WEF Discussions — Now on LinkedIn!

WEF is pleased to announce the creation of free LinkedIn groups associated with its technical discussion forum topics. Through these LinkedIn groups, members will be able to view and participate in discussions, as well as communicate with one another via direct messages. Share your experiences and knowledge, ask questions and respond to other discussions as frequently as you like!

You must have a LinkedIn profile to join a LinkedIn group; you can create your profile here. If you already have a LinkedIn profile, all you need to do is submit a request to join one or all of the following groups:

Water Environment Federation (Main) | Biosolids | Collection Systems | Nutrients | Stormwater 
Utility Management | Water Reuse | Water for Jobs | Watershed Management | Laboratory Practices 

RSS Feed Print
MBR sludge condition
Elizabeth Lawrence
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:45 PM
Joined: 9/22/2009
Posts: 7


Has anyone had problems with localized dewatering in an MBR or organic fouling?  Sticky sludge?  process control recommendations? 

 

We have been operating for about 9 months and found that the sludge quality has changed.  Could be due to the temperature?, biological changes?, Solids wasting?, dewatering return stream?, etc or all of the above.  I have not been able to find much information on what a good sludge is compared to a sticky sludge? how old is too old? too young? to thick? etc. 

 

Thanks, Sue


Timothy
Posted: Tuesday, March 1, 2011 6:58 AM
Joined: 3/1/2011
Posts: 1


I have been doing some studies on the relationship between EPS and SMP in floc structure, and the differences in sludge condition related to each. Can you post a bit more operational information regarding this process? Parameters such as ORP and DO levels, SRT, F/M ratio and overall process flow scheme all make a difference in the ratio of EPS to SMP. Changes in this ratio can be responsible for an increase in "sticky" sludge, and a subsequent reduction in dewatering.

 

I look forward to your response.


Elizabeth Lawrence
Posted: Monday, March 7, 2011 9:14 PM
Joined: 9/22/2009
Posts: 7


The influent goes through fine screens into a channel combining with the return from the MBR's.  It goes to an anoxic zone and then to an aerated zone, it is then pumped into the MBR.  Things were working well when the temperature was above 17 C but started to have increased fouling in October.  The solids had been in the system for about 5 months before we started a wasting program. We had to transfer things around while we wer under costruction. The SRT right now is about 70 days with an F/M of 0.02.

 

We are trying to maintain a DO of 1.0 mg/l in the aerated zone, It is much higher in the Membrane basin and is less than 0.2 mg.l in the anoxic zone.

 

We are looking into the level of soluble COD there is in the system but I am not really sure what that will tell us.

 

I am also using the microscope and staining slides to see if I can figure out good sludge vs "sticky sludge"? 

 


Timothy
Posted: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 8:12 AM
Joined: 3/8/2011
Posts: 1


It certainly sounds like the conditions are right for excessive fouling.

 

Can you tell me the current MLSS in the basins? You note an SRT of 70 days, and an F/M ratio of 0.02. Typical MBR F/M ratios run about 0.2, so your MLSS must be very high (unless that was a typo).

 

T.


Elizabeth Lawrence
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:29 PM
Joined: 9/22/2009
Posts: 7


It wasn't a typo.  F/M is about 0.02 with the MLSS between 13,000 mg/l and 15,000 mg/l.  This is pretty common for an MBR sludge.  It is a little above the design of 12,000 mg/l, because we weren't able to waste for awhile.  We are trying to get down to 10,000 mg/l in the membrane basins.