Energy and chemical efficient nitrogen removal at a full-scale MBR water reuse facility

Jianfeng Wen; Yanjin Liu; Yunjie Tu and Mark W. LeChevallier; Jianfeng Wen; Yanjin Liu; Yunjie Tu and Mark W. LeChevallier

doi:10.3934/environsci.2015.1.42

AIMS Environmental Science

2015, Volume 2, Issue 1: 42-55. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.1.42

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Energy and chemical efficient nitrogen removal at a full-scale MBR water reuse facility

American Water, 1025 Laurel Oak Road, Voorhees, New Jersey 08043, USA

Received: 10 December 2014 Accepted: 12 February 2015 Published: 14 February 2015

With stringent wastewater discharge limits on nitrogen and phosphorus, membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology is gaining popularity for advanced wastewater treatment due to higher effluent quality and smaller footprint. However, higher energy intensity required for MBR plants and increased operational costs for nutrient removal limit wide application of the MBR technology. Conventional nitrogen removal requires intensive energy inputs and chemical addition. There are drivers to search for new technology and process control strategies to treat wastewater with lower energy and chemical demand while still producing high quality effluent. The NPXpress is a patented technology developed by American Water engineers. This technology is an ultra-low dissolved oxygen (DO) operation for wastewater treatment and is able to remove nitrogen with less oxygen requirements and reduced supplemental carbon addition in MBR plants. Jefferson Peaks Water Reuse Facility in New Jersey employs MBR technology to treat municipal wastewater and was selected for the implementation of the NPXpress technology. The technology has been proved to consistently produce a high quality reuse effluent while reducing energy consumption and supplemental carbon addition by 59% and 100%, respectively. Lab-scale kinetic studies suggested that NPXpress promoted microorganisms with higher oxygen affinity. Process modelling was used to simulate treatment performance under NPXpress conditions and develop ammonia-based aeration control strategy. The application of the ammonia-based aeration control at the plant further reduced energy consumption by additional 9% and improved treatment performance with 35% reduction in effluent total nitrogen. The overall energy savings for Jefferson Peaks was $210,000 in four years since the implementation of NPXpress. This study provided an insight in design and operation of MBR plants with NPXpress technology and ultra-low DO operations.
- aeration control,
- MBR,
- NPXpress,
- nutrient removal,
- process modelling,
- ultra-low DO
Citation: Jianfeng Wen, Yanjin Liu, Yunjie Tu and Mark W. LeChevallier. Energy and chemical efficient nitrogen removal at a full-scale MBR water reuse facility[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(1): 42-55. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.1.42

Related Papers:

Abstract

With stringent wastewater discharge limits on nitrogen and phosphorus, membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology is gaining popularity for advanced wastewater treatment due to higher effluent quality and smaller footprint. However, higher energy intensity required for MBR plants and increased operational costs for nutrient removal limit wide application of the MBR technology. Conventional nitrogen removal requires intensive energy inputs and chemical addition. There are drivers to search for new technology and process control strategies to treat wastewater with lower energy and chemical demand while still producing high quality effluent. The NPXpress is a patented technology developed by American Water engineers. This technology is an ultra-low dissolved oxygen (DO) operation for wastewater treatment and is able to remove nitrogen with less oxygen requirements and reduced supplemental carbon addition in MBR plants. Jefferson Peaks Water Reuse Facility in New Jersey employs MBR technology to treat municipal wastewater and was selected for the implementation of the NPXpress technology. The technology has been proved to consistently produce a high quality reuse effluent while reducing energy consumption and supplemental carbon addition by 59% and 100%, respectively. Lab-scale kinetic studies suggested that NPXpress promoted microorganisms with higher oxygen affinity. Process modelling was used to simulate treatment performance under NPXpress conditions and develop ammonia-based aeration control strategy. The application of the ammonia-based aeration control at the plant further reduced energy consumption by additional 9% and improved treatment performance with 35% reduction in effluent total nitrogen. The overall energy savings for Jefferson Peaks was $210,000 in four years since the implementation of NPXpress. This study provided an insight in design and operation of MBR plants with NPXpress technology and ultra-low DO operations.

References

[1]	Zhou H, Smith DW (2001) Advanced technologies in water and wastewater treatment. Can J Civil Eng 28: 49-66. doi: 10.1139/cjce-28-S1-49
[2]	Melin T, Jefferson B, Bixio D, et al. (2006) Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment and reuse. Desalination 187: 271-282. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.086
[3]	Verrecht B, Judd SJ, Guglielmi G, et al. (2008) An aeration energy model for an immersed membrane bioreactor. Water Res 42: 4716-4770.
[4]	Schleper C, Nicol GW (2010) Ammonia-oxidising archaea - physiology, ecology and evolution. Adv Microb Physiol 57: 1-36. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381045-8.00001-1
[5]	Giraldo E, Jjemba P, Liu Y, et al. (2011) Ammonia oxidizing archaea, AOA, population and kinetic changes in a full scale simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal MBR. Proc Water Environ Federation 2011: 3156-3168. doi: 10.2175/193864711802721596
[6]	Huang T, Li N, Huang Y (2012) Modelling of nitrogen removal and control strategy in continuous-flow-intermittent-aeration process. Afr J Biotechnol 11: 10626-10631.
[7]	Guglielmi G, Andreottola G (2011) Alternate anoxic/aerobic operation for nitrogen removal in a membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment. Water Sci Techn 64: 1730-1735. doi: 10.2166/wst.2011.755
[8]	Curko J, Matosic M, Jakopovic HK, et al. (2010) Nitrogen removal in submerged MBR with intermittent aeration. Desalination Water Treat 24: 7-19. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2010.1118
[9]	Parikh C, Trivedi H, Livingston D (2011) A decade of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification experience in over 60 conventional and MBR applications - lessons learned. Proc Water Environ Federation 2011: 3629-3655. doi: 10.2175/193864711802721901
[10]	Holman JB, Wareham DG (2005) COD, ammonia and dissolved oxygen time profiles in the simultaneous nitrification/denitrification process. Biochem Eng J 22: 125-133. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2004.09.001
[11]	Fu Z, Yang F, An Y, et al. (2009) Simultaneous nitrification and denitrification coupled with phosphorus removal in a modified anoxic/oxic-membrane bioreactor (A/O-MBR). Biochem Eng J 43: 191-196. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2008.09.021
[12]	Li YZ, He YL, Ohandja DG, et al. (2008) Simutaneous nitrification-denitrification achieved by an improved internal-loop airlift MBR: comparative study. Bioresource Technol 99: 5867-5872. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.001
[13]	Sarioglu M, Insel G, Artan N, et al. (2009) Model evaluation of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification in a membrane bioreactor operated without an anoxic reactor. J Membrane Sci 337: 17-27. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2009.03.015
[14]	Wyffels S, Van Hulle SWH, Boeckx P, et al. (2004) Modelling and simulation of oxygen-limited partial nitrification in a membrane-assisted bioreactor (MBR). Biotechnol Bioeng 86: 531-542. doi: 10.1002/bit.20008
[15]	Daebel H, Manser R, Gujer W (2007) Exploring temporal variations of oxygen saturation constants of nitrifying bacteria. Water Res 41: 1094-1102. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.11.011
[16]	Sharp R, Dailey S, Motyl M, et al. (2012) K_DO experiments at NYC DEP's full-scale demonstration facility. Proc Water Environ Federation 2012: 4176-4182. doi: 10.2175/193864712811708482
[17]	Rieger L, Jones RM, Dold PL, et al. (2014) Ammonia-based feedforward and feeback aeration control in activated sludge process. Water Environ Res 86: 63-73. doi: 10.2175/106143013X13596524516987
[18]	Henze M, Gujer W, Mino T, et al. (2000). Activated sludge models: ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3. IWA Publishing, London.
[19]	Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD (2004) Wastewater engineering, treatment and reuse, 4 Eds., Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education, 690.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)