Membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment: Current status, novel configurations

and cost analysis

Muhammad B Asif 1, Zhenghua Zhang 1, Truong M. Vu2, Johir A. H. Mohammed2,

Nirenkumar Pathak2, Long D. Nghiem 2 and Luong N. Nguyen 2*
1
Institute of Environmental Engineering and Nano-Technology, Tsinghua-Shenzhen
International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China.
2
Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
*Corresponding author: Luong N. Nguyen ([email protected])

Abstract
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process is a ground-breaking innovation in the field of
wastewater treatment, which involves biological activated sludge process coupled with the
membrane separation. The main highlights of the MBR are its low footprint, which is due to
the elimination of secondary sedimentation process in the conventional activated sludge
(CAS) as well as its capacity to produce high and consistent effluent quality, which can be a
non-potable water source or be readily treated in downstream processes for potable water
reuse. With the decrease in the cost of membrane modules over the years, full-scale
deployment of MBR plants continues to increase worldwide with scale up to 800 MGD to
date. Nevertheless, membrane fouling and energy consumption in MBRs are two technical
challenges. MBR membranes are prone to fouling by organic matter originating from the
microbial cells. Energy consumption in MBRs is higher than the CAS due to the aeration
requirements, particularly for membrane scouring. Several mitigations strategies to address
these challenges have been developed, which showed promising results by reducing the
operating cost of the MBR plants. These strategies include: new membrane materials with
chemical and biological resistant properties, novel configurations for enhanced process
performance as well as fouling mitigation and control. This chapter aims to present a succinct
overview of the status of MBR technology for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
to cover the recent development energy reduction and fouling mitigation. It is envisioned that
MBR will continue as a domain technology in wastewater treatment sector.

Keywords: Membrane bioreactors (MBR); Novel configurations; Membrane fouling; Energy

consumption; Cost analysis
Contents
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................3
2. Application of full-scale MBR.............................................................................................3
2.1 Overview of the technology.............................................................................................3
2.2 Effluent water quality.......................................................................................................7
3. Cost analysis of MBR process.............................................................................................7
3.1. Capital expenditure (CAPEX).........................................................................................7
3.2. Operating expenditures (OPEX) and specific energy consumption...............................9
3.3. Cost comparison MBR vs. CAS....................................................................................11
4. Energy reduction in MBR.................................................................................................12
4.1 Novel configurations......................................................................................................13
4.2 Process optimisation.......................................................................................................13
4.3 Success stories................................................................................................................16
5. Life cycle assessment of MBR...........................................................................................19
6. Future research outlook....................................................................................................20
References...............................................................................................................................21
1. Introduction

Membrane filtration technologies have emerged as a mainstream technology in many

industrial applications including wastewater treatment, water reclamation, and bioprocessing.
The membrane process offers numerous advantages such as stable performance, high
efficiency, compact and modular design, and easy operation. There are four types of pressure
driven membrane processes according to their nominal pore size (i) microfiltration (MF),
ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO). MF and UF membranes
have been commonly integrated with a biological reactor to form a membrane bioreactor
(MBR) system. The MBR technology is a ground-breaking innovation in the field of
wastewater treatment, which essentially is an upgraded of the conventional activated sludge
process by addition of a membrane-based separation process. The main highlights of the
MBR is its low footprint, which is due to the elimination of secondary sedimentation process
as well as its capacity to produce high quality effluent, which can meet stringent effluent
quality standards or can be readily treated in tertiary treatment processes (i.e. water
reclamation by NF or RO filtration) to produce potable and non-potable water. With the
decrease in cost of membrane modules over the years, the development in membrane
configurations, membrane materials and process optimisation experience to alleviate the two
bottlenecks (i.e. membrane fouling and energy consumption), MBR has become a preferred
wastewater treatment process.

This chapter aims to provide a critical summary of the most recent developments of
the MBR process to support the ambitious target of cost-efficient wastewater treatment
technology. The chapter reviews the MBR capital and operating expenditures as well as cost
analysis of the MBR technology in comparison to the conventional activated sludge process.
Process configurations and optimisation is discussed along with some success achievements
on the energy reduction. Life cycle assessment of the MBR is also reviewed to delineate the
benefit water reuse and cost reduction of large scale MBR. Data corroborated in this chapter
are in the favour of supporting the MBR process.

2. Application of full-scale MBR

2.1 Overview of the technology
The MBR technology, as already stated above, is a compact and robust process combining
a conventional activated sludge process with a membrane separation to produce a high-
quality effluent [11]. This integration can not only ensure effective removal of divers
pollutants (such as bulk organics and nutrients) but can also reduce the footprint due to the
absence of the secondary clarifier [12]. MBRs have been widely advanced in municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment [13, 14, 15]. The application of MBR in wastewater treatment
was first reported in 1969, when an ultrafiltration membrane was utilized for the separation of
the activated sludge to produce high quality secondary-treated effluent [11]. In recent years,
the MBR technology has also demonstrated its readiness and robustness for the treatment of
industrial and high strength wastewater, e.g., textile industries, paper and pulp industries,
tanning (leather) industries and landfill leachate [12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22].
Due to the escalating need for high quality effluent, which can be directed towards water
reuse applications, the demand for MBR may eventually exceed than that of conventional
activated sludge process (CAS), especially if competitive treatment cost can be realised.
Indeed, the number of large-scale (i.e., 80-800 mega gallons per day, MGD) MBR plants
continue to increase worldwide (Table 1).

Table 1: List of the 10 largest MBR plants in the world

Peak
Average (Expected)
daily
Installation Location Technology supplier daily flow Commissioning
flow
(MLD) date
(MLD)
Beijing Origin Water
Beihu WWTP Hubei, China Technology Co., Ltd 1040.0 800.0 2019
(BOW)
SUEZ – Water
Henriksdal Stockholm,
Technologies & 864.0 536.0 2026
WWTP Sweden
Solutions
Tuas water
reclamation Singapore CH2M 800.0 800.0 2025
plant
SUEZ – Water
Seine Aval Acheres,
Technologies & 357.0 224.0 2016
WWTP France
Solutions
Canton WWTP Ohio, USA Ovivo (GLV Group) 333.0 159.0 2017
Beijing Origin Water
9th and 10th Kunming
Technology Co., Ltd 325.0 250.0 2013
WWTP Yunnan, China
(BOW)
Wuhan Beijing Origin Water
Sanjintan Hubei, China Technology Co., Ltd 260.0 200.0 2015
WWTP (BOW)
Beijing Origin Water
Jilin Province,
Jilin WWTP Technology Co., Ltd 260.0 200.0 -
China
(BOW)
SUEZ – Water
Euclid WWTP Ohio, USA Technologies & 250.0 83.0 2018
Solutions
SUEZ – Water
Shunyi WWTP Beijing, China Technologies & 234.0 180.0 2016
Solutions
 The configuration of the membrane separation in MBR is dependent on the placement of
membrane module relative to the bioreactor. Based on the configuration of the membrane
module, MBR could be categorized as follows: submerged/internal MBR (iMBR) (Figure 1a)
and side-stream/external MBR (sMBR) (Fig. 1b) [23]. Each configuration has its own
advantages and disadvantages in wastewater applications as presented in Table 1. iMBRs can
be usually applied to treat municipal and industrial wastewater, while sMBRs are mainly used
for the treatment of industrial and high strength wastewater [23, 24]. The geometric
configuration of MBR refers to the geometry of the membrane and the direction of water
transmission. This configuration involves three categories (i.e., flat sheet, hollow fiber and
tubular) [11]. The flat sheet and hollow fiber membrane modules are usually applied in
iMBR, while the tubular configuration is used in sMBR [11].

Figure 1: Two configurations of MBR including (a) internal/submerged MBR (iMBR) and
(b) external/side-stream MBR (sMBR)

Table 1. Typical characteristics of iMBRs and sMBRs [25, 26].

Factors for consideration iMBR sMBR
Operational complexity Flexible Complicated
Footprint Small Large
Cost per m2 membrane area Low High
Water flux Low High
Cleaning mode Less frequent Frequent
Energy consumption Low High

The membranes for MBRs can be manufactured using a range of materials (i.e., polymers,
ceramics, and metals) with different advantages and disadvantages [25, 26, 27, 28] (Table 2).
Ceramic and polymeric materials are most commonly used for the manufacturing of UF/MF
membranes [25, 26]. Polymeric membranes are made of a polymer monolith such as
polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene, polyethersulfone and
polytetrafluoroethylene [29]. Among these polymeric materials, PE is broadly applied [29].
Ceramic membranes are suitable for high strength wastewater treatment due to high
resistance against chemical agents [25].

Table 2. List of membrane materials and its characteristics [25, 26, 27, 28]
Membrane materials Advantages Disadvantages
 Resistance against chemicals
 Expensive
 Resistance against abrasion
 Fragile
 Better concentration
Ceramic materials  Need supporting
polarization control via
materials in hollow fiber
backwashing
or flat sheet configuration
 High fouling reversibility
 Mechanical strength
 High hydraulic performance
Metallic materials  High fouling reversibility  Expensive
 Resistance to temperature
 Resistance to chemicals
 Vulnerable to chemicals
 Susceptible to
 Cost effective temperature variations
Polymeric materials
 High self-supporting ability  Moderate hydraulic
performance
 Susceptible to fouling

2.2 Effluent water quality

The MBRs can guarantee high-quality secondary effluent. The quality of MBR effluent
hinges on: the biodegradation and sorption of pollutants such as bulk organics and trace
organic contaminants (TrOCs) in the bioreactor; and the rejection of the activated sludge by
the membrane. High biomass concentration and prolonged solids retention time (SRT) in
MBR could result in high COD and TrOC removal. It was reported that 79 – 97% COD
removal could be achieved by MBR during the treatment of municipal wastewater [13, 14,
15, 30, 31, 32]. MBR has also been reported to achieve excellent removal of hydrophobic
TrOCs (80 – 95%) [33, 34, 35, 36]. The addition of membrane unit in MBR can improve
suspended solid removal efficiency up to 100% [37, 38, 39]. An MBR is capable of removing
a wide range of microorganisms because the pore size of the membranes (e.g., MF, UF and
NF) employed in MBRs is much smaller than most of the microorganisms. It was
demonstrated that an MF membrane can remove total coliform (E.coli), faecal streptococci
and salmonella to levels below the detection limit (<1 CFU/100 ml) in the MBR effluent
[40].

3. Cost analysis of MBR process

3.1. Capital expenditure (CAPEX)
Total CAPEX to install an MBR can be estimated by considering both the engineering and
non-engineering costs. According to the available literature [41, 42], construction of
tanks/reactors and equipment procurement account for approximately 70% of the total
construction cost, while the layout of the piping network and the membrane module could be
around 10 and 20% of the total construction cost, respectively. In terms of treatment type or
level, Xiao et al. [43] reported that the cost of construction can grossly range from 10-20%
for primary treatment units, 55-85% for MBR unit (i.e., biological and membrane units), 0-
30% for tertiary treatment units, and 5-10% for sludge treatment units.

In the last two decades, CAPEX of an MBR project has been reported in several
published articles. For instance, Côté et al. [44] estimated that the CAPEX of an MBR with a
capacity of 38,000 m3/d was approximately 900 USD/m3. In another study by Verrecht et al.
[42], CAPEX of an MBR project with an average capacity of 20,851 m 3/d was estimated to
be approximately 376 EUR/m3 (~ 425 USD/m3). Based on the assessment of five full-scale
MBR plants (1100-20,00 m3/d) in Spain, Iglesias et al. [45] estimated that CAPEX of MBR
plants ranged between 625 EUR/m 3 (~ 706 USD/m3) and 3277 EUR/m3 (~ 3703 USD/m3). In
a recent study, a total of 175 full-scale MBR plants (≥ 10,000 m 3/d) for municipal wastewater
treatment plant in China was surveyed by Xiao et al. [43]. The CAPEX of the surveyed
MBRs was between 2500 and 5500 CNY/m 3 (~ 380 and 800 USD/m3) with an average
capital cost of approximately 4000 CNY/m3 (~600 USD/m3). It is important to note that
average CAPEX of MBRs in China is higher than the CAPEX of all municipal wastewater
treatment plants. According to the ‘China Environment Yearbook 2016’, average CAPEX of
municipal wastewater treatment plants was 2500 CNY/m 3 (~400 USD/m3). The CAPEX of
MBR has been reported to range between 308 and 5993 USD/m 3 (Fig. 2). It is not appropriate
to compare the CAPEX values reported in different studies. This is because the design
capacity and unit operations of MBR plants, as well as difference in the costs associated with
different components and labor costs, are highly location specific [46].

Figure 2: Box plot of the CAPEX, OPEX, and energy cost of full-scale MBR plant for
municipal wastewater treatment. Box-and-whisker plot is showing information about the
interquartile range; median (horizontal line in the box); min and max (whiskers); and average
(block square in the box). Data extracted from [44], [42], [47] and [45].

3.2. Operating expenditures (OPEX) and specific energy consumption

Operating expenditures (OPEX) of full-scale MBR plants can be mainly divided into
energy consumption, sludge disposal, and chemical consumption costs. In addition,
employees’ salaries, equipment replacement and maintenance as well as water quality testing
and membrane depreciation costs can contribute to the OPEX of MBR plants. Based on the
comprehensive survey of 175 full-scale MBR plants (≥ 10,000 m 3/d) for municipal
wastewater treatment plant in China, energy consumption, chemical consumption, sludge
disposal and others costs account for 40-60%, 10-30%, 5-15% and 5-20% of OPEX,
respectively [43]. Depending on their capacity, OPEX of MBR plants has been reported to
range between 1.12-2.54 USD/m3 in Netherlands [47], 0.27-2.64 USD/m3 in Spain [45] and
0.015-0.045 USD/m3 in China [43]. Owing to considerable improvement in this technology
(e.g., membrane cost and energy efficiency) over the last two decade, a succinct overview of
the existing literature suggests a slight reduction in overall operating costs of full-scale MBR
plants [46]. For instance, the OPEX of MBRs installed during 2006-2014 in China was
reported to range between 0.12 and 0.2 USD/m 3. On the other hand, MBR plants
commissioned after 2014 had an overall OPEX of 0.11-0.18 USD/m3 [43].

During the operation of an MBR, energy is mainly required for aeration (for bacterial
metabolism and membrane scouring), sludge mixing, sludge recirculation, and membrane
filtration [41, 42, 48]. Brepols et al. [47] surveyed an MBR plant to identify the main energy
consumers and found that aeration required for membrane scouring accounts for
approximately 49% of the total energy consumption. The other major energy consumers were
aeration for bacterial metabolism (12%), sludge mixing (11.5%), sludge recirculation (1.3%)
and membrane filtration (2.7%). In the last 20 years, development in MBR technology has
made it energy efficient, and, consequently, specific energy consumption (SEC) by MBR has
reduced from approximately five kWh/m 3 (in 2001-2005) to less than one kWh/m 3 [48, 49,
50].

Specific energy consumption (SEC) by the full-scale tabular side-stream MBRs was
very high (6-8 kWh/m3) and was mainly associated with the energy required for crossflow
pumping [51]. Notably, the submerged MBR, which was invented in 1988 [52], can
effectively reduce the specific energy required for mixed liquor pumping from more than 3
kWh/m3 to less than 0.01 kWh/m3 [39, 53]. According to a study by Cornel et al. [54], SEC
could be reduced by submerging the membrane directly in the aeration tank. The SEC of the
MBRs without and with separate membrane tank was around 1 and 2.5 kWh/m 3, respectively
[54]. Owing to process optimization as well as advances in membrane module development,
more than 2-fold reduction was observed in the SEC of the full-scale MBRs commissioned in
Europe during 2001-2006 [55]. Similarly, the SEC of full-scale MBRs (≥10,000 m 3/d)
commissioned during the period 2006-2014 in China was 0.5-0.7 kWh/m 3, while the full-
scale MBRs (≥10,000 m3/d) commissioned after 2014 had an overall SEC of 0.35-0.65
kWh/m3 [43]. This considerable reduction in SEC could be attributed to improved design and
operation of membrane modules as well as efficient aeration equipment. In addition, different
operational strategies such as aeration modes, filtration and relaxation cycles, and process
automation have all been reported to be favourable for reducing SEC [56, 57, 58, 59, 60]. The
SEC of the full-scale MBR in different regions of the world has been reported to range from:
0.9-2.25 kWh/m3 in Netherlands [47, 48]; 0.8-2.4 kWh/m3 in France [61]; 0.35-0.9 kWh/m3 in
China [41, 43, 50]; 0.8-3 kWh/m3 in Japan [62], and 0.4-2.1 kWh/m3 in Spain [56].

It is important to note that the capital, operating, and energy consumption costs appear
to reduce with the increase in MBR capacity. The CAPEX and energy consumption costs
would largely reduce exponentially with the increase in the capacity of full-scale MBRs, and
the data collected from literature can be fitted using exponential decay model (Fig. 3).
Similarly, despite the difference in unit operations and designs, the OPEX would decrease
with the increase in the capacity of MBRs (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. CAPEX (a), OPEX (b) and energy consumption costs (c) of full-scale MBR plants
as a function of MBR capacity. Data extracted from [44], [47]; and [45].

3.3. Cost comparison MBR vs. CAS

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) has become an established technology with installation in
more than 200 countries [63, 64]. However, it is still considered to be expensive, particularly
for implementation in developing countries. Comparison of the costs associated with the
construction and operation of MBR and conventional activated sludge (CAS) has been
reported in several studies. Based on the cost analysis over the useful life of the plants, MBR
technology was reported to demonstrate overall cost benefits as compared to the CAS
technology. However, OPEX of the MBR technology is higher than the CAS technology [65,
66]. This is mainly due to the difference in the extent of energy consumption by the MBR and
CAS. The SEC of MBR could be 10-100% higher than the CAS technology [48, 57, 67].
Based on the survey of 985 municipal wastewater treatment plants, Mizuta and Shimada [68]
reported that the SEC by CAS ranged from 0.3 to 1.9 kWh/m 3. A SEC of 0.1-0.6 kWh/m 3 has
also been reported for the CAS technology [54, 69, 70]. As noted in Section 4, MBR has
become energy efficient technology as evident from reduction in SEC i.e., from approximate
5 kWh/m3 (2001-2005) to less than 1 kWh/m3 (2010 to date). This indicates that the advances
in MBR technology have made the gap between the MBR and CAS technology narrower.

Cost analysis of the MBR and CAS technologies should be carried out at equivalent
effluent quality for a fair comparison. In a study by Iglesias et al. [45], CAPEX and OPEX
values of MBR plants in Spain were estimated for comparison with the CAS using
conventional (i.e., physicochemical, sand filtration and disinfection) and advanced (i.e.,
membrane filtration) tertiary treatment processes. For comparable treatment capacity, the
CAPEX values were estimated to be 700-960 EUR/m 3 (~ 910 and 1248 USD/m3) for MBRs,
730-850 EUR/m3 (~ 949 and 1105 USD/m3) for CAS with conventional tertiary treatment
processes, and 1050-1250 EUR/m3 (~ 1365 and 1625 USD/m3) for CAS with advanced
tertiary treatment processes. On the other hand, the OPEX values of MBRs were comparable
to that of the CAS with extended aeration or conventional tertiary treatment processes.
Importantly, they found that MBR becomes a cost-competitive technology when effluent
quality suitable for water reuse applications is required [45]. This is consistent with the
findings of other studies on the cost comparison of CAS and MBR technologies [47, 66].
Based on the discussion presented above, the CAPEX and OPEX values of MBR technology
are higher than the stand-alone CAS technology but are comparable to CAS with tertiary
treatment processes. The MBR technology becomes cost-competitive, when excellent quality
effluent is required for water reuse applications.

4. Energy reduction in MBR

One of the critical drawbacks of MBR systems is energy-intensive consumption for the
treatment process, which accounts for 40 – 60% of total operating expenditure [43]. As
explained above in Section 3, an MBR consumes significant energy for its processes such as
aeration for bacterial metabolism and membrane scouring, sludge mixing, water
transportation and sludge recirculation. Among these, aeration required for membrane
scouring to mitigate membrane fouling has a significant contribution to overall energy
consumption. It has been reported that membrane scouring, biological aeration, and sludge
recirculation are three major activities consuming significant energy in MBR systems [61].
Apart from them, pumping for water transportation also partially contributes to energy
consumption in MBR [57]. Establishing measures against the major causes of energy
consumption is vital for the reduction of the specific energy consumption (SEC) of MBRs,
and for the widespread application of this technology. This section aims to systematically
discuss a wide range of measures for energy saving in MBR.

4.1 Novel configurations

Novel MBR configurations have been recently explored to mitigate membrane-fouling
propensity, thus, consequently reducing the cleaning frequency and intensity. As a result, the
aeration energy required for membrane scouring can be significantly reduced or even
eliminated. These configurations consist of rotation MBR (RMBR), vibration MBR (VMBR),
reciprocation MBR (rMBR) and electrochemical MBR (EMBR) [71, 72, 73, 74, 75]. Three
configurations (i.e., RMBR, VMBR and rMBR) use dynamic shear-enhanced filtration
through rotation, vibration and reciprocation movement to mitigate membrane fouling and
concentration polarization [72, 73, 74]. These fouling preventing measures can be low-energy
alternatives to intensive aeration for membrane scouring. In addition, the application of an
electric field to mitigate membrane fouling in the EMBR configuration is also an alternative
to energy-intensive air scouring [75]. In such case, the decreased fouling tendency is ascribed
to the charge neutralization of colloids or particles in wastewater via electro-coagulation,
electrophoresis, electroosmotic, and electrostatic repulsion/rejection effects created by
intermittent electric field [71, 75].
Derived from direct energy-saving perspectives, two new MBR configurations
including bioelectrochemical membrane reactor (BEMR) and membrane photobioreactor
(MPBR) have been introduced to offset or reduce the total energy consumption by an MBR.
A BEMR is a hybrid process, which combines conventional MBR and microbial fuel cells
(MFC) [76, 77]. In this concept, microorganisms in MFC are responsible for oxidizing
organic matter and generate electricity, which compensates for the energy required for
membrane scouring by an MBR [76, 77]. However, the complexity in the operation of this
hybrid system and power generation remains a hurdle for the maturity of this technology
[57]. The second configuration is the combination of an MBR and microalgae bioreactor for
organic and nutrient removal, and biomass production. Organic removal is accomplished by
the MBR, while nutrients are removed during microalgae cultivation in the photobioreactor,
thus reducing energy requirements for nutrient removal in the MBR system [78, 79].
4.2 Process optimisation
Optimization of operating conditions, such as aeration rate, hydraulic utilization of
membrane, water, and sludge transportation has been demonstrated to significantly reduce
SEC of the MBR. Briefly, energy-saving in the MBR can be implemented by reducing
aeration for membrane scouring, optimizing aeration for biological process, decreasing
pumping energy for water transportation and minimizing energy for sludge recirculation (Fig.
4). Furthermore, apart from reducing the total energy consumption, increasing permeate
production capacity is beneficial for the decrease in SEC as presented in Fig. 4.
Reduction in aeration required for membrane scouring by directly adjusting air supply
modes or by indirectly decreasing the membrane fouling severity is an efficient way to reduce
SEC of the MBR (Fig. 5). The direct adjustment of aeration intensity can be carried out by
installing variable frequency drivers (VFDs) to lower air supply and generate an intermittent
aeration mode for the air blowers. Moreover, aeration intensity during operation can be
adjusted to be low during filtration and high during backwash by the installation of the
aeration control system [57]. Several measures to prevent or control membrane fouling can be
applied to reduce the aeration demand for membrane scouring, which would lead to the
reduction in SEC.
Besides the novel configurations presented in Section 4.1, the application of novel
membranes and membrane modules, early detection of fouling, optimization of MLSS and
permeate flux, and the employment of primary clarification ahead of MBR is effective to
reduce membrane fouling and subsequent energy consumption in MBR. New generation
membranes with fouling resistance properties and high water productivity can significantly
mitigate fouling and save energy [57]. For example, a General Electric company in 2011
reported that the introduction of a new MBR system called LEAP MBR using novel
membranes could reduce the energy consumption by 30% and increase productivity by 15%
with a 20% smaller footprint as compared to their previous products [80].
 On-line fouling detection via monitoring permeate flux at given trans-membrane
pressure is an effective tool for early identification of fouling tendency, which would
facilitate in timely adjustment of air-scouring rate. It is reported that applying this automatic
control system can reduce membrane scouring rate by 22% without negative impacts on
filtration performance [81]. Optimization of MLSS concentration can reduce the membrane
fouling potential and severity, thus, lowering the aeration requirement for membrane
scouring. According to the data reported by Tao et al. (2010), the average SEC of 0.549 kWh/
m3 could be achieved by reducing MLSS concentration in MBR from 10,000 mg/L to 6,000
mg/L [82]. This could be attributed to lower sludge density and better aeration efficiency
[83].
Selection of an appropriate flux value plays a key role in preventing the occurrence of
severe fouling during operation, thus, lowering the aeration energy for membrane scouring.
Operation with water flux higher than the critical flux can cause severe fouling and clogging
of the membrane, which is linked with the energy penalty for subsequent fouling mitigation
measures. In this regard, reducing the permeate flux to the level lower than the critical flux
can result in SEC reduction. It is demonstrated that when permeate flux reduces from 27 to
23 LMH, the SEC in a hollow fiber MBR system can be reduced by 14% on average [56].
Use of primary clarification ahead of the MBR can be capable of decreasing an average
via reducing the power requirements associated with aeration and the biological tank volume.
Reduction of organic loading by using primary clarification allows the MBRs to operate at
low MLSS. Low MLSS concentration decrease membrane-fouling tendency. Thus, cleaning
intervals and membrane life can be prolonged, and oxygen transfer efficiency can be
improved, leading to lower power consumption by the air blowers [57].
Measures to optimize aeration demand for the biological process are necessary to save
energy during MBR operation (Fig. 4). Reduction of the total aeration demand in MBR can
be accomplished by lowering aerobic dissolved oxygen (DO) set point required to achieve
complete treatment. This step can avoid over aeration in the aerobic tank. It has been reported
that when DO set point decreased from 1.5 to 0.5 mg O 2/L, up to 81% reduction in biological
aeration consumption could be achieved [84]. In addition, implementation of intermittent
aeration for biological purposes and reduction in MLSS concentration have demonstrated to
be effective to decrease SEC. Gabarron et al. (2014) pointed out that by applying sequenced
aeration and reducing MLSS content, SEC of a flat-sheet stand-alone MBR could be reduced
from 1.12 to 0.71 kWh/m3 [56].
 Permeate withdrawal and sludge recirculation pumping contributes to SEC of MBR
systems. There are opportunities to adapt new methods to reduce the energy consumption at
during permeate withdrawal and sludge recirculation (Fig. 5). Syphon filtration and airlift
circulation can be adopted to save energy in the total system [85]. Syphon filtration takes
advantage of the syphon effect caused by the difference in water head as suction filtration
power, whilst airlift circulation uses the driving force of air bubbles for scouring or biological
aeration as circulation power. It is noted that the utilization of syphon filtration and airlift
circulation leads to the reduction of motor power, enabling energy-saving [85]. In addition,
the reduction of pumping energy for sludge recirculation can be implemented through MLSS
optimization and the coupling of sludge recirculation to the influent flow [57]. According to
the results reported by Yamashita et al. (2019), an SEC of 0.29 kWh/m 3 could be achieved by
decreasing the scouring aeration rate and decreasing the pump power [85].
In addition to minimizing the aeration rate for membrane scouring and biological
process as well as facilitating water and sludge transportation, increasing effluent production
capacity can lead to the reduction of SEC (Fig. 4). This purpose can be implemented through
the operation at appropriate flux, which is close, but lower than critical flux or close to the
design flux recommended from manufacturers, and increasing packing density of the
membrane modules [56, 57, 85]. The former is to maximize the membrane hydraulic
utilization without causing severe fouling. The latter aims at increasing the effective surface
area of the membrane, thus obtaining more permeate volume at a constant aeration rate.
Reduction of the outer diameter of the membrane fibers and extension of the membrane fiber
length can be applied to enhance the packing density of the membrane module [57, 85].
4.3 Success stories
Reduction of SEC to the range of 0.4 – 0.5 kWh/m 3 has been reported in the literature.
Tao et al. (2010), the adoption of comprehensive and systematic optimization measures (i.e.,
increasing membrane flux and reducing aeration), the SEC of pilot-scale MBR plants
decreased from 1.3 kWh/m3 to less than 0.8 kWh/m3 [82]. A further reduction to 0.37
kWh/m3 was achieved, when energy audit and other optimization strategies, namely
decreasing aeration flow-rate by setting up VFDs, applying gravity-driven flow between
reaction tanks, reducing MLSS concentration to 6 g/L, controlling biological aeration and
introducing 10 /30 s on/off cyclic membrane aeration mode were adopted in a municipal full-
scale MBR [82]. Kitagawa et al. (2012) reported that the minimum SEC of a large pilot-plant
MBR could be only 0.37 kWh/m3, which was derived from 40% total energy reduction due to
the successful implementation of energy-saving solutions including using higher packing
density membrane modules [57]. In another study, Yamashita et al. (2019) evaluated four
energy-saving MBR systems and indicated that the SEC of the systems could be reduced to
0.26 – 0.39 kWh/m3, depending on the specific energy-saving measures applied [85]. These
measures consist of increasing packing density by using a stack of modules, decreasing pump
power by using syphon filtration and airlift circulation, and reducing aeration rate for
membrane scouring [85].
Figure 4. Overview of measures adopted to reduce the specific energy consumption (SEC) of an MBR system

17
Figure 5: Detailed measures to reduce the energy consumption (SEC) of an MBR system

18
5. Life cycle assessment of MBR
Environmental impacts of different processes or products or services at each stage of
their life could be effectively assessed by performing life cycle assessment (LCA). This tool
has been widely implemented in wastewater treatment processes to gain a deep understanding
of their environmental impacts [57], which would be helpful for policymaking. An overview
of studies on LCA of MBRs is presented in this section as follows.

Ortiz et al. [86] attempted to analyze and compare the environmental impacts of
different wastewater treatment processes using an LCA analysis tool (SimaPro 5.1). They
selected four treatment processes including a stand-alone CAS, a CAS with tertiary treatment,
a submerged MBR, and a side-stream MBR. According to the LCA analysis, the stand-alone
CAS would be an environmentally friendly option, while the environmental impacts of the
CAS with tertiary treatment and both MBR configurations would be comparable.
Importantly, as compared to the stand-alone CAS, the LCA analysis showed that
environmental impacts of MBRs would not significantly increase, and MBR would make it
possible to reuse water for different applications [86].

In a study by Memon et al. [87], LCA analysis was performed to assess the impacts of
four processes (MBR, membrane chemical reactor, reed rocks and green roof water recycling
system) for greywater treatment. Impacts of the selected treatment processes were assessed
based on environmental performance as well as impacts on natural resources, ecosystem, and
human health. The LCA analysis showed that the impacts of natural treatment processes
(e.g., reed rocks) are significantly lower than the MBR and membrane chemicals reactors
[87]. In a recent study on greywater reclamation, Jeong et al. [88] investigated the impacts of
combining a submerged MBR with conventional wastewater treatment process for on-site
greywater treatment and compared its LCA scores with the stand-alone conventional
wastewater treatment process. The LCA scores of the stand-alone conventional wastewater
treatment process were 20-41% lower than the combined treatment process, and energy
consumption by MBR appeared to play a key role in the LCA scores of the combined
process. Similar concerns were reported in several other studies [89, 90], meaning that
extensive energy consumption by MBR contributes significantly to its environmental
impacts. The sensitivity analysis showed that the life cycle impacts of the combined process
could be reduced by increasing the population density [88]. Kobayashi et al. [91] performed
LCA analysis for decentralized treatment of greywater using constructed wetlands and MBR.

19
According to the LCA analysis, constructed wetlands outperformed the MBR for
decentralized greywater treatment. However, MBR may become an environmentally friendly
technology in the case of greywater reuse scenario [91]. In a study by Cashman et al. [92],
LCA analysis was performed to assess the suitability of aerobic and anaerobic MBRs for
decentralized wastewater treatment. The results showed that the psychrophilic anaerobic
MBR was superior to aerobic MBR in terms of net energy benefits at all scales. In the case of
drinking water displacement, aerobic MBRs started to show net energy benefits at the
treatment capacity of 1 million gallons per day [92]. Therefore, the benefits of MBR
technology could be realised by increasing the treatment capacity as well as by using the
large amounts of MBR effluent for water reuse applications.

6. Future research outlook

Application of MBR for wastewater treatment should be an informed decision. MBR
technology has been demonstrated to be a feasible treatment option for obtaining excellent
effluent water [41, 43]. In addition, MBR technology could be easily combined with other
processes for potable and non-potable production. These advantages of MBR technology
should be kept in mind to maximize its practical value.

MBR technology has been extensively applied as an alternative to the CAS technology
for municipal wastewater treatment. However, there is still some scope of reduction in the
CAPEX and OPEX of MBRs, which would make it even more attractive for implementation
in developing countries. Although membrane modules have been significantly improved,
research efforts are required to further: (i) increase the lifetime of membrane for reducing its
depreciation cost; (ii) improve the resistance of membrane against fouling and chemicals
oxidants; and (iii) improve the hydraulic performance (i.e., permeate flux) of membranes. As
for the OPEX, focus on the reduction in SEC is critical. This could be achieved by improving
the design of membrane modules; optimizing the aeration and scouring intensities; and
refining the process automation and control.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on MBR exclusively emphasize the environmental
dimensions and may not always consider the socioeconomic and technical aspects to evaluate
the sustainability of MBR technology [57, 90]. This could result in an incomplete LCA
analysis, which may affect the decision-making process. For example, if the main goal of
MBR is to produce high-quality effluent for water reuse applications and to reduce nutrients
load on surface water, advantages of MBR could overweigh its disadvantages (e.g., energy

20
consumption). Therefore, all the internal and external factors, as well as benefits associated
with water reuse and environmental protection, should be considered for an all-inclusive
LCA.

References
[1] Hai, F.I., Alturki, A., Nguyen, L.N., Price, W.E., Nghiem, L.D. 2016. Removal of trace
organic contaminants by integrated membrane processes for water reuse applications.
in: , Green Technologies for Sustainable Water Management, pp. 533-578.
[2] Radjenović, J., Petrović, M., Barceló, D. 2009. Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in
wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and
advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment. Water Res., 43(3), 831-841.
[3] Nguyen, L.N., Hai, F.I., Kang, J., Price, W.E., Nghiem, L.D. 2012. Removal of trace
organic contaminants by a membrane bioreactor–granular activated carbon (MBR–
GAC) system. Bioresour. Technol., 113, 169-173.
[4] Nguyen, L.N., Hai, F.I., Kang, J., Price, W.E., Nghiem, L.D. 2013. Removal of emerging
trace organic contaminants by MBR-based hybrid treatment processes. Int.
Biodeterior. Biodegrad., 85, 474-482.
[5] Nghiem, L.D., Manis, A., Soldenhoff, K., Schäfer, A.I. 2004. Estrogenic hormone
removal from wastewater using NF/RO membranes. J. Membr. Sci., 242(1), 37-45.
[6] Laube, H., Schneider, R., Venus, J. 2017. Investigation of spiral-wound membrane
modules for the cross-flow nanofiltration of fermentation broth obtained from a pilot
plant fermentation reactor for the continuous production of lactic acid. Bioresour.
Bioprocess., 4(1), 4.
[7] Ecker, J., Raab, T., Harasek, M. 2012. Nanofiltration as key technology for the separation
of LA and AA. J. Membr. Sci., 389, 389-398.
[8] Weng, Y.-H., Wei, H.-J., Tsai, T.-Y., Chen, W.-H., Wei, T.-Y., Hwang, W.-S., Wang, C.-
P., Huang, C.-P. 2009. Separation of acetic acid from xylose by nanofiltration. Sep.
Purif. Technol., 67(1), 95-102.
[9] Qi, B., Luo, J., Chen, X., Hang, X., Wan, Y. 2011. Separation of furfural from
monosaccharides by nanofiltration. Bioresour. Technol., 102(14), 7111-7118.
[10] Kuo, Y.-T., Chen, J.-S., Yang, T.-Y., Wan, H.-P. 2018. Technical and Economic
approach of bioethanol production from nanofiltration of biomass chemical hydrolysis
solutions. Appl. Energy, 215, 426-436.

21
[11] Golbabaei Kootenaei, F., Aminirad, H. 2014. Membrane Biological Reactors (MBR) and
Their Applications for Water Reuse. International Journal of Advanced Biological
and Biomedical Research, 2(7), 2208-2216.
[12] Zhang, J., Xiao, K., Huang, X. 2020. Full-scale MBR applications for leachate treatment
in China: Practical, technical, and economic features. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
389, 122138.
[13] Gurung, K., Ncibi, M.C., Sillanpää, M. 2017. Assessing membrane fouling and the
performance of pilot-scale membrane bioreactor (MBR) to treat real municipal
wastewater during winter season in Nordic regions. Sci. Total Environ., 579, 1289-
1297.
[14] Herrera-Robledo, M., Cid-León, D.M., Morgan-Sagastume, J.M., Noyola, A. 2011.
Biofouling in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating municipal sewage.
Separation and Purification Technology, 81(1), 49-55.
[15] Krzeminski, P., Iglesias-Obelleiro, A., Madebo, G., Garrido, J.M., van der Graaf,
J.H.J.M., van Lier, J.B. 2012. Impact of temperature on raw wastewater composition
and activated sludge filterability in full-scale MBR systems for municipal sewage
treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 423-424, 348-361.
[16] Badani, Z., Ait-Amar, H., Si-Salah, A., Brik, M., Fuchs, W. 2005. Treatment of textile
waste water by membrane bioreactor and reuse. Desalination, 185(1), 411-417.
[17] Chung, Y.-J., Choi, H.-N., Lee, S.-E., Cho, J.-B. 2004. Treatment of Tannery
Wastewater with High Nitrogen Content Using Anoxic/Oxic Membrane Bio-reactor
(MBR). Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 39(7), 1881-1890.
[18] Gao, W.J., Han, M.N., Xu, C., Liao, B.Q., Hong, Y., Cumin, J., Dagnew, M. 2016.
Performance of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor for thermomechanical
pulping wastewater treatment. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 13, 70-78.
[19] Goltara, A., Martinez, J., Mendez, R. 2003. Carbon and nitrogen removal from tannery
wastewater with a membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology, 48(1), 207-
214.
[20] Yan, Z., Wang, S., Kang, X., Ma, Y. 2009. Pilot-Scale Hybrid Coagulation/Membrane
Bioreactor (HCMBR) for Textile Dyeing Wastewater Advanced Treatment. 2009 3rd
International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, 11-13 June
2009. pp. 1-4.

22
[21] Yigit, N.O., Uzal, N., Koseoglu, H., Harman, I., Yukseler, H., Yetis, U., Civelekoglu,
G., Kitis, M. 2009. Treatment of a denim producing textile industry wastewater using
pilot-scale membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 240(1), 143-150.
[22] Zhang, Y., Ma, C., Ye, F., Kong, Y., Li, H. 2009. The treatment of wastewater of paper
mill with integrated membrane process. Desalination, 236(1), 349-356.
[23] Ji, J., Kakade, A., Yu, Z., Khan, A., Liu, P., Li, X. 2020. Anaerobic membrane
bioreactors for treatment of emerging contaminants: A review. Journal of
Environmental Management, 270, 110913.
[24] Vinardell, S., Astals, S., Peces, M., Cardete, M.A., Fernández, I., Mata-Alvarez, J.,
Dosta, J. 2020. Advances in anaerobic membrane bioreactor technology for municipal
wastewater treatment: A 2020 updated review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 130, 109936.
[25] Burggraaf, A.J., Keizer, K. 1991. Ceramic Membranes. in: Concise Encyclopedia of
Advanced Ceramic Materials, (Ed.) R.J. Brook, Pergamon. Oxford, pp. 62-67.
[26] Meng, F., Chae, S.-R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H.-S., Yang, F. 2009. Recent
advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane fouling and membrane
material. Water Research, 43(6), 1489-1512.
[27] Jin, L., Ong, S.L., Ng, H.Y. 2010. Comparison of fouling characteristics in different
pore-sized submerged ceramic membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 44(20), 5907-
5918.
[28] Lin, H., Gao, W., Meng, F., Liao, B.-Q., Leung, K.-T., Zhao, L., Chen, J., Hong, H.
2012. Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review.
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42(7), 677-740.
[29] Hofs, B., Ogier, J., Vries, D., Beerendonk, E.F., Cornelissen, E.R. 2011. Comparison of
ceramic and polymeric membrane permeability and fouling using surface water.
Separation and Purification Technology, 79(3), 365-374.
[30] Khan, S.J., Hasnain, G., Fareed, H., Aim, R.B. 2019. Evaluation of treatment
performance of a full-scale membrane bioreactor (MBR) plant from unsteady to
steady state condition. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 30, 100379.
[31] Martinez-Sosa, D., Helmreich, B., Netter, T., Paris, S., Bischof, F., Horn, H. 2011.
Anaerobic submerged membrane bioreactor (AnSMBR) for municipal wastewater
treatment under mesophilic and psychrophilic temperature conditions. Bioresource
Technology, 102(22), 10377-10385.

23
[32] Wan, C.-Y., De Wever, H., Diels, L., Thoeye, C., Liang, J.-B., Huang, L.-N. 2011.
Biodiversity and population dynamics of microorganisms in a full-scale membrane
bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment. Water Research, 45(3), 1129-1138.
[33] Ahmed, M.B., Zhou, J.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Thomaidis, N.S., Xu, J. 2017. Progress
in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging contaminant
removal from wastewater: A critical review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 323,
274-298.
[34] Hai, F.I., Nghiem, L.D., Khan, S.J., Asif, M.B., Price, W.E., Yamamoto, K. 2019.
Removal of emerging trace organic contaminants (TrOC) by MBR. in: Membrane
Biological Reactors: Theory, Modeling, Design, Management and Applications to
Wastewater Reuse, IWA Publishing, pp. 0.
[35] Taheran, M., Brar, S.K., Verma, M., Surampalli, R.Y., Zhang, T.C., Valero, J.R. 2016.
Membrane processes for removal of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs)
from water and wastewaters. Science of The Total Environment, 547, 60-77.
[36] Asif, M.B., Ansari, A.J., Chen, S.-S., Nghiem, L.D., Price, W.E., Hai, F.I. 2019.
Understanding the mechanisms of trace organic contaminant removal by high
retention membrane bioreactors: a critical review. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 26(33), 34085-34100.
[37] Churchouse, S. 1997. Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment — operating
experiences with the Kubota submerged membrane activated sludge process.
Membrane Technology, 1997(83), 5-9.
[38] Ergas, S.J., Rheinheimer, D.E. 2004. Drinking water denitrification using a membrane
bioreactor. Water Research, 38(14), 3225-3232.
[39] Ueda, T., Hata, K., Kikuoka, Y. 1996. Treatment of domestic sewage from rural
settlements by a membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology, 34(9), 189-
196.
[40] Dittrich, J., Gnirss, R., Peter-Fröhlich, A., Sarfert, F. 1996. Microfiltration of municipal
wastewater for disinfection and advanced phosphorus removal. Water Science and
Technology, 34(9), 125-131.
[41] Xiao, K., Xu, Y., Liang, S., Lei, T., Sun, J., Wen, X., Zhang, H., Chen, C., Huang, X.
2014. Engineering application of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment in
China: Current state and future prospect. Frontiers of Environmental Science &
Engineering, 8(6), 805-819.

24
[42] Verrecht, B., Maere, T., Nopens, I., Brepols, C., Judd, S. 2010. The cost of a large-scale
hollow fibre MBR. Water Research, 44(18), 5274-5283.
[43] Xiao, K., Liang, S., Wang, X., Chen, C., Huang, X. 2019. Current state and challenges
of full-scale membrane bioreactor applications: A critical review. Bioresource
Technology, 271, 473-481.
[44] Côté, P., Masini, M., Mourato, D. 2004. Comparison of membrane options for water
reuse and reclamation. Desalination, 167, 1-11.
[45] Iglesias, R., Simón, P., Moragas, L., Arce, A., Rodriguez-Roda, I. 2017. Cost
comparison of full-scale water reclamation technologies with an emphasis on
membrane bioreactors. Water Science and Technology, 75(11), 2562-2570.
[46] Judd, S.J. 2017. Membrane technology costs and me. Water Research, 122, 1-9.
[47] Brepols, C., Schäfer, H., Engelhardt, N. 2010. Considerations on the design and financial
feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water
Science and Technology, 61(10), 2461-2468.
[48] Krzeminski, P., van der Graaf, J.H.J.M., van Lier, J.B. 2012. Specific energy
consumption of membrane bioreactor (MBR) for sewage treatment. Water Science
and Technology, 65(2), 380-392.
[49] Buer, T., Cumin, J. 2010. MBR module design and operation. Desalination, 250(3),
1073-1077.
[50] Wang, S., Zou, L., Li, H., Zheng, K., Wang, Y., Zheng, G., Li, J. 2020. Full-scale
membrane bioreactor process WWTPs in East Taihu basin: Wastewater
characteristics, energy consumption and sustainability. Science of The Total
Environment, 723, 137983.
[51] van Dijk, L., Roncken, G.C.G. 1997. Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment:
the state of the art and new developments. Water Science and Technology, 35(10), 35-
41.
[52] Yamamoto, K., Hiasa, M., Mahmood, T., Matsuo, T. 1988. Direct Solid-liquid
separation using hollow fiber membrane in an activated sludge aeration tank. in:
Water Pollution Research and Control Brighton, (Eds.) L. Lijklema, K.R. Imhoff,
K.J. Ives, D. Jenkins, R.G. Ludwig, M. Suzuki, D.F. Toerien, A.B. Wheatland, A.
Milburn, E.J. Izod, Pergamon, pp. 43-54.
[53] Visvanathan, C., Aim, R.B., Parameshwaran, K. 2000. Membrane Separation
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science
and Technology, 30(1), 1-48.
25
[54] Cornel, P., Wagner, M., Krause, S. 2003. Investigation of oxygen transfer rates in full
scale membrane bioreactors. Water Science and Technology, 47(11), 313-319.
[55] Giesen, A., Van Bentem, A., Gademan, G.E., H. . 2008. Lessons learnt in facility design,
tendering and operation of MBR’s for industrial and municipal wastewater treatment.
In: Proceedings of WISA Biennial Conference and Exhibition, paper 102, Sun City,
South Africa.
[56] Gabarrón, S., Ferrero, G., Dalmau, M., Comas, J., Rodriguez-Roda, I. 2014. Assessment
of energy-saving strategies and operational costs in full-scale membrane bioreactors.
Journal of Environmental Management, 134, 8-14.
[57] Krzeminski, P., Leverette, L., Malamis, S., Katsou, E. 2017. Membrane bioreactors – A
review on recent developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel
configurations, LCA and market prospects. Journal of Membrane Science, 527, 207-
227.
[58] Sun, J., Liang, P., Yan, X., Zuo, K., Xiao, K., Xia, J., Qiu, Y., Wu, Q., Wu, S., Huang,
X., Qi, M., Wen, X. 2016. Reducing aeration energy consumption in a large-scale
membrane bioreactor: Process simulation and engineering application. Water
Research, 93, 205-213.
[59] Yan, X., Xiao, K., Liang, S., Lei, T., Liang, P., Xue, T., Yu, K., Guan, J., Huang, X.
2015. Hydraulic optimization of membrane bioreactor via baffle modification using
computational fluid dynamics. Bioresource Technology, 175, 633-637.
[60] Habib, R., Asif, M.B., Iftekhar, S., Khan, Z., Gurung, K., Srivastava, V., Sillanpää, M.
2017. Influence of relaxation modes on membrane fouling in submerged membrane
bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment. Chemosphere, 181, 19-25.
[61] Barillon, B., Ruel, S.M., Langlais, C., Lazarova, V. 2013. Energy efficiency in
membrane bioreactors. Water Science and Technology, 67(12), 2685-2691.
[62] Itokawa, H., Tsuji, K., Yamashita, K., Hashimoto, T. 2014. Design and operating
experiences of full-scale municipal membrane bioreactors in Japan. Water Science
and Technology, 69(5), 1088-1093.
[63] Santos, A., Ma, W., Judd, S.J. 2011. Membrane bioreactors: Two decades of research
and implementation. Desalination, 273(1), 148-154.
[64] Judd, S., Judd, C. 2011. The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane
Bioreactors for Water and Wastewater Treatment. 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherlands. (ISBN: 9780080966823).

26
[65] Young, T., Smoot, S., Peeters, J., Côté, P. 2013. When does building an MBR make
sense? How variations of local construction and operating cost parameters impact
overall project economics. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation,
2013(8), 10.2175/193864713813716444.
[66] Young, T., Smoot, S., Peeters, J., Côté, P. 2014. Cost-effectiveness of membrane
bioreactors treatment system for low-level phosphorus reduction from municipal
wastewater. Water Practice and Technology, 9(3), 316-323.
[67] van Bentem, A.G.N., Nijman, N., Schyns, P.F.T., Petri, C.P. 2010. MBR Varsseveld: 5
years of operational experience. Water Practice and Technology, 5(1).
[68] Mizuta, K., Shimada, M. 2010. Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal
wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Science and Technology, 62(10), 2256-
2262.
[69] Gnirss, R., Dittrich, J. 2000. Microfiltration of Municipal Wastewater for Disinfection
and Advanced Phosphorus Removal: Results from Trials with Different Small-Scale
Pilot Plants. Water Environment Research, 72(5), 602-609.
[70] Yang, L., Zeng, S., Chen, J., He, M., Yang, W. 2010. Operational energy performance
assessment system of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Science and
Technology, 62(6), 1361-1370.
[71] Akamatsu, K., Lu, W., Sugawara, T., Nakao, S.-i. 2010. Development of a novel fouling
suppression system in membrane bioreactors using an intermittent electric field.
Water Research, 44(3), 825-830.
[72] Ho, J., Smith, S., Roh, H.K. 2014. Alternative energy efficient membrane bioreactor
using reciprocating submerged membrane. Water Science and Technology, 70(12),
1998-2003.
[73] Kola, A., Ye, Y., Ho, A., Le-Clech, P., Chen, V. 2012. Application of low frequency
transverse vibration on fouling limitation in submerged hollow fibre membranes.
Journal of Membrane Science, 409-410, 54-65.
[74] Rector, T.J., Garland, J.L., Starr, S.O. 2006. Dispersion characteristics of a rotating
hollow fiber membrane bioreactor: Effects of module packing density and rotational
frequency. Journal of Membrane Science, 278(1), 144-150.
[75] Asif, M.B., Maqbool, T., Zhang, Z. 2020. Electrochemical membrane bioreactors: State-
of-the-art and future prospects. Science of The Total Environment, 741, 140233.

27
[76] Wang, Y.-K., Sheng, G.-P., Li, W.-W., Huang, Y.-X., Yu, Y.-Y., Zeng, R.J., Yu, H.-Q.
2011. Development of a Novel Bioelectrochemical Membrane Reactor for
Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9256-9261.
[77] Wang, Y.-P., Liu, X.-W., Li, W.-W., Li, F., Wang, Y.-K., Sheng, G.-P., Zeng, R.J., Yu,
H.-Q. 2012. A microbial fuel cell–membrane bioreactor integrated system for cost-
effective wastewater treatment. Applied Energy, 98, 230-235.
[78] Gao, F., Yang, Z.-H., Li, C., Zeng, G.-M., Ma, D.-H., Zhou, L. 2015. A novel algal
biofilm membrane photobioreactor for attached microalgae growth and nutrients
removal from secondary effluent. Bioresource Technology, 179, 8-12.
[79] Nguyen, L.N., Truong, M.V., Nguyen, A.Q., Johir, M.A.H., Commault, A.S., Ralph,
P.J., Semblante, G.U., Nghiem, L.D. 2020. A sequential membrane bioreactor
followed by a membrane microalgal reactor for nutrient removal and algal biomass
production. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 6(1), 189-196.
[80] 2011. GE's LEAPmbr boosts productivity and reduces costs. Membrane Technology,
2011(8), 2.
[81] Huyskens, C., Brauns, E., Van Hoof, E., Diels, L., De Wever, H. 2011. Validation of a
supervisory control system for energy savings in membrane bioreactors. Water
Research, 45(3), 1443-1453.
[82] Tao, G., Kekre, K., Oo, M.H., Viswanath, B., Yusof, A.M.D., Seah, H. 2010. Energy
Reduction and Optimisation in Membrane Bioreactor Systems. Water Practice and
Technology, 5(4).
[83] Germain, E., Nelles, F., Drews, A., Pearce, P., Kraume, M., Reid, E., Judd, S.J.,
Stephenson, T. 2007. Biomass effects on oxygen transfer in membrane bioreactors.
Water Research, 41(5), 1038-1044.
[84] Ferrero, G., Rodríguez-Roda, I., Comas, J. 2012. Automatic control systems for
submerged membrane bioreactors: A state-of-the-art review. Water Research, 46(11),
3421-3433.
[85] Yamashita, K., Itokawa, H., Hashimoto, T. 2019. Demonstration of energy-saving
membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems. Water Science and Technology, 79(3), 448-
457.
[86] Ortiz, M., Raluy, R.G., Serra, L. 2007. Life cycle assessment of water treatment
technologies: wastewater and water-reuse in a small town. Desalination, 204(1), 121-
131.

28
[87] Memon, F.A., Zheng, Z., Butler, D., Shirley-Smith, C., Lui, S., Makropoulos, C., Avery,
L. 2007. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Greywater Recycling Technologies for
New Developments. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129(1), 27-35.
[88] Jeong, H., Broesicke, O.A., Drew, B., Crittenden, J.C. 2018. Life cycle assessment of
small-scale greywater reclamation systems combined with conventional centralized
water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174,
333-342.
[89] Høibye, L., Clauson-Kaas, J., Wenzel, H., Larsen, H.F., Jacobsen, B.N., Dalgaard, O.
2008. Sustainability assessment of advanced wastewater treatment technologies.
Water Science and Technology, 58(5), 963-968.
[90] Hospido, A., Sanchez, I., Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Iglesias, A., Buntner, D., Reif, R.,
Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G. 2012. Are all membrane reactors equal from an
environmental point of view? Desalination, 285, 263-270.
[91] Kobayashi, Y., Ashbolt, N.J., Davies, E.G.R., Liu, Y. 2020. Life cycle assessment of
decentralized greywater treatment systems with reuse at different scales in cold
regions. Environment International, 134, 105215.
[92] Cashman, S., Ma, X., Mosley, J., Garland, J., Crone, B., Xue, X. 2018. Energy and
greenhouse gas life cycle assessment and cost analysis of aerobic and anaerobic
membrane bioreactor systems: Influence of scale, population density, climate, and
methane recovery. Bioresource Technology, 254, 56-66.

29