See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266346964

Refinery wastewater biological treatment: A

short review
Article in Journal of scientific and industrial research April 2012
Impact Factor: 0.5

CITATIONS

READS

11

484

3 authors, including:
Syukriyah Ishak

Amirhossein Malakahmad

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

4 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

65 PUBLICATIONS 180 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Amirhossein Malakahmad

Retrieved on: 09 June 2016

at al:
REFINERY WASTEWATER BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT: A SHORT REVIEW
Journal of Scientific &ISHAK
Industrial
Research
Vol. 71, April 2012, pp. 251-256

251

Refinery wastewater biological treatment: A short review

S Ishak*, A Malakahmad and M H Isa
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
Received 29 November 2010; revised 02 February 2012; accepted 09 February 2012
This review presents biological treatment methods for petroleum refinery wastewater, their applications, advantages and
disadvantages. It covers refinery wastewater characteristics, different categories of biological treatment systems (suspended,
attached and hybrid growths) and comparison between each system with conventional activated sludge process.
Keywords: Biological treatment, Refinery wastewater

Introduction
Petroleum refining utilize large quantities of water
for desalting, distillation, thermal cracking, catalytic and
treatment processes to produce useful products [liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, asphalt
and petrochemical feedstock] 1-3. Refining process
generates wastewater (0.4-1.6 times the volume of crude
oil processed) 4. Discharge of untreated petroleum refining
wastewater (PRW) into water bodies results in
environmental and human health effects due to release
of toxic contaminants (hydrocarbons, phenol and
dissolved minerals)5,6 . Hydrocarbons [benzene, toluene,
ethyl benzene and xylenes (BTEX)] are of serious
concern due to their toxicity and as carcinogenic
compounds 3,7,8 . High exposure for long periods to these
compounds can cause leukemia and tumors in multiple
organs 3 . Phenol and dissolved minerals are also toxic to
aquatic life and lead to liver, lung, kidney and vascular
system infection 9,10 . Therefore, according to
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), PRW have
to be sufficiently treated for quality to meet the established
regulations 11 . Physical and chemical treatments of PRW
have been carried out using different methods
[electrocoagulation (93% of sulfate and 63% of COD
removal) 12 , electrochemical oxidation (92.8% for COD
removal and low salinity of 84Scm-13 and dissolved air
flotation (BOD and COD removal efficiencies of 76-

*Author for correspondence

E-mail: syukaz83@yahoo.com.sg

94% and 72-92.5% respectively) 14 ]. However, physical

and chemical methods are costly due to high price of
chemicals and equipments, and excessive amounts of
sludge production. Thus, biological methods are preferred
due to simple, cheap and environmentally friendly
operations 3,15. This review presents characteristics of
PRW and biological treatment technologies.
Characteristics of Petroleum Refinery Wastewater
(PRW)
Crude oil contains various organic and inorganic
compounds including salts, suspended solids and watersoluble metals. It undergoes desalting process as a first
step to remove contaminants using large quantities of
water; the process causes corrosion, plugging and fouling
of equipment 16 . Composition of PRW depends on
complexity of refining process 17 but in general,
compounds in PRW include dissolved and dispersed oil
and dissolved formation minerals 18 . Oil (Table 1) 4,19-21 is
a mixture of hydrocarbons [benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and phenol]. While, dissolved formation minerals
are inorganic compounds, which include anions and
cations including heavy metals 18 .
Biological Treatment
Biological processes utilize microorganisms
(naturally-occurring, commercial, specific groups and
acclimatized sewage sludge) to oxidize organic matter
into simple products (CO2 , H 2 O and CH4 ) under aerobic,
anaerobic or semi aerobic conditions 18,20. A C: N: P ratio

252

J SCI IND RES VOL 71 APRIL 2012

Table 1Characteristics of petroleum refinery wastewater (PRW)

Parameter
BOD5 , mg/l
COD, mg/l
Phenol, mg/l
Oil, mg/l
TSS, mg/l
BTEX, mg/l
Heavy metals, mg/l
Chrome, mg/l
Ammonia, mg/l
pH
Turbidity, NTU

Coelho et al4
570
850 -1020
98 - 128
12.7
23.9
5.1 - 2.1
8.0 - 8.2
22 - 52

Dold19
150 - 350
300 - 800
20 - 200
3000
100
1 - 100
0.1 - 100
0.2 - 10
-

(100:5:1) is adequate for microorganisms to grow 1,22. A

study on biodegradation of petroleum oil by nematodes
has identified Bacillus sp. as a primary degrader and
cooperation with nematodes for degradation of
pollutants23 . In a study using bioaugmentation, activated
sludge system (ASS) took only 20 days to achieve COD
below 80 mg/l (84.2% COD removal efficiency) and
NH4 +-N concentration of 10 mg/l compared to nonbioaugmented system, which needed an extra 10 days to
reach similar effluent quality20 . Biological processes are
classified as suspended-growth, attached-growth or
hybrid processes.
Suspended Growth

In suspended-growth processes, microorganisms are

maintained in suspension mode within the liquid in batch
reactor, which is allowed to operate with mixing under
aerobic or anaerobic conditions. One of the common
suspended-growth processes is ASS. Typical ASSs used
in wastewater treatment are plug-flow, complete mix and
sequencing batch reactor (SBR)1 . While plug-flow and
complete mix activated sludge require return activatedsludge (RAS) system and clarifiers, SBR operates without
a clarifier.
SBR is based on fill-and-draw batch system24 and
has been applied for industrial and municipal wastewater
treatments due to high removal efficiency of BOD, COD
and suspended solid (SS)25-27. Study using SBR with
12 h cycle indicated almost complete phenol removal
with sufficient long react step and sludge morphology
did not affect phenol removal efficiency with increased
phenol influent28 . However, poor settleability of sludge
was observed at 400 mg/l of influent phenol concentration
due to floc had been inactivated and disintegrated to
microfloc 28 . Moreover, toxic compounds like phenol

M a et al20
150 - 350
300 - 600
50
150
10 - 30
7-9
-

Khaing et al21
330 - 556
40 - 91
130 - 250
4.1 - 33.4
7.5 - 10.3
10.5 - 159.4

might affect activity and biological performance in

treatment plant that leads to constant drop in bacterial
count during acclimatization period28-30. SBR [hydraulic
retention time (HRT), 1 d; and a solid retention time,
14 d] using toxicants loading (phenol, 0.1 - 0.8 kg /m3 .d;
and o-cresol, 0.1 - 0.6 kg /m3 .d) showed removal of phenol
(99%) and o-cresol (94%), while biodegradability
(BOD5 /COD) of samples were not affected by toxicants
loading by showing consistent values of BOD 5
(< 5 mg/l), total soluble solids (TSS) (12 mg/l) and sludge
volume index (SVI) (80 ml/g) 31 . Another study32 using
toxicants (Hg2+, 9.03 0.02 mg/l; and Cd2+, 15.52 0.02
mg/l) have shown removal efficiencies of Hg (II) (88%)
and Cd (II) (97.4%), which indicates the ability of SBR
system in noxious environment. During acclimatization
phase, mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS) and mixed
liquor volatile suspended solid (MLVSS) rise steadily,
reflecting active growth of bacteria and started to
decrease rapidly with addition of Hg(II) and Cd (II)32 as
bacteria transform Hg into methylated Hg and becomes
extremely toxic to biological systems 33 .
Other suspended-growth methods are continuous
stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and membrane bioreactor.
A study34 of CSTR using bioaugmented microbial
consortium [Aeromonas punctata (A. caviae),
B. cereus, Ochrobactrum intermedium, Steno
trophomonas maltophilia and Rhodococcus sp.]
showed removal up to 95% of COD and 97.5% of total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH). Aerobic degrading
bacteria in organo-polluted site belong to Pseudomonas
sp., Acinetobacter sp., Alcaligenes sp.,
Flavobacterium/Cytophaga group, Xanthomonas sp.,
Nocardia sp., Mycobacterium sp., Corynebacterium
sp., Arthrobacter sp., Comamonas sp., and Bacillus
sp. 35 .

ISHAK at al: REFINERY WASTEWATER BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT: A SHORT REVIEW

253

Table 2Application of suspended-growth in noxious refinery wastewater treatment

Parameters
System
Cycle, h
HRT, d
SRT, d
BOD5 removal, %
COD removal, %
Type of
contaminants
Influent
contaminants
Contaminants
removal, %
Effluent TSS, mg/l
SVI, ml/g

Nakla et al31
SBR

Malakahmad et al32
SBR

Gargouri et al34
CSTR

12
1
14
99
94
Phenol and o-cresol

8
15
80
Hg2+ and Cd2+

Up to 95
TPH

Yaopo et al36
Membrane
bioreactor
96 - 99
78 - 98
-

0.1 - 0.8 and 0.1 0.6 (kg/m3 .d)

-

9.03 0.02 and

15.52 0.02 (mg/L)
88.3 and 97.4

320 mg TPH-1

50 100 L/l

97.5

Almost 100

12
80

58

A membrane bioreactor 36 showed removal efficiency

of COD (78-98%), BOD5 (96-99%), SS (74-99%) and
turbidity (99-100%). Another study37 using plug flow
membrane bioreactor showed removal of COD (93%),
BOD (99%) and TOC (96%), and bacterial community
was affected at high petroleum pollutants concentration
(1000 l/l). Bacterial population started to diverge at this
dosage 37 (Table 2).
Attached Growth

In attached-growth process, microorganisms are

attached to an inert material (rocks, slag or plastic), which
enables to generate biofilm38 containing extracellular
polymeric substances produced by microorganisms 1 .
Bioreactors with adhered biofilm have greater
concentration of biomass retained in the system with
greater metabolic activities3 . A study on PRW treatment
using fixed-film bioreactor showed COD removal rates
of 80-90% at HRT of 8 h39 . Study40 on anaerobic upflow
fixed-film reactor operated at 37C showed 0.33 m3 kg-1
COD d-1 methane production at an organic loading rate
(OLR) of 6 kg COD m-3 d-1. Fixed-film processes, which
are attached growth biological treatment systems, can
be divided into trickling filter, fluidized bed bioreactor
(FBB) and rotating biological contactor (RBC)1,41. An
FBB involves solid particles denser than water, which
are suspended in column by an upflow stream of liquid 42 .
It has been found that largest COD reduction was
achieved at various ratio of bed (settled) volume
(Vb, L3 ) to bioreactor volume (VR, L3 ), (Vb/VR) = 0.55

Wiszniowski et al37
Plug flow
membrane
99
93
TPH

and air velocities (u , LT-1) = 0.029 m/s42 . A pilot internal

circulating three-phase FBB (ICTFBB) was found more
resistance to COD and phenol shock loading. Its operation
was more stable compared to activated sludge reactor
and average removal efficiencies were found as
follows43 : COD, 75.9; oil, 75.3; phenol, 92.8; ammonia
nitrogen, 40.0; and phosphorus, 87.2%. RBC reactor
consists of series of disc, on which biofilm grows, mounted
on a horizontal shaft, positioned above the liquid level
that rotates at right angles to the flow of wastewater.
Discs are partially submerged and exposed both to the
atmosphere where oxygen is absorbed and to the liquid
phase, where soluble organic matter is utilized1 . A study
on treatment of hydrocarbon-rich wastewater using RBC
(HRT, 21 h; OLR, 27.33 g TPH/m2 d) showed that system
is able to remove 41 TPH (99%) and COD (97%).
Hybrid System

This process is a combination of suspended and

attached-growth process in the same reactor like the
combination of activated sludge and submerged biofilters
(fixed bed biofilters). A carrier material in reactor is
maintained in suspension by aeration or mechanical
mixing (moving bed reactor)1 . Tyagi et al44 studied
performance of RBC-polyurethane foam (PUF) to
biodegrade PRW, achieved COD removal efficiency of
87%, and found PUF advantageous as a structure for
microorganism to attach, grow and protect from high
external shear. A study45 using hybrid system showed
over 90% of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (TCP), COD and

254

J SCI IND RES VOL 71 APRIL 2012

Table 3Comparison between developed methods and conventional activated sludge process
Method
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
Continuously Stirred Tank Bioreactor (CSTB)
Membrane bioreactor
Fluidized Bed Bioreactor (FBB)
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)
1

Operation

Cost
`
B2
B
B
B
B

A1
A
A
B
B

Toxic removal
A
B
A
A
B

Sludge
settleability
C3
B
B
B
B

A, very good; 2 B, good; 3 C, normal

toxicity removal efficiencies. Application of submerged

membrane bioreactor (SMBR) showed increase in
removal efficiencies for COD (17%) and TOC (20%)
compared to the system without membrane 46 . A
crossflow membrane bioreactor showed 93% of COD
removal efficiency. HRT does not significantly affect
performance of this system47 .
Comparison of Biological Treatment Systems

In conventional ASS, settleable solid is separated by

gravity settling in sedimentation tank followed by physical
and chemical processes. ASS is affected by wastewater
flow and quality, wastewater aeration time, volume and
sludge loading, SVI, MLSS, dissolved oxygen (DO) and
aeration requirements, sludge age, wastewater
temperature and concentration of wastewater1,48. Over
the years, ASS has improved to comply with high-quality
effluent of wastewater treatment plant. New wastewater
treatment systems (SBR, CSTR, FBB, RBC, airlift
bioreactor and membrane bioreactor) were developed
to overcome lack of ASS.
Comparison between developed processes
(Table 3) with conventional ASS indicates that operation
of SBR, CSTR and membrane bioreactor is very good
based on simplicity and flexibility of operation. However,
FBB and RBC require more complicated operations and
process design compared to ASS49 . SBR, CSTR and
FBB are more economical due to elimination of clarifiers
and less required of equipments and civil works. However,
well trained personnel are required to monitor the reactor
process. Membrane and RBC obviously require higher
cost for reactor setup and maintence50 . SBR showed
very good performance in toxicity removal. Membrane
bioreactor also has a great potential in toxic removal
compared to conventional ASS due to the use of low
sludge load and high sludge age. High sludge age helps
the bacteria to adapt with pollutants51 . FBB offers very
good toxic removal due to the use of small size carrier

particles that has large specific area for bacterial growth.

Stability of bacterial growth is very important in order to
achieve optimum degradation of organic matter. CSTR
and RBC also considered good in toxicity removal. Main
problem in SBR is the possibility of SS to be discharged
during draw step due to less sludge settleability24 .
However, CSTR, membrane, FBB and RBC have been
characterized with good sludge settleability based on
reactor design. Bioparticles are retaining in the reactor
and there is less possibility of SS to be discharged due to
good sludge settleability49 .
Conclusions
PRW is an indisputable pollution source for
watercourses. Many different bioreactor designs have
been used in treatment of refinery wastewater including
batch reactors, standard activated sludge systems and
their variations, fluidized beds and membrane systems.
Selection among alternative processes is based on capital
and operating cost, land availability, operational complexity
and standard discharge limits.
Acknowledgement
Authors thank Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Research and Innovation Office (UTPRIO) for funding
(Project code: STIRF No. 07/09.10) this study.
References
1
2

Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and

Reuse, (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York) 2003.
Bagajewicz M, A review of recent design procedures for water
networks in refineries and process plants, J Com Chem Eng, 24
(2000) 2093-2113.
Muneron de Mello J M, Heloisa de lima B, Antonio A & De
Saouza U, Biodegradation of BTEX compounds in a biofilm
reactor modelling and simulation, J Petrol Sci Eng, 70 (2000)
131-139.
Coelho A, Castro V A, Dezotti M & Sant Anna Jr G L,
Treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater by advanced
oxidation processes, J Haz Mat, B137 (2006) 178-184.

ISHAK at al: REFINERY WASTEWATER BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT: A SHORT REVIEW

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Jo M S, Rene E R, Kim S H & Park H S, An analysis of

synergistic and antagonistic behavior during BTEX removal in
batch system using response surface methodology, J Haz Mat,
152 (2008)1276-1284.
Diyauddeen B H, W Daud W M A & Abdul Aziz D R, Treatment technologies for petroleum refineries effluents: A Review,
Process Saf Environ Protect, 175 (2011) 11.
Farhadiah M, Vachelad C, Duchez D & Larroche C, In situ
bioremediation of monoaromatic pollutants in groundwater: A
review, J Bio Tech, 99 (2007) 5296-5308.
Irwin R J, Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Entry for
BTEX and BTEX Compound (National Park Service) 1997, 6-8.
Beristain-Cardoso R, Texier A-C, Alpuche-Sols , Gmez J &
Razo-Flores E, Phenol and sulfite oxidation in a denitrfiying
biofilm reactor and its microbial community analysis, Process
Biochem, 44 (2000) 23-28.
Tang X, Eke P E, Scholz M & Huang S, Process impacting on
benzene removal in vertical flow constructed wetlands,
Bioresource Technol, 100 (2008) 227-234.
Technical support document for the 2004 effluent guidelines
[United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),
USA] 2008; http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/
304m/upload/2008_08_19_...
El-Naas M H, Al-Zuhair S, Al-Lobaney A & Makhlouf S, Assessment of electrocoagulation for the treatment of petroleum
refinery wastewater, J Environ Manage, 21 (2009) 180-185.
Yan L, Bo Ma H, Wang Y & Chen Y, Electrochemical treatment
of petroleum refinery wastewater with three-dimensional
multi-phase electrode, Desalination, 276 (2011) 397-402.
Hami M L, Al-Hashimi M A & Al-Doori M M, Effect of
activated carbon on BOD and COD removal in a dissolved air
flotation unit treating refinery wastewater, Desalination, 216
(2007) 116-122.
Dania E , BTEX biodegradation by bacteria from effluents of
petroleum refinery, Sci Total Environ, 408 (2010) 4334-4340.
Pak A & Mohammadi T, Wastewater treatment of desalting units,
Desalination, 222 (2008) 249-254.
Zarooni M A & Elshorbagy W, Characterization and assessment
of Al Ruwais refinery wastewater, J Haz Mat, 136 (2006)
398-405.
Razi A F, Pendashteh A, Chuah A L, Radiah D A B, Sayed S M
et al, Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water
treatment, J Haz Mat, 170 (2009) 530-551.
Dold P L, Current practice for treatment of petroleum refinery
wastewater and toxics removal, Water Qual Res J Can, 24 (1989)
363-390.
Ma F & Guo J-B, Application of bioaugmentation to improve
the activated sludge system into the contact oxidation system
treating petrochemical wastewater, Biores Technol, 100 (2009)
597-602.
Khaing T-H, Li J, Li Y, Wai N & Wong F, Feasibility study on
petrochemical wastewater treatment and reuse using a novel
submerged membrane distillation bioreactor, Sep Purif Technol,
74 (2010) 138-143.
Chan Y J, Chong M F & Law C L, Biological treatment of
anaerobically digested palm oil mill effluent (POME) using a
lab-scale sequencing batch Reactor (SBR), J Environ Manage,
91 (2010) 1738-1746.
Chan H, Biodegradation of petroleum oil achieved by bacteria
and nematodes in contaminated water, Sep Purif Technol, 80
(2011) 459-466.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38
39

40

255

Mace S & Alvarez J M, Utilization of SBR Technology for

wastewater treatment: an overview, Ind Eng Chem Res, 41 (2002)
5539-5553.
Mahvi A H, Sequencing batch reactor: a promising technology in
wastewater treatment, Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng, 5 (2008)
79-90.
Seesuriyachan P, Kuntiya A, Sasaki Ken & Techapun C,
Biocoagulation of dairy wastewater byLactobacillus casei TISTR
1500 for protein recovery using micro-aerobic sequencing batch
reactor (micro-aerobic SBR), Process Biochem, 44 (2009)
406-411.
Seesuriyachan P, Chaiyaso T, Sasaki Ken & Techapun C,
Influent of food colorant and initial COD concentration on the
efficiencies of micro-aerobic sequencing batch reactor (microaerobic SBR)for casein recovery under non-sterile condition by
Lactobacillus casei TISTR 1500, Biores Technol, 100 ( 2009)
4097-4103.
Leong M L, Lee K M, Lai S O & Ooi S O, Sludge characteristics
and performances of the sequencing batch reactor at differences
influent phenol concentrations, Desalination, 270 (2011)
181-187.
Benatti C T, Tavares C R G, Filhoe B P D & Gaspar M P,
Sequencing Batch Reactor for treatment of chemical laboratory
wastewater, Acta Scientianum Technology, 25 (2) (2003)
141-145.
Papadimitriou Ch, Palaska G, Lazaridou M, Samaras P &
Sakellaropoulos G P, The effects of toxic substances on the
activate sludge microfauna, Desalination, 211(2007) 177-191.
Nakla G F, Al Harazin I M & Farooq S, Organic loading effects
on the treatment of phenolic wastewater by Sequencing Batch
Reactor, Wat Env Res, 65 (1993) 686-689.
Malakahmad A, Hasani A, Eisakhani M & Isa, M H, Sequencing
batch reactor for the removal of Hg2+ and Cd2+ from synthetic
petrochemical factory wastewater, J Haz Mat, 191 (2011)
118-125.
Mandi L, Houhowm B, Asmama S & Schwartzbrod J, Wastewater treatment by reed beds: an experimental approach, Water
Res, 30 (1996) 2009-2016.
Gargouri B, Karray F, Mhiri N, Aloui F & Sayadi S, Application
of a continuously stirred tank bioreactor (CSTR) for
bioremediation of hydrocarbon-rich industrial wastewater effluents, J Haz Mat, 189 (2011) 427-434.
Shokrollahzadeh S, Azizmohseni F, Golmohammad F, Shokouhi
& Khademhaghighat F, Biodegradation potential and bacterial
diversity of a petrochemical wastewater treatment plant in Iran,
Biores Technol, 99 (2008) 6127-6133.
Yaopo F, Jusi W & Zhaochun J, Treatment of petrochemical
wastewater with a membrane bioreactor, Acta Scientiae
Circumstantiae, 1 (1997).
Wiszniowski J, Ziembinska A & Ciesielski S, Removal of petroleum pollutants and monitoring of bacterial community structure in a membrane bioreactor, Chemosphere, 83 (2011) 49-56.
Hsien T-Y & Lin Y-H, Biodegradation of phenolic wastewater in
a fixed biofilm reactor, Biochem Eng J, 27 (2005) 95-103.
Jou C-J G & Huang G-C, A pilot study for oil refinery waste
water treatment using a fixed-bed bioreactor, Adv Environ Res, 7
(2003) 463-469.
Patel H & Madamwar D, Effects of temperatures and organic
loading rates on biomethanation of acidic petrochemical waste-

256

41

42

43

44

45

J SCI IND RES VOL 71 APRIL 2012

water using an anaerobic up-flow fixed-film reactor, Biores

Technol, 82 (2002) 65-71.
Chavan A & Mukherji S, Treatment of hydrocarbon rich
wastewater using oil degrading bacteria and phototrophic
microorganisms in rotating biological contactor: effect of N: P
ratio, J Haz Mat, 82 2002) 63-72.
Wan L, Cuenca A, Upreti S R & Lohi A, Development of a
three-phase fluidized bed bioreactor with enhance oxygen transfer, Chem Eng Process, 49 (2010) 2-8.
Sokl W, Treatment of refinery wastewater in a three-phase
fluidized bed bioreactor with a low density biomass support,
Biochem Eng J, 15 (2003) 1-10.
Tyagi R D, Tran F G & Chowdhury A K M M, Performance of
RBC coupled to a polyurethane foam to biodegrade petroleum
refinery wastewater, Environ Pollut, 76 (1992) 61-70.
Eker S & Kargi F, Biological treatment of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
(TCP) containing wastewater in a hybrid bioreactor system
with effluent recycle, Environ Eng, 90 (2009) 692-698.

46

47

48
49
50

51

Viero A F, de Melo T M, Torres A P R, Ferreira N R, SantAnna

Jr G L et al, The effects of long-term feeding of high organic
loading in a submerged membrane bioreactor treating oil refinery
wastewater, J Membr Sci, 319 (2008) 223-230.
Rahman M M & Al-Malack M H, Performance of a crossflow
membrane bioreactor (CFMBR) when treating refinery
wastewater, Desalination, 191 (2006) 16-26.
Ganczarczyk J J, Activated Sludge Process: Theory and Practice
(Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York) 1983.
Leslie Grady C P, Daigger G T & Lim H C, Biological Wastewater
Treatment, 2nd edn (Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York) 1999.
Cassidy D P, Efendiev S & White D M, A comparison of CSTR
and SBR bioslurry reactor performance, Water Res, 34 (2000)
4333-4342.
Gonzlez S, Petrovic M & Barcel D, Removal of a broad range
of surfactants from municipalwastewater Comparison between
membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge treatment, Chemosphere, 67 (2007) 335-343.