Water reuse of sewage water by decentral waste water treatment combining SBR and membrane process using innovative ceramic flat membranes
Dr. Dipl.-Chem. Hans-Jürgen Schmidt
Dipl.-Ing. Heino
Grotehusman
1. Actual Situation of sewage systems in Residential Areas
During the 2nd half of the 19th century a rapid industrialisation and urbanisation took place combined with several epidemics in the cities causing numerous deaths by waterborne diseases like typhoid
and cholera. The reasons were bad sanitary conditions. The construction of sewers started as early as 1842 in Hamburg. The discharge of large quantities via centralised sewers to the rivers and sea
polluted them, resulting in the needs for waste water treatment plants (WWTP). Beginning more than 100 years ago than first WWTPs have been installed in the major cities of Germany and Europe as
centralised plants with a complete channel and piping system. The technology has steadily developed to meet the demands, which often changed . But the principle now is more than 100 years old, not
suited for water reuse and cannot be changed rapidly. It is known that today this principle process design cannot be applied in developing countries since it cannot be financed mainly due to the high
costs for channels, drains, collecting systems.
The drainage situation up to now is worldwide based on the principle features mixing,
transport by adding drinking water and partial treatment at the end of transport path.
It is not a closed system. Recent informations on sewers and piping leakages (appr. 50% leakages of pipes in Germany) show the enhanced danger of cross contamination for ground water by se¬wage
water. Beside of this facts WWTPs cannot generally eliminate endocrine substan¬ces, drugs, pharmaceutical species. To overcome these problems a publication recommended a sustain¬able approach to the
drainage situation mainly for threshold and developing countries using an optimised mix of centralised and decentralised plants , reuse of valuable materials by the sepa¬ra¬tion of sludge and urine
and minimizing transport water. Using membrane plants in combination with separation systems valuable materials and water can be reused.
Water reuse from domestic waste water has been developed to a high technology treatment process of water. The upgrading was estimated in a study for water scarce regions in dry climates like
Australia, Israel, California in order to minimise the impact of climate changes. Water stressed countries in dry climatic zones have made reusestrategies and programmes. A model based estimation of the reuse potential for
Europe showed the highest reuse potential for dry countries like Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey.
In sewage water treatment systems local authorities will not generally require the total elimination of bacteria and viruses in order to disinfect cleaned water. The treated water, coming from sewage water in most countries will not be used for applications who will come into contact with human beings, since a high disease risk potential may result from direct reuse.
|
Properties
|
Organic membranes
|
Ceramic Membranes
|
|
Material
|
Sensitve to abrasive media
|
Totally suited
|
|
Life time
|
Restricted to 2-4 years
|
6-10 years
|
|
Flux (L/hm²)
|
Restricted flux (11-14 L/h)
|
20-30 L/hm²
|
|
Narrow pore size distribution with variable cut-off
|
available
|
available
|
|
Mechanically resistant against particles
|
Not resistant
|
High resistant
|
|
Temperature-resistant
|
Low resistant against high temperature
|
High resistant
|
|
Oxidation-resistant
|
Low resistant
|
High resistant
|
|
Chemically resistant
|
Restricted resistance
|
High resistant
|
|
Hydrophilic surface
|
No, difficult to start up
|
normal
|
|
Adjustable surface charge
|
Partly available
|
available
|
|
Backflushing properties
|
Only backwashing at ambient pressures
|
Under pressure in situ cleaning
|
|
Cleaning
|
Often necessary with disassembling the whole arrangement
|
Seldom, low cost procedure |
The legal basis was adjusted to these restrictions. For certain regions like water protection zones with ground water or FFH-regions enhanced treatment to the effluent by disinfection process will be required by local authorities according to the European water guidelines. Beginning in 1990 membrane processes for sewage water treatment have been developed and were installed in smaller and larger WWT plants in order since 1999 to disinfect the effluent water. In Germany 2006 18 plants with a capacity of about 180000 PEs have been erected and operated, most of them using organic membrane materials, now about 80 MBR plants are in operation within Europe, most of them located in Germany and UK(6).
In nearly all applications organic membranes either in a tubular or in a flat geometrywill be used. Organic membranes have the disadvantage to a restricted life time, enhanced cleansing necessary, sensitivity to the pre-treatment steps. According to the material they cannot be periodically backflushed by pressure in order to cleanse them internally.
To overcome material problems for water reuse applications ceramic membranes in a flat geometry have been developed and investigated. Results in table 1 show that the effluent water treated corresponds to EU bathing water guidelines. They don't have to be changed every year and have a long operation time between two cleanings.
These membranes can be used in larger centralized plants and in dezentralized applications for single houses avoiding channels, pipes, pump stations. Therefore the total system investment costs will be much lower. Nevertheless the reuse-water free of bacteria, germs can be used for applications like toilet flushing, laundry, gardening, machinery cleaning.
2. Requirements for water reuse
To avoid potential health desease coming from a exposition by reused water
the usage as drinking-, body wash- and shower water cannot be generally permitted without having a double barrier
system.
The effluent after the MBR treatment has a much better quality and can be reused in a lot of applications for toilet flushing, washing processes (laundry and machines), planting thus avoiding the usage of fresh water. This is important in aride zones saving more than 50% drinking water.
3. Conceptual design of water reuse plants
Two types of technology do exist: MBR plants as centralised large plants and small plants for decentralised system.


4. Examples for MBR water reuse plants
Pilot Plant for a Golf Site 150
PE
The main advantages of this example and generally mbr- plants are the elimination of bacteria by the mbr process resulting in a superior water quality suited for reuse, smaller sizes of the whole treatment line for installation in a house, enhanced elimination of pharmaceuticals, better process safety by safe sedimentation of sludge. The resulting disadvantages are the needs of better pre-treatment, mainly for organic membranes to minimise fouling potential, the higher process sensitivity related to changes in throughput and chemicals, scaling potential by hardness, higher energy consumption. But this energy consumption is comparable to aeration with N-elimination (20-30 kWh/PE*y).
5. Conceptual design for a basement located plant in a tower
In order to enhance the water reuse applications we calculated the process design for a 1.200 m³/d sewage water treatment plant (STP) located in the basement of a tower. The conditions are as follows: water flows by gravity into STP, space restriction require a compact plant design, quality suited for toilet flushing, cooling water make up, landscape and marine disposal.
This data correspond to about 4000 PEs each 300 L/day.
The calculations gave a peak flux of 100 m3/h, peakfactor is 12 hrs. Designing a sludge concentration of 15 kg/m³ -which corresponds to a lower plant design by a factor of 3 compared to conventional plants- we calculated the needs for the aeration basins to such a size that the technology can be integrated in the basement of a tower. The total calculations showed that the investment costs of such basement located plants (BLP) have a return of investment (ROI) of about 8 years based on local VAE water prices. This means that these BLPs can be operated with a profit rate of about 10 %/y, thus giving water for flushing toilets, for gardening, make up of cooling water.
6. Conclusions
It was discussed that the more than 100 years old centralised systems as installed in Europe cannot be transfered in threshold and development countries due to their
highly expensive needs for enhanced collecting systems with their leakages combined with not efficient enough elimination rates mainly to pharmaceuticals. Therefore other systems have to be designed using decentralized solutions without large collecting systems and leading to a superior water quality as Membrane Bioreactor Systems combined with conventional SBR systems. Installing the old plant concepts in threshold and development countries, where more than 2 million children each year die for want of a glass of clean water due to waterborne diseases, result in expensive and more than 100 years old technology, where cross contaminations to ground waters of disease sources like bacteria and germs cannot be avoided. To meet the millennium goals of UN each day 200.00 -300.00 peoples have to be supplied with technology for water treatment worldwide. This cannot be done really. Therefore new concepts have to be developed: better and cheaper. We think as a starting point 1. new concepts must be used wherever they will be cheaper, and 2. an optimisation between the mixture of centralised plant avoiding large channels, decentralised systems for single houses or towers has to be done before decisions will be done. 3. To meet the millennium goals for water quality the MBR technology has to be enhanced using such concept. All conventional technology like SBR and others can be combined with membrane technology where water reuse is evident to save water, where regional conditions require enhanced effluent parameters.
Literature
[1]H. Seeger: The history of German waste water treatment, European Water Management, Vol. 2, No.5, 1999
[1]Löffler: Private Communication to H. Köhler 2002
[1]J. Londong: Strategien für eine Siedlungsentwässerung, KA 2000 (47), No. 10 p.1434-1442
[1]R. Hochstrat, Th. Wintgens, Th. Melin, P. Jeffrey: Assessing the European wastewater reclamatin and reuse potential-a scenario analysis, Elsevier, Desalination 188(2006) 1-8
[1]F. B. Frechen: Membranbelebungsverfahren für die kommunale Abwasserreinigung, 10. Kasseler Siedlungswasserwirtschaflliches Symposium Vol. 27, 2005; ISBN 3-89958-161-X,
[1]J. Pinnekamp, C. Thiemig „Menbrantechnik in Europa“ p. 1-13, 39.Essener Tagung-Gewässerschutz Wasser Abwasser 202, 2006
[1]O. Binkle, F. Brinkmeyer: Abschlussbericht DBU Vorhaben „Entwicklung und Betrieb eines getauchten Niederdruck-Keramikplattenmoduls“ 2006. AZ: 21841/01-23
[1]N. Drücker, W. Dickhaut: Modellhafte Auslegung einer auf Stoffstromtrennung basierenden Abwasserwiederverwertung für eine Hochhausapartementsiedlung in Seoul, Südkorea. Diplomarbeit an der Hochschule f. Angew. Wissenschaften Hamburg, FB Bauingenieurwesen April 2004.
[1]The human Development Report 2006, http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006
[1]Fünftes Forum Globale Fragen-kompakt, Berlin 20.10.2005, Auswärtiges Amt. P. Wilderer
Re-Design of a Galvano Technical Facility as a Wholistic Concept (german)
Dr. Hans-Jürgen Schmidt, ItN Modulkonzept GmbH;
Dipl.-Wirt.Ing. (FH) Markus Becker, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Gabriele Terbahl, upt GmbH, Saarbrücken
