Membrane Diffuser Solutions for Wastewater Treatment Systems

In the aeration basin of a typical wastewaterlate 2004 and were installed throughout the course
treatment plant there are both organic and inorganicof 2005 in two dairies, one paper mill, one post
matter that can impair the function of fine bubbleaeration basin, a brewery, a landfill leachate
diffusers. Eventually this requires either additionaltreatment plant, and a number of municipal sewage
energy to overcome high membrane headloss, ortreatment plants. In most of the cases, PTFE layered
reducing the oxygen mass transfer to the process.EPDM was selected due to the failure of previous
The rate and type of fouling depends on whethertechnologies to avoid fouling to a sufficient degree
the plant is treating industrial or municipal wastewater,that the plant could operate efficiently.
as well as on the process. Typically diffuser typesRosso and Stenstrom (in their paper Economics of
foul more rapidly in low MCRT plants such as nonFine Pore Diffuser Aging) have empirically studied the
nitrifying conventional processes than in high MCRTextent of fouling and cleaning intervals of various
plants such as in nutrient removal processes likediffuser media in a wide array of municipal sewage
oxidation ditch, BNR and SBR.treatment plants and have found that aF rates
Diffuser media which have been readily available inbetween cleanings of membranes even in municipal
the market include porous types such as aluminumplants are much greater than common perception,
oxide, porcelain, ABS and Polyethylene, anddropping from an average alpha in a low MCRT plant
non-porous types EPDM, Silicone and Polyurethane.of 0.50 to less than 0.40 after up to 2 years and
Most diffuser manufacturers have taken a targetedstabilizing to less than 0.35 thereafter. At this time
rather than blanket approach to diffuser foulingspecifically in low MCRT plants they have found that
problems. For example, in a dairy WWTP, it isthe difference in aF between porous and non-porous
expected that there will be significant calcium fouling,fine bubble media do not vary significantly.
therefore it is common to use a flexible membraneStamford Scientific has recorded case studies where
diffuser rather than a hard porous type which maydiffusers did not require cleaning, however, it was the
prove more difficult to keep clean.operator's curiosity to look at the diffusers that
In some cases manufacturers have recommendeddrove them to drain the tanks and inspect them. In
lower roughness coefficient materials such as PUboth cases, the surface bubble pattern was
rather than EPDM in such applications to reduceconsistent with new and clean diffusers, the dissolved
surface adhesion of calcium, gypsum, and silicas tooxygen concentrations had not changed from new,
the membrane. However, there have always beenand the diffuser headloss appeared not to have
trade-offs in the selection of a diffuser media otherchanged significantly.
than porous types or EPDM. For example PU andThere are tests and evidence that shows little to no
Silicone formulations that have been used often havechange in a between a new PTFE and an aged PTFE
a relatively high headloss and lower SOTE than EPDM.membrane in a typical municipal plant setting. This also
Silicone is also prone to tear propagation, add mostincludes evidence that there is little to no change in
PU is resistant to only 40 C. Only EPDM providesDP, with the help of independent research and the
desirable physical properties and bubble sizesaddition of further empirical examples. If this can be
consistent with high SOTE. It should be noted thatproven, wastewater plants of all sorts that install
any result above 7% SOTE/m is considered high, andPTFE layered membranes will be looking at energy
these tests were conducted at a diffusersavings over the operating life of the plant of 30 to
submergence of 4.7m.40% with the added benefit of reduced maintenance
PTFE layered EPDM membranes were introduced inand perhaps less frequent replacement requirements.