Jessica A. MacDonald, Benjamin Najm, Tzahi Cath and William A. Mitch*,
{"title":"Purifying Anaerobically Treated Municipal Secondary Wastewater Effluent by a Reverse Osmosis-Based Potable Reuse Treatment Train","authors":"Jessica A. MacDonald, Benjamin Najm, Tzahi Cath and William A. Mitch*, ","doi":"10.1021/acsestwater.5c00535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >As a pretreatment to potable reuse trains, anaerobic secondary treatment could reduce the energy demand and footprint compared to aerobic secondary treatment. Long-term pilot tests linked a reverse osmosis (RO)-based potable reuse treatment system to a pilot-scale staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-MBR). A membrane-aerated bioreactor removed sulfide in SAF-MBR effluent prior to RO. The RO operated for ∼120 days at 15 LMH and 67–83% water recovery, with a final feed pressure during each cycle of ∼9–10 bar. When the final pressure increased to ∼12 bar, chemical cleaning reestablished membrane performance, and a membrane autopsy indicated reversible fouling by biomass and phosphate-based minerals. MS2 bacteriophage spiking tests indicated at least 5–6-log removal each by RO and UV/H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> advanced oxidation process (AOP) treatment at ∼730 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> average UV fluence. A 1,100 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> average UV fluence met treatment goals for 1,4-dioxane and indicators for other organic contaminants. Halogenated DBPs in the chlorinated final effluent were ∼5-fold lower than potable reuse trains fed by aerobic secondary effluent. <i>N</i>-Nitrosodimethylamine was well below California’s 10 ng/L Notification Limit. An operating cost comparison indicated that a potable reuse train fed by SAF-MBR effluent ($0.69/m<sup>3</sup>) is cost-competitive to that fed by aerobic secondary effluent ($0.69/m<sup>3</sup>).</p>","PeriodicalId":93847,"journal":{"name":"ACS ES&T water","volume":"5 8","pages":"4877–4886"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS ES&T water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.5c00535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
As a pretreatment to potable reuse trains, anaerobic secondary treatment could reduce the energy demand and footprint compared to aerobic secondary treatment. Long-term pilot tests linked a reverse osmosis (RO)-based potable reuse treatment system to a pilot-scale staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-MBR). A membrane-aerated bioreactor removed sulfide in SAF-MBR effluent prior to RO. The RO operated for ∼120 days at 15 LMH and 67–83% water recovery, with a final feed pressure during each cycle of ∼9–10 bar. When the final pressure increased to ∼12 bar, chemical cleaning reestablished membrane performance, and a membrane autopsy indicated reversible fouling by biomass and phosphate-based minerals. MS2 bacteriophage spiking tests indicated at least 5–6-log removal each by RO and UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process (AOP) treatment at ∼730 mJ/cm2 average UV fluence. A 1,100 mJ/cm2 average UV fluence met treatment goals for 1,4-dioxane and indicators for other organic contaminants. Halogenated DBPs in the chlorinated final effluent were ∼5-fold lower than potable reuse trains fed by aerobic secondary effluent. N-Nitrosodimethylamine was well below California’s 10 ng/L Notification Limit. An operating cost comparison indicated that a potable reuse train fed by SAF-MBR effluent ($0.69/m3) is cost-competitive to that fed by aerobic secondary effluent ($0.69/m3).