Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2019, 11, 1369-1388
https://www.scirp.org/journal/jwarp
ISSN Online: 1945-3108
ISSN Print: 1945-3094
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 Nov. 14, 2019 1369 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Pilot Scale Biological Treatment as
Pre-Treatment for Reverse Osmosis
Sareddy Ravi Sankara Reddy, Manoj Kumar Karnena, Vara Saritha*
Department of Environmental Studies, GITAM Institute of Science, GITAM (Deemed to be University), Visakhapatnam, India
Abstract
Treatment of pharmaceutical wastewaters is a challenging task owing to th
eir
complexity and pollution load, variability in strength of waste streams ac-
companied with shock loads. Since no single treatment system is a viable op-
tion, integration of existing systems with advanced physical/chemical processes
has been gaining attention for treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater. In th
e
present study, two biological treatment methods were evaluated for their effi-
ciency as pre-treatment system for RO which are sequencing batch reactor
and membrane bioreactor. Efficiency of biological treatments tested SBR and
MBR was presented in terms of percentage removal of physico-chemical pa-
rameters. Total
dissolved solids removal by SBR was 31.82% while MBR
showed 29.25% reduction. Chemical oxygen demand removal by SBR was
69.54% while MBR showed 30.35% removal. Efficiency of combined treat-
ments SBR-RO and MBR-RO was presented in terms of removal of total dis-
solved solids, COD and ammonia. TDS removal was the highest in the com-
bination of SBR-RO with 95.94% removal, while MBR-RO combination re-
sulted in 87.29% removal. Chemical oxygen demand was achieved maximum
with the combination of MBR-RO 92.33% while co
mpetitive results were
achieved with the combination SBR-RO also with 88.62% remo
val. Removal
of ammonia was maximum with the combination SBR-
RO 87.5%, while
competitive results were obtained with MBR-RO 85.51%. From the results,
it
can be understood that SBR was efficient in removing ammonia, total dis-
solved solids and was equally competent in removing chemical oxygen de-
mand. This study concludes that combined treatment of SBR-
RO proves to be
promising in treating pharmaceutical wastewaters.
Keywords
Reverse Osmosis, Membrane Reactor, Sequencing Batch Reactor,
Waste Water
How to cite this paper:
Reddy, S.R.S.,
Karnena, M
.K. and Saritha, V. (2019)
Pilot
S
cale Biological Treatment as Pre-
Treatment
f
or Reverse Osmosis.
Journal of Water R
e-
source and Protection
,
11
, 1369-1388.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079
Received:
October 14, 2019
Accepted:
November 11, 2019
Published:
November 14, 2019
Copyright © 201
9 by author(s) and
Scientific
Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY
4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Open Access
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1370 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
1. Introduction
Treatment of pharmaceutical wastewaters is a challenging task owing to their
complexity and pollution load, variability in strength of waste streams with
shock loads. These factors govern the effectiveness of conventional treatment
systems. Since no single treatment system is a viable option, integration of exist-
ing systems with advanced physical/chemical processes has been gaining atten-
tion for treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater.
Simplicity in process and single tank design of SBR coupled with flexible
technology has been recognized as a desirable treatment option for different types
of wastewater [1]-[6]. Unique characteristics of SBR include its competence in
removal both organic matter and nitrogen from wastewater [7] [8] [9]. Conditions
of both aerobic and anaerobic can be adopted in SBR for removal of phosphorus
[10] [11] [12]. These properties of SBR make it viable economically [13].
SBR applied for treatment of olive mill wastewaters showed significant re-
moval of pollution load through 60% removal of total polyphenols and 90% re-
moval of chemical oxygen demand respectively [14]. When used to treat swine
wastewater the reactor presented excellent purification of wastewaters. Removal
of total phosphorus, total nitrogen ammonia-nitrogen and COD were in the or-
der of 96.2%, 95.6%, 95.7%, and 98.2% respectively [15]. SBR treatment was also
adopted for pharmaceutical wastewaters, though less work has been reported the
results were promising. Study of wastewater containing antibiotic was carried
out by Elmolla and Chaudhuri, 2011 [16].
Modern hybrid wastewater treatment adopting membrane separation tech-
nology along with biological process is Membrane bio-reactor (MBR) [17]. Uti-
lized as biochemical engineering processes, MBR can be used as suspended
growth bioreactor functioning processes like bio-oxidation, fermentation, nitri-
fication and denitrification along with separation of solid and liquid [18]. Fur-
ther, this can also be operated at high sludge concentrations [19]. MBRs are well
appreciated for their efficiency in removing dissolved solids [20] [21]. Major
concern of MBR system is fouling of membrane which indicates accumulation of
rejected constituents on the membrane resulting in resistance to water transport
through the membrane [22]. Greater than 80% removal efficiency for pharma-
ceuticals was reported by Radjenovic
et al.
, 2007 [23].
Membrane technologies have gained significant importance in treating wide
array of industrial wastewaters during the past decades. Among others, reverse
osmosis (RO) has been specifically appreciated as state of art in treatment of
wastewater. RO has been adopted for treating industrial wastewaters from pe-
trochemical, chemical, pulp and paper, food industries, electrochemical, munic-
ipal wastewater, textile and also for treatment of drinking water [24] [25] [26].
Permeate from this process has high quality with potential to reuse for various
processes like dyeing, boilers cooling-towers and cleaning, etc.
However, application of RO faces major hurdle with reference to membrane
fouling which impacts efficiency of treatment both qualitatively and quantita-
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1371 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
tively, increasing operation costs due to resistance in filtration, production of
corrosive by-products and passage of salts [27] [28]. Owing to fouling reason
extensive pre-treatment is required for successful functioning of these systems
[29] [30]. Comparative study between conventional biological treatment and
MBR as pre-treatment options for RO was studied and revealed that MBR was
more suitable [31]. Current research focusses on testing the efficiency of biolog-
ical treatments SBR and MBR as viable pre-treatment options for RO.
2. Methodology
2.1. Process
Biological treatment using sequencing batch reactor and membrane bioreactor
was studied. Efficiency of the process was evaluated in terms of reduction in to-
tal dissolved solids and chemical oxygen demand. Treated waters from each of
the unit are fed to reverse osmosis for a duration of one month to evaluate their
efficiency as pre-treatment to reverse osmosis (Figure 1).
2.2. Sampling Site and Sample Collection
All the samples were collected from the treatment plant of the pharmaceutical
industry. Water samples from sequencing batch reactor and membrane bioreac-
tor were collected once every day. Samples from sequencing batch reactor were
collected from feed and outlet respectively and for membrane bioreactor and re-
verse osmosis samples from feed, permeate and reject were collected.
2.3. Analytical Procedures
The following parameters for the collected samples were analysed pH, total dis-
solved solids and chemical oxygen demand. All parameters were analysed as per
the standard methods of APHA, 2015 (Table 1).
3. Results
This research presents the results from pilot scale studies focussed on to study
the most suitable pre-treatment for reverse osmosis (RO) treatment. Sequencing
batch reactor (SBR) and Membrane bioreactor (MBR) were assessed for their
suitability as pre-treatment options to RO.
Table 2 illustrates one month (June, 2016) data of SBR tested for its suitability
Figure 1. Percentage removal of TDS and COD in SBR pilot trails during June, 2016.
2016/6/1
2016/6/2
2016/6/3
2016/6/4
2016/6/5
2016/6/6
2016/6/7
2016/6/8
2016/6/9
2016/6/10
2016/6/11
2016/6/12
2016/6/13
2016/6/14
2016/6/15
2016/6/16
2016/6/17
2016/6/18
2016/6/19
2016/6/20
2016/6/21
2016/6/22
2016/6/23
2016/6/24
2016/6/25
2016/6/26
2016/6/27
2016/6/28
2016/6/29
2016/6/30
Percentage Removal
TDS (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1372 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Table 1. APHA methods (2005).
S.No
Parameter
Method of Analysis
1. pH
APHA Standard Method 4500
2. Total Dissolved Solids APHA Standard Method 2540C
3. Chemical Oxygen Demand APHA Standard Method 5220
Table 2. Removal of TDS and COD in the SBR pilot trail.
Date
TDS (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
Date
TDS (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
01-06-2016 −8.41 −21.88 16-06-2016 7.20 41.51
02-06-2016 −14.95 60.61 17-06-2016 −1.90 61.95
03-06-2016 10.16 63.33 18-06-2016 12.50 56.32
04-06-2016 −26.67 21.64 19-06-2016 23.36 58.84
05-06-2016 −25.00 6.98 20-06-2016 8.33 64.96
06-06-2016 0.00 0.00 21-06-2016 12.50 64.08
07-06-2016 24.66 20.00 22-06-2016 1.27 0.00
08-06-2016 8.33 54.06 23-06-2016 31.82 60.08
09-06-2016 2.78 51.53 24-06-2016 23.08 57.37
10-06-2016 1.90 59.97 25-06-2016 24.82 58.84
11-06-2016 8.33 60.37 26-06-2016 0.00 0.00
12-06-2016 −3.70 65.86 27-06-2016 22.22 69.54
13-06-2016 −4.89 67.55 28-06-2016 1.82 54.08
14-06-2016 5.77 53.13 29-06-2016 22.14 56.12
15-06-2016 −18.93 54.19 30-06-2016 −45.58 74.35
as preliminary treatment for Reverse Osmosis process. One month data on a
daily basis was presented. Efficiency of the process was tested with reduction in
parameters total dissolved solids and chemical oxygen demand. Further as sur-
rogate for removal of TDS and COD, sludge volume and dissolved oxygen re-
spectively were also recorded. The highest and lowest TDS reduction was rec-
orded as 31.82% and −45.58% on 23rd and 30th June respectively. Reduction in
COD was observed to be good in comparison with reduction of TDS the highest
and the lowest reduction percentages were recorded as 24.82% and −45.58% on
25th and 30th June respectively. In line with the poor removal of TDS sludge
volume has recorded the lowest values ranging from 40 - 280 ml. Dissolved oxy-
gen values ranged between 4.4 to 6.1 mg/l (Figure 1).
Table 3 presents one month trail run of Reverse Osmosis treatment, which
was fed with SBR outlet. Percentage removal of TDS from RO treatment was
noted at the highest and lowest as 96% and 78.18% respectively. Maximum and
minimum percentage of COD removal was 88.62% and 64.62% respectively.
Percentage reduction of ammonia with maximum and minimum was 87.50%
and 78.00% respectively (Figure 2).
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1373 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Table 3. Efficiency of RO with SBR as pre-treatment with reference to reduction in TDS
and COD.
Date
TDS
COD
Ammonia
Date
TDS
COD
Ammonia
01-06-2016 92.82 64.62 82.17 17-06-2016 87.90 85.70 78.84
02-06-2016 90.26 74.87 80.23 18-06-2016 87.85 87.72 84.34
03-06-2016 78.18 78.18 82.61 19-06-2016 87.14 86.22 80.90
04-06-2016 95.29 81.33 82.55 20-06-2016 85.24 87.23 0.00
05-06-2016 95.94 82.25 0.00 21-06-2016 87.27 84.52 80.20
07-06-2016 94.39 0.00 87.50 22-06-2016 84.76 83.06 82.53
08-06-2016 94.29 74.76 84.86 23-06-2016 86.41 83.40 78.25
09-06-2016 92.33 74.33 84.26 24-06-2016 81.03 86.67 81.88
10-06-2016 96.00 75.07 83.39 25-06-2016 88.00 83.21 80.09
11-06-2016 94.69 76.49 84.62 26-06-2016 84.95 0.00 78.00
12-06-2016 94.52 88.62 0.00 27-06-2016 0 85.11 79.19
13-06-2016 93.98 84.88 80.99 28-06-2016 80.48 84.22 81.90
14-06-2016 94.08 85.51 82.05 29-06-2016 82.22 83.81 -
15-06-2016 92.94 82.75 81.57 30-06-2016 - 82.06 -
16-06-2016 - 88.19 79.91 - - - -
Figure 2. Percentage removal of TDS, COD and ammonia in RO with SBR as pre-treatment
pilot trails during June, 2016.
Table 4 presents the biological treatment of pharmaceutical wastewaters using
membrane bioreactor (MBR) on pilot trail during the month of August 2016. Ef-
ficiency of the treatment is defined in terms of reduction in strength of waste-
waters with parameters of total dissolved solids, total solids, chemical oxygen
demand and turbidity. The percentage removal of the parameters under test, as
understood from the permeate values the TDS removal was recorded to be
1.38% as the lowest and 29.25% as the highest. While TSS has showed 100% re-
moval, the COD removal varied from 4.77% to 30.35%. Turbidity removal was
good with 80.90% being the lowest and 99.86% recorded as the highest (Figure 3).
TDS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Efficiency of Reverse Osmosis with SBR as pre-treatment
TDS
COD
Ammonia
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1374 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Table 4. Efficiency of MBR treatment presented in terms of percentage removal.
Day
TDS
TSS
COD
Turbidity
Day
TDS
TSS
COD
Turbidity
1 1.38 100 4.77 99.66 16 13.78 100 6.28 99.72
2 3.36 100 11.15 99.50 17 20.27 100 5.08 99.73
3 2.47 100 26.64 99.05 18 12.41 100 8.16 99.44
4 29.25 100 16.00 99.77 19 14.81 100 17.28 99.59
5 6.23 100 19.06 99.79 20 11.62 100 12.65 99.79
6 7.82 100 11.17 99.81 21 10.66 100 26.41 99.33
7 6.09 100 30.35 80.90 22 5.74 100 22.36 99.74
8 16.79 100 11.76 98.95 23 5.98 100 20.09 99.71
9 1.38 100 4.77 99.66 24 9.22 100 10.70 99.79
10 10.82 100 11.36 99.82 25 12.02 100 26.28 99.49
11 11.38 100 5.94 99.68 26 7.30 100 14.42 99.65
12 13.65 100 9.07 99.63 27 10.07 100 16.08 99.51
13 13.95 100 10.10 99.72 28 6.16 100 8.34 99.83
14 9.59 100 15.42 99.73 29 13.30 100 13.65 99.86
15 14.17 100 13.95 99.55 30 8.52 100 9.78 99.57
Figure 3. Efficiency of MBR treatment.
Table 5 presents treatment with reverse osmosis with membrane bioreactor as
pre-treatment. Feed waters contained high concentrations of all parameters un-
der test. The percentage removal of the parameters under test as understood
from the permeate values the TDS removal was recorded to be 76.96% as the
lowest and 87.29% as the highest. COD removal varied from 73.03% to 92.33%.
While hardness showed 93.33% - 100% removal, ammonia removal was good
with 71.46% being the lowest and 85.51% recorded as the highest (Figure 4).
Table 6 illustrates the comparison of total dissolved solids and chemical oxy-
gen demand removal by sequencing batch reactor and membrane bioreactor.
Maximum reduction of total dissolved solids was obtained by SBR with 31.82%
while minimum was also obtained by SBR with −74.58%. On the other hand,
TDS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TDS
TSS
COD
Turbidity
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1375 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Table 5. Efficiency of RO with MBR as pre-treatment with reference to TDS and COD
Reduction.
Day
TDS
COD
NH3
Hardness
Day
TDS
COD
NH3
Hardness
1 76.96 83.23 79.63 100.00 14 79.57 76.90 83.93 98.26
2 85.88 83.64 77.81 100.00 15 80.00 81.29 82.85 97.50
3 87.29 82.22 78.46 100.00 16 81.70 76.09 80.28 94.29
4 85.19 84.91 80.71 100.00 17 83.75 82.18 0.00 95.86
5 84.23 85.11 81.51 00.00 18 83.93 85.28 0.00 0.00
6 80.95 88.17 81.88 100.00 19 78.79 86.77 71.46 97.56
7 84.60 86.31 84.29 100.00 20 78.95 88.55 81.25 96.67
8 80.84 86.91 84.48 100.00 21 79.29 89.47 74.29 96.36
9 82.85 84.97 83.75 95.19 22 86.92 90.12 76.25 97.32
10 84.03 86.91 80.27 96.19 23 83.48 89.19 77.69 98.23
11 77.80 73.03 82.35 98.26 24 86.50 90.26 79.00 96.92
12 85.00 79.29 84.29 97.27 25 84.94 91.69 81.97 95.45
13 82.55 77.65 85.51 97.14 26 86.67 92.33 80.15 93.33
Table 6. Comparison of TDS and COD removal after treatment with SBR and MBR.
Day
TDS
COD
Day
TDS
COD
SBR
MBR
SBR
MBR
SBR
MBR
SBR
MBR
1 −8.41 1.38 −21.88 4.77 7.2 13.78 41.51 6.28
2 −14.95 3.36 60.61 11.15 17 −1.9 20.27 61.95 5.08
3 10.16 2.47 63.33 26.64 18 12.5 12.41 56.32 8.16
4 −26.67 29.25 21.64 16 19 23.36 14.81 58.84 17.28
5 −25 6.23 6.98 19.06 20 8.33 11.62 64.96 12.65
6 0 7.82 0 11.17 21 12.5 10.66 64.08 26.41
7 24.66 6.09 20 30.35 22 −74.58 5.74 0 22.36
8 8.33 16.79 54.06 11.76 23 31.82 5.98 60.08 20.09
9 2.78 1.38 51.53 4.77 24 23.08 9.22 57.37 10.7
10 1.9 10.82 59.97 11.36 25 24.82 12.02 58.84 26.28
11 8.33 11.38 60.37 5.94 26 0 7.3 0 14.42
12 −3.7 13.65 65.86 9.07 27 22.22 10.07 69.54 16.08
13 −4.89 13.95 67.55 10.1 28 1.82 6.16 54.08 8.34
14 5.77 9.59 53.13 15.42 29 22.14 13.3 56.12 13.65
15 −18.93 14.17 54.19 13.95 30 −45.58 8.52 74.35 9.78
MBR present lowest removals with 1.38% and 29.25% as the lowest and the
highest. The average removal for TDS was the highest with MBR (10.33%) since
it was stable without going to negative values. SBR, even though presented the
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1376 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
highest removal was quite fluctuating in treatment process. Chemical oxygen
demand was also the highest (69.54%) with SBR and the lowest also by SBR with
−21.88%, while MBR was stable with minimum of 4.77% and maximum of
30.35% removal of COD. The average removal of COD was the highest with SBR
with 42.51% and MBR being only 13.96% (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Comparison of treatment efficiency of reverse osmosis with SBR and MBR as
pre-treatment in terms of TDS, COD and Ammonia removal is presented in Table
7. Total dissolved solids removal was the highest in the combination of SBR-RO
Figure 4. Efficiency of RO with MBR as pre-treatment.
Figure 5. Comparison of TDS removal with SBR and MBR.
Figure 6. Comparison of COD removal after treatment with SBR and MBR.
TDS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TDS
COD
NH3
Hardness
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SBR
MBR
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SBR
MBR
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1377 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Table 7. Comparison of TDS, COD and ammonia removal after treatment with RO using
SBR and MBR as pre-treatment.
Day
TDS COD Ammonia
S-RO
M-RO
S-RO
M-RO
S-RO
M-RO
1 92.82 76.96 64.62 83.23 82.17 79.63
2 90.26 85.88 74.87 83.64 80.23 77.81
3 78.18 87.29 78.18 82.22 82.61 78.46
4 95.29 85.19 81.33 84.91 82.55 80.71
5 95.94 84.23 82.25 85.11 0 81.51
6 94.39 80.95 0 88.17 87.5 81.88
7 94.29 84.60 74.76 86.31 84.86 84.29
8 92.33 80.84 74.33 86.91 84.26 84.48
9 96.00 82.85 75.07 84.97 83.39 83.75
10 94.69 84.03 76.49 86.91 84.62 80.27
11 94.52 77.80 88.62 73.03 0 82.35
12 93.98 85.00 84.88 79.29 80.99 84.29
13 94.08 82.55 85.51 77.65 82.05 85.51
14 92.94 79.57 82.75 76.90 81.57 83.93
15 - 80.00 88.19 81.29 79.91 82.85
16 87.9 81.70 85.7 76.09 78.84 80.28
17 87.85 83.75 87.72 82.18 84.34 0.00
18 87.14 83.93 86.22 85.28 80.9 0.00
19 85.24 78.79 87.23 86.77 0 71.46
20 87.27 78.95 84.52 88.55 80.2 81.25
21 84.76 79.29 83.06 89.47 82.53 74.29
22 86.41 86.92 83.4 90.12 78.25 76.25
23 81.03 83.48 86.67 89.19 81.88 77.69
24 88.00 86.50 83.21 90.26 80.09 79.00
25 84.95 84.94 0 91.69 78.00 81.97
26 0 86.67 85.11 92.33 79.19 80.15
Avg 86.41 82.79 75.56 84.71 72.34 74.39
S-RO – RO treatment with SBR as pre-treatment; M-RO – RO treatment with MBR as pre-treatment.
treatment with 95.94% removal. While MBR-RO combination resulted in 87.29%
removal (Figure 7). Chemical oxygen demand was achieved maximum with the
combination of MBR-RO 92.33% while competitive results were achieved with
the combination SBR-RO also 88.62% (Figure 8). Removal of ammonia was
maximum with the combination SBR-RO (87.5%), while competitive results
were obtained with MBR-RO (85.51%) (Figure 9).
From the results, it can be understood that individually SBR was effective over
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1378 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Figure 7. Comparison of TDS removal after treatment with RO using SBR and MBR as
pre-treatment.
Figure 8. Comparison of COD removal after treatment with RO using SBR and MBR as
pre-treatment.
Figure 9. Comparison of ammonia removal after treatment with RO using SBR and MBR
as pre-treatment.
MBR, while as pre-treatment the combination of MBR-RO was a little high since
SBR-RO was equally competent. Since, reverse osmosis is efficient in removing
solids, in biological treatment removal of chemical oxygen demand and ammo-
nia are more desirable to get an overall effective treatment. Hence, the combina-
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SBR-RO
MBR-RO
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SBR-RO
MBR-RO
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SBR-RO
MBR-RO
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1379 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
tion of SBR-RO was tested on a full scale in further studies.
4. Discussion
The prime objective of the current research is to evaluate the efficiency of se-
quencing batch reactor (SBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) as pre-treatment
for reverse osmosis (RO).
4.1. Sequencing Batch Reactor
Treatability of pharmaceutical wastewater using sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
was tested on a pilot scale. During one of the months
i.e.
, during June SBR outlet
was fed to reverse osmosis (RO) to study the applicability of SBR as pre-treatment
for RO. Efficiency of SBR is presented in terms of reduction in total dissolved
solids and chemical oxygen demand. Details of SBR efficiency during the pilot
trails is presented as follows:
Removal of total dissolved solids
Previous studies have shown that wastewaters containing high TDS when
treated by SBR result in substantial reduction of chemical oxygen demand, since
high TDS is considered to affect the dissolvability of oxygen in the wastewater
[32]. The highest removal of TDS was noted as 27.32% during the month of
September while the lowest with negative removal was observed during the
month of March with −29.28%. Wu and Maskaly, 2018 [33] stated that at in-
creasing TDS levels aerobic microorganisms and their metabolism are adversely
affected leading to failure in the system. Upon effective working conditions re-
moval of TDS is observed which is attributed to the oxidative degradation of
dissolved solids [34]. Studies conducted by Mahvi
et al.
, 2008 [35] on wastewater
TDS removal reported a reduction of 61.25%.
Removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand
In the present study, the highest and lowest COD removal was noted as 68.74%
and 34.98% during the months of March and May respectively. The reduction in
COD is attributed to aeration and digestion processes, which are confirmed by
previous studies showing 99%, 90%, 98% and 94% removal respectively [36] [37]
[38]. As per the report of USEPA, SBR is effective in removal of COD and BOD
along with nitrification, denitrification and suspended solids [39]. Amat
et al.
,
2005 [40] obtained 99% to 86% of COD removal under varied loading factors on
a lab scale SBR.
Dissolved Oxygen Profile
2.0 mg/l of dissolved oxygen concentration is required for maximum nitrifica-
tion rate. When concentration of dissolved oxygen falls below 0.5 mg/l and at a
maximum of 1.0 mg/l, it inhibits denitrification. The dissolved oxygen concen-
tration of SBR system during the operation is understood to increase during the
react stage as aeration is provided, the concentration decreases in the stages of
settle, draw and idle due to ceasing of aeration and mixing processes. Moreover,
concentration of dissolved oxygen is substantially related to activity of microor-
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1380 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
ganisms in the system. Further, peak of dissolved oxygen occurs after complete
depletion of ammonia which indicates the culmination of nitrification process
[41]. An increase in dissolved oxygen is observed when all the organic matter is
degraded, reducing the respiration of microbes.
Sequencing batch reactor as pre-treatment to Reverse Osmosis
One-month trail runs were performed wherein treated effluent from SBR is
fed to reverse osmosis. The results were promising with the higher end removal
of TDS, COD and ammonia recorded as 96%, 88.62% and 87.50% respectively.
Meagre studies are found in context of integrated treatment using SBR followed
by RO especially for treating pharmaceutical wastewaters. Gangavarapu
et al.
,
2015 [42] conducted a study on medium scale active pharmaceutical ingredient
manufacturing industry that adopted recycling process through zero liquid dis-
charge system. They reported the flow of effluent treatment process consisted of
multi-effect evaporator followed by sequencing batch reactor which is concluded
by reverse osmosis. They achieved reduction in total dissolved solids, total sus-
pended solids and biological oxygen demand in the order of 99.2, 100 and 100
percent respectively. A combination of membrane sequencing batch reactor with
reverse osmosis has achieved 90.9% reduction in chemical oxygen demand, 92%
of total organic carbon and 91.5% of oil and grease from produced water of oil
and gas field [43].
4.2. Membrane Bioreactor
MBR processes are experiencing exceptional growth in treating domestic and
municipal wastewater during the past decade owing to many advantages like ex-
ceptional quality of effluent, lesser production of sludge, lower foot print and
flexibility for expansion in future [44]. Industrial use of MBR technology gained
attention attributed to the robustness in its process, resistance to high organic
loading, ability to treat compounds that are difficult and inhibiting to treat [45].
Pharmaceutical wastewaters manufacturing vitamins were conventionally treated
using two units of oxidation process wherein the treated water was unstable with
greater amounts of suspended solids among other pollution parameters. Hence
Feng
et al.
, 2006 [46] suggested the use of MBR pilot plant to treat these waters
instead of the conventional processes.
Removal of Total Dissolved Solids
TDS concentrations of permeate were in the range of 4856 mg/l to 32,000
mg/l. TDS removal was recorded to be 1.38% as the lowest and 29.25% as the
highest. There exists a paucity in literature regarding removal of TDS by MBR.
Almost all the studies focus on removal of TSS but not TDS. Moreover, TDS
removal is always reported when MBR is used as a pre-treatment for RO. Hence,
in the present study also the removal of TDS will be dealt in the following sec-
tion of MBR as pre-treatment for RO.
Removal of Total Suspended Solids
In the present study, TSS concentrations in permeate were recorded to be zero
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1381 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
0 with 100% removal. Removal of suspended solids effectively performed by
membrane separation process, overcoming the limitations related to sludge set-
tling properties [47]. MBR was employed for treatment of pharmaceutical
wastewaters on a pilot scale in southern Taiwan. Performance was monitored for
a duration of 140 days; it was observed that there was a regular logarithmic
progress of viscosity in relation to TSS concentration [48]. 100% removal of
suspended solids with high quality effluent was reported by Shahbeig
et al.
, 2013
[49] obtained 98% removal of TSS treated by MBR when ultra-filtration was
used as a pre-treatment. Tee
et al.
, 2016 [50] reported 92% turbidity removal
when mixed industrial wastewater was treatment in MBR.
Removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand
COD removal in the present study was attained from 4.77% to 30.35% which
was contrary to the previous studies and the reason can be traced to the discus-
sion provided by Di Trapani
et al.
, 2014 [51]. Synthetic cephalosporin antibiotic
wastewater water was treated using contact oxidation-hydrolysis-MBR the in-
fluent COD concentrations ranged between 2125 - 11,561 mg/L while the efflu-
ent concentrations obtained were 79 to 282 mg/L. Further, the effluent BOD ob-
tained was less than 10 mg/L [52]. A diminution in COD from 3000 mg/L to 45
mg/L was obtained by integrated coagulation-contact oxidation—MBR for treat-
ing wastewater from pharmaceutical factory producing Lisinopril enalapril.
Removal of Turbidity
Virtuous removal of turbidity was recorded with permeate values recorded as
0.91NTU as the lowest and 40.1NTU as the highest. Turbidity removal is in the
order of 80.90% being the lowest and 99.86% being the highest. Studies else-
where reported the efficiency of MBR in terms of effective removal of suspended
solids, leading to zero turbidity of wastewaters. Removal of specific organic pol-
lutants along with higher removal of COD was achieved by Lipp
et al.
, 2009 [53].
Exceptionally good quality of filtered effluent was obtained after treatment with
MBR with turbidity of less than 1 NTU [54].
Membrane bioreactor as pre-treatment for reverse osmosis
When treated waters from MBR were fed to RO the removal efficiencies of
various parameters were found to be significant with TDS removal to be
26.96% as the lowest and 87.29% as the highest. COD removal varied from
73.03% to 92.33%. While hardness showed 93.33% - 100% removal, ammonia
removal was good with 71.46% being the lowest and 85.51% recorded as the
highest. MBR treatment in combination with traditional methods for treating
pharmaceutical effluents containing anti-inflammatory and antibiotic drugs
has achieved 90.4% reduction in COD [23]. Latest literature review quoting
previous studies acknowledged MBR technology as novel method of pre-
treatment prior to RO treatment for secondary effluent. Further, it has been
reported that complete removal of all PhACs is not achieved by MBR or in fact
any single treatment unit and hence advanced treatment techniques like NF,
Ozone oxidation, advanced oxidation and RO are to be integrated to achieve
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1382 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
complete removal of pollutants.
4.3. Comparison of Sequencing Batch Reactor and Membrane
Bioreactor
In the present study maximum reduction of total dissolved solids was obtained
by SBR with 31.82%. On the other hand, MBR present lowest removals with
29.25%. Chemical oxygen demand was the highest (69.54%) with SBR, while
MBR was stable with maximum of 30.35% removal of COD. Lefebvre
et al.
, 2014
[55] compared the efficiencies of SBR and MBR in treating pharmaceutical
wastewaters produced from manufacturing of antibiotic penicillin. They re-
ported better performance of both units at lower organic loading but faced with
foaming issues upon increasing the organic load. Further, SBR was good in de-
grading aromatic compounds while MBR achieved good solids removal. Pi-
lot-scale studies for treating municipal wastewaters using SBR and MBR were
studied by Mirbagheri
et al.
, 2017 [56]. They reported that SBR achieved 98.54%
of BOD5 removal while MBR achieved 97.1% of COD. They concluded that both
the treatment options were suitable for treating municipal wastewater. MBR ex-
hibited higher removal rates of pollutants over SBR with 99.5% vs. 82% for
BOD5; 70% vs. 47% for COD; 95% vs. 73% for TN and 96% vs. 71.4% for NH3-N.
The study opined requirement of post-treatment for effluents from both units
owing to the high strength raw wastewater. Further, they stated that factors like
technical expertise, footprint and membrane lifespan are to be considered when
assessing the economic burden of adopting MBR treatment technology [57].
Apart from treatment efficiencies one important deciding factor for adopting a
treatment technology is the associated cost. Some authors have focused on this
aspect and presented their results. With reference to STPs the cost wise hie-
rarchy is presented as MBR < USAB < SBR < MBBR with MBR requiring the
highest and MBBR requiring the lowest cost. With this and removal efficiency it
can be concluded that SBR would be most economical and efficient treatment
technology that can be adopted in India. Further, MBR requires 25% more
economy in comparison to SBR. Moreover, with reference to treatment efficien-
cy SBR is equally competent to MBR [58] [59].
4.4. Comparison between SBR and MBR as Pre-Treatment for RO
Total dissolved solids removal was the highest in the combination of SBR-RO
treatment with 95.94% removal. While MBR-RO combination resulted in
87.29% removal. Chemical oxygen demand was achieved maximum with the
combination of MBR-RO 92.33% while competitive results were achieved with
the combination SBR-RO also 88.62%. Removal of ammonia was maximum with
the combination SBR-RO (87.5%), while competitive results were obtained with
MBR-RO (85.51%). High paucity in literature exists in comparing pre-treatment
options for RO. Some of the workers elsewhere voted for SBR + RO/UF over
MBR attributed to the cost-effectiveness associated with SBR.
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1383 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
From the results and discussion, it can be understood that individually SBR
was effective over MBR. Though as pre-treatment the combination of MBR-RO
was a little high, SBR-RO was equally competent. Since, reverse osmosis is effi-
cient in removing solids, removal of chemical oxygen demand and ammonia in
biological treatment is more desirable to get an overall effective treatment.
Hence, the combination of SBR-RO was tested on a full scale in the further stu-
dies.
5. Conclusions
Removal of chemical oxygen demand from wastewaters requires adopting bio-
logical treatment. Available conventional biological treatments are not able to
treat to the required standards. Literature review stated the use of hybrid
processes or combination of various treatment technologies to achieve discharge
standards. Hence, in the present study a combination of advanced biological
process and advanced physical membrane separation process were chosen to test
their combined efficiency in treating pharmaceutical wastewaters. The biological
treatment methods evaluated for their efficiency are sequencing batch reactor
and membrane bioreactor, further their suitability as pre-treatment to reverse
osmosis treatment was also evaluated.
Efficiency comparison among biological treatments SBR and MBR: Total
dissolved solids removal by SBR was 31.82% and MBR showed 29.25%. SBR even
though presented the highest removal was quite fluctuating in treatment process.
Chemical oxygen demand removal by SBR was 69.54% and MBR showed 30.35%
removal of COD. Since the prime objective of biological treatment is removal of
chemical oxygen demand and SBR was efficient over MBR, SBR was selected for
biological treatment of pharmaceutical wastewaters.
Efficiency comparison among combined treatments of SBR-RO and
MBR-RO: Removal of total dissolved solids was the highest in the combination
of SBR-RO treatment with 95.94% removal. While MBR-RO combination re-
sulted in 87.29% removal. Chemical oxygen demand was achieved maximum
with the combination of MBR-RO 92.33% while competitive results were achieved
with the combination SBR-RO also with 88.62% removal. Removal of ammonia
was maximum with the combination SBR-RO 87.5%, while competitive results
were obtained with MBR-RO 85.51%. From the results, it can be understood that
SBR was efficient in removing ammonia and total dissolved solids and was
equally competent in removing chemical oxygen demand. Since, reverse osmosis
is efficient in removing solids, in biological treatment removal of chemical oxy-
gen demand and ammonia are more desirable to get an overall effective treat-
ment. Hence, the combination of SBR-RO was tested on a full scale in the fur-
ther studies.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1384 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
References
[1] Takdastan, A. and Pazoki, M. (2011) Study of Biological Excess Sludge Reduction in
Sequencing Batch Reactor by Heating the Reactor.
Asian Journal of Chemistry
, 23,
29.
[2] Mace, S. and Mata-Alvarez, J. (2002) Utilization of SBR Technology for Wastewater
Treatment: An Overview.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
, 41,
5539-5553. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0201821
[3] Giordano, A., Stante, L., Pirozzi, F., Cesaro, R. and Bortone, G. (2005) Sequencing
Batch Reactor Performance Treating PAH Contaminated Lagoon Sediments.
Jour-
nal of Hazardous Materials
, 119, 159-166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.12.002
[4] Lamine, M., Bousselmi, L. and Ghrabi, A. (2007) Biological Treatment of Grey Wa-
ter Using Sequencing Batch Reactor.
Desalination
, 215, 127-132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.11.017
[5] Jin, X., Li, E., Lu, S., Qiu, Z. and Sui, Q. (2013) Coking Wastewater Treatment for
Industrial Reuse Purpose: Combining Biological Processes with Ultrafiltration,
Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis.
Journal of Environmental Sciences
, 25,
1565-1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60212-5
[6] Obaja, D., Mace, S., Costa, J., Sans, C. and Mata-Alvarez, J. (2003) Nitrification, De-
nitrification and Biological Phosphorus Removal in Piggery Wastewater Using a
Sequencing Batch Reactor.
Bioresource Technology
, 87, 103-111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00229-8
[7] Ketchum Jr., L.H. (1997) Design and Physical Features of Sequencing Batch Reac-
tors.
Water Science and Technology
, 35, 11-18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(96)00873-6
[8] Gali, A., Dosta, J., Lopez-Palau, S. and Mata-Alvarez, J. (2008) SBR Technology for
High Ammonium Loading Rates.
Water Science and Technology
, 58, 467-472.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.408
[9] Rodríguez, D.C., Ramírez, O. and Mesa, G.P. (2011) Behavior of Nitrifying and De-
nitrifying Bacteria in a Sequencing Batch Reactor for the Removal of Ammoniacal
Nitrogen and Organic Matter.
Desalination
, 273, 447-452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.068
[10] Oliveira, R.P., Ghilardi, J.A., Ratusznei, S.M., Rodrigues, J.A.D., Zaiat, M. and Fo-
resti, E. (2008) Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor Applied to Automobile
Industry Wastewater Treatment: Volumetric Loading Rate and Feed Strategy Ef-
fects.
Chemical Engineering and Processing
:
Process Intensification
, 47, 1374-1383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2007.06.014
[11] Sarioglu, M. (2005) Biological Phosphorus Removal in a Sequencing Batch Reactor
by Using Pure Cultures.
Process Biochemistry
, 40, 1599-1603.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.06.020
[12] Maheswara, U., Ganguru, R. and Kulkarni, S. (2015) Studies on Zero Liquid Dis-
charge (ZLD) Plant in API Manufacturing Unit.
Environment
, 6, 7.
[13] Carucci, A., Lindrea, K., Majone, M. and Ramadori, R. (1995) Dynamics of the
Anaerobic Utilization of Organic Substrates in an Anaerobic/Aerobic Sequencing
Batch Reactor.
Water Science and Technology
, 31, 35-43.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1995.0068
[14] Chiavola, A., Farabegoli, G. and Antonetti, F. (2014) Biological Treatment of Olive
Mill Wastewater in a Sequencing Batch Reactor.
Biochemical Engineering Journal
,
85, 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2014.02.004
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1385 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
[15] Hai, R., He, Y., Wang, X. and Li, Y. (2015) Simultaneous Removal of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus from Swine Wastewater in a Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor.
Chi-
nese
Journal of Chemical Engineering
, 23, 303-308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2014.09.036
[16] Elmolla, E.S. and Chaudhuri, M. (2011) The Feasibility of Using Combined TiO2
Photocatalysis-SBR Process for Antibiotic Wastewater Treatment.
Desalination
,
272, 218-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.020
[17] Judd, S. (2010) The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreac-
tors for Water and Wastewater Treatment. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[18] Wang, L.K. and Menon, R. (2011) Treatment of Industrial Effluents, Municipal
Wastes, and Potable Water by Membrane Bioreactors. In:
Membrane and Desalina-
tion Technologies
, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 201-236.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-278-6_5
[19] Liaozhi, M. (2010) MBR Process of Fermentation Class Pharmaceutical Wastewater
Treatment Pilot Study.
Journal of China Water & Wastewater
, 26, 131-133.
[20] Hafez, A.I., El-Manharawy, M.S. and Khedr, M.A. (2002) RO Membrane Removal
of Unreacted Chromium from Spent Tanning Effluent. A Pilot-Scale Study, Part 2.
Desalination
, 144, 237-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00318-1
[21] Hafez, A. and El-Mariharawy, S. (2004) Design and Performance of the Two-Stage/
Two-Pass RO Membrane System for Chromium Removal from Tannery Wastewa-
ter. Part 3.
Desalination
, 165, 141-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.016
[22] Marrot, B., Barrios-Martinez, A., Moulin, P. and Roche, N. (2004) Industrial Waste-
water Treatment in a Membrane Bioreactor: A Review.
Environmental
Progress
, 23,
59-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10001
[23] Radjenovic, J., Petrovic, M. and Barceló, D. (2007) Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in
Wastewater and Removal Using a Membrane Bioreactor.
Analytical and Bioanalyt-
ical
Chemistry
, 387, 1365-1377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-0883-6
[24] Sahar, E., David, I., Gelman, Y., Chikurel, H., Aharoni, A., Messalem, R. and Bren-
ner, A. (2011) The Use of RO to Remove Emerging Micropollutants Following
CAS/UF or MBR Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
Desalination
, 273, 142-147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.11.004
[25] Le-Minh, N., Coleman, H.M., Khan, S.J., Van Luer, Y., Trang, T.T.T., Watkins, G.
and Stuetz, R.M. (2010) The Application of Membrane Bioreactors as Decentralised
Systems for Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals.
Water Science and Technology
, 61, 1081-1088. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.884
[26] Ho, W. and Sirkar, K. (2012) Membrane Handbook. Springer Science & Business
Media, New York.
[27] Brauns, E., Van Hoof, E., Molenberghs, B., Dotremont, C., Doyen, W. and Leysen,
R. (2002) A New Method of Measuring and Presenting the Membrane Fouling Po-
tential.
Desalination
, 150, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00927-X
[28] Abid, M.F., Zablouk, M.A. and Abid-Alameer, A.M. (2012) Experimental Study of
Dye Removal from Industrial Wastewater by Membrane Technologies of Reverse
Osmosis and Nanofiltration.
Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science &
Engineering
, 9, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-9-17
[29] del Pino, M.P. and Durham, B. (1999) Wastewater Reuse through Dual-Membrane
Processes: Opportunities for Sustainable Water Resources.
Desalination
, 124, 271-277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(99)00112-5
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1386 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
[30] Qin, J.J., Oo, M.H., Lee, H. and Kolkman, R. (2004) Dead-End Ultrafiltration for
Pretreatment of RO in Reclamation of Municipal Wastewater Effluent.
Journal of
Membrane Science
, 243, 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.06.010
[31] Xu, J., Kent, F.C. and Farahbakhsh, K. (2011) An Evaluation of MBR and Conven-
tional Pretreatment for Reverse Osmosis for Water Reclamation.
Journal of Water
Reuse and Desalination
, 1, 88-98. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2011.041
[32] Pendashteh, A.R., Abdullah, L.C., Fakhru’l-Razi, A., Madaeni, S.S., Abidin, Z.Z. and
Biak, D.R.A. (2012) Evaluation of Membrane Bioreactor for Hypersaline Oily
Wastewater Treatment.
Process Safety and Environmental Protection
, 90, 45-55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2011.07.006
[33] Wu, S. and Maskaly, J. (2018) Study on the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
on the Performance of an SBR for COD and Nutrients Removal.
Journal of Envi-
ronmental Science and Health
,
Part A
, 53, 146-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2017.1383130
[34] Singh, S. and Varshney, M. (2013) Evaluation of Functioning of Waste Water Treat-
ment Plant at Chandrawati Education Society, Jaipur: A Case Study.
Evaluation
, 2,
127-139.
[35] Mahvi, A.H. (2008) Application of Agricultural Fibers in Pollution Removal from
Aqueous Solution.
International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology
,
5, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326022
[36] Ding, D., Feng, C., Jin, Y., Hao, C., Zhao, Y. and Suemura, T. (2011) Domestic Se-
wage Treatment in a Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor (SBBR) with an Intelligent
Controlling System.
Desalination
, 276, 260-265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.03.059
[37] Tian, W.D., Li, W.G., Zhang, H., Kang, X.R. and van Loosdrecht, M.C. (2011) Li-
mited Filamentous Bulking in Order to Enhance Integrated Nutrient Removal and
Effluent Quality.
Water Research
, 45, 4877-4884.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.06.034
[38] Ghehi, T.J., Mortezaeifar, S., Gholami, M., Kalantary, R.R. and Mahvi, A.H. (2014)
Performance Evaluation of Enhanced SBR in Simultaneous Removal of Nitrogen
and Phosphorous.
Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering
, 12,
134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40201-014-0134-2
[39] USEPA (2000) Wastewater, Technology Fact Sheet: Package Plants. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington EPA 832-F-00-016.
[40] Amat, A.M., Arques, A., Miranda, M.A. and López, F. (2005) Use of Ozone and/or
UV in the Treatment of Effluents from Board Paper Industry.
Chemosphere
, 60,
1111-1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.12.062
[41] Holman, J.B. and Wareham, D.G. (2005) COD, Ammonia and Dissolved Oxygen
Time Profiles in the Simultaneous Nitrification/Denitrification Process.
Biochemi-
cal Engineering Journal
, 22, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2004.09.001
[42] Gangavarapu, S., Ganguru, U.M.R., Kulkarni, S., MurthyBrahmandam, N. and
Anumula, S. (2015) Membrane Bioreactor Coupled with Sequential Batch Reactor:
A Supportive Technology in Effluent Recycling of API Manufacturing Industries.
International
Journal of New Technology and Research
, 1, 46-49.
[43] Fakhru’l-Razi, A., Pendashteh, A., Abidin, Z.Z., Abdullah, L.C., Biak, D.R.A. and
Madaeni, S.S. (2010) Application of Membrane-Coupled Sequencing Batch Reactor
for Oilfield Produced Water Recycle and Beneficial Re-Use.
Bioresource Technolo-
gy
, 101, 6942-6949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.04.005
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1387 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
[44] Ming, Y. and De-Sheng, W. (2010) Experimental Study of Antibiotic Wastewater.
Journal of MBR Treatment.
Environmental Protection and Recycling Economy
, 9,
54-55.
[45] Klinkow, N., Oleksy-Frenzel, J. and Jekel, M. (1998) Toxicity-Directed Fractiona-
tion of Organic Compounds in Tannery Wastewater with Regard to Their Molecu-
lar Weight and Polarity.
Water
Research
, 32, 2583-2592.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00017-7
[46] Jia, H. (2018) Nitrogen Removal by Algae-Bacteria Consortia: Batch Tests and
Photo Sequence Batch Reactor.
[47] Urase, T., Kagawa, C. and Kikuta, T. (2005) Factors Affecting Removal of Pharma-
ceutical Substances and Estrogens in Membrane Separation Bioreactors.
Desalina-
tion
, 178, 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.031
[48] Chang, C.Y., Chang, J.S., Vigneswaran, S. and Kandasamy, J. (2008) Pharmaceutical
Wastewater Treatment by Membrane Bioreactor Process—A Case Study in South-
ern Taiwan.
Desalination
, 234, 393-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.09.109
[49] Shahbeig, H., Mehrnia, M.R., Mohammadi, A.R., Moghaddam, P.E. and Rouini,
M.R. (2017) Pharmaceutical Wastewater Treatment Using Membrane Bioreactor-
Ozonation System.
Water and Environment Journal
, 31, 57-63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12222
[50] Tee, P.F., Abdullah, M.O., Tan, I.A.W., Rashid, N.K.A., Amin, M.A.M., Nolas-
co-Hipolito, C. and Bujang, K. (2016) Review on Hybrid Energy Systems for
Wastewater Treatment and Bio-Energy Production.
Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews
, 54, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.011
[51] Di Trapani, D., Di Bella, G., Mannina, G., Torregrossa, M. and Viviani, G. (2015)
Effect of C/N Shock Variation on the Performances of a moving Bed Membrane
Bioreactor.
Bioresource Technology
, 189, 250-257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.143
[52] Fazal, S., Zhang, B., Zhong, Z., Gao, L. and Lu, X. (2015) Membrane Separation
Technology on Pharmaceutical Wastewater by Using MBR (Membrane Bioreactor).
Journal of Environmental Protection
, 6, 299. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.64030
[53] Lipp, P., Groß, H.J. and Tiehm, A. (2012) Improved Elimination of Organic Mi-
cropollutants by a Process Combination of Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) and Pow-
dered Activated Carbon (PAC).
Desalination and Water Treatment
, 42, 65-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.683137
[54] Kootenaei, F.G. and Aminirad, H. (2014) Membrane Biological Reactors (MBR) and
Their Applications for Water Reuse.
International Journal of Advanced Biological
and Biomedical Research
, 2, 1951-1962.
[55] Lefebvre, O., Shi, X., Wu, C.H. and Ng, H.Y. (2013) Biological Treatment of Phar-
maceutical Wastewater from the Antibiotics Industry.
Water Science and Technol-
ogy
, 69, 855-861. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.729
[56] Mirbagheri, S.A., SM, S.Y., Rafeidehkordi, N. and Vakilian, R. (2017) Comparison
of CAS, MBR, SBR, and Biolak Treatment Systems in Removal of BOD and COD
from Municipal Wastewater—Case Study: Ekbatan Wastewater Treatment Plant.
15
th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology
, Rhodes,
Greece, 31 August-2 September 2017, 1-5.
[57] El-Fadel, M. and Hashisho, J. (2014) A Comparative Examination of MBR and SBR
Performance for the Treatment of High-Strength Landfill Leachate.
Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association
, 64, 1073-1084.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2014.907840
S. R. S. Reddy et al.
DOI:
10.4236/jwarp.2019.1111079 1388 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
[58] Matamoros, V., Rodríguez, Y. and Albaigés, J. (2016) A Comparative Assessment of
Intensive and Extensive Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Removing
Emerging Contaminants in Small Communities.
Water Research
, 88, 777-785.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.058
[59] Reddy, S.R., Saritha, V., Karnena, M.K. and Dwarapureddi, B.K. (2017) Combined
SBR and RO Pilot Scale Treatment for Pharmaceutical Wastewater.
Desalination
and Water Treatment
, 98, 45-51. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.21579
