6

5
8
Research Article
Received: 19 April 2012 Revised: 30 May 2012 Accepted: 6 June 2012 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 20 July 2012
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jctb.3882
Application of anaerobic membrane
bioreactors for the treatment of protein-
containing wastewaters under saline
conditions
Alberto Hemmelmann, Alvaro Torres, Christian Vergara, Laura Azocar
and David Jeison

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaerobic treatment of saline wastewaters may be hindered by problems related with biomass retention, since
at high salt concentrations formation of biolms and granules may not proceed well. This research studied the use of anaerobic
membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) as a way to promote complete biomass retention. A lab scale AnMBR tted with a ceramic
tubular membrane was operated for 2 years.
RESULTS: Results showed that enhanced biomass retention produces conditions enabling anaerobic treatment of saline
wastewaters. Despitethehighresultingsludgeretentiontime, noaccumulationof ahighproportionof deadcells was observed.
Protein degradation and not methanogenesis was shown to be the rate limiting step for organic matter degradation, a fact that
is relevant for protein-containing wastewaters such as those from seafood processing industries. Only low levels of ux could
be applied, in the region of 5 L m
2
h
1
due to reversible cake formation promoted by single cell growth.
CONCLUSION: Biomass retentionprovidedbymembraneltrationpromotes conditions suitablefor efcient treatment of saline
wastewaters. However, operation may be restricted to lowvalues of ux due to biomass development as single cells.
c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry
Keywords: anaerobic; salinity; membrane; biogas; bioreactor
INTRODUCTION
Saline efuents are generated during production processes
related to sh and sea-food processing, chemical industries and
tanneries.
1
Physicochemical treatment is often applied to saline
wastewaters. However, it involves continuous use of chemicals
and produces a sludge that on many occasions requires further
treatment and special disposal. Biological processes represent a
feasible treatment alternative for saline wastewaters, as long as
sufcient microbial activity canbe ensured. Furthermore, for those
wastewaters containing a high amount of biodegradable organic
matter, anaerobic technology represents an interesting option,
considering its low energy requirements, high loading capacities
and potential bioenergy production in the form of biogas.
Low levels of sodium are benecial for anaerobic microorgan-
isms. Indeed, McCarty
2
reportedbenecial sodiumconcentrations
for mesophilic anaerobic bacteria in the range 100200 mg L
1
of sodium. However, when present at high concentration, sodium
may hinder anaerobic treatment due to inhibition of microorgan-
isms involved in the conversion of organic matter. Different levels
of saline tolerance of anaerobic bacteria have been reported, de-
pending on the conditions applied.
3
Easily degradable substrates
seemtoincreasesalt tolerance, most likelyas aresult of highenergy
availability, required to cope with the energetic requirements of
salt tolerance mechanisms.
1
Several reports indicate that biomass
acclimation may signicantly increase the activity under saline
conditions.
47
However, reports are also available where no or
little acclimation was observed.
8
Then, selection rather than adap-
tation is likely to be the mechanism providing high activity when
big changes in salinity are imposed, requiring the presence of
salinity-tolerant microorganisms in the inoculum.
9
It is indeed a
common practice to use inoculums containing sources of saline
resistant microorganisms, such as marine sediments.
1
Considering available literature, it seems that even though
salinity inhibits anaerobic consortia, sufcient microbial activity is
achievable over a wide range of saline conditions.
10
Success of
anaerobic saline wastewater treatment would then be strongly
dependent on the capacity of treatment systems to retain active
biomass. Biolms and granules are the common way to provide
biomass retention in high rate anaerobic systems. However,

Correspondence to: David Jeison, Department of Chemical Engineering and

Scientic and Technological Bioresource Nucleus, Universidad de La Frontera,
Casilla 54-D, Temuco, Chile. E-mail: djeison@ufro.cl
Department of Chemical Engineering and Scientic and Technological
Bioresource Nucleus, Universidad de La Frontera, Casilla 54-D, Temuco, Chile
J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 2013; 88: 658663 www.soci.org c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry
6
5
9
Treatment of protein-containing wastewaters by anaerobic MBRs www.soci.org
problems related with biomass retention seem to be a common
feature when saline wastewater treatment is considered. At high
salt concentrations, formation of biolms does not proceed well.
3
Jeisonet al.
10
observedthat duringtheoperationof aUASBreactor
under saline conditions, highly active biomass developed in small
ocs that could not be retained by settling, producing constant
active biomass washout. Indeed, anaerobic granules exposed
to saline conditions normally show lower levels of mechanical
strength than those cultivated in non-saline media.
1113
This
would be the result of, among other effects, Ca
2+
leaching from
the aggregates. Indeed, Ca
2+
ion has been identied to play an
important role in biolm formation.
14
Anaerobic wastewater treatment of saline wastewater may
fail not necessarily as a result of biomass inhibition, but due
to biomass retention problems, when granular or biolm based
systems areconsidered. Theapplicationof asolid/liquidseparation
process capable of retaining active biomass, such as membrane
ltration, may then contribute towards stable operation of
anaerobic digesters when treating saline wastewaters. Anaerobic
membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) may then be a viable solution
for anaerobic saline wastewater treatment. AnMBR results from
the combination of an anaerobic bioreactor with a membrane
ltration unit, which ensures complete biomass retention. Since
biomass washout is prevented, a high biomass concentration is
feasible, meaning higher loadings and therefore smaller reactors.
An AnMBR system should provide conditions favorable to the
retention and development of halotolerant and/or halophilic
anaerobic microorganisms, andat the same time provide a treated
wastewater free of suspended solids.
When applying AnMBR technology to wastewater treatment,
membrane foulingwill determine ltrationcapacity, andtherefore
membrane requirements. It seems reasonable to expected
membrane fouling to be higher when saline conditions are
applied, for a variety of reasons: higher SMPconcentrations, higher
viscosity, higher scaling potentials, formation of more densely
packed cake layers.
15
However, only a few reports are available
in the literature dealing with the application of AnMBR systems
for the treatment of saline wastewaters. Jeison et al.
10
operated a
membrane assisted UASB reactor for the treatment of completely
acidied synthetic wastewater. Results showed a positive effect
of membrane ltration. IC
50
for acetotrophic methanogenesis was
25 g Na
+
L
1
. Vyrides and Stuckey
16
studied the application of
a submerged AnMBR for the treatment of saline sewage, using
particulated activated carbon (PAC): 99% of dissolved organic
carbon removal was achieved at 35 g NaCl L
1
and 8 h hydraulic
residence time. The same authors also studied the formation and
structure of the cake layer formed over the membrane surface and
its role on SMP retention, when operating an AnMBR with saline
wastewaters.
17
This research looks to advance the knowledge required to
successfully apply AnMBR systems to the treatment of saline
wastewaters. It involves the long-term operation of an AnMBR
(2 years) fed with a synthetic saline wastewater containing
proteins. Analyses of biological activity of retained biomass, as
well as membrane performance are performed.
MATERIALS ANDMETHODS
AnMBR setup and operation
A4.5 L laboratory scale AnMBRwas operatedfor 700 days, withthe
membrane module placed outside the bioreactor. Asingle tubular
ceramic membrane was used (Attech Innovations, Germany),
with a pore size of 0.2 m. New membrane resistance (R
M
) was
8.96 10
10
m
1
. The membrane module was operated with gas
sparging inside the membrane tube. Biogas was recirculated
for this purpose. Liquid circulation between the bioreactor and
the membrane module was the result of the gas-lift effect. No
sludge pumping was applied during reactor operation. Permeate
was collected by means of a peristaltic pump, that provided the
requiredtrans-membrane pressure (TMP). AnMBR was operatedat
30

C. AnMBR setup was equivalent to that previously reported.

18
The AnMBR was fed with synthetic wastewater with a NaCl
concentration of 25 g l
1
. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was
provided by a mixture of peptone, yeast extract and ethanol,
providing 45, 45 and 10% of the total COD, respectively. The
reactor was inoculated with sludge from a full scale UASB
reactor treating wastewater from a styrene and propene-oxide
production plant of Shell, Moerdijk, The Netherlands. During
AnMBRoperation, bothphysical andchemical cleaningprocedures
were performed, as described by Torres et al.
18
Before and after
cleaning procedures, resistance determinations were performed
in clean water, recording TMP at increasing values of ux.
Critical ux determinations
Aseries of critical uxmeasurements wereperformedbytheendof
reactor operation, at different gas and liquid supercial velocities
(V
S
). A surface response methodology was used for this purpose,
with a central composite design. Centre point was replicated four
times. During these experiments a peristaltic pump was used to
circulate liquidthroughthe membrane, sogas andliquidvelocities
could be manipulated independently. The procedure was the
same as reported for an AnMBR treating non-saline wastewater.
18
Critical ux was determined by a step increase in ux, as described
elsewhere.
19
Determination of total and partial ltration resistances
Total ltration resistance (R
T
) was determined as a function of the
applied ux and resulting TMP:
R
M
=
TMP
J
(1)
where J is membrane ux and is the permeate viscosity. Total
resistance (R
T
) can be divided into partial resistances:
R
T
= R
M
+R
F
+R
CR
+R
CI
(2)
where R
M
represents membrane resistance, R
F
the resistance due
to internal fouling, R
CR
the resistance due loosely attached cake
layer (removable by short back-ushes) and R
CI
the resistance of
consolidated cake layer formation, i.e. that needing physical or
chemical cleaning for removal.
19
Analyses and microscopic observations
Volatile suspended solids (VSS) and COD were determined
according to Standard Methods.
20
Protein concentration was
determined by the Lowry method. Volatile fatty acids (VFA)
were determined by gas chromatography with a FID detector
(Clarus 400, Perkin Elmer). Sludge samples where observed
using an Olympus CX31 phase contrast microscope. Viability of
microorganisms in the sludge was determined qualitatively by
confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) (Olympus Fluoview
1000), using LIVE/DEAD BackLight viability bacterial kit (L13452,
J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 2013; 88: 658663 c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
6
6
0
www.soci.org A Hemmelmann et al.
Molecular Probes), containing Syto9 and propidium iodide stains.
Staining was applied following manufacturer indications on fresh
samples (nopreservationtechniques were applied). Anargonlaser
(488 nm) was usedfor stains excitation. Fluorescencewas observed
at 500 and 635 nm, for SYTO 9 and propidium iodide respectively.
Resultingimagehistogramswereobtainedwithcommercial image
editingsoftware. Histograms were usedtocompare the intensities
of redandgreenchannels, as awaytosemi-quantitativelycompare
potentially live and dead cells.
Specic cake resistance () was determined in unstirred dead-
end ltration experiments, in a 30 mL batch ltration unit,
using an outside/in microltration tubular membrane. Filtration
experiments were performed at constant ux of 10 L m
2
h
1
,
recording resulting TMP by means of a pressure sensor located
in the permeate line. During a dead-end ltration process, the
ux is related to cake and membrane resistance through the
resistance-in-series model:
J =
1
A
dV
dt
=
TMP

1
R
M
+R
C
(3)
where A represents the membrane area, V the permeate volume, t
the time, R
C
the cake resistance and R
M
the membrane resistance.
During dead-end ltration, cake resistance is related to through
the amount of deposited particles:
21
R
C
=
V
A
C (4)
where C represents the solids concentration. If R
C
from Equa-
tion (4) is substituted into Equation (3), and a constant ux is
assumed, we obtain:
TMP =
C J
A
V + R
M
J (5)
The specic cake resistance is then determined through the
evaluation of the slope of a plot of TMP against permeate volume.
Microbial activity determinations
The specic methanogenic activity (SMA) was determined in
duplicate experiments performed in 120 mL serum bottles with
50 mL of media, at 30

C. Biomass concentration was 1 g VSS

L
1
. Acetate was used as substrate, at an initial concentration
of 1.5 g COD L
1
. SMA was evaluated as the maximum specic
methane production rate, determined by pressure increase in the
headspace. Specic acidogenic activity (SAA) was determined at
similar conditions to SMA, but with peptone as substrate. The
SAA was determined evaluating the maximum rate of protein
consumption using peptone as substrate.
Protein degradation kinetics were determined applying the
initial rates method. Initial degradation rates were measured, at
different initial concentrations in the range 2501500 mg L
1
,
using peptone as substrate. This method was applied to avoid
a potential inhibitory effect of acetate produced over protein
degradation. Such inhibition was reported at concentrations as
low as 250 mg acetate L
1
by Gonz alez et al.
22
when studying
anaerobic protein degradation under saline conditions.
All activity determinations were performed at a NaCl concen-
tration of 25 g l
1
.
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
C
O
D

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

O
L
R

(
g

C
O
D
/
L
d
)
Time (d)
OLR COD removal
Figure 1. OLR and COD removal during AnMBR operation.
Table 1. SMA and SAA during reactor operation (measured at 30

C)
Activity (g COD gVSS d
1
)
Substrate Day 311 Day 512 Day 675
Peptone (SAA) 1.7 1.7 1.7
Acetic acid (SMA) 0.59 0.58 0.51
RESULTS ANDDISCUSSION
Figure 1 presents the applied organic loading rate (OLR) and COD
removal during reactor operation. Loading rate was increased
during the rst 150 days of operation, reaching close to 8 g COD
L
1
d
1
. AppliedOLRwas thengradually decreasedto4 gCODL
1
d
1
, which was the result of an important decrease in operating
permeate ux (Fig. 4), as a consequence of the increase of ltration
resistance. Attempts tokeepOLRweremadebyincreasinginuent
concentration. However, inlet CODcouldnot be increasedbeyond
25 g l
1
to prevent inhibition by ammonia. OLR was close to
6 g COD L
1
d
1
by the end of reactor operation. Biomass
concentration increased to 25 g VSS L
1
during rst 450 days
of operation. No sludge was wasted from the reactor during this
period. From day 450 on, sludge was regularly wasted in order
to keep VSS concentration in the range 2225 g l
1
. Considering
nal OLR and biomass concentration, applied specic loading rate
was 0.26 g COD g
1
VSS d
1
.
Table 1 presents SMA and SAA analysis. Data showrather stable
values throughout reactor operation. A wide range of SMA values
have been reported in the literature, depending on factors such as
salinity, inoculum, operationperiod, substrate, bioreactor typeand
temperature. For example, Aspe et al.
8
and Omil et al.
23
reported
SMAs of 0.065 and 0.50.7 g CODg
1
VSS d
1
, respectively, when
treating saline sea-food wastewaters, at 37

C. Thus, SMA values

of the biomass developed in the AnMBR may be considered rather
high, considering that values were obtained through batch tests
performed at only 30

C. High SMA values may be regarded as the

result of activebiomass retentionprovidedbymembraneltration.
Biomass yield (Y
X/S
) was evaluated during reactor operation,
considering COD fed and biomass produced. Y
X/S
was in the
range 0.20.3 g SSV g
1
COD, which seems low when compared
with values expected for a non-acidied substrate under non-
saline conditions. This is most likely the result of the applied saline
condition, since more energy is channelled to osmotic balance
and less to growth.
15
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 2013; 88: 658663
6
6
1
Treatment of protein-containing wastewaters by anaerobic MBRs www.soci.org
Decay rate (k
d
) is expected to be higher at increasing salt
concentrations. Thecombinationof lowY
X/S
, highk
d
, medium/low
specic growth rates and total solids retention may result in
the accumulation of inactive biomass or cells debris inside the
bioreactor. Such material may dilute active biomass, negatively
affecting specic activity and ltration performance. Figure 2
presents CLSM observation of a sludge oc at day 675, using
LIVE/DEADBackLight viability bacterial kit. The intensities of green
andreduorescence are relatedtothe presence of viable andnon-
viable cells, respectively. Analysis of image histograms showed
that intensities of the green channel are 7 times higher than
that of the red channel, indicating a high level of potentially
active cells. LIVE/DEAD BackLight kit is based on the integrity
of cell membrane, which does not necessarily ensure actual
microbial activity. Anyway, it represents a clear indication of a high
proportion of potentially active cells. This result, combined with
the fairly stable microbial activities, suggests that accumulation of
dead cells did not happen on a large scale, despite the resulting
long solids retention time and the expected high decay rates.
By the end of reactor operation, COD concentration in the
permeate was in the range 400600 mg L
1
, proteins being the
main contributor to permeate COD. VFAcontribution to permeate
COD was lower than 35%. No differences were observed between
soluble proteins concentration in the permeate and in the mixed
liquor. The same was observed for soluble COD, indicating that
the system membrane/cake layer did not retain soluble organic
compounds (SMP or other). This is the result of the use of a
microltration membrane, which is not expected to retain soluble
organic matter.
The presence of protein in the permeate was in principle
surprising, considering the high SAA shown in Table 1. However,
SAA was measured at an initial protein concentration of 1.5 g
COD L
1
, close to 4 times the protein concentration in the mixed
liquor. Protein hydrolysis is usually represented by rst-order
kinetics,
24
so reaction rates are expected to be proportional to
substrate concentration. Figure 3 presents the relation between
protein degradation rates and protein concentration, determined
by initial rates methodology. A kinetic constant of 1.4 h
1
can
be evaluated by linear regression, which is in the same range
as that reported by Gonzalez et al.,
22
when studying protein
hydrolysis under saline conditions. If a complete mix ow pattern
is assumed, then biomass was exposed to a protein concentration
of around 300350 mg L
1
, meaning a reaction rate in the range
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
d
S
/
d
t

(
g
C
O
D
/
L

d
)
Protein concentration (g/L)
Figure 3. Effect of protein(peptone) concentrationover SAAof the AnMBR
biomass, by the end of reactor operation.
0.30.6 g CODL
1
d
1
. Then, under anaerobic treatment of saline
wastewaters containing high amount of proteins, like those from
sh and marine food processing facilities, acidogenesis and not
methanogenesis may be the rate limiting step if a complete mix
patternbioreactor is applied. Most of theresearchreporteddealing
with anaerobic treatment of saline wastewaters is focused on the
effect of salinity on methanogenesis. Indeed, only few reports are
dedicated to the study of hydrolysis and/or acidogenesis. More
research in that direction seems to be necessary.
Figure 4 presents the total ltration resistance (R
T
) and the
applied ux during the operation of the AnMBR. During the
rst 150 days of operation, ux was reduced to 5 L m
2
h
1
,
as a result of strong increase in R
T
. Even though applied
ux was low, operation showed to be unstable with sudden
increases in R
T
, as a result of small or no apparent changes in
operational conditions. Both physical and chemical membrane
cleaning operations were performed during reactor operation
(Table 2). The membrane was rinsed with tap water before
cleaning operations took place, a procedure that removed the
loosely attached cake layer (represented by R
CR
). Therefore,
resistance measurement before cleaning operations corresponds
to the sum of R
M
, R
F
, and R
CI
. Observed values of R
T
during
reactor operation (Fig. 4) were several times higher than the sum
R
M
+R
F
+R
CI
, determined before membrane cleaning operations
(Table 2). Therefore, it is concluded that applicable ux was
restricted mainly by reversible cake layer formation. This agrees
with our previous results regarding saline anaerobic wastewater
Green channel, viable cells Red Channel, non-viable cells
Figure 2. CLSM images, using LIVE/DEAD BacLight Bacterial Viability Kit.
J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 2013; 88: 658663 c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
6
6
2
www.soci.org A Hemmelmann et al.
0
5
10
15
20
0.0E+00
5.0E+12
1.0E+13
1.5E+13
2.0E+13
2.5E+13
3.0E+13
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
F
l
u
x

(
L
/
m
2

h
)
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
m
-
1
)
Time (d)
Filtration resistance Flux
Figure 4. Filtration resistance (R
T
) and permeate ux during the operation
of the AnMBR.
Table 2. Filtrationresistances measuredincleanwater before(R
before
)
and after (R
after
) membrane cleaning operations. R
before
corresponds to
R
M
+R
F
+R
CI
. R
M
: 8.96 10
10
m
1
Day Type R
before
(m
1
) R
after
(m
1
)
48 Physical 3.90 10
12
1.30 10
12
100 Physical 3.70 10
12
9.39 10
11
153 Physical 8.10 10
12
3.98 10
12
177 Physical 3.18 10
12
2.62 10
12
184 Chemical 2.62 10
12
4.74 10
11
254 Physical 1.18 10
12
5.01 10
11
289 Physical 2.76 10
12
8.95 10
11
319 Physical 1.22 10
12
9.15 10
11
336 Chemical 3.12 10
11
2.17 10
11
469 Physical 1.60 10
12
3.55 10
11
493 Chemical 9.16 10
11
2.31 10
11
treatment by AnMBRs.
10
Other ux reducing phenomena were
also observed as is clear from data presented in Table 2. Physical
cleaning presented moderated levels of permeability restoration,
indicating that R
CI
contribution to R
T
was signicant. Table 2 also
shows a reduction in physical cleaning effect, as is clear when
comparing R
after
values at days 254, 289 and 319. This may be
the result of the formation of a consolidated cake that could not
be completely removed by the erosion provided by the physical
cleaning procedure, or by internal fouling. Internal fouling would
be expected, considering protein concentration in the mixed
liquor.
If R
CR
is mainly responsible for low ux operation, increases in
surfaceshear shouldenableincreases inoperational ux. However,
changes in gas V
S
in the range 0.20.5 m s
1
were not successful
in enabling operation at uxes higher than 10 L m
2
h
1
. During
AnMBR operation, biomass suspension circulation through the
membrane module was induced by gas lift effect, so changes of
gas V
S
induced also changes in liquid V
S
. In order to determine the
individual effects of gas and liquid V
S
over the critical ux, surface
response methodology was used. Gas and liquid V
S
applied were
in the range 01 ms
1
. The latter range was selected since higher
values of gas V
S
resulted in a churn owpattern inside the tubular
membrane, instead of slug ow. Liquid Vs higher than 1 m s
1
were not tested, in order to avoid the exposure of the biomass to
high shear conditions. Results are presented in Fig. 5. Flux values
were moderate/low, only reaching close to 14 L m
2
h
1
at the
Gas V
S
(m/s)
Liquid V
S
(m/s)
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

F
l
u
x

(
L
/
m
2

h
)
Figure 5. Surface response showing the effect of gas and liquid V
S
over
the critical ux.
highest tested values of liquid and gas V
S
. Gas V
S
showed little
effect over critical ux within the range studied.
Low values of ux are most likely the result of insufcient
levels of surface shear. Previous research with a similar AnMBR
conguration treating non-saline wastewater identied single cell
development as the phenomenon responsible for lowoperational
ux.
18
Microscopic observation of the biomass revealed a high
proportion of biomass developing as single cells (see Fig. 6).
Suspensionfractioningby centrifugationcoupledwithsuspended
solids analysis showed that over 30% of the biomass was in the
form of single cells or ocs formed by only a few cells. Preventing
single cell deposition requires high levels of surface shear, if
high levels of ux are of interest, due to the low particle size of
microorganisms. Low particle size also results in the formation
of a cake layer with a high specic resistance. By the end of the
AnMBR operation, biomass presented an value of 2.7 10
14
m
kg
1
. This means that the formation of a thin cake will produce
a high ltration resistance. Indeed, if an value of 2.7 10
14
m kg
1
is considered, a cake layer of only 100 m would be
enough to produce the highest ltration resistance observed
during reactor operation (around 2.5 10
13
m
1
). A high value
for suggests the formation of a dense and compact cake
layer. The CarmanKozeny equation may be used to determine
the effect of oc size (d
P
) and porosity () on and then on
ltrability:
=
180(1 )

d
2

3
where
P
represents the density of the particles. If d
P
is asumed to
be 1 m (roughly the size of a single bacterial cell), needs to be
lower than 0.1, in order to obtain an value of 2.7 10
14
m kg
1
.
Such a low value for is indicative of a compact cake, with little
porosity.
Even though only low levels of ux were achieved during
this research, AnMBR operation showed that those ux levels
may be sustained for long periods of time, in the absence
of membrane maintenance. During AnMBR operation several
cleaning procedures were performed during rst 490 days of
operation as a way to control ltration resistance. Cake layer
formation and no irreversible fouling was the main factor limiting
theapplicableux. Therefore, if alowuxis applied, cakeformation
can be minimized, enabling long-term operation. Proof of that is
the fact that the AnMBR was operated for 200 days (from day 500
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 2013; 88: 658663
6
6
3
Treatment of protein-containing wastewaters by anaerobic MBRs www.soci.org
Figure 6. Phase-contrast microscopy picture of the biomass developed in
the AnMBR. Bar indicates 10 m.
until day 700) in the absence of any physical or chemical cleaning
procedure.
CONCLUSION
Enhanced biomass retention promoted by membrane separation
facilitates the application of anaerobic digestion to the treatment
of saline wastewaters. Moderate/high levels of loading rates
could be applied under saline conditions as a result of complete
biomass retention. Moreover, the high biomass retention time
resulting from low biomass yields would not result in the
accumulation of a high fraction of dead cells inside the bioreactor.
Results indicate that increased care is necessary when treating
wastewaters containing high concentration of proteins, since
protein conversion and not acetogenesis or methanogenesis may
become the rate limiting step for organic matter degradation.
Despite the adequate performance of the AnMBR in terms of
organic removal, ltrationperformance may represent a drawback
of such systems, based on the low uxes achieved. Single cell
growth was identied as one of the key factors determining
membrane ltration performance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors want to acknowledge the nancial support provided
by CONICYT-Chile through FONDECYT projects 1080279 and
3120171. The authors would also like to thank Bram Versprille
from Biothane Systems International for providing the sludge
used as inoculum for the AnMBR.
REFERENCES
1 Xiao YY and Roberts DJ, A review of anaerobic treatment of saline
wastewater. Environ Technol 31:10251043 (2010).
2 McCarty PL, Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals. Public Works
95:107112 (1964).
3 Lefebvre Oand Moletta R, Treatment of organic pollution in industrial
saline wastewater: a literature review. Water Res 40:36713682
(2006).
4 Soto M, Mendez R and Lema JM, Biodegradability and toxicity in the
anaerobic treatment of sh canning wastewaters. Environ Technol
12:669677 (1991).
5 Omil F, Mendez R and Lema JM, Anaerobic treatment of
saline wastewaters under high sulphide and ammonia content.
Bioresource Technol 54:269278 (1995a).
6 Chen Y, Cheng JJ and Creamer KS, Inhibition of anaerobic digestion
process: a review. Bioresource Technol 99:40444064 (2008).
7 Kimata-Kino N, Ikeda S, Kurosawa N and Toda T, Saline adaptation of
granules in mesophilic UASB reactors. Int Biodeter Biodeg 65:6572
(2011).
8 Aspe E, Marti MC and Roeckel M, Anaerobic treatment of shery
wastewater using a marine sediment inoculum. Water Res
31:21472160 (1997).
9 Gebauer R, Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from saline
sh farm efuents with biogas production. Bioresource Technol
93:155167 (2004).
10 Jeison D, Kremer B and van Lier JB, Application of membrane
enhancedbiomass retentiontotheanaerobic treatment of acidied
wastewaters under extreme saline conditions. Sep Purif Technol
64:198205 (2008).
11 Ismail SB, Gonzalez P, Jeison D and van Lier JB, Effects of high salinity
wastewater onmethanogenicsludgebedsystems. WaterSci Technol
58:19631970 (2008).
12 Jeison D, Del Rio A and van Lier JB, Impact of high saline wastewaters
on anaerobic granular sludge functionalities. Water Sci Technol
57:815819 (2008).
13 Ismail SB, de La Parra CJ, Temmink H and van Lier JB, Extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS) in upow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) reactors operated under high salinity conditions. Water Res
44:19091917 (2010).
14 Yu HQ, Tay JHandFang HHP, Therolesof calciuminsludgegranulation
during UASB reactor start-up. Water Res 35:10521060 (2001).
15 Lay WCL, Liu Y and Fane AG, Impacts of salinity on the performance
of high retention membrane bioreactors for water reclamation: a
review. Water Res 44:2140 (2010).
16 Vyrides I andStuckey DC, Saline sewage treatment usinga submerged
anaerobic membrane reactor (SAMBR): effects of activated carbon
addition and biogas-sparging time. Water Res 43:933942 (2009).
17 Vyrides I andStuckey DC, Foulingcakelayer ina submergedanaerobic
membrane bioreactor treating saline wastewaters: curse or a
blessing? Water Sci Technol 63:29022908 (2011).
18 Torres A, Hemmelmann A, Vergara CandJeison D, Applicationof two-
phase slug-ow regime to control ux reduction on anaerobic
membrane bioreactors treating wastewaters with high suspended
solids concentration. Sep Purif Technol 79:2025 (2011).
19 Jeison D and van Lier JB, Cake formation and consolidation: Main
factors governing the applicable ux in anaerobic submerged
membrane bioreactors (AnSMBR) treating acidied wastewaters.
Sep Purif Technol 56:7178 (2007).
20 APHA, AWWAandWEF, StandardMethods for the Examinationof Water
and Wastewater. Washington DC, USA, APHA (1998).
21 Perry R and Green D, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7th edn.
McGraw-Hill, New York (1999).
22 Gonzalez G, Urrutia H, Roeckel Mand Aspe E, Protein hydrolysis under
anaerobic, saline conditions in presence of acetic acid. J Chem
Technol Biotechnol 80:151157 (2005).
23 Omil F Mendez RJ and Lema JM, Characterization of biomass from
a pilot-plant digester treating saline waste-water. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 63:384392 (1995).
24 Batstone D, Keller J, Angelidaki RI, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis
SG, Rozzi A, et al, Anaerobic Digestion Model No.1 (ADM1). IWA
Publishing, London (2002).
J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 2013; 88: 658663 c 2012 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb