Effects of the nozzle arrangement and aerator configuration in slug bubble production to enhance the foulant removal from a flat sheet membrane bioreactor

Document Type : Original research


1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran

3 Membrane Technology Research Center, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran


Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are high-tech systems for water recycling and reusing of unconventional water resources such as municipal wastewater. However, the fouling of polymeric membranes is the main impediment to the market development of MBR. The polyolefin-based membranes are subjected to more severe organic fouling than other hydrophilic membranes due to their inherent strong hydrophobic properties, therefore, proposing efficient, fast, and economic fouling mitigation methods is vital for durable and long-standing performance. In this research, the hydrodynamics of a lab-scale membrane bioreactor with different configurations of aerators and nozzle sizes were used to investigate the air scouring efficiency. It was gained that aerators with higher air flow rates, e.g., 5.5 m/s can produce slug bubbles which are capable of foulant removal from the membrane surface. In comparison with a non-central aerator, the satisfactory scouring zone of the central aerator is narrow and the edge nozzles on both sides of the aerator are blocked. Under constant air flow rate, when the inlet air is injected into the aerator from two and three points, not only the end nozzles are blocked but also the liquid is penetrated into the aerator and the shear stress on the membrane surface decreased to 0.765 Pa. In the case of the non-central aerator, the satisfactory scouring zone becomes wider and neither nozzle blockage nor liquid penetration down to the aerator has occurred. The distribution of bubbles was optically evaluated by video imaging through the transparent plexiglass tank using aerators with different inlet flow rates and various configurations. Numerical simulations and related experimental analyses demonstrated that air inlet velocity has an important role in creating larger slug bubbles. It was shown that a non-central aerator in which the central nozzle in front of the inlet air stream is blocked, produces slug bubbles and sufficient air scoring on the flat sheet membrane. Configuration of a non-central aerator with 4 nozzles not only increased the satisfactory zone of each aerator without blockage of edge nozzles and liquid penetration into the aerator but also provided a higher shear rate over 1.104 Pa under a constant flow rate, which consequently removed the foulant from the membrane surface.


Main Subjects

  1. Salehi M (2022) Global water shortage and potable water safety; today’s concern and tomorrow’s crisis. Environ Int 158: 106936
  2. Sonune A, Ghate R (2004) Developments in wastewater treatment methods. Desalination 167: 55-63
  3. Mohajerani M, Mehrvar M, Ein-Mozaffari F (2009) An overview of the integration of advanced oxidation technologies and other processes for water and wastewater treatment. Int J Eng 3: 120-146
  4. Al-Qodah Z, Al-Qudah Y, Assirey E (2020) Combined biological wastewater treatment with electrocoagulation as a post-polishing process: A review. Separ Sci Technol 55: 2334-2352
  5. Liew WL, Kassim MA, Muda K, Loh SK, Affam AC (2015) Conventional methods and emerging wastewater polishing technologies for palm oil mill effluent treatment: A review. J Environ Manage 149: 222-235
  6. Judd S (2010) The MBR book: Principles and applications of membrane bioreactors for water and wastewater treatment. Ed., Elsevier
  7. Gruskevica K, Mezule L (2021) Cleaning methods for ceramic ultrafiltration membranes affected by organic fouling. Membranes 11: 131
  8. Cui Z, Wang J, Zhang H, Ngo HH, Jia H, Guo W, Gao F, Yang G, Kang D (2018) Investigation of backwashing effectiveness in membrane bioreactor (MBR) based on different membrane fouling stages. Biores Technol 269: 355-362
  9. Field RW, Zhang K, Cui Z, Hwang B-K (2011) Flat sheet MBR: Analysis of TMP rise and surface mass transfer coefficient. Desalin Water Treat 35: 82-91
  10. Li Q, Cui Z, Pepper D (1997) Effect of bubble size and frequency on the permeate flux of gas sparged ultrafiltration with tubular membranes. Chem Eng J 67: 71-75
  11. Le-Clech P, Chen V, Fane TA (2006) Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci 284: 17-53
  12. Judd S, Le-Clech P, Taha T, Cui Z (2001) Theoretical and experimental representation of a submerged membrane bio-reactor system. Membr Technol 2001: 4-9
  13. Khalili-Garakani A, Mehrnia MR, Mostoufi N, Sarrafzadeh MH (2011) Analyze and control fouling in an airlift membrane bioreactor: CFD simulation and experimental studies. Process Biochemistry 46: 1138-1145
  14. Yamanoi I, Kageyama K (2010) Evaluation of bubble flow properties between flat sheet membranes in membrane bioreactor. J Membr Sci 360: 102-108
  15. Braak E, Alliet M, Schetrite S, Albasi C (2011) Aeration and hydrodynamics in submerged membrane bioreactors. J Membr Sci 379: 1-18
  16. De Temmerman L, Maere T, Temmink H, Zwijnenburg A, Nopens I (2015) The effect of fine bubble aeration intensity on membrane bioreactor sludge characteristics and fouling. Water Res 76: 99-109
  17. Zhang K, Field R, Cui Z (2006) Measurement of the mass transfer coefficients in submerged flat sheet membrane systems. In: Hotel Naxos Beach Resort in Giardini Naxos, Taormina (Messina), Italy: The Conference of the European Membrane Society.
  18. Ghosh R, Cui Z (1999) Mass transfer in gas-sparged ultrafiltration: Upward slug flow in tubular membranes. J Membr Sci 162: 91-102
  19. Liao WC (1999) Flux enhancements in cross-flow microfiltration., The University of Tennessee
  20. Du X, Liu X, Wang Y, Radaei E, Lian B, Leslie G, Li G, Liang H (2017) Particle deposition on flat sheet membranes under bubbly and slug flow aeration in coagulation-microfiltration process: Effects of particle characteristic and shear stress. J Membr Sci 541: 668-676
  21. Christopher EB (2005) Fundamentals of multiphase flows. Cambridge University, Press UK
  22. Ansys fluent, a documentation theory guide (2015) 
  23. Ratkovich N, Chan C, Berube PR, Nopens I (2009) Experimental study and CFD modelling of a two-phase slug flow for an airlift tubular membrane. Chem Eng Sci 64: 3576-3584
  24. Taha T, Cui ZF (2006) CFD modelling of slug flow in vertical tubes. Chem Eng Sci 61: 676-687
  25. Wang B, Zhang K, Field RW (2018) Novel aeration of a large-scale flat sheet MBR: A CFD and experimental investigation. AIChE J 64: 2721-2736
  26. Wang B, Zhang K, Field RW (2018) Slug bubbling in flat sheet MBR: Hydrodynamic optimization of membrane design variables through computational and experimental studies. J Membr Sci 548: 165-175
  27. Wei P, Zhang K, Gao W, Kong L, Field R (2013) CFD modeling of hydrodynamic characteristics of slug bubble flow in a flat sheet membrane bioreactor. J Membr Sci 445: 15-24
  28. Javid SM, Passandideh-Fard M, Faezian A, Goharimanesh M (2017) Slug and bubble flows in a flat sheet ultrafiltration module: Experiments and numerical simulation. Int J Multip Flow 91: 39-50
  29. Cui Z, Taha T (2003) Enhancement of ultrafiltration using gas sparging: A comparison of different membrane modules. J Chem Technol Biotechnol: 78: 249-253
  30. Essemiani K, Ducom G, Cabassud C, Liné A (2001) Spherical cap bubbles in a flat sheet nanofiltration module: Experiments and numerical simulation. Chem Eng Sci 56: 6321- 6327
  31. Taha T, Cheong W, Field R, Cui Z (2006) Gas-sparged ultrafiltration using horizontal and inclined tubular membranes—A CFD study. J Membr Sci 279: 487-494
  32. Drews A, Prieske H, Meyer E-L, Senger G, Kraume M (2010) Advantageous and detrimental effects of air sparging in membrane filtration: Bubble movement, exerted shear and particle classification. Desalination 250: 1083-1086
  33. Yang J, Vedantam S, Spanjers H, Nopens I, Van Lier JB (2012) Analysis of mass transfer characteristics in a tubular membrane using CFD modeling. Water Res 46: 4705-4712
  34. Dhotre M, Niceno B, Smith B (2008) Large eddy simulation of a bubble column using dynamic sub-grid scale model. Chem Eng J 136: 337-348
  35. Fluent A (2013) Ansys fluent theory guide 15.0. ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA 33
  36. Brackbill JU, Kothe DB, Zemach C (1992) A continuum method for modeling surface tension. J Comput Phys 100: 335-354
  37. Matsson JE (2022) An introduction to ansys fluent 2022. Ed., SDC Publications
  38. Reynolds W (1987) Fundamentals of turbulence for turbulence modeling and simulation, Stanford Univ CA Dept of Mechanical Engineering
  39. Wang B, Zhang K, Field RW (2018) Optimization of aeration variables in a commercial large-scale flat-sheet MBR operated with slug bubbling. J Membr Sci 567: 181-190