표제지
목차
I. 서론 14
1.1. 연구의 목적 14
II. MBR (Membrane BioReactor)의 일반 이론 16
2.1. MBR 공정의 이론 16
2.1.1. 활성슬러지(Activated Sludge) 공정 16
2.1.2. MBR (Membrane BioReactor) 공정 17
2.2. 분리막의 형태 21
2.2.1. 분리막 모듈(Module) 및 프레임(Frame) 21
2.2.2. 중공사형 분리막(Hollow Fiber Type) 23
2.2.3. 평형 분리막(Flat-Sheet Type) 25
2.2.4. 관형 분리막(Tubular Type) 26
2.3. 분리막의 제조방법 27
2.3.1. NIPS(Non-Solvent Induced Phase Separation) 27
2.4. 분리막의 재질(소재) 29
2.4.1. PVDF 29
2.4.2. PVDF 외 기타 분리막 재질 31
2.5. 막 오염(Membrane Fouling) 제어 33
2.6. 하수처리시설의 에너지 소비량 현황 35
III. 연구방법 및 내용 36
3.1. 모듈(Module), 프레임(Frame), Pilot plant 제작 방법 36
3.1.1. 제작 방법 및 단계 36
3.1.2. 단계별 제작 방법 36
3.2. 실험 및 분석 방법 53
3.2.1. 분리막의 특성분석 53
3.2.2. 막 오염(Membrane Fouling) 분석 55
3.2.3. 수질 분석 57
3.2.4. 에너지 저감 효과 산출 58
IV. 연구결과 및 고찰 59
4.1. 분리막 특성 분석결과 59
4.1.1. SEM 분석 60
4.1.2. 공극크기(Pore Size) 및 공극율(Porosity) 분석결과 64
4.1.3. 접촉각(Contact Angle) 분석결과 66
4.1.4. 인장강도(Tensile Strength) 분석결과 68
4.1.5. FT-IR(Fourier Transform Infra-Red spectroscopy) 분석결과 70
4.2. 막 오염(Membrane Fouling) 제어 실험결과 71
4.2.1. 청수(Tap Water)를 이용한 실험결과 71
4.2.2. 하수를 이용한 실험결과 73
4.3. 수질 분석결과 82
4.3.1. BOD, COD, SS, T-N, T-P 82
4.3.2. 총대장균군 83
4.3.3. 생태독성 84
4.4. 에너지 저감 효과 산출결과 85
4.5. 실증화 시설 운영결과 86
V. 결론 92
참고문헌 94
국문초록 98
ABSTRACT 100
Table 1. The characteristics of each membrane materials; advantages and disadvantages. 32
Table 2. The status of electricity consumption in sewage treatment facilities. 35
Table 3. The standard for the water quality of effluent in public sewage treatment facilities(IV district). 57
Table 4. The standard for the water quality of effluent in demonstration facilities facilities by the total water pollution management system. 57
Table 5. The specification of membrane use in this study. 59
Table 6. Measurement results of the contact angle. 67
Table 7. The measurement results of the tensile strength(table). 69
Table 8. The comparison of the amount of scouring air supplied per projected area between the module integrated with air scouring and the existing technology. 80
Table 9. The calculation factors for SADm and SADp of an air scouring integral immersed hollow fiber membrane module.[이미지참조] 81
Table 10. The comparison of amount electricity used and annual maintenance costs (Assume that plant capacity is 14,000.0 m³/d) 85
Fig. 1. The general activated sludge process and MBR process. 17
Fig. 2. The schematic illustration of membrane filtration spectrum. 18
Fig. 3. The general MBR process diagram to which a side stream configuration is applied. 19
Fig. 4. The general MBR process diagram which an immersed configuration is applied. 20
Fig. 5. The photograph of general frame type. 22
Fig. 6. The hollow fiber membrane. 23
Fig. 7. The general hollow fiber membrane type module. 24
Fig. 8. Flat sheet membrane type module(Courtesy of Kubota Membrane USA Corporation.). 25
Fig. 9. Tubular type membrane module(Courtesy of PCI Membranes, a Xylem company.). 26
Fig. 10. The production process of hollow fiber membrane by using NIPS. 28
Fig. 11. The structural formula of PVDF. 30
Fig. 12. The structural formula of membrane materials: (a) PE(Polyolefins), (b) PTFE(Polytetrafluoroethylene), (c) CA(Cellulose Acetate),... 31
Fig. 13. The cause of membrane fouling. 33
Fig. 14. The example of membrane blocking(fouling). 33
Fig. 15. The fabrication drawing of an air scouring integral immersed hollow fiber membrane module: (a) front view, (b) side view, (c) detailed front view, (d) detailed... 39
Fig. 16. The schematic diagram of air flow of the module integrated with air scouring. 40
Fig. 17. The air scouring integrated hollow fiber membrane module manufacturing completed form. 41
Fig. 18. The exterior of the frame used in the pilot plant: (a) front view, (b) side view. 42
Fig. 19. The exterior of frame equipped with module. 43
Fig. 20. The commercial model installation of a frame for a module integrated with air scouring. 43
Fig. 21. The appearance and section view of pilot plant: (a) apprarance view, (b) section view. 45
Fig. 22. The P&ID of pilot plant. 46
Fig. 23. The equipment control panel of pilot plant: (a) Appearance and operation switch, (b) interior view. 48
Fig. 24. The automatic control program screen(HMI program). 49
Fig. 25. The installation view of the pilot plant: (a) production view, (b) installation view, (c) front view, (d) side view,... 52
Fig. 26. The scouring aeration (40~140 m³/m²·hr) by using sewage water. 56
Fig. 27. The MLSS concentration in aerobic membrane tank. 56
Fig. 28. The SEM image of hollow fiber membrane(cross section). 60
Fig. 29. The SEM image of hollow fiber membrane(cross section-detail). 61
Fig. 30. The SEM image of hollow fiber membrane(longitudinal section). 61
Fig. 31. The SEM image of hollow fiber membrane(inner section). 62
Fig. 32. The SEM image of hollow fiber membrane(outer surface). 62
Fig. 33. The SEM image of hollow fiber membrane(inner surface). 63
Fig. 34. The distribution of pore size. 64
Fig. 35. Analysis scene of the contact angle. 66
Fig. 36. The measurement results of the tensile strength(graph). 68
Fig. 37. The FT-IR patterns of membrane. 70
Fig. 38. The scouring aeration (60~140 m³/m²·hr) by using tap water. 71
Fig. 39. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (○) using tap water. 72
Fig. 40. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate(140 m³/m²·hr) on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○) with MLSS of 8,000 mg/L. 73
Fig. 41. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate(120 m³/m²·hr) on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○) with MLSS of 8,000 mg/L. 74
Fig. 42. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate(100 m³/m²·hr) on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○) with MLSS of 8,000 mg/L. 75
Fig. 43. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate(80 m³/m²·hr) on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○) with MLSS of 8,000 mg/L. 76
Fig. 44. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate(60 m³/m²·hr) on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○) with MLSS of 8,000 mg/L. 78
Fig. 45. The result of checking the membrane after the experiment (60 m³/m²·hr). 78
Fig. 46. Effects of scouring aeration flow rate(40 m³/m²·hr) on flux (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○) with MLSS of 8,000 mg/L. 79
Fig. 47. The comparison of influent(■) and effluent(□) BOD, COD, SS, T-N, T-P, respectively. 82
Fig. 48. The comparison of coliform group influent(■) and effluent(□). 83
Fig. 49. The comparison of ecotoxicity influent(■) and effluent(□). 84
Fig. 50. The results of operation of demonstration facilities [flow rate (■) and transmembrane pressure (TMP, ○)]. 86
Fig. 51. The comparison of the influent (■) and the effluent (□) COD, TOC, SS, T-N, T-P of the demonstration facility (Membrane permeate). 88
Fig. 52. The comparison of the influent(■) and effluent(□) coliform group, ecotoxicity of the demonstration facility (Membrane permeate). 89
Fig. 53. The comparison of the influent (■) and the effluent (□) COD, TOC, SS, T-N, T-P of the demonstration facility (final discharge water). 90
Fig. 54. The comparison of the influent(■) and effluent(□) coliform group, ecotoxicity of the demonstration facility (final discharge water). 91