Energy-efficient wastewater treatment via the air-based, hybrid membrane biofilm reactor (hybrid MfBR).

We used modeling to predict the energy and cost savings associated with the air-based, hybrid membrane-biofilm reactor (hybrid MfBR). This process is obtained by replacing fine-bubble diffusers in conventional activated sludge with air-supplying, hollow-fiber membrane modules. Evaluated processes included removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD), combined COD and total nitrogen (TN) removal, and hybrid growth (biofilm and suspended). Target concentrations of COD and TN were based on high-stringency water reuse scenarios. Results showed reductions in power requirements as high as 86%. The decrease mainly resulted from the dramatically lower air flows for the MBfR, resulting from its higher oxygen-transfer efficiencies. When the MBfR was used for COD and TN removal, savings up to US$200/1,000 m(3) of treated water were predicted. Cost savings were highly sensitive to the costs of the membrane modules and electrical power. The costs were also very sensitive to membrane oxidation flux for ammonia, and the membrane life. These results suggest the hybrid MBfR may provide significant savings in energy and costs. Further research on the identified key parameters can help confirm these modeling predictions and facilitate scale-up.

Systematic evaluation of biofilm models for engineering practice: components and critical assumptions.

Biofilm models are valuable tools for the design and evaluation of biofilm-based processes despite several uncertainties including the dynamics and rate of biofilm detachment, concentration gradients external to the biofilm surface, and undefined biofilm reactor model calibration protocol. The present investigation serves to (1) systematically evaluate critical biofilm model assumptions and components and (2) conduct a sensitivity analysis with the aim of identifying parameter subsets for biofilm reactor model calibration. AQUASIM was used to describe submerged-completely mixed combined carbon oxidation and nitrification IFAS and MBBR systems, and tertiary nitrification and denitrification MBBRs. The influence of uncertainties in model parameters on relevant model outputs was determined for simulated scenarios by means of a local sensitivity analysis. To obtain reasonable simulation results for partially penetrated biofilms that accumulated a substantial thickness in the modelled biofilm reactor (e.g. 1,000 microm), an appropriate biofilm discretization was applied to properly model soluble substrate concentration gradients and, consistent with the assumed mechanism for describing biofilm biomass distribution, biofilm biomass spatial variability. The MTBL thickness had a significant impact on model results for each of the modelled reactor configurations. Further research is needed to develop a mathematical description (empirical or otherwise) of the MTBL thickness that is relevant to modern biofilm reactors. No simple recommendations for a generally applicable calibration protocol are provided, but sensitivity analysis has been proven to be a powerful tool for the identification of highly sensitive parameter subsets for biofilm (reactor) model calibration.

Mathematical modelling of biofilms and biofilm reactors for engineering design.

Mathematical models are critical to modern environmental biotechnology-both in research and in the engineering practice. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) simulators are used by consulting engineers and WWTP operators when planning, designing, optimizing, and evaluating the unit processes that comprise municipal and industrial WWTPs. Many WWTP simulators have been expanded to include a submerged completely-mixed biofilm reactor module that is based on the mathematical description of a one-dimensional biofilm. Leading consultants, equipment manufacturers, and WWTP modelling software developers have made meaningful contributions to advancing the use of biofilm models in engineering practice, but the bulk of the engineering community either does not use the now readily available biofilm reactor modules or utilizes them as 'black-box' design tools. The latter approach results in the mathematical biofilm models being no more useful than the empirical design criteria and formulations that have been historically applied to biofilm reactor design. The present work provides a consensus report on the state-of-the art, areas of uncertainty, and future needs for advancing the use of biofilm models in engineering design.

Uncertainty in bulk-liquid hydrodynamics and biofilm dynamics creates uncertainties in biofilm reactor design.

While biofilm reactors may be classified as one of seven different types, the design of each is unified by fundamental biofilm principles. It follows that state-of-the art design of each biofilm reactor type is subject to the same uncertainties (although the degree of uncertainty may vary). This paper describes unifying biofilm principles and uncertainties of importance in biofilm reactor design. This approach to biofilm reactor design represents a shift from the historical approach which was based on empirical criteria and design formulations. The use of such design criteria was largely due to inherent uncertainty over reactor-scale hydrodynamics and biofilm dynamics, which correlate with biofilm thickness, structure and function. An understanding of two fundamental concepts is required to rationally design biofilm reactors: bioreactor hydrodynamics and biofilm dynamics (with particular emphasis on mass transfer resistances). Bulk-liquid hydrodynamics influences biofilm thickness control, surface area, and development. Biofilm dynamics influences biofilm thickness, structure and function. While the complex hydrodynamics of some biofilm reactors such as trickling filters and biological filters have prevented the widespread use of fundamental biofilm principles and mechanistic models in practice, reactors utilizing integrated fixed-film activated sludge or moving bed technology provide a bulk-liquid hydrodynamic environment allowing for their application. From a substrate transformation perspective, mass transfer in biofilm reactors defines the primary difference between suspended growth and biofilm systems: suspended growth systems are kinetically (i.e., biomass) limited and biofilm reactors are primarily diffusion (i.e., biofilm growth surface area) limited.