of Science
& Technology
2 (1) (2017)
97-123 treatment:... | 97
MuhammadIndonesian
Roil Bilad.Journal
Membrane
bioreactor
for domestic
wastewater

Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology
Journal homepage: http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ijost/

Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:
principles, challanges and future research directions
Muhammad Roil Bilad
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak 32610,
Malaysia
* Correspondence: Email: mroil.bilad@utp.edu.my ; Tel.: +605368 7579

ABSTRACT

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have recently become widely
accepted as an advanced technology for treatment of
domestic and industrial wastewaters. The objective of this
review is to provide overview on MBR technology for
wastewater treatment application. It includes discussions on
the fundamental, core problems (membrane fouling), recent
effective development approach (dynamic filtration systems)
and future research direction of MBRs. Since MBRs integrate
a conventional activated sludge process with membrane
filtration, and both fundamental aspects are discussed first.
Later, a comprehensive discussion about membrane fouling,
the main problems in MBR, is provided, including fouling
control strategies. The discussion on the MBR membranes
and relation between membrane properties and MBR
performance is also provided. This review also includes one
of the most promising MBR technologies that specifically
design to manage membrane fouling: dynamic filtration
systems. Lastly, insight into an approach to address MBRs
challenges and recent research and developments are
provided.
© 2017 Tim Pengembang Jurnal UPI

ARTICLE INFO
Article History:
Submitted/Received 03 Dec 2016
First revised 01 Jan 2017
Accepted 28 Mar 2017
First available online 01 April 2017
Publication date 01 Apr 2017
____________________

Keyword:
Membrane bioreactor,
Membrane fouling,
Wastewater treatment,
Dynamic membrane system.

98 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

1. INTRODUCTION
Membrane
bioreactors
(MBRs)
integrate an activated sludge bioreactor
with membrane filtration. They offer a
better effluent quality and a more robust
technology in treating wastewater. Because
of stricter effluent standards and high water
reuse demands, MBRs have recently
become widely accepted as an advanced
option for treatment of domestic and
industrial wastewaters. Recently, MBRs have
growing number of installations and
capacities, as well as providers. The global
MBR market had a value of ≈ $10 million in
1995, which increased to ≈ $217 million in
2005. The annual average market growth
rate is 9.5 which is 12%, faster than any of
other advanced wastewater treatment
processes.
MBR has many advantages over the
conventional activated sludge process (ASP).
They
include
a
higher
biomass
concentration, smaller footprint, less sludge
production, decoupled sludge (SRT) and
hydraulic retention time (HRT), and highlyimproved and constant effluent quality.
However, MBRs widespread installations is
restricted by membrane fouling problems,
which limit the achievable permeate flux,
reduce the sustainability of operation,
increase the cleaning frequency, reduce the
lifetime of the membrane, etc. This
drawback leads to a high capital expenditure
(capex) and operational expenditure (opex),
and thus lowers its competitiveness (Drews,
2010; Le-Clech et al., 2006; Meng et al.,
2009).
Extensive studies have been reported
regarding MBRs, mostly in order to
understand and provide solution to manage
membrane fouling. In many cases,
contradictions were found because of the
following reasons (Drews, 2010):

1.

The complexity and inter-relationship of
multi-parameters of the system is
sometimes denied and researchers
jump to conclusions.

2.

A wide variety exists of experimental
conditions, feed composition, biological
parameters, filtration
parameters,
sample preparations and evaluation
methods.

3.

Often, terminology is
without clear definition.

established

Therefore, additional care is required
when addressing published data. Developing
MBR technology requires an interdisciplinary approach and the study of MBR
fouling requires an integrated knowledge of
not only biological wastewater treatment
technology and membrane technology, but
also engineering background.
Based on previous works (Bilad et al.,
2014; Bilad, et al., 2015; Bilad et al., 2012a;
Bilad et al., 2012b; Bilad et al., 2011; Bilad,
2016), this review provides overview on
MBR technology for wastewater treatment
application. It includes discussions on MBRs
fundamental, core problems and future
research. Since MBRs integrate a
conventional ASP with membrane filtration,
both aspects will be discussed thoroughly.
Later, a comprehensive discussion about
membrane fouling, the main problems in
MBR, including fouling control strategies is
provided. The discussion on the MBR
membranes
and
relation
between
membrane
properties
and
MBR
performance is also included. This review
also covers one of the most promising MBR
technologies that specifically design to
manage membrane fouling, namely dynamic
membrane filtrations. Finally, perspectives
on future developments and important
research area are addressed.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 99

2. MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY
Membrane processes are currently
being used in many industrial sectors. In
some applications, (such as in desalination,
water and wastewater treatment), they
have a high industrial relevance and have
become a standard technological solution
(Shannon et al., 2008). In water and
wastewater treatment, the growth of
membrane
applications
has
been
exponential over the last two decades. This
is due to the drivers of tighter regulations,
water scarcity, and significant advances in
membrane process performances (Fane,
2011). The market of membranes for
municipal water treatment is growing at
over 10% (p.a.) reaching USD 1.6 billion in
2011 and even gross at 20% (p.a.) for
desalination.

2.1. Definitions
A membrane is a “selective barrier
between two phases” that is used to
perform a separation. A feed passes the
membrane under the influence of a driving
force and is split into a retentate that is
retained/rejected by the membrane and a
permeate that passes through the
membrane. The schematic illustration of a
common pressure driven membrane
filtration is shown in Figure 1(a). Depending
on the ability to reject certain compound(s),
common pressure driven membranes and
their specifications can be divided into
reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF)
ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF)
(Figure 1(b)).

Two main parameters are normally used
to determine the performance of a
membrane, namely flux (J) or permeability
(L), respectively defined as in Equations (1)
and (2), and rejection (R) defined as in
Equation 3. Flux or permeability measures
how good a membrane allows the permeate
to pass; rejection measures how good a
membrane retains a certain compound.
J

V
At

(L/m2 h)

(1)

L

J
P

(L/m2 h bar)

(2)

R  1

Cp
Cf

(3)

where V is the permeate volume, A is the
membrane area (m2), t is the filtration time
(h), ΔP is the average pressure difference
(bar) between feed and permeate (also
called trans membrane pressure (TMP)), Cp
is the solute concentration in the permeate,
and Cf is the solute concentration in the
feed.
Membranes can be prepared in
different forms, such as flat-sheet (FS),
hollow fiber (HF) and tubular. In order to be
applicable for a filtration process, a bundle
of fibers or a multi-sheet set are assembled
to form a module. A module consists of a
number of membrane elements. The typical
membrane modules for pressure driven
membrane filtration are plate-and-frame
(FS), hollow fiber (HF), (multi)tubular (MT),
capillary tube and spiral wound. The typical
module assembly and the modules that are
normally used in MBRs are shown in Figures
2(a) and (b), respectively.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

100 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

Figure 1. (a) Basic scheme of a membrane filtration process and (b) Schematic illustration of
different solute rejections in pressure driven membrane processes (Bilad et al., 2014).

2.2. Operation and filtration process
There are two common ways to
perform a filtration: dead-end or cross-flow.
In the dead-end, the permeation is driven by
pressure different, with no concentrate
stream. In the cross-flow, feed is pumped
tangentially along the membrane surface
and is split into permeate and retentate
(concentrate) streams. The feed is
introduced in the first end of the membrane
module and the retentate exits at the other
end. The pressure is generated by restricting
the flow at the other end. Both systems can
be operated at a constant flux or at a
constant TMP. In practice for an MBR
application, filtration is performed under a
constant flux operation And because of
occurrence of membrane fouling, TMP
increases over time.

structures, foulants can block the
membrane pores, foulants can accumulate
and form a cake layer, etc. By incorporating
the occurrence of fouling, the filtration
resistance can be calculated as in Equations
(4) and (5). This resistance in series model
helps to identify the contribution of each
fouling components.
J

TMP
 RT

R T  R m  R i  R p b  R c (1/m)

(4)
(5)

where η is the dynamic viscosity of
permeate (Pa s), RT the total filtration
resistance, and Rm, Ri, Rpb, Rc the filtration
resistance originating from membrane,
internal fouling, pore blocking and cake
layer, respectively.

Fouling can occur in many forms.
Foulants can be adsorbed in the pore

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 101

Figure 2. Typical arrangement of membranes in membrane modules used in MBRs (Judd, 2008): (a)
a FS module of KUBOTA, (b) a HF module of KOCH and (c) a MT module of X-flow.

To maintain the long-term membrane
performances and managing membrane
fouling, the filtration is normally done in
cycles, which involve relaxation or backwash
(known as physical cleaning methods), as
well as maintenance and intensive chemical
cleanings. Another method to control
fouling is by interrupting or disturbing the
fouling development using the shear-rate
induced from the relative movement of fluid
to membrane, or movements of the

membrane itself (Jaffrin, 2008). The former
is done by applying high cross-flow velocities
in a cross-flow system or by introducing a
secondary flow in a dead-end system
(Section 3), while the latter is done by
shaking or vibrating the membranes in
dynamic filtration systems.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

102 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

3. Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs)
3.1. Definition, process and operation
In MBRs, organic constituents in
wastewater are consumed as a substrate for
microorganisms, and the treated water is
separated by a membrane filtration. In the
bioreactor, microorganisms are present in
the form of microbiological flocs together
with their metabolic products. They convert
the organic pollutants present in the
wastewater into biomass and metabolic
products, mainly CO2 and H2O (under oxic
conditions). The effluent quality parameters
are normally determined using standard
methods, such as chemical oxygen demand
(COD), biochemical oxigen demand (BOD),
total nitrogen (TN), etc. Three basic
operational parameters are used to control
the biological performance: SRT, HRT and
food to microorganism ratio (F/M) (
Equations (6)-(8), respectively).
SRT 

V
Qw

(days)

(6)

HRT 

V
Qf

(days)

(7)

F/M 

Sf
(gCOD/gMLSS)
HRT X

(8)

where V is the bioreactor volume (L), Qf is
the feed flow rate (L/day), Sf is the feed
substrate concentration (g/L) represented as
COD, and X is the mixed liquor suspended
solid (MLSS) (g/L).
The feed properties significantly
influence the mixed liquor properties.
(Drews, 2010; Le-Clech et al., 2006; Meng et
al., 2009) The dynamic diversity of
microorganisms in the sludge also differs as
well as their metabolite products. The MBRs
fed with highly biodegradable substrates

may experience less fouling, or vice versa.
Therefore, the effectiveness and the
efficiency of an MBR performance may also
differ.
MBRs can be divided into submerged
and side stream configurations depending
on the way to couple the membrane module
(Figure 3). In the submerged MBR, the
modules are immersed in the bioreactor,
and the filtration is driven by vacuum
pressure. The filtration tank often separated
from the bioreactor tank, in which the
mixed liquor is circulated between them.
Fouling is controlled by coarse air bubbles
sparging, which creates a tangential flow
over the membrane and induces mixing. In a
side stream MBR, the modules are coupled
to the bioreactor by an external sludge
recirculation loop to create cross-flow
velocity. Mixed liquor is pumped under
pressure over the modules, and the TMP can
be further increased by suction at the
permeate side of the membrane. High crossflow velocities are applied to control fouling,
sometimes aided by air sparging (Le-Clech et
al., 2006). Most of the commercial MBRs are
configured as submerged MBR, (Judd, 2008)
which will therefore be the main focus of
this review.
Filtration operation consists of several
cycles: filtration, maintenance cleaning, and
intensive cleaning (Figure 4). The filtration
cycle is normally combined with physical
cleaning via relaxation or backwashing. The
relaxation is performed by temporarily
stopping the filtration, and the backwash is
performed by pumping the permeate in the
reversal direction. At certain interval,
maintenance or even intensive cleanings can
be required. Cleaning procedures and their
interval are plant-specific and normally
follow the technical guidance from the
membrane providers. (Judd, 2008)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 103

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of (a) a submerged MBR and (b) a side stream MBR.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of (a) filtration and cleaning cycles and (b) different
fouling rates during long-term operation of full-scale MBRs, adapted from (Kraume
et al., 2009).

3.2.

Fouling: Definition,
mechanism

process

and

In its strict form, fouling in MBRs is the
coverage of the membrane surface (external
and internal) by deposits, which adsorb, get
trapped or simply accumulate, resulting in
permeability loss and reflected by a increase
of TMP during the operation. (Drews, 2010)
This results in a typical trade-off or
optimization problem: at higher flux, capex
decreases while opex increases.

In more details, the MBR mixed liquor
consists of biomass, variable amounts of
particulates, colloidal and dissolved
fractions, all of which are potential foulants
(Drews, 2010; Le-Clech et al., 2006; Meng et
al., 2009; Meng et al., 2010). During the
initial filtration, colloids, solutes, and
microbial cells, all summed up as foulants,
partly pass through and precipitate on the
membrane surfaces, due to convective flow
of permeate. As filtration continues, the
cake layer is developed, and the deposited

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

104 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

cells multiply to form a more complex
biofilm. (Liao et al., 2004; Ramesh et al.,
2006; Wang et al., 2006) However, the
aggressive fouling development is limited
(temporarily) by applying a physical and
chemical cleaning during the operation.
Fouling can be classified based on the
nature of the foulants into biofouling,
organic and inorganic fouling. Biofouling
refers to the deposition and growth of
biomasses or flocs on the membrane
surface. The process might start with the
deposition of cell(s) followed by cell growth
and establishment of a biofilm (Drews,
2010; Liao et al., 2004; Ramesh et al., 2007).
On the other hand, organic and inorganic
fouling refers to the deposition of
biopolymers/organic
materials
and
inorganics from the feed, respectively. They
occur simultaneously in a very complex
mechanism. Most attentions have been
given to organic and biofouling due to their
dominance. Only limited studies report the
dominance of inorganic fouling in a
submerged MBR process. (Lee & Kim, 2009)
Fouling can also be classified into
internal fouling, pore blocking, and cake
layer formation, depending on the location
of the foulants and their impact on the
filtration resistance (See Equations (4) and
(5)). Internal fouling is caused by the
penetration of foulant into the membrane
pores. It occurs when the foulant is smaller
than the pore mouth. On the other hand,
the larger foulants block the pore mouth.
The accumulation of foulants that cover the
membrane surface is referred to as “cake
layer". The cake layer can be comprised of
cells, extracellular polymeric substances
(EPS) and soluble microbial products (SMP),
etc. This cake can also perform as a
secondary filtration layer, normally referred
to as a dynamic membrane. In this case, the
cake porosity plays a more important role
than the membrane properties in a

membrane filtration process. (Meng et al.,
2009)
The affinity of foulants to membrane
surfaces is strongly affected by their nature
(Le-Clech et al., 2006). The membranefoulant interaction, together with foulant
location, affect their removability. Based on
their removability, fouling can be classified
into reversible, residual, irreversible and
irrecoverable fouling (Drews, 2010; Meng et
al., 2009) (Figure 4). Reversible fouling can
be removed by physical means (such as
relaxation
and/or
backwash
under
tangential flow conditions) (Meng et al.,
2009). In this type of fouling, foulants have a
weak affinity to the membrane surface. The
residual or irreversible fouling can only be
removed by maintenance and intensive
cleaning. The irrecoverable fouling is
permanent fouling that cannot be removed
by any means. The gradual accumulation of
the irrecoverable fouling eventually
determines the membrane life-time. The
severely fouled membranes then have to be
replaced by new ones.
3.3. Critical flux concept
Flux is one of the most important
parameters
in membrane
filtration.
Different fluxes give different fouling rates.
The highest value at which no fouling occurs
is called the critical flux (CF or JC) in its
strictest form. (Field et al., 1995) Beyond
this flux, higher fluxes lead to more
membrane fouling. Operation in this flux is
however undesirable because it is too-low
and thus leads a reduced productivity.
In the activated sludge filtration, like in
an MBR, no such CF in strict form exists (Le
Clech et al., 2003). The CF is slightly
different than from the one mentioned
earlier (Field et al., 1995). The CF values are
in that case defined based on a threshold
fouling rate, i.e., >10 Pa min−1, or by picking
the flux value where a linear relationship

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 105

between flux and TMP ceases to appear. (Le
Clech et al., 2003; van der Marel et al.,
2010) A threshold value is used to express
the fouling rate, because a flux below which
fouling is completely absent simply does not
exist. In practice, fluxes below this CF (i.e.
2/3 of CF) are selected as operational fluxes.
This flux is referred to as sustainable flux or
sub-critical flux (Field & Pearce, 2011). The
operational flux selection is aimed to meet
the economical objective of optimizing
capex and opex. High operational fluxes lead
to higher productivity per membrane area,
thus reducing capex. On the other hand,
high fluxes promote fouling, so higher opex
is required to perform the cleaning cycle.
Low operational fluxes increase the capex
but reduce the opex.
The CF has been extensively used as a
quantitative parameter for the filterability of
different membranes and/or different feeds.
In activated sludge filtration, the CF is
generally regarded as the flux above which
cake or gel formation by particles or colloids
(Howell, 1995) occurs, i.e. convection of
these materials towards the membrane by
the permeate drag flow exceeds the back
transport velocity of material from the
membrane (van der Marel et al., 2009). The
CF is usually measured by flux-step
methods. (Le Clech et al., 2003; van der
Marel et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2008) Fluxstepping is preferred since the control over
flux is easy. Several methods have been
proposed by different authors, such as the
flux-step method (Le Clech et al., 2003) and
the improved flux-step method (van der
Marel et al., 2009). The latter also provides
the long-term fouling rate using the term of
critical flux for irreversibility (JCir). In
addition, many methods were also
developed to quantify the filterability, such
as the Membrane Bioreactor-VITO Fouling
Measurement (Huyskens et al., 2008), The

Delft Filtration Characterization method
(Evenblij et al., 2005), Berlin filtration
method (de la Torre et al., 2010) and the
filtration index (FI). (Rosenberger & Kraume,
2002)
3.4. Fouling stages
The evolution of fouling is reflected in
the TMP profile during the operation. A
typical TMP profile of a long-term MBR
operation consists of three stages (Figure 5)
(Cho & Fane, 2002; Zhang et al., 2006).
Stage-1 is a short period of rapid TMP
increase, especially for fresh membranes. It
occurs within few hours (often overseen)
and irreversible because of passive
adsorption and initial pore blocking by
foulants. In stage-2, TMP slowly increases
and lasts for few days to weeks. During this
stage, further pore blocking is expected and
a more established cake is formed.
Deposited sludge flocs and micro-organisms
form micro-colonies and continue to grow
and replicate form a biofilm. (Liao et al.,
2004; Ramesh et al., 2006; Wang et al.,
2006) During stage-2, the foulant build-up
does not diminish, thus the fouling
phenomenon becomes self-accelerating
towards the end of this stage. Stage-3 is
characterized by an abrupt rise of TMP over
a short period because of the rapid increase
of local flux exceeding the CF since a
significant part of membrane surface is
already occupied by foulants (Cho & Fane,
2002). More specific phenomena, such as
sudden change of the biofim or cake layer
structure (Zhang et al., 2006) and sudden
increase of the EPS content at the bottom of
the cake layer (Hwang et al., 2007), were
proposed to explain stage-3. The aim of
fouling control is practically to prolong
stage-2 as long as possible to sustain the
filtration.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

TMP

106 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

Figure 5. Illustrations of a typical TMP-profile for long-term MBR operation. The circle highlights
the occurrence of a TMP jump.

3.5. Fouling factors and control strategies
The factors that affect the fouling can
be classified into feed properties,
membrane properties and hydrodynamics.
They are inter-related with each other and it
is very difficult, if not impossible, to isolate
an individual specific parameter to
investigate its effect independently.
3.5.1. Feed
The mixed liquor properties are the end
product
of
combined
operational
parameters, mostly from biological aspects,
such as SRT, HRT, dissolved oxygen (DO),
F/M ratio, and bioreactor configuration.
They are also affected by environmental
conditions such as temperature and feed
composition. The filtration parameters, such
as
aeration
intensity
and
sludge
recirculation also influence the feed
properties (Drews, 2010; Le-Clech et al.,
2006; Meng et al., 2009). Because of the
important of feed in determining membrane
fouling, the selection of biological and
filtration parameters in first instance is to
achieve the effluent quality standard, and

then to achieve the condition that is
favorable for filtration.
Biomass concentration was initially
thought to control fouling rate. However, it
was proven that the most dominant foulants
are the slimy and sticky substances. These
are grouped into the terms EPS when they
are bound to the flocs or SMP when freely
suspended in the supernatant (Drews, 2010;
Le-Clech et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2009).
They are produced and excreted by biomass,
and to a lesser extent come from the MBR
influent.
Two mixed liquor components that are
the main culprit of membrane fouling are
EPS and SMP. EPS mainly consists of
carbohydrates and proteins, and the former
was found to be more dominant. In some
cases, the cake resistance was found
proportional to the EPS concentration
(Ahmed et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2005).
Therefore, both their concentration and
their composition are important. However,
other studies found no impact of EPS on
fouling (Rosenberger & Kraume, 2002) or at
least only their loosely bound components

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 107

to affect the fouling (Ramesh et al., 2006).
On the other hand, SMP is expected to more
easily accumulate on the membrane
surface.
The effect of EPS and SMP and their
mechanism on fouling is somehow
contradictive. In order to achieve better
mixed liquor filterability, extensive reviews
have been given elsewhere (Drews, 2010;
Le-Clech et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2009). In
general, biological parameters have to be
adjusted in order to reduce the dominant
fouling components, but still being capable
of achieving the desired effluent quality and
economical limitations (i.e., lowest capex
and opex). This can also be achieved by
adding a wide variety of foulant reducers,
such as powdered activated carbon (Akram
& Stuckey, 2008), ferric chloride (Song et al.,
2008; Zhang et al., 2008), chitosan (Le Roux
et al., 2005), polymeric ferric sulfate (Wu &
Huang, 2008), cationic polymer (Yoon &
Collins, 2006), etc. The optimum set of
parameters and the most effective fouling
reducer might be plant specific.
3.5.2. Membrane
Conventional
wisdom
generally
attributes lower fouling to membranes with
a smooth surface, having a low foulant
affinity and being highly porous with a
narrow pore size distribution. Extensive
studies investigate the effect of individual
membrane properties in order to formulate
the ideal membrane for MBRs. However,
many discrepancies are found, which limits
in capturing general trends because of the
diversity of experimental methods applied,
varying test durations and the lack of proper
membrane characterizations (Drews, 2010;
Le-Clech et al., 2006). Nevertheless, a
comprehensive study on the effect of
membrane properties has been reported
elsewhere (van der Marel et al., 2010). They
concluded that an asymmetric membrane
with an interconnected pore structure,

hydrophilic properties, larger pore size and
higher surface porosity favors less fouling.
To improve the membrane fouling
resistance, several studies have modified
membrane properties to render them more
hydrophilic. This has been achieved by
applying NH3 or CO2 plasma treatment (Yu
et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2007), addition and
coating of TiO2 nanoparticle into the
polymer casting solutions and onto the
membrane surfaces, respectively (Bae et al.,
2006; Bae & Tak, 2005), coating ferric
hydroxide onto the membrane surfaces
(Zhang et al., 2008), coating an amphiphilic
graft copolymer poly(vinylidene fluoride)graft-poly(oxyethylene) methacrylate (PVDFg-POEM) (Asatekin et al., 2006), or grafting
polyacrylamide (Yu et al., 2007).
No systematic study has been
performed yet to develop and optimize
phase inversion membranes for MBR
application. Most literature focuses only on
investigating an individual effect of
membrane
properties
on
filtration
performance. Many recent studies report
the performance of novel membranes as
cheaper alternatives to replace the
traditional phase inverted membranes, such
as non-wovens (Seo et al., 2003), mesh
filters (Fuchs et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006)
or nanofibers (Bilad et al., 2011). However,
these new materials are still under
development and to date, none of them has
been used in a full-scale application. The
severe fouling (due to their rough surface
and too large pore sizes and wide pore size
distributions) still limit their application.
3.5.3. Hydrodynamics
Steering the feed hydrodynamics is the
most efficient way to control fouling (Jaffrin,
2008). It is implemented as coarse air
bubbles in submerged MBRs and as crossflow in side stream MBRs. Hydrodynamic
homogeneity is among the most important

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

108 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

parameters to be managed (Braak et al.,
2011). Due to the nature of the module
design, homogeneous hydrodynamics are
very difficult to be achieved. Along the
membrane module, there is an internal
pressure drop: TMP is high at the start of
the module (suction) where the permeate is
withdrawn (Figure 6). Therefore, local-flux
at this region is higher than at the other
end, thus inducing fouling that eventually
spreads to the other regions (Chang et al.,
2002; Yoon & Collins, 2006; Yu et al., 2003).
In the case of hollow fiber modules, an
increase in packing density leads to a more
heterogeneous permeate profile along the
fiber length and also induced membrane
fouling (Braak et al., 2011). Furthermore, a
filtration cycle including relaxation or
backwash induces a high instantaneous flux
to compensate for the filtration downtime,
which results in the compression of the cake
layer (Metzger et al., 2007).
The role of air bubbles in submerged
systems is to provide direct shear, to induce
a secondary flow of liquid, and to move the
membranes (in the case of hollow fibers).
This approach has several disadvantages
(Genkin et al., 2006). First, the shear-rates
experienced by the membrane surfaces are
relatively weak. This, only modest fluxes can

be used. At a certain air supply, increasing
aeration rate will not further increase the
cleaning effect (Genkin et al., 2006; Wu et
al., 2008). Second, an elevated aeration
intensity leads to breakage of sludge flocs
and excess production of SMP, and under
such condition, the released colloids and
solutes could become the major foulants
(Rosenberger & Kraume, 2002). Third,
increasing the bubble flow reaches a
“plateau” in terms of flux improvement and
this makes the realization of a higher
throughput difficult (Genkin et al., 2006).
Finally, it is difficult to achieve an effective
bubble distribution and a significant portion
of the aeration “energy” will have only small
impact. As coarse bubble aeration
dominates the operational cost of MBRs,
recent studies focus on optimizing this
parameter.
The intensity, module configuration and
arrangement, bubble size, and sludge
viscosity were proven to affect the
hydrodynamics (Le-Clech et al., 2006).
Furthermore, improving the hydrodynamics
can also be performed by applying dynamic
membrane systems (Altaee et al., 2009;
Beier et al., 2006; Bilad et al., 2012a; Genkin
et
al.,
2006;
Jaffrin,
2008).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 109

Figure 6. Flux mal-distribution along a membrane module, where J is the local flux, Jav the average
flux and JC the critical flux [adapted from Braak et al., 2011). The behavior of the flux
distribution over time is illustrated from (a) over (b) to (c).
4. MBR membranes
4.1. Types, materials and configurations

All types of pressure driven membranes
have been used in lab-scale MBRs, but only
MF and UF membranes are used so far in
full-scales (Judd, 2008). The application of
NF and RO in MBRs was driven by the
motivation to realize a single process for
direct water re-use purposes. Such
membranes would also exclude internal
fouling (Asatekin et al., 2006; Choi et al.,
2002; Choi et al., 2005) due to their ability
to retain almost everything except water.
However, salts accumulated inside the
bioreactor and endangered the biological
processes. Furthermore, NF and RO
membranes operate at very high pressure
and low flux, leading to an increased
pumping cost and membrane investment,
respectively (Judd, 2008; Kraume et al.,
2009).
The most common polymers that are
used to prepare MBR membranes are

polysulfone (PSF), polyvinylidene difluoride
(PVDF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) or derivatives
of polyethylene (PE) (Judd, 2008). Although
all of these polymers are hydrophobic, they
are mostly post-treated to become more
hydrophilic (Le-Clech et al., 2006). The
membrane materials should have good
mechanical strength and high flexibility. This
is important to prevent pore collapse and
maintain the lateral movement of the fiber
(for HF). They must also have good chemical
resistance and must tolerate a wide pH
range. This is required especially to deal
with the chemical cleaning conditions, i.e.
pH> 11 for base and pH<4 for acid.
An ideal membrane module for MBRs
should have a high packing density, allow a
high degree of turbulence at the feed side,
facilitate
cleaning
and
permit
modularization (Judd, 2008; Le-Clech et al.,
2006). To meet those requirements, the
typical configuration of the module used in
MBRs is MT, FS and HF (Figure 2). In fullscale, a variety of module configurations is

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

110 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

available and no standardization of module
design is currently present for MBR
membranes. The typical membrane product
specifications from different membrane
suppliers are summarized in Table 1.
4.2. Membrane characteristics
Membrane characteristics provide
information
about
the
filtration
performances and the physical properties.
The performance related characteristics are
discussed in Section 2. The morphologyrelated parameters are pore size, pore size
distribution, surface porosity, cross section
structure, pore shape, and other physicalchemical properties such as hydrophilicity

and charge density. It is possible to relate
those
physical
properties
to
the
performance properties, which enables to
design the most suitable membrane for a
particular application.
Membrane pore size and distribution,
surface porosity, hydrophilicity, roughness,
materials and configuration are among the
membrane characteristics that have been
reported to have a direct effect on
membrane fouling. (Le-Clech et al., 2006)
The effect of the individual membrane
characteristics, especially in relation to the
membrane fouling are listed below.

Tabel 1. The typical membrane product specifications from different membrane suppliers
(adapted from Judd, 2008)).

Supplier

Country

Berghof

Germany

Diameter
Proprietary
Specific
Membrane Membrane Pore
(d)1 or
name of
surface area
Configuration material size(nm) separation
membrane or
-1 3
(m )
(δ)2 (mm)
module
Hyper-AE,
MT
PES, PVDF 80
9
110
HyperFlux
FS
PSF
120
9
110, 47
MEMBRIGHT
FS
PVDF
80
7
135
Toray
FS
PE
400
8
115
Kubota
FS
PSF
40
10
133
Sub Snake
FS
PSF
38
6
160, 90
VRM
MT
PSF
100
5.3
180
Millenniumpore
HF
PSF
50
2.6 (3.5)
314, 125
Puron
HF
PVDF
40
1.9 (3.0)
314, 125
ZW 500C-D
38
5.2
320, 30
F4385
MT
PVDF
8
290, 27
F5385

Brightwater
UK
Toray
Japan
Kubota
Japan
Colloide
Ireland
Huber
Germany
MillenniumporeUK
Koch-Puron
USA
GE
USA
The
Norit X-Flow
Netherlands
SiemenGermany
HF
PVDF
40
Memcor
Mitsubishi
PE
400
Japan
HF
Rayon
PVDF
400
Asahi Kasei
Japan
HF
PVDF
100
Polymem
France
HF
PSF
80
Ultraflo
Singapore
HF
PAN
10-100
Motimo
China
HF
PVDF
100-200
1
Diameter of hollow fiber
2
Distance between two flat-sheet membranes in a module
3
The membrane area divided by the volume of module

1.3 (2.5)

334

0.54 (1.7) 485, 131
2.8 (2.9)
333, 71
1.3 (1.3)
710, 66
0.7 (1.1)-1.4 800
2.1 (0.7)
1020
1.0 (0.9)
1100, 735

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

B10R, B30R
SUR
SADFTM
Microza
WW120
SS60
Flat Plat

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 111

4.2.1. Pore size and distribution

4.2.3. Surface roughness

The pore size mainly determines which
particles or molecules are retained, and
which will pass through the membrane. Pore
size can refer to an absolute value where
every particle of that size or larger is
retained, or a nominal value where 95-98%
of the particles or molecules of that size or
larger are retained. It is obvious that pore
size does not clearly define the pore
structure and geometry. The pore size and
distribution can be determined from
electron microscope images, using the
bubble point method, or many other
methods. Larger pores allow particles
smaller than the pore size to clog the pore
internally. A narrow pore size distribution
prevents
an
inhomogeneous
flow
distribution between pores that would lead
to preferential deposition and blockage of
larger pores (Bilad et al., 2011; van der
Marel et al., 2010).

The effect of surface roughness on the
membrane
performance
is
unclear.
Roughness not only increases the surface
area, but also changes the hydrodynamics
near the surface. The former increases the
surface porosity, thus reducing the local
flux. The latter promotes the effect of
concentration polarization and fouling by
enhancing the interaction with foulants
through preferential accumulation of
foulant materials in the valleys of the rough
membrane surfaces. As a result, valleys
become blocked and fouling becomes more
severe. (Elimelech et al., 1997; Vrijenhoek et
al., 2001)

4.2.2. Surface porosity
The surface porosity is defined as the
fraction of the membrane surface that is
occupied by pores. Together with pore size,
distribution and shape, they determine the
membrane permeability. It can be
determined from electron microscope
images of membrane surfaces using imageprocessing software. (AlMarzooqi et al.,
2016) It also has a severe impact on fouling.
Membranes with sparse surface porosity
can aggravate the effect of adsorption and
fouling due to a large build-up of solute near
the pores. (Fane & Fell, 1987) Upon
increasing surface porosity, the solute
accumulation will be spread more evenly,
which will also decrease the fouling.

4.2.4. Hydrophilicity and charge density
Surface hydrophilicity is normally
quantified using contact angle measurement
(Rana & Matsuura, 2010). It is usually
assumed that fouling decreases with an
increase in hydrophilicity of the membrane
surface, because most foulants in water are
hydrophobic. Depending on their molecular
structure, membrane surfaces can contain
different types of charged spots. The
repulsive forces between the charged
surface and the co-ions in the feed solution
prevent the solute deposition on the
membrane surface. Most membranes are
negatively charged, considering the factor
that most colloidal particles, such as EPS and
SMP, are also negatively charged.
Membrane charges and hydrophilicity
directly affect the foulant-membrane
interaction. Intuitively, it can be expected
that a hydrophilic membrane has a higher
affinity to the hydrophilic foulants and that a
charged membrane attracts the oppositely
charged foulants. Therefore, the fouling
propensity of membranes based on foulantmembrane interaction is strongly depending
on the nature of mixed liquor. This explains,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

112 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

why in most cases, due to the hydrophobic
nature of the activated sludge in the mixed
liquor, hydrophobic membranes are more
prone to foul. (Rana & Matsuura, 2010) In
rare cases, when the mixed liquor is
dominated by hydrophilic materials,
hydrophobic membranes are superior over
the hydrophilic ones(Fang & Shi, 2005).
5. Dynamic Membrane Filtration
5.1. Principles and commercial dynamic
filtration systems
Exposing the membrane surface to a
shear is the most efficient way to control
membrane fouling. (Jaffrin, 2008) Surface
shear is necessary in order to reduce
concentration polarization and reduce
fouling phenomena such as deposition, pore
blocking and cake layer formation. In
principle, shear-rates can be induced by
creating
relative
motion
between
membrane surface and feed liquid.
In traditional systems, shear-rate is
provided by coarse bubble aeration and
liquid cross flow velocity. In the cross-flow
system, high shear-rates at the membrane
surface are obtained by increasing the
tangential fluid velocity along the
membrane and reducing the tube diameter
or channel thickness, which generates a
large axial pressure gradient. This
combination of high velocity and pressure
gradient not only requires much energy to

drive the pumps, but also causes a decrease
of TMP along the membrane, leading to
non-optimal membrane utilization. This also
occurs along the module length in dead-end
filtration (Figures 6(a), (b), and (c)).
Another approach to induce surface
shear-rate is by moving the membrane
surfaces instead of the surrounding fluid or
by moving a mass very near to the
membrane surface. This type of technique is
categorized as dynamic filtration systems
(DFSs), also called shear-enhanced filtration.
A summary of the existing DFS is given in
Table 2.
Most DFSs decouple the generation of
surface shear-rate from the feed velocity,
thus in theory, the mechanical energy is
more efficiently directed toward the
membrane surface by membrane or fluid
mass movement. Therefore, ideally, these
systems
offer
a
reduced
energy
consumption and more effective and
efficient fouling minimization. High shearrates on the membrane surfaces also reduce
concentration polarization and cake buildup, allowing the membrane to operate at
higher fluxes. Normally the permeate
recovery is very high in DSFs, so they do not
require large and powerful recirculation
pumps. The major part of energy is
consumed by rotating or vibrating elements.
(Jaffrin, 2008)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 113

Tabel 2. The summary of existing DFSs.

Advantages and disadvantages

Application and
commercial system

System*

Description

VSEP

Membrane is oscillated at high frequency
(around 60 Hz) in parallel motion relative to
the flat-sheet membrane surface. The vibration
energy focusses shear waves directly at the
membrane surfaces repelling solids and foulant
while increasing the permeates rates.

UF, NF, RO
(Pall Corp, New
Logic)

RD

Filtration module contains a disk, rotating
around a horizontal axis, while the flat-sheet
membrane is stagnant. The module is
sometimes installed with addition of vanes.

MF, UF, NF
(Pall Corp)

CR

Filtration module consists of a rotating motor
sandwiched between stagnant flat-sheet
membranes.

MF, NF
(Mesto Papper)

RM

The flat-sheet membrane is mounted onto a
rotating hollow disk. The rotation of the disk
creates a centrifugal force across the
membrane surface.

MF, UF
(SpinTek)

CMS

The aparatus consists of membrane head at
the end of a rotor arm, containing a plate and
frame stack of membranes. It is placed inside a
housing.

RO

MSD

The filtration system consists of two parallel
hollow shafts rotating at the same speed, each
bearing six ceramic membrane disk.

MF
(Westfalia Separator)

Only a limited number of reports
mentions the weakness of DFS systems.
General energy calculations in comparison
to the conventional dead-end or the crossflow system are scarce, making it difficult to
verify the claim of energy savings during
operation compared to conventional
membrane filtration systems. These systems
also have other drawbacks, such as
apparatus complexity, high tendency of the
apparatus to breakdown at the moving
parts, and most systems have a very low

packing density that leads to very high costs
per membrane area. (Beier et al., 2006)
Currently, only relatively low numbers of
existing DFS are available in the full-scale
applications. However, the new generation
of commercial DFSs, such as vibratory shearenhanced processing systems (VSEP) that
minimize energy consumption by using the
resonance frequency, are expected to
present a low specific energy per volume of
permeate in a large industrial module, as
the power consumption of the vibrating

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

114 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

elements is almost independent of the
membrane area. (Bilad et al., 2012b)

5.2. DFSs in MBRs

Several DFSs have also been applied in
MBRs, such as the vibrating hollow fiber
module (VHFM) and VSEP. The VHFM is still
under development at lab-scale and only
tested in short-terms. The VSEP system was
only used to filter an activated sludge
solution and showed a low fouling tendency
(Low et al., 2009). The VHFM system was
tested using a yeast solution (Beier et al.,
2006; Genkin et al., 2006) and an activated
sludge solution (Altaee et al., 2009) in shortterm. Only the HUBER vacuum rotation
membrane, Fraunhofer Rotating disk filter
and Grundfos BioBooster have been
commercialized in the full-scale applications.
The schematic illustration or pictures of
DSFs in MBRs is given in Figure 7.

5.2.1 Vibrating
(VHFM)

hollow fiber

modules

In VHFM, the membrane module
consists of hollow fiber membranes placed
vertically. The skin layer is located at the
outside of the fibers, thus the permeate is
sucked from the outside to the inside of the
fibers. The membrane modules are vibrated
in a vertical motion at different frequencies
(0-30 Hz) and different amplitudes (0.2-4
cm) (Altaee et al., 2009; Beier et al., 2006;
Genkin et al., 2006). This type of DFS has
recently been applied in the lab-scale
submerged MBRs. The surface shear rate
can periodically be changed and significant
improvement of the CF achieved by this
system. These improvements were even

higher in addition of coagulants and
additional vanes (Genkin et al., 2006). The
oscillation of the membrane in a VHFM
system can also be performed in the
transverse direction, which is also proven to
maintain a good performance (Kola et al.,
2012; Kola et al., 2014).
5.2.2 HUBER vacuum rotation membrane
The HUBER vacuum rotation membrane
is commercialized under the trade mark of
VRM® Bioreactor, and is basically a
submerged MBR. The filtration system
consists of a rotating hollow shaft around
which 6 or 8 UF flat-sheet modules are fixed
with predefined clearance between each
module. The modules are rotated at 2.5 rpm
and cross-flow is also generated using air
bubbles. (Komesli et al., 2007) The rotating
motions of the filtration module produce
intensive turbulences within the reactor
tank, such that no additional circulating
units are required.

5.2.3. Grundfos BioBooster
Grundfos BioBooster is provided as an
MBR package in a closed system. Unlike
most MBRs, the enclosed vessel is
pressurized to drive the filtration. The flatsheet ceramic membranes are fixed while
the shear rate is generated from the
cycloidal rotating pattern between two disks
with different size. These disks also act as a
self-cleaning mechanism, thus no chemical
cleaning is required. Furthermore, rotating
cross-flow impellers between membranes
prevent fouling to allow the system to
operate at 4-5 times higher MLSS
concentration. (Ratkovich et al., 2012)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 115

Figure 7. Schematic illustration of (a) VHFM, (b) HUBER vacuum rotation membrane, (c) Grundfos
BioBooster MBR, (d) Fraunhofer Rotating disk filter.

4.2.4. Fraunhofer rotating disk filter
Fraunhofer IGB (Germany) developed a
rotating disk filter that has also been
implemented in decentralized wastewater
treatment plants. It is claimed to have the
capability of achieving filtration at high flux
with a minimum maintenance and low
energy consumption. It is composed of a
cylindrical housing, containing a stack of
ceramic membrane disks on a rotating
hollow shaft. The membrane module is
placed inside an enclosed pressurized tank
of 0.2-1.5 bar. The permeate passes through
the separation layer on the membrane disk
outside-in and is drawn off via the hollow

shaft. The foulants are removed from the
membrane surface by means of the
centrifugal force field created. This enables
the laminar particle layer – adhering on the
filter disk and thereby rotating together with
the disks – to flow off. Thus, the particle
layer is continuously renewed. This
technology
is
manufactured
and
commercialized and has been implemented
on a large scale for the first time in
Heidelberg-Neurott in 2005. Another
filtration plant is installed for sludge
digestion of the wastewater treatment plant
of Tauberbischofsheim.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

116 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

6. CHALLENGES
RESEARCH

FOR

FUTURE

MBR

6.1. Dynamic Behavior, Interdisciplinary
Field and Multi-Inter-Relationship
Parameters
As MBRs involve many different fields,
MBR research attracts many research
groups from many different disciplines. It
results in an outstanding number of
publications regarding this topic. State-ofthe-art characterization techniques have
also been implemented to cover many
different aspects, such as morphological
visualization, componential characterization,
and microbiological identification. (Meng et
al., 2010)
It has been discussed earlier that
general trends are often hard to catch
within the MBRs studies. In the MBR,
biological suspensions are characterized by
their dynamic behavior and constant
changes. The physical and physiological
conditions of the biological suspension
change in response to the change in
environmental conditions. The MBR studies
do not only involve the biology, but also
chemical and physical aspects. Moreover, no
standardization exists in MBRs, allowing a
wide variety of different configurations at
both full- and lab-scale studies (Drews,
2010). For instance, lab-scale tests are
mostly performed in a relatively short
period, with a constant synthetic feed
composition and temperature, while this is
more fluctuating at a full-scale (Kraume et
al., 2009). It leads to different characteristics
of the mixed liquor, different microbial
communities, different levels of SMP
concentrations, and different fouling
propensity (van der Gast et al., 2006), thus
not allowing a fair comparison of both
scales. The lab-scale set-up also has a much
higher energy input that might lead to more
exposure of the activated sludge to shear
(Drews, 2010).

6.2. Energy
consumption
considerations

and

cost

Both capex and opex for MBRs are still
higher than for conventional activated
sludge and will remain higher unless
possibility of permeate reuse is counted
(Judd, 2008). In general, this is associated
with the occurrence of membrane fouling
which has been discussed widely throughout
literature (Braak et al., 2011). Most MBR
studies aim at developing or inventing the
strategies to control fouling in lab-scale setups, or at optimizing the system in full-scale
to minimize the costs associated with the
coarse bubble aeration which varies from
30-50% of opex (Judd, 2008).

6.3. Research perspectives
Despite the maturity of MBRs, many key
areas are being developed to improve the
competitiveness of the technology. Forward
osmosis has recently been implemented in
osmotic MBRs (Wang et al., 2016), which
show effectiveness in combating membrane
fouling. Novel membrane types that are
designed to pose minimum fouling
propensity is also effective (Bilad et al.,
2015; Kharraz et al., 2015; Marbelia et al.,
2016). Performance of MBR can also be
further
enhanced
through
process
integration, such as with microbial fuel cell
(Chen et al., 2014; Ren et al., 2014; Su et al.,
2013) or with photobioreactor (Gao et al.,
2016; Marbelia et al., 2014). MBR
technology also requires an upgrade in
order to treat emerging contaminants such
as pharmaceutical compounds (Melvin &
Leusch, 2016; Prasertkulsak et al., 2016).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 117

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

8. AUTHORS’ NOTE

Authors
acknowledged
Universiti
Teknologi PETRONAS for providing facilities
for conducting the research activities.

The author(s) declare(s) that there is no
conflict of interest regarding the publication
of this article. Authors confirmed that the
data and the paper are free of plagiarism.

9. REFERENCES
Ahmed, Z., Cho, J., Lim, B. R., Song, K. G., & Ahn, K. H. (2007). Effects of sludge retention
time on membrane fouling and microbial community structure in a membrane
bioreactor. Journal of membrane science, 287(2), 211-218.
Akram, A., & Stuckey, D. C. (2008). Flux and performance improvement in a submerged
anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) using powdered activated carbon (PAC).
Process biochemistry, 43(1), 93-102.
AlMarzooqi, F. A., Bilad, M. R., Mansoor, B., & Arafat, H. A. (2016). A comparative study of
image analysis and porometry techniques for characterization of porous membranes.
Journal of materials science, 51(4), 2017-2032.
Altaee, A., Al-Rawajfeh, A. E., & Baek, Y. J. (2009). Application of vibratory system to
improve the critical flux in submerged hollow fiber MF process. Separation science
and technology, 45(1), 28-34.
Asatekin, A., Menniti, A., Kang, S., Elimelech, M., Morgenroth, E., & Mayes, A. M. (2006).
Antifouling nanofiltration membranes for membrane bioreactors from selfassembling graft copolymers. Journal of membrane science, 285(1), 81-89.
Bae, T. H., Kim, I. C., & Tak, T. M. (2006). Preparation and characterization of foulingresistant TiO2 self-assembled nanocomposite membranes. Journal of membrane
science, 275(1), 1-5.
Bae, T. H., & Tak, T. M. (2005). Preparation of TiO2 self-assembled polymeric nanocomposite
membranes and examination of their fouling mitigation effects in a membrane
bioreactor system. Journal of membrane science, 266(1), 1-5.
Beier, S. P., Guerra, M., Garde, A., & Jonsson, G. (2006). Dynamic microfiltration with a
vibrating hollow fiber membrane module: filtration of yeast suspensions. Journal of
membrane science, 281(1), 281-287.
Bilad, M. R., Arafat, H. A., & Vankelecom, I. F. (2014). Membrane technology in microalgae
cultivation and harvesting: a review. Biotechnology advances, 32(7), 1283-1300.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

118 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

Bilad, M. R., Marbelia, L., Laine, C., & Vankelecom, I. F. (2015). A PVC–silica mixed-matrix
membrane (MMM) as novel type of membrane bioreactor (MBR) membrane. Journal
of membrane science, 493, 19-27.
Bilad, M. R., Mezohegyi, G., Declerck, P., & Vankelecom, I. F. (2012a). Novel magnetically
induced membrane vibration (MMV) for fouling control in membrane bioreactors.
Water research, 46(1), 63-72.
Bilad, M. R., Mezohegyi, G., Declerck, P., & Vankelecom, I. F. (2012b). Novel magnetically
induced membrane vibration (MMV) for fouling control in membrane bioreactors.
Water research, 46(1), 63-72.
Bilad, M. R., Westbroek, P., & Vankelecom, I. F. (2011). Assessment and optimization of
electrospun nanofiber-membranes in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Journal of
membrane science, 380(1), 181-191.
Bilad, M. R. (2016). Module-Scale Simulation of Forward Osmosis Module-Part A: Plate-andFrame. Indonesian journal of science and technology, 1(2), 249-261.
Braak, E., Alliet, M., Schetrite, S., & Albasi, C. (2011). Aeration and hydrodynamics in
submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of membrane science, 379(1), 1-18.
Chang, S., Fane, A. G., & Vigneswaran, S. (2002). Modeling and optimizing submerged hollow
fiber membrane modules. AIChE journal, 48(10), 2203-2212.
Chen, L., Gu, Y., Cao, C., Zhang, J., Ng, J. W., & Tang, C. (2014). Performance of a submerged
anaerobic membrane bioreactor with forward osmosis membrane for low-strength
wastewater treatment. Water research, 50, 114-123.
Cho, B. D., & Fane, A. G. (2002). Fouling transients in nominally sub-critical flux operation of
a membrane bioreactor. Journal of membrane science, 209(2), 391-403.
Cho, J., Song, K. G., Yun, H., Ahn, K. H., Kim, J. Y., & Chung, T. H. (2005). Quantitative analysis
of biological effect on membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactor. Water
science and technology, 51(6-7), 9-18.
Choi, J. H., Dockko, S., Fukushi, K., & Yamamoto, K. (2002). A novel application of a
submerged nanofiltration membrane bioreactor (NF MBR) for wastewater
treatment. Desalination, 146(1-3), 413-420.
Choi, J. H., Fukushi, K., & Yamamoto, K. (2005). Comparison of treatment efficiency of
submerged nanofiltration membrane bioreactors using cellulose triacetate and
polyamide membrane. Water science and technology, 51(6-7), 305-312.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 119

de la Torre, T., Mottschall, M., Lesjean, B., Drews, A., Iheanaetu, A., & Kraume, M. (2010).
Filterability assessment in membrane bioreactors using an in-situ filtration test cell.
Water science and technology, 61(11), 2809-2816.
Drews, A. (2010). Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors—characterisation,
contradictions, cause and cures. Journal of membrane science, 363(1), 1-28.
Elimelech, M., Zhu, X., Childress, A. E., & Hong, S. (1997). Role of membrane surface
morphology in colloidal fouling of cellulose acetate and composite aromatic
polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of membrane science, 127(1), 101109.
Evenblij, H., Geilvoet, S., Van der Graaf, J. H. J. M., & Van der Roest, H. F. (2005). Filtration
characterisation for assessing MBR performance: three cases compared.
Desalination, 178(1-3), 115-124.
Fane, A. G. (2011). Membranes and the water cycle: challenges and opportunities. Applied
water science, 1(1-2), 3-9.
Fane, A. G., & Fell, C. J. D. (1987). A review of fouling and fouling control in ultrafiltration.
Desalination, 62, 117-136.
Fang, H. H., & Shi, X. (2005). Pore fouling of microfiltration membranes by activated sludge.
Journal of membrane science, 264(1), 161-166.
Field, R. W., & Pearce, G. K. (2011). Critical, sustainable and threshold fluxes for membrane
filtration with water industry applications. Advances in colloid and interface science,
164(1), 38-44.
Field, R. W., Wu, D., Howell, J. A., & Gupta, B. B. (1995). Critical flux concept for
microfiltration fouling. Journal of membrane science, 100(3), 259-272.
Fuchs, W., Resch, C., Kernstock, M., Mayer, M., Schoeberl, P., & Braun, R. (2005). Influence
of operational conditions on the performance of a mesh filter activated sludge
process. Water research, 39(5), 803-810.
Gao, F., Li, C., Yang, Z. H., Zeng, G. M., Feng, L. J., Liu, J. Z., & Cai, H. W. (2016). Continuous
microalgae cultivation in aquaculture wastewater by a membrane photobioreactor
for biomass production and nutrients removal. Ecological engineering, 92, 55-61.
Genkin, G., Waite, T. D., Fane, A. G., & Chang, S. (2006). The effect of vibration and
coagulant addition on the filtration performance of submerged hollow fibre
membranes. Journal of membrane science, 281(1), 726-734.
Howell, J. A. (1995). Sub-critical flux operation of microfiltration. Journal of membrane
science, 107(1-2), 165-171.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

120 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

Huyskens, C., Brauns, E., Van Hoof, E., & De Wever, H. (2008). A new method for the
evaluation of the reversible and irreversible fouling propensity of MBR mixed liquor.
Journal of membrane science, 323(1), 185-192.
Hwang, B. K., Lee, W. N., Park, P. K., Lee, C. H., & Chang, I. S. (2007). Effect of membrane
fouling reducer on cake structure and membrane permeability in membrane
bioreactor. Journal of membrane science, 288(1), 149-156.
Jaffrin, M. Y. (2008). Dynamic shear-enhanced membrane filtration: a review of rotating
disks, rotating membranes and vibrating systems. Journal of membrane science,
324(1), 7-25.
Judd, S. (2008). The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends in biotechnology,
26(2), 109-116.
Kharraz, J. A., Bilad, M. R., & Arafat, H. A. (2015). Simple and effective corrugation of PVDF
membranes for enhanced MBR performance. Journal of membrane science, 475, 91100.
Kola, A., Ye, Y., Ho, A., Le-Clech, P., & Chen, V. (2012). Application of low frequency
transverse vibration on fouling limitation in submerged hollow fibre membranes.
Journal of membrane science, 409, 54-65.
Kola, A., Ye, Y., Le-Clech, P., & Chen, V. (2014). Transverse vibration as novel membrane
fouling mitigation strategy in anaerobic membrane bioreactor applications. Journal
of membrane science, 455, 320-329.
Komesli, O. T., Teschner, K., Hegemann, W., & Gokcay, C. F. (2007). Vacuum membrane
applications in domestic wastewater reuse. Desalination, 215(1-3), 22-28.
Kraume, M., Wedi, D., Schaller, J., Iversen, V., & Drews, A. (2009). Fouling in MBR: What use
are lab investigations for full scale operation?. Desalination, 236(1-3), 94-103.
Le Clech, P., Jefferson, B., Chang, I. S., & Judd, S. J. (2003). Critical flux determination by the
flux-step method in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Journal of membrane
science, 227(1), 81-93.
Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., & Fane, T. A. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in
wastewater treatment. Journal of membrane science, 284(1), 17-53.
Lee, M., & Kim, J. (2009). Membrane autopsy to investigate CaCO3 scale formation in pilot‐
scale, submerged membrane bioreactor treating calcium‐rich wastewater. Journal of
chemical technology and biotechnology, 84(9), 1397-1404.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 121

Le Roux, I., Krieg, H. M., Yeates, C. A., & Breytenbach, J. C. (2005). Use of chitosan as an
antifouling agent in a membrane bioreactor. Journal of membrane science, 248(1),
127-136.
Liao, B. Q., Bagley, D. M., Kraemer, H. E., Leppard, G. G., & Liss, S. N. (2004). A review of
biofouling and its control in membrane separation bioreactors. Water environment
research, 76(5), 425-436.
Low, S. C., Cheong, K. T., & Lim, H. L. (2009). A vibration membrane bioreactor. Desalination
and Water Treatment, 5(1-3), 42-47.
Marbelia, L., Bilad, M. R., Bertels, N., Laine, C., & Vankelecom, I. F. (2016). Ribbed PVC–silica
mixed matrix membranes for membrane bioreactors. Journal of membrane science,
498, 315-323.
Marbelia, L., Bilad, M. R., Passaris, I., Discart, V., Vandamme, D., Beuckels, A., Muylaert, K. &
Vankelecom, I. F. (2014). Membrane photobioreactors for integrated microalgae
cultivation and nutrient remediation of membrane bioreactors effluent. Bioresource
technology, 163, 228-235.
Melvin, S. D., & Leusch, F. D. (2016). Removal of trace organic contaminants from domestic
wastewater: A meta-analysis comparison of sewage treatment technologies.
Environment international, 92, 183-188.
Meng, F., Chae, S. R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H. S., & Yang, F. (2009). Recent advances
in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): membrane fouling and membrane material. Water
research, 43(6), 1489-1512.
Meng, F., Liao, B., Liang, S., Yang, F., Zhang, H., & Song, L. (2010). Morphological
visualization, componential characterization and microbiological identification of
membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Journal of membrane science,
361(1), 1-14.
Metzger, U., Le-Clech, P., Stuetz, R. M., Frimmel, F. H., & Chen, V. (2007). Characterisation of
polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of different filtration
modes. Journal of membrane science, 301(1), 180-189.
Prasertkulsak, S., Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Itonaga, T., & Yamamoto, K. (2016).
Removals of pharmaceutical compounds from hospital wastewater in membrane
bioreactor operated under short hydraulic retention time. Chemosphere, 150, 624631.
Ramesh, A., Lee, D. J., & Lai, J. Y. (2007). Membrane biofouling by extracellular polymeric
substances or soluble microbial products from membrane bioreactor sludge. Applied
microbiology and biotechnology, 74(3), 699-707.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

122 | Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 1, April 2017 Hal.97-123

Ramesh, A., Lee, D. J., Wang, M. L., Hsu, J. P., Juang, R. S., Hwang, K. J., Liu, J.C., & Tseng, S. J.
(2006). Biofouling in membrane bioreactor. Separation science and technology,
41(7), 1345-1370.
Rana, D., & Matsuura, T. (2010). Surface modifications for antifouling membranes. Chemical
reviews, 110(4), 2448-2471.
Ratkovich, N., Chan, C. C. V., Bentzen, T. R., & Rasmussen, M. R. (2012). Experimental and
CFD simulation studies of wall shear stress for different impeller configurations and
MBR activated sludge. Water science and technology, 65(11), 2061-2070.
Ren, L., Ahn, Y., & Logan, B. E. (2014). A two-stage microbial fuel cell and anaerobic fluidized
bed membrane bioreactor (MFC-AFMBR) system for effective domestic wastewater
treatment. Environmental science and technology, 48(7), 4199-4206.
Rosenberger, S., & Kraume, M. (2002). Filterability of activated sludge in membrane
bioreactors. Desalination, 146(1), 373-379.
Seo, G. T., Moon, B. H., Lee, T. S., Lim, T. J., & Kim, I. S. (2003). Non-woven fabric filter
separation activated sludge reactor for domestic wastewater reclamation. Water
science and technology, 47(1), 133-138.
Shannon, M. A., Bohn, P. W., Elimelech, M., Georgiadis, J. G., Marinas, B. J., & Mayes, A. M.
(2008). Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades. Nature,
452(7185), 301-310.
Song, K. G., Kim, Y., & Ahn, K. H. (2008). Effect of coagulant addition on membrane fouling
and nutrient removal in a submerged membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 221(1-3),
467-474.
Su, X., Tian, Y., Sun, Z., Lu, Y., & Li, Z. (2013). Performance of a combined system of microbial
fuel cell and membrane bioreactor: wastewater treatment, sludge reduction, energy
recovery and membrane fouling. Biosensors and bioelectronics, 49, 92-98.
van der Gast, C. J., Jefferson, B., Reid, E., Robinson, T., Bailey, M. J., Judd, S. J., & Thompson,
I. P. (2006). Bacterial diversity is determined by volume in membrane bioreactors.
Environmental microbiology, 8(6), 1048-1055.
van der Marel, P., Zwijnenburg, A., Kemperman, A., Wessling, M., Temmink, H., & van der
Meer, W. (2010). Influence of membrane properties on fouling in submerged
membrane bioreactors. Journal of membrane science, 348(1), 66-74.
van der Marel, P., Zwijnenburg, A., Kemperman, A., Wessling, M., Temmink, H., & van der
Meer, W. (2009). An improved flux-step method to determine the critical flux and
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045

Muhammad Roil Bilad. Membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment:... | 123

the critical flux for irreversibility in a membrane bioreactor. Journal of membrane
science, 332(1), 24-29.
Vrijenhoek, E. M., Hong, S., & Elimelech, M. (2001). Influence of membrane surface
properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration
membranes. Journal of membrane science, 188(1), 115-128.
Wang, W., Jung, Y. J., Kiso, Y., Yamada, T., & Min, K. S. (2006). Excess sludge reduction
performance of an aerobic SBR process equipped with a submerged mesh filter unit.
Process biochemistry, 41(4), 745-751.
Wang, X., Chang, V. W., & Tang, C. Y. (2016). Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR)
technology for wastewater treatment and reclamation: Advances, challenges, and
prospects for the future. Journal of membrane science, 504, 113-132.
Wu, J., & Huang, X. (2008). Effect of dosing polymeric ferric sulfate on fouling
characteristics, mixed liquor properties and performance in a long-term running
membrane bioreactor. Separation and purification technology, 63(1), 45-52.
Wu, Z., Wang, Z., Huang, S., Mai, S., Yang, C., Wang, X., & Zhou, Z. (2008). Effects of various
factors on critical flux in submerged membrane bioreactors for municipal
wastewater treatment. Separation and purification technology, 62(1), 56-63.
Yoon, S. H., & Collins, J. H. (2006). A novel flux enhancing method for membrane bioreactor
(MBR) process using polymer. Desalination, 191(1-3), 52-61.
Yu, K., Wen, X., Bu, Q., & Xia, H. (2003). Critical flux enhancements with air sparging in axial
hollow fibers cross-flow microfiltration of biologically treated wastewater. Journal of
membrane science, 224(1), 69-79.
Yu, H. Y., Xu, Z. K., Lei, H., Hu, M. X., & Yang, Q. (2007). Photoinduced graft polymerization of
acrylamide on polypropylene microporous membranes for the improvement of
antifouling characteristics in a submerged membrane-bioreactor. Separation and
purification technology, 53(1), 119-125.
Zhang, H. F., Sun, B. S., Zhao, X. H., & Gao, Z. H. (2008). Effect of ferric chloride on fouling in
membrane bioreactor. Separation and purification technology, 63(2), 341-347.
Zhang, J., Chua, H. C., Zhou, J., & Fane, A. G. (2006). Factors affecting the membrane
performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of membrane science,
284(1), 54-66.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v2i1
p- ISSN 2528-1410 e- ISSN 2527-8045