventional activated sludge (CAS) systems operating with 50 percent more volume (Aeration Optimized Mode, AOM). It can be reduced further to within 20% with automated DO and ammonium-N monitoring and control in the aerobic zone and the membrane cell, or at facilities which can discharge effluent ammonium-N above 0.5 mg/L during some weeks (Aeration Constrained Mode, ACM). The optimization techniques included reduction of the DO set point in the main reactor to 1 mg/L for AOM and 0.5 mg/L for ACM; reduction in the air scour on time from 100% to 25%. The air scour air flow rate was controlled such that it was just above 18 mm/sec during the on time. The combination of these two changes reduced the DO levels in the membrane cell from greater than 6 mg/L to less than 4 mg/L. The energy requirements for MBRs were then compared to other compact solutions such as IFAS and MBBRs. In the MLE process configuration and ACM, the MBR consumed 4 to 7% more aeration and air scour energy than IFAS and MBBR, respectively. In the Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) mode, in which methanol is added to the post-anoxic cells to increase denitrification, the MBR consumed similar amounts compared to IFAS and MBBRs, with all processes achieving 4 mg/L Total Nitrogen (TN).
Hollow fiber membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were evaluated in full scale to study methods of reducing their aeration and air scour energy requirements. The changes were modeled to determine methods to optimize the aeration and air scour energy consumption and compare the total to the aeration energy requirements of conventional activated sludge (CAS), IFAS and MBBR systems. The research found that...
Author(s)
Dipankar SenGeorge CrawfordDave Commons
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 8: Energy Optimization in MBRs: Conventional and Unconventional Thinking
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2008
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20080101)2008:1L.483;1-
DOI10.2175/193864708788803532
Volume / Issue2008 / 1
Content sourceMembranes Conference
First / last page(s)483 - 502
Copyright2008
Word count313

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 'Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization'

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
Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-295360
Get access
-295360
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 'Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization'

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
Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization
Abstract
Hollow fiber membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were evaluated in full scale to study methods of reducing their aeration and air scour energy requirements. The changes were modeled to determine methods to optimize the aeration and air scour energy consumption and compare the total to the aeration energy requirements of conventional activated sludge (CAS), IFAS and MBBR systems. The research found that the aeration and air scour energy required for an MBR can be reduced to within 33% above conventional activated sludge (CAS) systems operating with 50 percent more volume (Aeration Optimized Mode, AOM). It can be reduced further to within 20% with automated DO and ammonium-N monitoring and control in the aerobic zone and the membrane cell, or at facilities which can discharge effluent ammonium-N above 0.5 mg/L during some weeks (Aeration Constrained Mode, ACM). The optimization techniques included reduction of the DO set point in the main reactor to 1 mg/L for AOM and 0.5 mg/L for ACM; reduction in the air scour on time from 100% to 25%. The air scour air flow rate was controlled such that it was just above 18 mm/sec during the on time. The combination of these two changes reduced the DO levels in the membrane cell from greater than 6 mg/L to less than 4 mg/L. The energy requirements for MBRs were then compared to other compact solutions such as IFAS and MBBRs. In the MLE process configuration and ACM, the MBR consumed 4 to 7% more aeration and air scour energy than IFAS and MBBR, respectively. In the Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) mode, in which methanol is added to the post-anoxic cells to increase denitrification, the MBR consumed similar amounts compared to IFAS and MBBRs, with all processes achieving 4 mg/L Total Nitrogen (TN).
Hollow fiber membrane bioreactors (MBRs) were evaluated in full scale to study methods of reducing their aeration and air scour energy requirements. The changes were modeled to determine methods to optimize the aeration and air scour energy consumption and compare the total to the aeration energy requirements of conventional activated sludge (CAS), IFAS and MBBR systems. The research found that...
Author(s)
Dipankar SenGeorge CrawfordDave Commons
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 8: Energy Optimization in MBRs: Conventional and Unconventional Thinking
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2008
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20080101)2008:1L.483;1-
DOI10.2175/193864708788803532
Volume / Issue2008 / 1
Content sourceMembranes Conference
First / last page(s)483 - 502
Copyright2008
Word count313

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 © 2024 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
Dipankar Sen# George Crawford# Dave Commons. Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Web. 3 Oct. 2025. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-295360CITANCHOR>.
Dipankar Sen# George Crawford# Dave Commons. Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Accessed October 3, 2025. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-295360CITANCHOR.
Dipankar Sen# George Crawford# Dave Commons
Differences in Aeration and Air Scour Energy Requirements between Membrane Bioreactors, Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Ifas and MBBR following Process Optimization
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
December 22, 2018
October 3, 2025
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-295360CITANCHOR