Next Article in Journal
Oxygen and Sulfur Isotope Systematics of Dissolved Sulfate in a Nonvolcanic Geothermal System: Sulfate Source, Evolution and Impact on Geothermometers
Previous Article in Journal
Synthesis of a Novel Modified Zeolite (ZeoPhos) for the Adsorption of Ammonium and Orthophosphate Ions from Eutrophic Waters
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fly Ash Waste Conversion to Zeolite and Its Application for Cd2+ and Ni2+ Adsorption from Aqueous Solutions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/w17060787
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Anaerobic Dynamic Membrane Bioreactors (AnDMBRs): Are They an Efficient Way to Treat High-Strength Wastewater?

by
Mohammed Sameer Ghanim
1,
Gülfem Soydemir
1,
Fatih Yılmaz
2,
N. Altınay Perendeci
2,
Ahmet Karagündüz
1,* and
Motasem Y. D. Alazaiza
3,*
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli 41400, Turkey
2
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07070, Turkey
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, A’Sharqiyah University, Ibra 400, Oman
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(6), 787; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060787
Submission received: 9 January 2025 / Revised: 4 March 2025 / Accepted: 6 March 2025 / Published: 9 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Removal of Heavy Metals and Other Pollutants from Aqueous Solutions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study assesses the impact of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the performance of an anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) system using a carbon fabric membrane for treating high-strength wastewater. The evaluation of AnDMBR performance encompasses the removal of soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD), biogas/methane production, and membrane fouling. The average influent sCOD concentration was 11,814 ± 1064 mg/L, with two HRT applications at 8 and 5 days and high biomass concentration (MLVSS 14,600 ± 500 mg/L). An impressive sCOD removal efficiency exceeding 98% was achieved throughout the operation period. The AnDMBR system exhibited the highest biogas production, reaching 4.33 ± 0.51 L/day, with a methane content of approximately 67.77 ± 2.9% during the 5-day HRT stage. Transmembrane pressure (TMP) increased gradually at the 8-day HRT stage, leading to membrane fouling, whereas fouling occurred more rapidly at the 5-day HRT stage. Biomass analysis showed minimal variations in MLVSS, extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), and soluble microbial product (SMP) concentrations (protein and carbohydrate) across both HRT application stages. This study suggests that the AnDMBR system can be adopted effectively for treating high-strength wastewater, maintaining high COD removal efficiency and biogas production with 5-day HRT.

1. Introduction

High-strength wastewater, which includes effluents from industries like food waste, landfill leachate, dairy processing wastewater, pulp and paper mill effluent, and slaughterhouse wastewater presents a novel challenge that researchers are attempting to solve [1,2]. Discharge of untreated wastewater poses significant challenges to environmental sustainability [3]. Traditional aerobic treatment methods are energy-intensive and inefficient for high-strength wastewater due to their high oxygen demand for aeration and large sludge production, which must be stabilized and disposed of [2]. In contrast, anaerobic treatment processes are more efficient, offering benefits such as being able to handle higher organic loading rates than aerobic processes, reduced energy consumption, lower sludge production, and methane recovery [4,5].
Despite the lack of a precise definition, high-strength wastewater refers to wastewater with organic matter or contaminants at concentrations exceeding those in domestic wastewater [6]. Samaei et al. [7] defined high-strength wastewater as having concentrations of chemical oxygen demand (COD) more than 1000 mg/L. Cakir and Stenstrom [8] characterized medium- to high-strength wastewater as having a total chemical oxygen demand (tCOD) between 2000 and 20,000 mg/L. According to Chan et al. [9], high-strength wastewater is defined as wastewater with a concentration of COD exceeding 4000 mg/L.
Traditional anaerobic digesters need extended hydraulic retention times (HRTs) and large areas to achieve high treatment efficiency. Consequently, various treatment technologies have been implemented to decrease HRT and minimize the environmental footprint, including anaerobic sequencing batch reactors, anaerobic fluidized bed reactors, expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) systems, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, and anaerobic contact processes. Despite their advantages, these treatment technologies require meticulous process control [10].
High-rate anaerobic digesters present an attractive and cost-effective solution for the efficient treatment of high-strength wastewater. Among these, the anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR), which combines anaerobic processes and membrane technology [6], is gaining much attention from the scientific community and industrial sectors. Lin et al. [11] reported that the AnMBR has a significant opportunity to treat high-organic-strength wastewater with over 95% COD removal efficiency. AnMBR is an effective and eco-friendly biological treatment technology for high-strength wastewater, producing less sludge, requiring shorter HRT, delivering high effluent quality, and supporting greater volumetric loading rates. However, despite these advantages, membrane fouling remains a major challenge for this technology, negatively impacting treatment efficiency and raising operational costs [7].
Bio-fouling typically occurs when biomass accumulates on the membrane surface, resulting from inorganic precipitation and the adhesion of bacterial cells to the membrane. Several techniques have been employed in reactors to reduce membrane fouling, including air injection through submerged membrane processes, chemical cleaning, and the use of biomass support materials like powder-activated carbon (PAC), plastic media, and sponges [12]. The primary mechanism of fouling in AnMBR is the formation of a cake layer on the membrane surface. This layer can act as a secondary barrier or dynamic membrane (DM) due to its effective pollutant rejection and degradation properties [13]. A DM layer can form naturally on a cost-effective support material, eliminating the need for expensive microfiltration or ultrafiltration (MF/UF) membranes. While aerobic dynamic MBRs have been widely studied for wastewater treatment, research on AnDMBRs remains relatively limited compared to the aerobic dynamic MBR [14,15,16]. Samaei et al. [7] reported that between 2014 and 2023, just 30 research articles examined the performance of AnDMBRs for treating high-strength wastewater. Various filter materials like non-woven fabrics and micro-mesh materials are used in AnDMBRs. The AnDMBR provides independent control of HRT and SRT, extended retention of anaerobic microorganisms, reduced sludge production, a compact design, and enhanced resistance to toxic substrates [14,15].
The need for more efficient, cost-effective treatment systems has driven the development of the AnDMBR system, which combines the advantages of anaerobic digestion with dynamic membrane technology. This research aims to develop a hybrid, cost-effective, and efficient AnDMBR system using carbon fabric membrane by exploring the potential of AnDMBRs for treating high-strength wastewater, focusing on impacts of varying hydraulic retention times (8 and 5 days) at mesophilic temperatures (35 °C). This evaluation included an analysis of pollutant removal efficiency, effluent quality, biogas/methane production, and TMP, a key indicator of membrane fouling.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. AnDMBR Setup

A laboratory-scale AnDMBR was operated during the experiments, and Figure 1 illustrates the schematic representation of the AnDMBR system. The effective working volume of the reactor was 5 L. The experimental system included two peristaltic pumps (Longer BT101 model, China): one to feed wastewater into the reactor and the other to collect membrane permeate, where the negative pressure was monitored using a pressure sensor. The TMP on the permeate line was monitored by a pressure sensor (ATEK 4 to 20 mA; −1 to 0 bar, Turkey). Additionally, the system comprised a water jacket and water recirculation unit (Grant GD120 circulating water bath, England) for heating to control the temperature at mesophilic conditions (35 ± 1 °C). A biogas recirculation unit was used for reactor mixing; the generated biogas was recirculated using a diaphragm-type pump (KNF, N86 KTDCB, Germany) from the base of the reactor at a flux rate of 1 L/min, modified by a rotameter (Gentek, 1 to 5 L/min, Turkey). The glass reactor was equipped with two identical carbon fabric membrane modules obtained from Norm Technology Company, Istanbul, Turkey. Each module featured an average pore size of 10 µm and a maximum surface area of 2100 m2/g, with a total effective filtration area of 67.28 cm2, designed for use in an AnDMBR (anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor) system. The installation also included appropriate piping and valves. AnDMBR was controlled using an automated system based on a programmable logic controller (PLC) unit. The AnDMBR control system consists of a single computer board Raspberry (Pi), which runs the Linux System software. The AnDMBR software program was created in C sharpened (C = ∕) using the QT application. PLC was used for pump speed regulation, level, and TMP.

2.2. Seed Sludge and Synthetic Wastewater Composition

The reactor was inoculated with fresh granular anaerobic sludge from the PepsiCo Suadiye wastewater treatment plant in Kocaeli, Turkey, with a 2304 m3/day design capacity. Synthetic wastewater was used to feed the reactor; the primary constituents of the synthetic wastewater, along with the composition of the macronutrient and micronutrient solutions, were modified slightly from the recipes found in the studies of Ozgun et al. [17] and Londoño et al. [18]. The characteristics of the synthetic wastewater are given in Table 1. The concentrated stock synthetic wastewater solution was prepared and stored at 4 °C for experiments. The concentrated synthetic wastewater was diluted to the desired sCOD concentration before feeding. The feeding wastewater’s average soluble sCOD concentration was measured as 11,814 ± 1064 mg sCOD/L.

2.3. Experimental Operation

The AnDMBR was operated for 40 days as an acclimation stage. Following the acclimation stage, the AnDMBR was operated for 80 days, split into two phases. In the 1st phase (41–80 days), the HRT in the reactor was set to 8 days and the average organic loading rate (OLR) was 1.53 ± 0.12 kg COD/m3/d, while in the 2nd phase (81–120 days), the HRT was 5 days and the average OLR was 2.24 ± 0.18 kg COD/m3/d. The reactor was operated at a mesophilic temperature of 35 ± 1 °C during the whole experiment. Wastewater feeding and membrane filtration were performed continuously. The volatile mixed liquor suspended solid (MLVSS) concentration was 14,600 ± 500 mg/L during operation. The pH value in the reactor was checked daily, and pH adjustment was made when it was outside the optimal range of 6.8 and 7.4. The produced biogas was recycled from the bottom section of the reactor by a gas pump and diffuser for mixing the reactor. The water level in the reactor was stabilized at a near-constant level by utilizing a sensor connected to the PLC automation unit; this allowed for adjustments to the permeate pump to ensure a consistent flux throughout the operation. The TMP was regularly monitored using a pressure sensor placed on the permeate line. The filter was replaced when fouling occurred, indicated by TMP reaching the fouling threshold, which prevented the desired flux based on the HRT. After every membrane replacement, nitrogen gas flow was supplied to maintain an anaerobic environment for efficient anaerobic microbial activity.

2.4. Analytical Methods

Total suspended solids (TSSs), volatile suspended solids (VSSs), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) were measured following the standard methods [19]. The samples were passed through 0.45 µm filters prior to the analysis of soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD). The pH of the reactor was measured by pH meter (Hach HQ40d, USA). CH4 concentrations were measured with an Agilent 6890N gas chromatography (GC) device equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a Molsieve capillary column (60 m × 530 μm I.D. × 50 μm). In addition, a methanizer (part number: G1580-61020, Agilent, USA), which is a nickel-based catalyst, was coupled to the FID detector for the analysis of CO2. In the FID–methanizer combination, the methanizer (converter) catalytically converts CO2 to CH4 and allows CO2 to be detected using a FID. In this way, CO2 and CH4 concentrations were analyzed simultaneously in the FID detector [20,21,22]. The working conditions of the GC were as follows: the column oven was operated isothermally at 60 °C for a 10 min analysis. Argon was employed as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 10 mL/min. The inlet mode was split, and the inlet temperature was selected as 150 °C. The temperatures of the methanizer and FID detector were maintained at 375 °C and 250 °C, respectively. The air and hydrogen gas flow rates for the FID were selected as 300 mL/min and 30 mL/min, respectively. The calibration was performed using a mixture of pure standard gases containing 70% CH4 and 30% CO2 by volume. The concentrations of protein and carbohydrate in the SMP and EPS were measured using the methods established by Lowry et al. [22] and Dubois et al. [23], respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Treatment Performance of AnDMBR

Figure 2a,b show the AnDMBR’s influent and permeate sCOD concentrations and the COD removal efficiency at both HRT application phases throughout the operation process. The influent sCOD concentration of the synthetic wastewater fluctuated between 10,128 and 13,880 mg/L, with average influent sCOD concentrations of 12,359 ± 972 mg/L for the 8-day HRT phase and 11,310 ± 895 mg/L for the 5-day HRT application phase. The permeate sCOD ranged between 92 and 317 mg/L throughout the operation process.
At the 8-day HRT application phase, the average OLR was 1.53 ± 0.12 kg COD/m3/d, and the average permeate sCOD was 140 ± 39 mg/L, while at the 5-day HRT application condition, the average OLR was 2.24 ± 0.18 kg COD/m3/d, and the average permeate sCOD was increased to 173 ± 61 mg/L. The COD removal efficiency at the 8-day HRT was about 99 ± 0.4%, whereas it slightly decreased to 98 ± 0.6% at the 5-day HRT condition. The higher removal efficiency is often attributed to higher biomass concentration, and higher levels of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSSs) have been demonstrated to enhance treatment efficiency by facilitating better acclimation and retention of microorganisms essential for effective biodegradation [24]. On the other hand, the higher removal efficiency observed in this study resulted from high biomass concentration in the reactor, dynamic membrane performance, and keeping optimum operating conditions.
The findings of our study closely align with the results reported by Ersahin et al. [25]; they achieved COD removal efficiencies exceeding 99% using AnDMBR in both submerged and external configurations. Their study treated synthetic concentrated wastewater with a COD concentration of 11,500 ± 95 mg/L and HRT of 10 days at an OLR of 2 kg COD/m3.d. A flat-sheet membrane module with a polypropylene monofilament woven fabric (pore size of 10 µm) was used as the supporting material. Our study demonstrates a comparable level of performance, despite operating at a higher influent COD concentration and a shorter HRT. This suggests that the system effectively maintains high COD removal efficiency even under increased organic loading conditions.
Regarding the membrane fouling, high MLSS concentrations can contribute to fouling; conversely, it enhances the degradation process and optimizes treatment efficiency for high-strength wastewater. To understand the membrane response, no sludge was removed throughout the anaerobic reactor running time, and it was assumed to be infinite. The variations in biomass during the operation time are illustrated in Figure 3. The average concentrations of MLSS and MLVSS in the reactor at both HRT application phases during the operation time were 24,800 ± 900 mg/L and 14,600 ± 500 mg/L, respectively. In this study, the MLSS concentration is notably high (24,800 ± 900 mg/L), having approximately 0.60 VS/TS ratio. This elevated MLSS level is intentionally maintained to optimize the treatment efficiency for high-strength wastewater, as higher MLSS concentrations have been shown to enhance the degradation process [2]. This finding aligns with those of Liao et al. [26], who determined that the MLSS concentration in a continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) type AnMBR reactor typically exceeds 10,000 mg/L, promoting organic matter degradation.

3.2. Biogas Production and Composition

The presence of high levels of organic substances in wastewater is appropriate for anaerobic digestion, resulting in the production of energy-rich biogas. Figure 4a illustrates the biogas volume produced over the operational period. At the 8-day HRT application period, the average biogas production was 3.49 ± 0.53 L/day, while at the 5-day HRT condition, it increased to 4.33 ± 0.51 L/day. The average OLR increased by approximately 46.3% (from 1.53 ± 0.12 kg COD/m3/d at the 8-day HRT application condition to 2.24 ± 0.18 kg COD/m3/d at the 5-day HRT condition). This increase in OLR led to a rise in biogas production volume of about 22.4%. This increase can be attributed to the higher substrate-to-microorganism ratio, which led to an increase in biological activity and biogas production [27].
In this study, the biogas yields for each phase were at an acceptable level; it can be attributed to the utilization of high-strength synthetic wastewater enriched with ample nutrients and within ideal circumstances (pH, mesophilic temperature zone, and high biomass content). In comparison, Ersahin et al. [28] reported average biogas production rates of 3.20 ± 0.13 L/day and 3.27 ± 0.14 L/day for AnDMBR reactors operating at a reactor volume of 6.8 L, with an OLR of 2 kg COD/m3/d, HRT of 10 days, and sludge retention times (SRTs) of 20 and 40 days, respectively. These values are comparable to our findings, despite differences in HRT and SRT. The slight increase in biogas production observed in our study with reduced HRT suggests that higher OLR can enhance biogas production.
Figure 4b illustrates the methane and carbon dioxide concentration in biogas. The average CH4 concentration at the 8-day HRT period was 66.75 ± 3.1%, while at the 5-day HRT condition the average CH4 concentration was 67.77 ± 2.9%. The average CO2 concentration at the 8-day HRT stage was 27.43 ± 3.05%, while at the 5-day HRT phase the average CO2 content was 26 ± 2.62%. These methane yields are comparable to those reported in the literature. Figure 4c shows the average methane production yields per each g COD removed; it was 0.30 ± 0.05 and 0.26 ± 0.04 (L/g COD removed) for the 8-day HRT and 5-day HRT conditions, respectively. Low HRT and high OLR resulted in lower methane production yield per unit of reaction volume. The energy recovery goal, economic factors, and system stability are the key considerations for choosing HRT in AnDMBR. For the 8-day HRT and 5-day HRT, the average methane production yields achieved 89.12% and 74.58% of the theoretical methane production yield, respectively.
In this study, a relatively high methane volume was produced, with greater biogas and methane percentage production obtained in the HRT stage (5 days). Lower HRT and higher OLR may be used to reduce reactor size and costs, even if methane yield is slightly lower. On the other hand, longer HRT and moderate OLR optimize methane production. Ariunbaatar et al. [29] reported a methane yield of 0.139 L CH4/g COD at a 3-day HRT, while similar yields were recorded at 5-day (0.124 L CH4/g COD) and 1-day HRTs (0.125 L CH4/g COD). The methane yields in our study are significantly higher, which may be attributed to differences in substrate composition, reactor configuration, and membrane operation. Also, this difference in methane production may be attributed to the nature and organic content of the wastewater, which can affect methane production [17].

3.3. Membrane Fouling

3.3.1. Membrane Performance of AnDMBRs

The AnDMBR system was conducted at a steady flux value according to the HRT (0.625 L/day for the 8-day HRT and 1 L/day for the 5-day HRT). The membrane was replaced upon reaching the fouling threshold (the membrane changes after each fouling cycle), and backwashing was not employed due to the risk of damaging the microorganisms and carbon fabric fiber-type membrane material. The filtration performance was assessed based on TMP.
Figure 5 illustrates the TMP profiles for each membrane used throughout the study’s operational period. The TMP showed fluctuations, with a slow increase in the slope of TMP against operation during the 8-day HRT stage, taking sometimes about 10 days to reach fouling. In the 5-day HRT stage, the slope of TMP increased more sharply, many times reaching −0.7 bar, making it impossible to maintain a sustainable flux. The fouling rate was notably high, primarily due to the high sludge concentration, low shear rate caused by insufficient gas sparging beneath the membrane, and the absence of backwashing.
During the 8-day HRT stage, membranes were replaced four times, averaging 10 days per replacement. In contrast, the 5-day HRT stage required seven replacements, averaging a working period of 5.71 days per membrane. This increase in TMP can be attributed to higher OLR levels in the 5-day HRT application condition, which increases particulate matter, especially with high MLSS concentrations [30]. Jeison et al. [31] found that extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs) produced by microbial cells lead to the release of SMP and significantly elevate TMP during long-term operation, resulting in fouling. Effluent quality is initially low following a membrane change due to the absence of a cake layer. Within 2–4 h, the cake layer forms, enhancing filtration efficiency and effluent quality. In our study, stable and high-quality treated wastewater was achieved after 4 h, and all results were recorded beyond this period.

3.3.2. SMP and EPS Concentrations in AnDMBRs

The concentrations of EPS and SMP in the mixed liquor at each HRT are illustrated in Figure 6. The average concentrations of soluble microbial product (SMP) proteins and carbohydrates were slightly higher during the 8-day (HRT) stage (35 ± 3 mg/L and 40 ± 2 mg/L, respectively) compared to the 5-day HRT stage (33 ± 7 mg/L and 34 ± 5 mg/L, respectively). Similarly, the average concentrations of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) proteins and carbohydrates were slightly higher during the 8-day HRT) stage (196 ± 19 mg/L and 139 ± 8 mg/L, respectively) compared to the 5-day HRT stage (172 ± 20 mg/L and 137 ± 11 mg/L, respectively). These findings suggest that increasing the organic loading rate (OLR) led to higher accumulation of SMPs, which enhanced the methanogenic environment. However, the reduction in HRT also worsened membrane fouling due to the increased accumulation of SMP [32,33].
Additionally, the concentration of EPS was consistently higher than that of SMP in both proteins and carbohydrates. This finding is in line with Yu et al. [34]. Given its colloidal form, EPS was more readily trapped by the membrane, resulting in greater accumulation within the reactor.

4. Conclusions

The AnDMBR is a viable and efficient alternative, compared to the traditional anaerobic techniques in the treatment of high-strength wastewater. This study demonstrates stable performance and remarkable COD removal capabilities across two HRT applications at 8 and 5 days, using high-strength synthetic wastewater. The exceptional removal efficiency of COD was achieved as 99 and 98% for 8- and 5-day HRTs, respectively. Highest biogas production of 4.33 ± 0.51 L/day and methane content of biogas of 67.77 ± 2.9% were achieved during the 5-day HRT application condition. SMP and EPS (as proteins and carbohydrates) exhibited no significant changes throughout the operational period of both HRT conditions. The worsening membrane fouling at the lower HRT was likely driven by increased particulate accumulation and biomass retention rather than a direct increase in SMP and EPS concentrations. Notably, TMP increased gradually during the operation time of the 8-day HRT phase but experienced a more pronounced rise, reaching levels indicating fouling (at which point maintaining a sustainable flux was not possible), in the 5-day HRT condition. In conclusion, operating the AnDMBR at both HRTs of 8- and 5-days is recommended, considering the observed stability and superior performance under these conditions. On the other hand, a 5-day HRT application could be a preferable option in terms of investment cost due to its ability to provide a lower reactor volume. However, calculating the investment and operating costs with long-term operation at the pilot scale will yield more accurate results in the decision-making process. Additionally, lower HRT and higher OLR conditions should be studied in the treatment of high-strength wastewater in the AnDMBR reactor for future studies.

Author Contributions

M.S.G.: Investigation, Writing—Original draft preparation. G.S.: Data curation, Writing, Editing, Methodology. F.Y.: Visualization, Editing. N.A.P.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Editing final draft. A.K.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Editing final draft. M.Y.D.A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Editing final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the TUBITAK, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Project No: 124R001).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

References

  1. An, Z.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, Y.; Su, X.; Lin, H.; Sun, F. Anaerobic membrane bioreactor for the treatment of high-strength waste/wastewater: A critical review and update. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 470, 144322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mutamim, N.S.A.; Noor, Z.Z.; Hassan, M.A.A.; Olsson, G. Application of membrane bioreactor technology in treating high strength industrial wastewater: A performance review. Desalination 2012, 305, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liew, Y.X.; Chan, Y.J.; Manickam, S.; Chong, M.F.; Chong, S.; Tiong, T.J.; Lim, J.W.; Pan, G.T. Enzymatic pretreatment to enhance anaerobic bioconversion of high strength wastewater to biogas: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lim, K. Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors for Domestic Wastewater Treatment: Treatment Performance and Fouling Characterization; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Perendeci, A.; Arslan, S.; Tanyolaç, A.; Çelebi, S.S. Evaluation of Input Variables in Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy Inference System Modeling for an Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment Plant under Unsteady State. J. Environ. Eng. 2007, 133, 765–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hamza, R.A.; Iorhemen, O.T.; Tay, J.H. Advances in biological systems for the treatment of high-strength wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 2016, 10, 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Samaei, S.H.A.; Chen, J.; Li, G.; Whitman, A.; Xue, J. Anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactors (AnDMBRs): A promising technology for high-strength wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 111139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cakir, F.Y.; Stenstrom, M.K. A dynamic model for anaerobic filter. J. Environ. Sci. Health-Part A Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2003, 38, 2069–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chan, Y.J.; Chong, M.F.; Law, C.L.; Hassell, D.G. A review on anaerobic-aerobic treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 155, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tran Thi Viet, N.; Vu, D.C.; Duong, T.H. Effect of Hydraulic retention time on performance of anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating slaughterhouse wastewater. Environ. Res. 2023, 233, 116522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lin, H.; Peng, W.; Zhang, M.; Chen, J.; Hong, H.; Zhang, Y. A review on anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Applications, membrane fouling and future perspectives. Desalination 2013, 314, 169–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Alsalhy, Q.F.; Al-Ani, F.H.; Al-Najar, A.E. A new Sponge-GAC-Sponge membrane module for submerged membrane bioreactor use in hospital wastewater treatment. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 133, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, Y.; Wang, X.C.; Ngo, H.H.; Sun, Q.; Yang, Y. Anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) for wastewater treatment: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cheng, H.; Li, Y.; Kato, H.; Li, Y.Y. Enhancement of sustainable flux by optimizing filtration mode of a high-solid anaerobic membrane bioreactor during long-term continuous treatment of food waste. Water Res. 2020, 168, 115195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dereli, R.K.; Ersahin, M.E.; Ozgun, H.; Ozturk, I.; Jeison, D.; van der Zee, F.; van Lier, J.B. Potentials of anaerobic membrane bioreactors to overcome treatment limitations induced by industrial wastewaters. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 122, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yurtsever, A.; Basaran, E.; Ucar, D.; Sahinkaya, E. Self-forming dynamic membrane bioreactor for textile industry wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 751, 141572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ozgun, H.; Ersahin, M.E.; Tao, Y.; Spanjers, H.; van Lier, J.B. Effect of upflow velocity on the effluent membrane fouling potential in membrane coupled upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 147, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Londoño, Y.A.; Rodríguez, D.C.; Peñuela, G. The operation of two EGSB reactors under the application of different loads of oxytetracycline and florfenicol. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 2578–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 21st ed.; American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation: Washington DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pascale, R.; Caivano, M.; Buchicchio, A.; Mancini, I.M.; Bianco, G.; Caniani, D. Validation of an analytical method for simultaneous high-precision measurements of greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment plants using a gas chromatography-barrier discharge detector system. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1480, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wilson, R.M.; Tfaily, M.M.; Rich, V.I.; Keller, J.K.; Bridgham, S.D.; Zalman, C.M.; Meredith, L.; Hanson, P.J.; Hines, M.; Pfeifer-Meister, L.; et al. Hydrogenation of organic matter as a terminal electron sink sustains high CO2:CH4 production ratios during anaerobic decomposition. Org. Geochem. 2017, 112, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ferraz-Almeida, R.; Spokas, K.A.; De Oliveira, R.C. Columns and Detectors Recommended in Gas Chromatography to Measure Greenhouse Emission and O2 Uptake in Soil: A Review. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 582–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dubois, M.; Gilles, K.A.; Hamilton, J.K.; Rebers, P.A.; Smith, F. Colorimetric Method for Determination of Sugars and Related Substances. Anal. Chem. 1956, 28, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bhattacharyya, A.; Liu, L.; Lee, K.; Miao, J. Review of Biological Processes in a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR): Effects of Wastewater Characteristics and Operational Parameters on Biodegradation Efficiency When Treating Industrial Oily Wastewater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ersahin, M.E.; Tao, Y.; Ozgun, H.; Gimenez, J.B.; Spanjers, H.; van Lier, J.B. Impact of anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor configuration on treatment and filterability performance. J. Memb. Sci. 2017, 526, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liao, B.Q.; Kraemer, J.T.; Bagley, D.M. Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors: Applications and Research Directions. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 36, 489–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Al-Iraqi, A.R.; Gandhi, B.P.; Folkard, A.M.; Barker, P.A.; Semple, K.T. Influence of Inoculum to Substrate Ratio and Substrates Mixing Ratio on Biogas Production from the Anaerobic Co-digestion of Phragmites australis and Food Waste. Bioenergy Res. 2023, 17, 1277–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ersahin, M.E.; Ozgun, H.; Tao, Y.; van Lier, J.B. Applicability of dynamic membrane technology in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Water Res. 2014, 48, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ariunbaatar, J.; Bair, R.; Ozcan, O.; Ravishankar, H.; Esposito, G.; Lens, P.N.L.; Yeh, D.H. Performance of AnMBR in Treatment of Post-consumer Food Waste: Effect of Hydraulic Retention Time and Organic Loading Rate on Biogas Production and Membrane Fouling. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 8, 594936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Balcıoğlu, G.; Yilmaz, G.; Gönder, Z.B. Evaluation of anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) treating confectionery wastewater at long-term operation under different organic loading rates: Performance and membrane fouling. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 404, 126261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jeison, D.; van Lier, J.B. Cake formation and consolidation: Main factors governing the applicable flux in anaerobic submerged membrane bioreactors (AnSMBR) treating acidified wastewaters. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 56, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Musa, M.A.; Idrus, S.; Man, H.C.; Daud, N.N.N. Wastewater treatment and biogas recovery using anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs): Strategies and achievements. Energies 2018, 11, 1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, R.; Nie, Y.; Hu, Y.; Miao, R.; Utashiro, T.; Li, Q.; Xu, M.; Li, Y.Y. Fouling behaviour of soluble microbial products and extracellular polymeric substances in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating low-strength wastewater at room temperature. J. Memb. Sci. 2017, 531, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, H.; Wang, Z.; Wu, Z.; Zhu, C. Dynamic membrane formation in anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactors: Role of extracellular polymeric substances. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 17 00787 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of AnDMBR setup.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of AnDMBR setup.
Water 17 00787 g001
Water 17 00787 g002
Figure 2. (a) sCOD concentrations of influent and permeate wastewater, (b) COD removal efficiency of AnDMBR, during operation time.
Figure 2. (a) sCOD concentrations of influent and permeate wastewater, (b) COD removal efficiency of AnDMBR, during operation time.
Water 17 00787 g002
Water 17 00787 g003
Figure 3. TSS and VSS concentrations in the reactor during operation time.
Figure 3. TSS and VSS concentrations in the reactor during operation time.
Water 17 00787 g003
Water 17 00787 g004aWater 17 00787 g004b
Figure 4. (a) Biogas production, (b) methane and carbon dioxide concentration, (c) methane production L per g COD removed, during operation time.
Figure 4. (a) Biogas production, (b) methane and carbon dioxide concentration, (c) methane production L per g COD removed, during operation time.
Water 17 00787 g004aWater 17 00787 g004b
Water 17 00787 g005
Figure 5. The TMP of the membranes during operation time.
Figure 5. The TMP of the membranes during operation time.
Water 17 00787 g005
Water 17 00787 g006
Figure 6. The EPS and SMP concentrations in AnDMBR reactor during operation time.
Figure 6. The EPS and SMP concentrations in AnDMBR reactor during operation time.
Water 17 00787 g006
Table 1. Synthetic wastewater composition.
Table 1. Synthetic wastewater composition.
ChemicalAmount (g/L)Note
Glucose9.6Main component
Starch0.8
Peptone0.8
Urea0.88
Monopotassium phosphate0.08
Sodium bicarbonate8
Ammonium chloride1.4Macronutrients stock solution; 1 mL for each L of feeding solution
Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate0.5
Calcium chloride dihydrate0.05
Sodium carbonate2
Yeast extract0.5
Boric acid0.05Micronutrients stock solution; 1 mL for each L of feeding solution
Ferrous chloride tetrahydrate1
Zinc chloride0.05
Manganese (Ii) chloride tetrahydrate0.25
Copper (Ii) chloride dihydrate0.03
Ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate0.05
Cobalt (Ii) chloride hexahydrate1
Sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate0.1
Aluminum sulfate0.09
Nickel (Ii) chloride hexahydrate0.05
Edta0.1
Resazurin0.1
Hydrochloric acid pH adjustment
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ghanim, M.S.; Soydemir, G.; Yılmaz, F.; Perendeci, N.A.; Karagündüz, A.; Alazaiza, M.Y.D. Anaerobic Dynamic Membrane Bioreactors (AnDMBRs): Are They an Efficient Way to Treat High-Strength Wastewater? Water 2025, 17, 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060787

AMA Style

Ghanim MS, Soydemir G, Yılmaz F, Perendeci NA, Karagündüz A, Alazaiza MYD. Anaerobic Dynamic Membrane Bioreactors (AnDMBRs): Are They an Efficient Way to Treat High-Strength Wastewater? Water. 2025; 17(6):787. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060787

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ghanim, Mohammed Sameer, Gülfem Soydemir, Fatih Yılmaz, N. Altınay Perendeci, Ahmet Karagündüz, and Motasem Y. D. Alazaiza. 2025. "Anaerobic Dynamic Membrane Bioreactors (AnDMBRs): Are They an Efficient Way to Treat High-Strength Wastewater?" Water 17, no. 6: 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060787

APA Style

Ghanim, M. S., Soydemir, G., Yılmaz, F., Perendeci, N. A., Karagündüz, A., & Alazaiza, M. Y. D. (2025). Anaerobic Dynamic Membrane Bioreactors (AnDMBRs): Are They an Efficient Way to Treat High-Strength Wastewater? Water, 17(6), 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060787

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop