Specific Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

in Nutrient Removal from Municipal

Wastewater
By
Asmita Shrestha

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for the Degree of Master of Engineering
Submitted to the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, UTS

Supervisor: Dr. Wenshan Guo

Co-supervisor: A/Prof. Huu Hao Ngo
April 2013

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor
has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged
within the text.
I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my
research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In
addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the
thesis.

________________________
(Asmita Shrestha)
Signature of Student
Date: 01 08 2013

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my principal supervisor, Dr.
Wenshan Guo, for her continuous guidance, support, discussion, suggestions,
understanding and encouragement and for taking me on as her masters student by
believing on me. Without her guidance and suggestions this study would not be
possible. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, A/Prof. Huu Hao Ngo, for his
valuable comments, suggestions, guidance and help throughout the research.
I am very grateful to Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology (FEIT), UTS
for providing a laboratory for my experimental works as well as nice environment for
my study without which it would not be possible. My special thanks to University
Graduate School for providing Thesis completion equity grant. I would like to thank all
the UTS staff for all the administrative and other supports.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Tien Thanh Nguyen, the senior technical
officer of Environmental Engineering Laboratory, FEIT Mr. Mohammed Johir and my
dear friend Ms Sima Adabju for all their help and support during my laboratory set up
and experiments. I would also like to thank all my fellow graduate students of UTS and
my good friends for the good time we shared together at UTS.
I would also like to thank all the Authors and researchers that I have listed in the
reference section of this thesis. Their materials were really valuable and useful for this
thesis writing.
Last but not least, I am grateful to my family for their unconditional love, courage,
support and understanding. Without them these accomplishments would not have been
possible. I am indebt to my husband Suman and our Daughter Sneha, who have given
me continuous encouragement, love and support in all the way. I have no words to
thank my beautiful daughter Sneha, who bear to stay at childcare for long hours when I
was busy in my study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of Original Authorship... ii
Acknowledgement...... iii
Table of Contents.... iv
List of Abbreviations..... vii
List of Figures..... ix
List of Tables...... xii
Abstract.......... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.....1
1.1 Background of the Study...... 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study......... 3
1.3 Outline of the Thesis..... 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.......... 5

2.1 Municipal Wastewater and its Impact on Environment... 5
2.1.1 Wastewater characteristics and discharge standards...... 6
2.1.2 Wastewater treatment technologies............ 9
2.2 Low Pressure Membrane Processes... 17
2.2.1 Microfiltration/ Ultrafiltration (MF/ UF)......... 19
2.2.2 Membrane bioreactor (MBR)....... 20
2.2.3 Membrane fouling....... 25
2.3 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) from Wastewater........ 31
2.3.1 Nitrogen removal............. 32
2.3.2 Phosphorus removal............. 33
2.4 Attached Growth Processes for Wastewater Treatment........ 34
2.4.1 Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)...... 38
2.4.2 Different types of media used in MBBR......... 39
iv

2.4.3 Theory of attached growth processes... 43

2.4.4 MBR and MBBR for nutrient removal..... 44
2.4.5 Application of MBBR for nutrient removal from wastewater. 46

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGIES... 56

3.1 Materials.... 56
3.1.1 Wastewater...... 56
3.1.2 Polyethylene (PE) carriers... 56
3.1.3 Membrane module... 58
3.2 Methodologies....... 59
3.2.1 Experimental conditions.. 59
3.2.2 Analytical methods...... 65
3.2.3 Biomass growth rate calculation...... 65
3.2.4 Velocity measurement and circulation of..... 66
kinetic energy for moving media
3.2.5 Membrane resistance calculation..... 66
3.2.6 Membrane cleaning procedure. 68

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...... 69

4.1 Determination of Optimum Operating Conditions for MBBR... 69
System in terms of Carrier Filling Rate, Aeration Rate and HRT
4.1.1 Evaluation of microbial growth in PE carriers and its......... 69
performance at different carrier filling rates, aeration rates and HRTs
4.1.2 Correlation between removal efficiency and total kinetic....... 77
energy (KET) at different PE carrier filling rates and aeration rates
4.1.3 Nutrient and organic removal efficiency on......... 79
MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates
4.1.3.1 PO4-P removal efficiency.... 79
4.1.3.2 NH4-N removal efficiency....... 80
v

4.1.3.3 DOC and COD removal efficiency..... 82

4.1.4 Nutrient and organic removal efficiency...... 83
on MBBR at different aeration rates
4.1.4.1 PO4-P removal efficiency.... 84
4.1.4.2 NH4-N removal efficiency....... 85
4.1.4.3 DOC and COD removal efficiency..... 86
4.1.5 Nutrient and organic removal efficiency...... 88
on MBBR at different HRTs
4.1.5.1 PO4-P removal efficiency.... 88
4.1.5.2 NH4-N removal efficiency....... 89
4.1.5.3 DOC and COD removal efficiency..... 91
4.2 Evaluation of the Performance of MBBR-MF System.......... 93
4.2.1 Nutrient and organic removal........... 93
4.2.2 Membrane resistance characteristics at.... 94
different permeate flux conditions

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 97

5.1 Conclusions.... 97
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research 99

References. 100

Appendix A.. 110

Appendix B.. 114
Appendix C.. 118
Appendix D.. 122
Appendix E.. 126
Appendix F... 129
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOB
AOP
BF-MBR
BNR
BOD
CAS
C/N
CFMF
COD
CP
CSTR
DNA
DO
DOC
EPS
FBR
FC
FS
GAC
h
HDPE
HF
HRT
H2SO4
J
KE
KET
LDPE
MBBR
MBBR-MF
MBR
MF
MLSS
MLVSS
NaClO
NaHCO3
NaOH
NF
NH4-N
NOB

Ammonia oxidizing bacteria

Advanced oxidation process
Biofilm membrane bioreactor
Biological nutrient removal
Biochemical oxygen demand
Conventional activated sludge
Carbon Nitrogen ratio
Cross flow membrane filtration
Chemical oxygen demand
Cylindrical polypropylene
Continuous stirred tank reactor
Deoxyribonucleic acid
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved organic carbon
Extracellular polymeric substance
Fluidized bed bioreactor
Circulation frequency
Flat sheet
Granular activated carbon
Hours
High density polyethylene
Hollow fiber
Hydraulic retention time
Sulphuric acid
Permeate flux
Kinetic energy
Total kinetic energy
Low density polyethylene
Moving bed biofilm reactor
Moving bed biofilm reactor Membrane filtration
Membrane bioreactor
Microfiltration
Mixed liquor suspended solid
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solid
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium carbonate anhydrous
Sodium hydroxide
Nanofiltration
Ammonium nitrogen
Nitrite oxidizing bacteria
vii

NOM
O3
OLR
OUR
PAC
PAO
PB
PCL
PE
PG
PO4-P
PS
PTSE
PUF
PVA
RBC
RC
RM
RO
RP
RT
S
SBF
SBR
SBR
SMBR
SMP
SRT
SSMBR
SVI
T
TMP
TN
TOC
TP
TSS
UASB
UCT
UF
UTS
UV
VFA
PT

Natural organic matter

Ozone
Organic loading rate
Oxygen uptake rate
Powdered activated carbon
Phosphate accumulating organism
Polyethylene Bead
Polycaprolactone
Polyethylene
Polyethylene Granule
Ortho - phosphate
Polyethylene sheet
Primarily treated sewage effluent
Polyurethane foam
Polyvinyl alcohol
Rotating biological contactor
Cake layer resistance
Membrane Resistance
Reverse osmosis
Pore block resistance
Total resistance
Sponge
Sponge biofilter
Sponge batch reactor
Sequencing batch bioreactor
Submerged membrane bioreactor
Soluble microbial product
Sludge retention time
Sponge submerged membrane bioreactor
Sludge volume index
Temperature
Transmembrane pressure
Total nitrogen
Total organic carbon
Total phosphorus
Total suspended solid
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
University of Cape Town
Ultrafiltration
University of Technology Sydney
Ultraviolet
Volatile fatty acid
Transmembrane pressure
Viscosity of water
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Dead end filtration
Figure 2.2 Cross flow filtration
Figure 2.3 Configuration of MBR system; (A) Submerged MBR and (B) Side stream
MBR configuration
Figure 2.4 Factors influencing fouling in membrane processes (Le-cleach et al., 2006,
Chang et al., 2002)
Figure 2.5 Biomass growth systems in wastewater treatment systems (Jianlong et al.,
2000)
Figure 2.6 Typical diagram for MBBR and fixed bed bioreactor
Figure 2.7 The physical appearances of the media used in attached growth processes
Figure 2.8 Schematic diagram of attached growth process
Figure 3.1 Polyethylene (PE) carriers
Figure 3.2 Flat sheet membrane module
Figure 3.3 Experimental arrangements of (A) MBBR and (B) MBBR-MF
Figure 3.4 Flow chart of the research activities
Figure 3.5 PE carriers acclimatization tank
Figure 3.6 Laboratory setup of MBBR
Figure 3.7 Laboratory setup of MBBRMF system
Figure 4.1 Biomass growth in PE carriers (at different (A) filling rates and (B) aeration
rates)
Figure 4.2 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different filling rates
Figure 4.3 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different aeration rates
Figure 4.4 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different HRTs
Figure 4.5 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different PE carrier filling rates

ix

Figure 4.6 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different aeration rates
Figure 4.7 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different HRTs
Figure 4.8 Average DO consumption rate variation of the attached biomass on PE
carriers at different carrier filling rates, aeration rates and HRTs.
Figure 4.9 Correlation between the kinetic energy and (A) PE carrier filling rates and
(B) aeration rates.
Figure 4.10 PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.11 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.12 NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.13 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.14 TN removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
Figure 4.15 DOC removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rate
Figure 4.16 COD removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates.
Figure 4.17 PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.18 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.19 NH4-N removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.20 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.21 TN removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.22 DOC removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.23 COD removal efficiency at different aeration rates
Figure 4.24 PO4-P removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.25 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.26 NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.27 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.28 TN removal efficiency at different HRTs
Figure 4.29 DOC removal efficiency at different HRTs
x

Figure 4.30 COD removal efficiency at different HRTs

Figure 4.31 Effect of permeate flux on total membrane resistance (aeration rate: 1.35
m3/m2.h, membrane area: 0.2 m2)
Figure 4.32 Cake layer formations on the surface of flat sheet membrane module
Figure F1. Oven
Figure F2. Furnace
Figure F3. pH meter (HANNA instrument, model no. HI 9025)
Figure F4. DO meter (HORIBA Ltd. Japan, model no. OM -51E)
Figure F5. COD sample heater and a photometry
Figure F6. Analytikjena multi N/C 3100
Figure F7. Spectroquant cell test (NOVA 60, Merck)
Figure F8. YSI 5300 Biological oxygen monitor
Figure F9. GFC Whatmans 1.2 m filter paper and syringe filters (0.45 and 1.20)
Figure F10. Ultrasonic cleaner (POWER SONIC 405, Thermoline scientific)

xi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Health and environmental effects of nutrients
Table 2.2 Constituents present in domestic wastewater (Henze et al., 2002)
Table 2.3 Australian treated wastewater discharge standards (EPA, 2005)
Table 2.4 Different types of treatment processes used in wastewater treatment
Table 2 5 Advantages and disadvantages of MBR technology (Melin et al., 2006)
Table 2.6 Different types of attached growth systems (Odegaard, 1999)
Table 2.7 Characteristics of media used in the attached growth processes
Table 2.8 Characteristics data for the four different carriers used (Odegaard et al., 2000)
Table 3.1 Characteristics of synthetic wastewater
Table 3.2 Characteristics of PE carriers
Table 3.3 Characteristics of membrane
Table 3.4 Experimental conditions to determine effect of different aeration rates and
HRTs in nutrient removal from wastewater
Table 4.1 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different filling rates of PE Carrier
(aeration rate = 4.5 L/min, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
Table 4.2 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different aeration rates (carrier
filling volume = 20%, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
Table 4.3 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different HRTs (carrier filling
volume = 20%, aeration rate = 4.5 L/min)
Table 4.4 Calculation of total kinetic energy
Table 4.5 Comparison of organic and nutrient removal between MBBR and MBBRMF
Systems at different filtration fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h, membrane
area: 0.2 m2)
Table 4.6 Rc, Rp, Rm and RT at different permeate fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h,
membrane area: 0.2 m2)
Table A1. pH, DO and T in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8
mL/ min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
xii

Table A2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8
mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
Table A3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
Table B1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different aeration rates ( flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table B2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different aeration rates (flow rate; 8
mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table B3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
aeration rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table C1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table C2. MLSS and MLVSS of MBBR at different HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table C3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
Table D1. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates
(aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
Table D2. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different aeration rates (PE carrier
filling rate; 20%, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
Table D3. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different HRTs (PE carrier filling rate;
20%, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
Table E1. Total membrane resistance at different fluxes
Table E2. DOC, COD, PO4-P and NH4-N removal efficiency in MBBRMF at
different HRTs

xiii

ABSTRACT
Wastewater treatment technology has been improved and modified to get higher
removal efficiency and to meet the stringent effluent regulations. However, from a
worldwide perspective, wastewater treatment process is facing many challenges,
especially nutrients removal, thereby resulting in the serious concern for enhancement
and modification of the existing wastewater treatment processes to achieve better
removal efficiency. Nutrient and organic removal from wastewater is becoming an
important priority for wastewater treatment plants due to the detrimental impact of these
components on the receiving bodies. Therefore my research study aims to evaluate a
moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system for effective nutrient and organic removal
from municipal wastewater which has promising prospects in terms of achieving high
nutrient removal efficiency by reducing the operating cost. This study puts forward a
systematic study on the effect of polyethylene (PE) carriers filling rates, the influence of
aeration rate and different hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the organic and nutrient
removal from municipal wastewater using continuously operated MBBR system in
order to determine the optimum operating condition. To further verify the feasibility of
MBBR system operated at optimum condition, this system was combined with a
membrane filtration system to investigate the performance of the combined system in
terms of organic and nutrient removal efficiency. My research activities during my
research period were mainly focused on literature review in this field and lab scale
investigations. This report compiles introduction of the study, literature review,
materials and methodologies used, all the specific experimental results, findings and
conclusion drawn from the whole study period.

xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
It is expected that the Australian population in the major cities will increase by 35%, or
4.5 million people, by the year 2030 (ABS, 2006) and the water used by that population
will be 62% of all water extracted. The wastewater produced by the increasing
population and the huge economical cost for the treatment of this wastewater will be the
major problem in future. In early stage, when the population was very few, waste
generated by them was limited and they dumped those wastes directly into natural water
bodies to purify naturally by dilution and natural bacterial breakdown. With the
urbanization and the changing life style, the production of domestic and industrial
wastewater has been increased. The harmful constituents also have been discharged
together with the generated wastewater directly into the natural water bodies and have
affected the surrounding environment, human health and aquatic lives. Hence, in order
to prevent natural water bodies from pollution, basic wastewater treatment facilities
have been introduced to reduce organics, nutrients and other harmful constituents and
help to prevent environmental pollution.
It is a known fact that nutrients are very essential for the development of all the living
beings and plants. However, use of excess amount of these elements can cause adverse
effects. For example, excess nutrient discharge in natural water bodies affects the
aquatic lives, enhances eutrophication process and increases oxygen demand in the
receiving water bodies while excess nutrient to human being may cause different types
of health problems. The eutrophication in water bodies occurs due to discharge of
wastewater produced by human daily activities, which contains high concentration of
nitrogen and phosphorous. Therefore, it is a pressing issue on improving treatment
technology capable to achieve higher removal efficiency of nutrient, organic matter and
other harmful constituents. Standalone biological wastewater treatment systems such as
conventional activated sludge systems (CAS), Aerated lagoons have been able to treat
these harmful constituents, but at the expense of huge economical cost to achieve the
desired effluent water quality particularly at medium to large wastewater treatment
facilities. Similarly, in order to withstand in the present competitive market, membrane
1

bioreactor (MBR) process efficiency has been widely used due to its high treated water
quality and high productivity. However, the sludge production from solid retention time
(SRT) control, chemical waste from the membrane cleaning, membrane fouling, the
membrane life span are the main hindrance in the MBR application (Broeck et al., 2012;
Pal et al., 2012; Phattaranawik et al., 2011; Galil et al., 2009)
Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology is one of the best options to overcome
these problems. At present, there are more than 500 large scale wastewater treatment
plants in 50 different countries all over the world based on MBBR processes in
operation. The technology has become popular in the field of wastewater treatment
because of its many advantages such as high capacity, high efficiency, relatively small
footprints compared with the conventional treatment systems. It also has capacity to
withstand the challenges of wastewater industry such as retrofitting the old treatment
plants, producing less sludge as a result of high biomass retention time, minimizing
process complexities and operators, eliminating the need of backwashing, and so on.
MBBR is a continuous flow process where higher concentration of active biomass can
be maintained for biological treatment without increasing the reactor size. The system is
mainly based on the aeration and special designed carriers to provide a surface
colonized by bacteria (Rahimi et al., 2011). The bioreactor provides favourable
condition to the microorganisms which are responsible for the sufficient removal and
conversion of harmful constituents from the wastewater. Aeration rate and carrier filling
rate play vital role to provide satisfied treatment efficiency (Jing et al., 2009). Odegaard
et al. (2000) stated in their study that the MBBR can be loaded with biofilm carrier up
to 70% of the reactors effective volume thus significantly reducing the required
footprint and allows carriers to move easily. However, experience has shown that
mixing efficiency decreased at higher percentage fills (Weiss et al., 2005) and the
performance efficiency of the reactor could vary with different types of biofilm carrier
used (Guo et al., 2010). As the biofilm carrier packing rate, aeration rate and hydraulic
retention time (HRT) have influence on the organics and nutrient removal efficiency,
and at the same time also increase the cost and energy consumption, it is an imperative
requirement to carry out a systematic study on the effect of carrier filling rates, aeration
rates and HRTs on the treatment efficiency in continuous MBBR system.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

Nutrient and organic constituents in wastewater are consumed by microorganisms that
lives within the wastewater in the process of there growth. These microorganisms, when
got suitable surface to attach, grow more rapidly in the presence of favourable condition
and perform effectively in wastewater treatment process. The suitable surface may be
the wood, sand, mud or plastic materials and the favourable condition for these
microbial growths depend on the factors like percentage of carrier filling rate, aeration
rate, HRT etc. Many researches have been carried out using MBBR but there is no
specific research on this particular carrier such as the effect of carrier filling rate,
aeration rate and HRT in nutrient and organic removal from municipal wastewater.
Therefore, this research aims to carry out series of lab scale experimental investigation
on the effects of the carrier filling ratio, aeration rate and HRT on the performance of
MBBR and optimize the operation conditions in a cost-effective way. In addition, the
specific objectives of this research are listed below.
Review wastewater treatment using MBBR related literature regarding its
performance in terms of nutrient and organic removal at smaller footprints, low
cost, easy operation, less burden to surrounding environment;
Establish an appropriate methodology for wastewater treatment using MBBR
system;
Evaluate optimum operating conditions for MBBR system in terms of carrier
filling rate, aeration rate and HRT.
Evaluate the MBBR system connected with membrane filtration (MBBRMF)
for organic and nutrient removal and evaluate the membrane fouling behavior at
different fluxes.

1.3 Outline of the Thesis

This thesis is organized into 5 main chapters, and each chapter gives a particular aspect.
Chapter 1 introduces the background of the study and objective of the study. Chapter 2
contains literature review which includes the information gathered during the study of
related literatures as a part of this research. This chapter mainly focuses on the different
types of wastewater treatment technologies specially MBR and MBBR and their
3

performance in terms of nutrient and organic removal efficiency. The literature review
is also integrated and related with the results of this research where relevant. The
materials, description of methodologies used for the study and the analytical methods
are presented in Chapter 3 under the title Materials and Methodology. Equations for
velocity measurement and circulation of kinetic energy for moving media, equations for
membrane resistance calculation, procedure for measurement of biomass growth on the
moving media and the procedure for the membrane module cleaning are also presented
in this chapter. The results obtained from the laboratory experiments are presented and
discussed in Chapter 4. The discussion focuses on the nutrient and organic removal
efficiency achieved from MBBR at different filling rates of PE carriers, different
aeration rates and HRTs so as to determine the optimum operating condition. The
evaluation of MBBR-MF are also included in Chapter 4. Conclusions of this research
and recommendations for future research are given in Chapter 5. References and
Appendices are included at the end of this thesis.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Municipal Wastewater and its Impact on Environment
Municipal wastewater is the contents of sanitary waste collected from sewers and
households, waste from industries, commercial and institutional complexes and
sometimes the storm water. Municipal wastewater typically contains:
grit, debris and suspended solids,
disease-causing pathogens like bacteria and viruses,
human and other organic wastes which cause the oxygen depletion on a natural
water body,
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus,
microorganisms and chemicals from household, institutions and industries.
All these constituents have wide range of potential impact to the surrounding
environment and the human health. Because of the complex composition and the high
amount of production, municipal wastewater management has become the major issue
worldwide. The escalating growth of commercial and industrial market and the lifestyle
affluent by these developments is one of the main factors that enhance the wastewater
production. After we use the supplied water for different activities such as laundry,
toilet, dishwashing, bathing, industrial purposes, commercial complexes, agricultural
lands, institutions and many others, the clean water receives many harmful constituents
such as pathogenic microorganisms, organic matters, nutrients, toxic compounds and
that wastewater can be mixed up with the valuable natural water resources (Metcalf &
Eddy, 2003). As water is a renewable resource and it does not affect by for what
purpose we are using it, however, the unsystematic and haphazard use of water and
contamination of the water resources knowingly or unknowingly by discharging the
polluted wastewater make renewal water resources to non-renewable. When the
wastewater containing harmful constituents accumulated, it impacts directly and
indirectly on the human health, environment and surrounding water sources. Once the
organic matters in the wastewater start decomposition, they produce foul-smelling gas.
Similarly, the numerous pathogenic microorganisms in untreated wastewater can
transfer into the human food chain. The nutrient in wastewater enhances the growth of
aquatic plants and toxic compounds in water bodies and can also harm the ecosystem
5

and human health. The ecosystem starts degrading in faster rate and the pollution affects
the ecosystem negatively. Some of the environmental and health effects of nutrient are
listed in Table 2.1.
In the scenario of limited source of appropriate water for drinking, farming, cleaning
etc. and raising problem of wastewater production and management, treating the
wastewater properly before it reaches the water bodies so that it will not hinder human
health and give extra burden to the surrounding environment and ecosystem is the main
alternative to support and preserve the limited water resources.

2.1.1 Wastewater characteristics and discharge standards

The identities and concentrations of different substances that need to be removed from
the wastewater need to be done beforehand so that it is convenient to choose the
appropriate treatment method. The constituents in wastewater vary according to the
source of its generation. Constituents of domestic wastewater are different from the
constituents of industrial wastewater (Henze, 2008). Wastewater constituents can be
divided into different categories as listed in Table 2.2.
Wastewater is characterised in terms of its physical, chemical and biological
composition. The wastewater characterization quality depends on the sample collection,
storage and laboratory analysis. If we fail to collect, store and analyse the wastewater
sample correctly then the wastewater characteristics may not be the same that it has to
be.
The wastewater discharged by the industrial and commercial operations must strictly
meet the standards that will help protect the environment, human health and reduce
operation cost for the wastewater treatment. Wastewater consists of different organic
and inorganic compounds either in dissolved or in suspended stage depending on for
what it was used which make the wastewater treatment difficult. Different treatment
technologies are used to remove such pollutants and pathogens from the wastewater
which helps to improve the wastewater quality and discharge it into the water bodies.

Table 2.1 Health and environmental effects of nutrients

Nutrients
Ammonia

Nitrogen

Nitric acid

Phosphorus

Environmental & Health Effects

References

High concentrations cause the death of animals, birds

or fish, and death or low growth rate in plants, soil
acidification, possibility of forest drought and fire.
Short term or moderate exposure to human cause
severe burns to skin, eyes, throat, lungs, mouth and
stomach
Long term exposure to human cause permanent
blindness, lung disease, corneal disease, glaucoma or
chronic respiratory diseases

Agency for
Toxic
Substances and
Disease
Registry, 2004;

High concentrations of nitrogen cause eutrophication

process in water bodies which impact aquatic lives
In the animal stomach and intestines nitrates can form
nitrosamines; dangerously carcinogenic compounds
High concentration of nitrite and nitrate cause the
possibility of cancer, ingested nitrates and nitrites
might result in mutagenicity, teratogenicity and birth
defect, and coronary heart disease.
Very high level of nitrite causes methemoglobinemia,
reactions with hemoglobin in blood, causing the
oxygen carrying capacity of the blood to decrease
High level of nitrate increase the risk of gastric cancer
with high concentration, decreased functioning of the
thyroid gland, bladder and ovarian cancer
Nitrous oxide emission contributes to the climate
change

Erisman et al.,
2011;
Camargo et al.,
2006

High concentration of nitric acid cause soil

acidification, alteration of plant species composition,
affects the surface and ground water sources.
Concentrated nitric acid are highly corrosive to eyes
and skin and produces deep painful burns, eye contact
can cause severe burns and permanent damage
Inhalation of high concentrated HNO3 can cause
irritation during respiration, ingestion of HNO3 cause
burning and corrosion of the mouth, throat and stomach

Cisneros et al.,
2010

High concentration of total phosphorus enhances to

algal blooms that does not support the aquatic lives.
Higher amount of phosphate cause health problems like
kidney damage and osteoporosis. Decrease in
phosphate amount also cause health problems such as
loss of appetite, fatigue, anxiety, bone pain, fragile
bones, stiff joints, irregular breathing, irritability,
numbness, weakness, and weight change. In children,
decreased growth and poor bone and tooth development
may occur.
White phosphorus is extremely poisonous and in many
cases exposure to it will be fatal. It may cause nausea,
stomach cramps and drowsiness. It can cause skin
burns, liver, heart and kidney damage.

Coats et al.,
2011;
EPA, 2007

Table 2.2 Constituents present in domestic wastewater (Henze et al., 2002)

Wastewater
constituents
Microorganisms

Examples
Pathogenic bacteria, virus and
worm eggs

Biodegradable organic Oxygen depletion in rivers,

materials
lakes and fjords

Effects
Risk when bathing and
eating shellfish
Fish death, odours

Detergents, pesticides, fat, oil

and grease, colouring, solvents,
phenols, cyanide

Toxic effect, aesthetic

inconveniences, bio
accumulations in the food
chain

Nutrients

Nitrogen, phosphorus,
ammonium

Eutrophication, oxygen
depletion, toxic effect

Metals

Hg, Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni

Toxic effect,
bioaccumulation

Other inorganic
materials

Acids, for e.g. hydrogen

sulphide, bases

Corrosion, toxic effect

Thermal effects

Hot water

Changing living
conditions for flora and
fauna

Odour (and taste)

Hydrogen sulphide

Aesthetic inconveniences,
toxic effect

Radioactivity

Wastewater from hospitals,

laboratory which contains
radionuclides, uranium etc.

Toxic effect
accumulation.

Other organic
materials

All countries and regions have their own wastewater discharge standard and the treated
wastewater effluent has to meet with increasingly stringent discharge standard. Table
2.3 lists the Australian discharge standards of treated wastewater into the aquatic
ecosystem (EPA, 2005).

Table 2.3 Australian treated wastewater discharge standards (EPA, 2005)

Pollutants (mg/L)
pH
TOC
BOD5
DO
Turbidity (NTU)
SS
TN
NH4-N
PO4-P
TP
As (Total)
Cu (Total)
Cd (Total)
Cr (VI)
Fe (Total)
Pb (Total)
Hg (Total)
Ni (Total)
Se (Total)
Ag (Total)
Zn (Total)
Phenols (Total)
Toluene
Benzene
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons

Discharge limits
Aquatic Ecosystem
Fresh Water
Marine
6.5-9

15
10
10
10
>6
>6
20
10
20
10
5
5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.0044
1

0.005
0.005
0.0001
0.0001
0.15
0.015
0.005
0.07
0.0001
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.80
0.3
0.3
0.000001
0.000004
0.003
0.003

2.1.2 Wastewater treatment technologies

In previous years, until 1990, water authorities have kept pace with the growth in
population and its water requirements. However, in recent years the gap between supply
and demand has grown and the marginal costs of providing additional supplies are
rising sharply (Mekala et al., 2008). Many treatment technologies have been introduced

to fill this gap of demand and supply in an economical ways. Some of these
technologies are described in this section.
Wastewater can be treated by physical, biological, and chemical treatment methods in
different steps; preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary. In preliminary treatment
stage, all the big particles like grit, rags, leaves which can damage the equipments are
removed. From the primary treatment stage, floating and settleable materials in
wastewater are removed by sedimentation process or by adding some chemicals to
enhance the removal of suspended and dissolved solids. In secondary treatment stage,
biological and chemical processes are used to remove most of the organic matters from
the wastewater. From the tertiary treatment stage, residual suspended solids and other
constituents that cannot be removed by secondary treatment are removed by using an
additional combination of physical and chemical processes (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
The type and order of treatment vary from one treatment plant to another according to
the wastewater type.
The advantages and disadvantages of some of the treatment technologies used in
wastewater treatment are described, including, but not limited to, in Table 2.4. Some of
these technologies are relatively easy, reliable and economical to construct and operate.
However, some of these simple and low cost treatment technologies may be unreliable
for the systems that require frequent inspections and constant maintenance to ensure
smooth operation. For this reason, and also because of the land requirements for
biologically based technologies, many communities prefer mechanically-based
technologies, which tend to require less land and permit better control of the operation.
However, these systems generally have a high cost and require more skilled personnel
to operate them.

10

Table 2.4 Different types of treatment processes used in wastewater treatment

Treatment
Brief description
process
Physico-chemical treatment

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adsorption

Adsorption has been widely used in the removal of

toxic or persistent organic pollutants from
contaminated wastewater. It is also used sometimes
to treat inorganic contaminants from wastewater.
Most frequently used adsorbent in wastewater
treatment is granular or powdered activated carbon
(GAC or PAC).

Low initial cost, flexibility

and simplicity of design, ease
of operation and regeneration,
insensitivity to toxic
pollutants, avoids using toxic
solvents and minimizes
degradation.

High operation cost, this

process just transfers
pollutants from one phase
to another rather than
removing from the
environment.

Flotation

Flotation is a separation process widely used in

wastewater treatment process and mineral
processing industries. Flotation is very efficient for
removal of humic acid, rapid sedimentation and
comparatively cheaper than other processes. For
many years, flotation has been extensively used and
focused on the decrease of colloids, ions,
macromolecules, microorganisms and fibers.

High selectivity to recover

valuables (Au, Pt, Pd, etc.),
high efficiency to remove
contaminants, low operating
costs with the use of
upcoming flotation devices,
less space needs,

Required higher power

connection, less
flocculation flexibility and
performance are controlled
by the strict hydraulic
control.

Chemical
oxidation

For the treatment of wastewater containing toxic

materials or soluble organic non-biodegradable
substance, chemical oxidation treatment process is
required. Chemical oxidation is a widely studied
method for the treatment of effluents containing
refractory compounds. Chemical oxidation modifies
the structures of the pollutants in wastewater into
similar but less harmful compounds by adding
oxidizing agent.

Produces no significant
wastes except Fenton,
reduced operation and
monitoring costs, compatible
with post treatment monitored
natural attenuation and can
even enhance aerobic and
anaerobic biodegradation of
residual hydrocarbons.

Potentially higher initial

and overall costs relative to
other treatment processes,
contamination in low
permeability soils may not
be readily contacted and
destroyed by chemical
oxidants, significant health
and safety concerns are
associated with applying
oxidants.

11

References

Soto et al., 2011;

Jiuhui, 2008

Metcalf & Eddy,

2003;
Rubio et al., 2002

Renou et al., 2008;

EPA, 1998

Coagulation/
Flocculation

Air Stripping

12

These processes are popular as a pre-treatment

process for the removal of wastewater turbidity,
organic matter, color, and microorganism. These
processes are very essential component in
wastewater treatment process. Coagulation process
destabilizes colloidal particles by the addition of
coagulant. The most popular coagulants are
aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride and
ferric chloro-sulfate. To increase the particle size,
coagulation is usually followed by flocculation of
unstable particles into bulky floccules so that they
can settle easily.

Air stripping is widely used to treat the water

contaminated specially with volatile organic
compounds. In this process wastewater to be treated
is brought into contact with air so that some toxic
volatile substance present in the liquid phase can be
released and carried away by the gas. Mechanical
surface aeration, diffused aeration, spray fountains
etc. is the air stripping processes in which large
surface area of the wastewater is exposed to air
which helps to transfer the contamination in
wastewater from liquid phase to a gaseous phase.

Helps to remove suspended

particles from the wastewater
and make colloids or floc
particles settle faster and
easier to dewater.

Required rapid mixing in

the coagulation process to
disperse coagulant
throughout the liquid while
flocculants must be added
slowly and mix gently in
the flocculation process to
prevent agglomerated
particles from broken
apart. Excess coagulant
and flocculant can cause a
complete charge reversal
and destabilize the colloid
complex.

Low cost, easy to install,

operate and maintain, can be
installed in a small area.

Air Stripping units can

only take out chemicals
that can evaporate, bulk
items of pollution cannot
be taken out.

Zheng et al., 2011;

Amokrane et al.,
1997

Renou et al., 2008;

Srinivasan et al.,
2008

Chemical
Precipitation

Chemical precipitation is one of the methods for the

wastewater treatment. This method is basically used
to remove metals, fats, oils and greases, suspended
solids and some organic and inorganic compounds.
In this process of wastewater treatment, chemical is
added into wastewater and allow mixing it
homogeneously into the wastewater and finally the
soluble toxic compounds present in wastewater
become insoluble precipitates. Hydrogen sulfides or
sodium sulfates are commonly used chemicals in
this process.

Self-operating and low

maintenance, requiring only
replenishment of the
chemicals used, a
sophisticated operator is not
needed frequently

Overdosing can diminish

the effectiveness of the
treatment, the addition of
treatment chemicals like
lime may increase the
volume of waste sludge up
to 50%, large amounts of
chemicals may need to be
transported to the treatment
location.

EPA, 1998

Minimize odour, high

biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) removal efficiency
providing a good quality
effluent; can treat the higher
amount of influent even in
small scale systems, the
treated effluents may contain
dissolved oxygen which
reduces the immediate
oxygen demand on receiving
water and eliminates many
pathogens present in
agricultural wastes.

Requirement of energy and

mechanical devices to
aerate the basins and the
effluents with a high
suspended solids
concentration results
requirement of sludge
disposal area raise the cost
of the treatment requires
skilled man- power for
operation and maintenance.

Bae et al., 1999

Biological treatment

Aerobic
treatment

13

Aerobic treatment is the biological process in which

microorganisms use the free or dissolved oxygen in
the biodegradation of organic pollutants. These
treatment processes enhance the growth of naturally
occurring aerobic microorganisms which are the
main components in wastewater treatment
processes. Aerobic treatment processes based on
suspended-growth biomass, such as aerated lagoons,
CAS. Suspended growth bioreactor, attached growth
bioreactor, rotating biological contactor, trickling
filter, sequencing batch reactor are the mostly used
aerobic treatment processes.

Anaerobic
treatment

Anaerobic treatment utilizes naturally-occurring

bacteria to break down biodegradable material in
wastewater. Reactors are enclosed or covered to
prevent the introduction of air and the release of
odors. The absence of oxygen leads to controlled
anaerobic conversions of organic pollutants to
carbon dioxide and methane, the latter of which can
be utilized as an energy source. The anaerobic
treatment processes include anaerobic suspended
growth, upflow and downflow anaerobic attached
growth, fluidized bed attached growth, upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), anaerobic
lagoons, etc. They widely used to treat high strength
wastewater having a warm temperature because they
generate low amount of solids and requires and does
not require aeration, thereby saving energy for the
wastewater treatment.

Reduce CH4 & CO2

emissions, low sludge &
odour production, low
nutrient requirement,
correspondingly low
investment and operational
costs.

Requires expert design,

construction supervision,
insufficient pathogen
removal without
appropriate post treatment,
sensitivity towards toxic
substances, lower
microorganism growth rate

Ngo et al., 2008;

Metcalf and Eddy,
2003

Advanced treatment processes

Membrane
Technology

14

Membrane technology is easy and well-arranged

process conductions. The membrane acts as a very
precise filter that stops suspended solids and other
substances to pass through, while it allows water to
pass through. There are two factors that determine
the effectiveness of a membrane filtration processes:
retention and flux. Membrane filtration can be
divided into micro and ultrafiltration (MF/UF), nano
filtration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO). When
membrane filtration is used for the removal of larger
particles MF/UF are applied. The pressure that is
required to perform NF and RO is much higher than
the pressure required for MF/UF, while productivity
is much lower.

Higher treatment efficiency is

obtained in smaller footprints
compared to conventional
treatment processes, higher
biomass concentrations, no
long sludge-settling periods,
lower sensitivity to toxic
compounds and both organic
and high ammonia removals
in a single process, flexible in
terms of shape, load and
volume, minimize labor costs,
no need to add any chemicals.

High operating costs

associated with the aeration
process, membrane
replacement costs are high
and must be budgeted for
appropriately, concentrate
and waste stream disposal
issue.

Sonune et al., 2004

Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
(AOPs)

Membrane
bioreactor
(MBR)

15

AOPs are the chemical treatment procedures

considered to remove organic and inorganic
materials in wastewater by oxidation. AOPs
combine ozone (O3), ultraviolet (UV), hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2) and/or catalyst to offer a powerful
water treatment solution for the reduction or
removal of residual organic compounds as measured
by chemical oxygen demand (COD), BOD or total
organic carbon (TOC). All AOPs are designed to
produce hydroxyl radicals. It is the hydroxyl
radicals that act with high efficiency to destroy
organic compounds. AOPs are rapidly becoming the
chosen technology for its many applications such as
recalcitrant organic pollutant destruction in the form
of toxicity reduction, Biodegradability improvement
BOD/COD removal as well as odour and colour
removal from the industrial and municipal
wastewater. AOPs are recommended when
wastewater components have a high chemical
stability and/or low biodegradability.
MBR systems have mostly been used to treat
industrial wastewater, domestic wastewater and
specific municipal wastewater, where a small
footprint, water reuse, or stringent discharge
standards were required. It is expected that the MBR
system will increase in capacity and broaden in
application area due to future, more stringent
regulations and water reuse initiatives.

Effectively degrade and

remove specific pollutants
having a high chemical
stability and low
biodegradability, a
technologically efficient tool
for the treatment of water
with persistent residue,
enhance the treatment
performance of the system.

Relatively high operation

cost due to use of expensive
chemicals and increased
energy consumption,
formation of toxic
compounds which resist
attack by hydroxyl radicals.

Higher and more consistent

effluent quality can be
achieved even in smaller
footprints and smaller reactor
volume, less dependent on
mixed liquor suspended solid
(MLSS) concentration and
sludge volume index (SVI),
less sludge production, no
need of operators can operate
automatically.

Relatively expensive to
install and operate, required
frequent monitoring and
maintenance, limitations
imposed by pH,
temperature and pressure
requirements to meet the
membrane tolerance, less
efficient oxygen transfer
due to high MLSS
concentration.

Mandal et. al.,

2010;
Poyatos et al.,
2010;

Melin et al., 2006;

Cicek, 2003

Moving bed
biofilm
reactor
(MBBR)

16

The MBBR has become popular on the broad

range of wastewater treatment as an enhancement
of biological nutrient removal. MBBR is a
continuously operating, noncloggable biofilm
reactor with low head loss and high specific
biofilm. For this process, Specially designed
biofilm carrier is required in which
microorganisms start growing while moving
continuously with water in the reactor. This
process improves reliability, simplifies operation
and requires less space as compared to other
conventional treatment processes.

Required small footprint and

reactor volume, high
effluent quality in terms of
nutrient removal, good
disinfection capability,
higher volumetric loading,
shock load protection and
less sludge production, ease
in upgrade of existing
facilities.

High equipment and

operation cost, fouling or
biofouling of the
membrane due to deposits
of inorganic, organic &
microbiological materials
on the membrane surface
and inside the pores.
Extensive fouling leads to
a pronounced decrease in
permeate flux and can
threaten the economic
efficiency of the
membrane plant.

Shore et al., 2012

2.2 Low Pressure Membrane Processes

The rapid consumption of limited waste resources and requirement of more stringent
water quality regulations and the need for reuse of water have been the main driving
forces for the development of membrane technologies (Guo et al., 2007). The positive
points of membrane technology are the facts that it can work without the addition of
chemicals, with a relatively low energy use and easy and well arranged process
conductions. Researches have revealed that membranes are commonly used for the
removal of dissolved solids, color, and hardness in drinking water. The main function of
all the membranes is to separate the unwanted particles and pathogens that are larger
than the membrane pore size and some particles smaller than the pore size from the
liquid coming through their way. In wastewater reclamation and reuse, water quality
requirement is measured in terms of the amount of suspended solids, total dissolved
solids and selected constituents such as nitrates, chlorides, and natural and synthetic
organic compounds present in treated wastewater. Membrane technology is the most
practical and reasonable treatment process to reach the required effluent quality levels.
There are two basic types of membrane separation processes, namely low pressure
membrane processes and high pressure membrane processes. Microfiltration (MF) and
ultrafiltration (UF) are the low pressure membrane processes while nanofiltration (NF)
and reverse osmosis (RO) are the high pressure membrane processes. These processes
use hydraulic pressure to force water molecules through the membranes. For these
processes, all the membranes require certain pressure, some membrane needs low while
the others need high pressure, for example MF need 1 - 2 bar pressure, UF need less
than 5 bar pressure, NF need about 5 bar and RO need 15 50 bar pressure for the
operation. Low pressure membrane processes are widely used in municipal wastewater
treatment plants to treat the secondary effluent and use that final product of high quality
for other purposes such as irrigation, release to natural water bodies, pretreatment for
RO feed water and for industrial applications. Low pressure membranes are economical
in terms of manpower and equipment, easy for retrofitting the conventional processes as
well as they have higher efficiency to remove harmful bacteria and viruses from the
wastewater. However, those harmful pathogens like bacteria and viruses may pass
through these membranes and make the water harmful to use if the membranes used are
17

broken or of low quality (Guo et al., 2010). Therefore it is very important to make sure
that the membranes used in the system pass the membrane reliability tests. The removal
efficiency of the membranes depends on its pore size and the performance of these
membranes can impact by the cake layer formation on and within the membrane surface
by the deposition of contaminants during the filtration process.
The principal of MF is physical separation. MF is used for the removal of larger
particles. Generally, the membrane pore size for MF is 0.1 10 m. MF membranes can
remove most of the bacteria and can be implemented in many different water treatment
processes when particles with a diameter greater than 0.1 m needs to be removed from
a liquid. MF is also used as pretreatment for another membrane process like UF, NF or
RO (Renou et al., 2008). For complete removal of viruses, UF is required. The pores of
UF membrane can remove particles of 0.001 0.1 m from fluids. In UF process,
suspended solids and solutes of high molecular weight are retained, while water and
solutes of low molecular weight can pass through the membranes. UF offers higher
removals of solids than MF, but operates at higher pressures. UF in combination with
NF or RO in wastewater treatment can be a suitable treatment method which can
remove suspended solids and minimize the membrane fouling problems. UF membranes
have asymmetrical "skinned" surface structure and depth fouling does not occur with
this type of membrane, resulting in high and consistent membrane productivity
(Tchobanoglous et al., 1998). MF and UF can be used as the pre treatment process
before RO treatment in order to prevent the RO membrane from fouling problem due to
the suspended solids present in feed water.
In the previous few years, a revolution has been made in conventional wastewater
treatment technology by combining the membrane separation technology and
conventional bioreactor technology which has most promising prospect in terms of high
quality effluent generation and led to a new focus on wastewater treatment. MBR is one
of this technology which not only removes the organic and nutrient from the wastewater
but also remove the biological pollutants such as bacteria, pathogens and viruses. It
contributes to very compact systems working with high biomass concentration and
achieving a low sludge production and high organic carbon removal with an excellent
effluent quality. This technology has become more popular, abundant, and accepted in
recent years for the treatment of many types of wastewaters mostly for BOD and
18

nutrient removal, whereas the CAS process cannot cope with either composition of
wastewater or fluctuations of the wastewater flow rate (Sutherland, 2010; Radjenovic et
al., 2008). MBR have been widely applied at pilot or full scale on industrial wastewater
treatment.

2.2.1 Microfiltration/ Ultrafiltration (MF/UF)

MF and UF are widely used low pressure membrane process to control pathogens as
well as to remove turbidity associated with higher water production in all types of water
treatment plants (Moon et al., 2009). Water and wastewater treatment plants are one of
the widely used areas of microfiltration process while, this process is also used in food
and agro industry, chemical industry, metallurgy, biotechnology, paper and pulp
industry, pharmaceutical industry. Most of the influents either colloidal or suspended
present in feed water having a particle diameter greater than 0.1 m can be separated
from water by using MF process. Although, there is a possibility of the internal pore
clogging in MF membrane, it can be prevented by using membranes of appropriate pore
size, pre-treating the wastewater using the processes like screening, sedimentation etc.
and by backwashing the MF membranes. In MF, membrane fouling caused by
deposition of filtered constituents on the membrane surface and pore clogging are the
main drawbacks. These types of problems in MF membrane can reduce the filtration
capacity, permeate flux, life of the membrane by forming a permanent layer of deposit.
Deposits can be mechanically reversible but pore clogging is partially irreversible
(Vigneswaran et al., 1991). Cross flow microfiltration (CFMF) is effective process to
overcome these problems. In CFMF process, the feed water flow direction is parallel to
the membrane which helps to avoid the possibility of accumulation of suspended solids
on or inside the membrane. Back flushing or backwashing is used as a tool to remove
the deposits from the membrane surface and increase the permeate flux. Back flushing
is done by using highly pressurized permeate through the membrane and sometimes air
or gas are used for the back flushing. In wastewater reclamation, MF might provide a
suitable level of treatment and use of MF in conjunction with NF or RO might be
helpful to reduce the membrane fouling. Wang et al. (2009) reported experimental result
of MF operation which gives the removal efficiency of organic compounds from

19

laboratory simulated emulsified oily wastewater and factory wastewater over 95% and
the fouled membrane could be cleaned by using conventional cleaning methods.
UF is generally used in industrial and water reuse areas which can separate particles
smaller than 0.1 m and the pathogens that cannot be separate by MF. Generally the
function of MF and UF are similar but UF is considered as more efficient than MF to
separate pathogens and suspended and colloidal particles from liquid. UF are combined
with other conventional treatment processes in order to increase the removal efficiency
of the system and helpful to remove microbial contaminants, turbidity, dissolved
organic matter etc. present in the wastewater. Mohammadi et al. (2005) studied the
treatment of the wastewater by UF-powdered activated carbon (UF-PAC) and their
experimental results showed that UF is better than the conventional biological method
and UF-PAC is better than UF. They used PAC in feed circulation loop for the UF
system with a concentration of about 0.1% in their experiment which improved water
quality and increased permeation flux. Their results showed that the wastewater treated
by UF-PAC has a removal efficiency of 94, 93, 100, 99 and 43% of chemical oxygen
demand (COD), TOC, total suspended solid (TSS), PO4 and Cl respectively.
The main problem in UF membranes are they start fouling with the accumulation of
organic materials on or within the pores of the membrane which reduce the filtration
capacity and the permeability of the membrane (Jarusutthirak et al., 2001). Because of
this problem, the operating costs of UF process become higher and impact its increasing
application in the field of wastewater treatment and reuse.

2.2.2 Membrane bioreactor (MBR)

A recent advancement in wastewater treatment technology involves the filtration of
wastewater through porous membranes. Specifically, MBR combine the activated
sludge process of a CAS system with a membrane submerged in the process water
capable of filtering particulate waste constituents from the mixed liquor solution
(Sharrer et al., 2007). These technologies have introduced a new cutting edge on
wastewater treatment. For concentrated wastewaters, like industrial streams and landfill
leachate, MBR has been applied at full scale successfully however this system requires
20

relatively high energy. Using new membrane techniques, like transfer flow modules,
creates the possibilities of a more widespread application. MBR technologies provide
the potential for reuse wastewater generated from industries or municipalities and
decrease in sludge production. Since the use of CAS process in wastewater treatment
has some disadvantage like lack of footprint, problem in secondary sedimentation due to
excess filamentous bacteria growth in the sludge, MBR can withstand these problems
and capable to produce high quality treated water and also can be reused (Drews, 2010;
Aryal et al., 2009). The MBR combines suspended growth unit responsible for the
biodegradation of the waste compounds and the membrane filtration module for the
physical separation of the treated water from the mixed liquor using a porous membrane
that helps to retain high microbial concentration in the reactor and increase the
biological operation capacity of the reactor. The MBR process was introduced by the
late 1960s, as soon as commercial scale UF and MF membranes were available (Leclech et al., 2006). The original process was introduced by Dorr-Olivier Inc. and
combined the use of an activated sludge bioreactor with a cross flow membrane
filtration loop (Smith et al., 1969). Although the research on MBR technology began
only few decades ago, it has developed quite rapidly and become one of the important
technologies in wastewater treatment process. Up to this date, MBR systems have
mostly been used to treat industrial wastewater, domestic wastewater and specific
municipal wastewater. Requirement of higher removal of organic matters, suspended
solids, nutrient and harmful bacteria from the wastewater and the requirement to meet
the strict effluent discharge quality in terms of nutrient and micropollutants, the main
cause for the eutrophication and decrease the water quality in the receiving water
bodies, are the important issues in the present wastewater treatment processes (Ersu et
al., 2008; Kraume et al., 2005). MBR technology have become a most promising
process to overcome these issues and the nutrient removal from the wastewater and
several studies have been focused on nutrient removal from wastewater using MBR
(Galil et al., 2009; Ersu et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2008; Kraume et al., 2005; Song et al.,
2004; Adam et al., 2002; Lesjean et al., 2002).
The advantages and disadvantages of the MBR are listed in the Table 2.5.

21

Table 2.5 Advantages and disadvantages of MBR technology (Melin et al., 2006)
Advantages

Disadvantages

Treatment system can be made

automatic and operator requirements
are reduced.

Relatively expensive to install and

operate.

Decreased sludge production.

Frequent membrane monitoring and

maintenance.

Higher and more consistent effluent

quality as a result of membrane
filtration.

Limitations imposed by pressure,

temperature and pH requirements to meet
membrane tolerances.

Lower sensitivity to contaminant

peaks.

Membranes may be sensitive to some

chemicals.

Less dependent on the MLSS

concentration and SVI.

Less efficient oxygen transfer caused by

high MLSS concentrations.

Smaller footprints and smaller

reactor volume as a consequence of
higher mixed liquor concentration
and loading rate.

Treatability of surplus sludge is

questionable. Therefore there should be
special consideration for additional
treatment in emergency situations.

MBR System configurations

MBR operation can be classified into two operation modes; dead-end filtration and
cross-flow filtration (Radjenovic et al., 2008). The filtration of coarse particles down to
several micrometers is achieved by the conventional dead-end filtration. Particles
retained by the filter in dead-end filtration build up with time as a cake layer resulting in
an increased resistance to filtration. This requires frequent cleaning or replacement of
filters. This filtration is effective when the feed water contains low solid particles. In
cross-flow filtration, the feed water stream runs parallel to a filter media which
generates shear stress to scour the particles settled on the filter surface. Extra energy is
required in cross flow filtration, but it helps to control the cake layer formation on the
surface of the filter media. This type of filtration is effective when feed water carries
high level of foulants such as suspended solids and macromolecules. Figure 2.1 and 2.2
describes the dead end and cross flow filtration processes.

22

Figure 2.1 Dead end filtration

Figure 2.2 Cross flow filtration

The breakthrough for the MBR came in 1989 with the idea of Yamamoto and coworkers to submerge the membranes in the bioreactor which allowed the MBR to grow
faster (Sutherland, 2010). Until then, MBRs were designed with the separation device
located external to the reactor (side stream MBR) and relied on high trans-membrane
pressure (TMP) to maintain filtration. The resultant submerged membrane bioreactor
(SMBR) used two orders of magnitude less energy than the side stream version. In
submerged configurations, aeration is considered as one of the major parameters on
process performances both in hydraulic and biological. Aeration maintains solids in
suspension, scours the membrane surface and provides oxygen to the biomass, leading
to a better biodegradability and cell synthesis.
In MBR, membrane separation is carried out in two ways: 1) vacuum driven membranes
immersed directly into the bioreactor, which operates in a dead-end mode in submerged
MBRs and 2) pressure driven filtration in side stream MBRs (Radjenovic et al., 2008).
Submerged MBR configuration is very common and effective for wastewater treatment
because it consumes significantly less energy for the operations compared to side
stream MBR. The configuration of submerged and side stream MBR is shown in Figure
2.3 (A) and (B) respectively.

23

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.3 Configuration of MBR systems: (A) submerged MBR and (B) side-stream
MBR configuration
Both configurations need a shear over the membrane surface to prevent membrane
fouling with the constituents of mixed liquor. In side stream MBR, this shear is
provided through pumping while in immersed MBR aeration is employed to provide
shear. Fouling is more pronounced in side stream MBR module due to its higher
permeate flux.
There are different types of membrane materials; polymeric (polyethylene,
polyethersulfone, polysulfone, polyethylene, polyethersulfone, polysulfone), ceramic
and metallic. Polymeric and ceramic membranes are mainly used while metallic
membrane filter has very specific applications which do not relate to MBR technology.
These membrane materials must be formed in such a way as to allow water to pass
through it (Judd, 2007). There are five principal membrane configurations currently
employed in practice, namely hollow fiber (HF), spiralwound, plate-and-frame (i.e.
Flat sheet (FS), plated filter cartridge and tubular.
In HF module, large amounts of HF membranes of size 0.8 mm - 1.5 mm fine screen
make a bundle, and the ends of the fibers are sealed in epoxy block connected with the
outside of the housing. The water can flow from the inside to the outside of the
membrane and also from the outside to the inside, depends on the production of
different manufacturers. These membranes can work under pressure and vacuum
(Radjenovic et al., 2008).
24

The spiral-wound configuration is mostly used for the NF and RO process. The
membranes are wound around the perforated tube through which permeate goes out.
Many membrane modules can be installed together in series or parallel in plants with
high capacity. Plate-and-frame membrane modules comprise of FS membranes with
separators and/or support membranes. A fine screen of 2 mm 3 mm is usually
employed for FS membrane systems. The pieces of these sheets are clamped onto a
plate. The water flows across the membrane and permeate is being collected through
pipes emerging from the interior of membrane module in a process that operates under
vacuum. Plated filter cartridge and tubular membrane configuration modules are not
widely used as the other three modules. Typically, tubular membranes are
predominantly used for side stream configurations (Radjenovic et al., 2008).
The MBR process can be configured in many different ways depending on projectspecific nutrient removal objectives. The commercial significance of this technology is
considerable, with applications in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
becoming increasingly widespread. The market value of MBR technology was
approximately US $ 217 million in 2005, rising at an average annual growth rate of
10.9% that shows the MBR technology is growing significantly faster than the other
advanced wastewater treatment technologies (Judd, 2007). The MBR technology is
becoming more cost effective because of the decrease in cost of membrane and
membrane process and becoming more environmental friendly. The main driving factor
for the advancement of technological development, innovation and implementation of
membrane bioreactor technology in wastewater treatment to this extent is legislation
and the need of the industries which are working in this field. However, higher
operational costs due to membrane aeration, membrane fouling and the requirement of
chemicals for membrane cleaning which are harmful for the environment are the main
barriers in the widespread application of membrane bioreactor technology in wastewater
treatment (Drews, 2010)

2.2.3 Membrane fouling

In practice, the membrane filtration performance can change very much over time and a
continuous decline in the membrane permeability which is the result of membrane
25

fouling (Meng et al., 2010). The continuous deposition of unwanted microorganisms,

suspended solids, colloids and cell debris on the membrane surface or within the pores
of the membrane cause the membrane fouling. Membrane fouling has a great impact on
the process performance such as energy consumption or water production. The
concentration of all materials in the feed water either dissolved or suspended is highest
near the membrane surface. As permeate is drawn through the membrane, all impurities
are left on the membrane surface. The layer of water next to the membrane surface
(boundary layer) gets increasingly concentrated on the dissolved and suspended
materials. These concentrations reach a certain steady level depending on the feed
velocity, element recovery and membrane permeate flux. Maintaining proper operating
conditions for the membrane is the key preventative step to minimize membrane
fouling. The membrane fouling problem has narrowed the widespread application of
membrane despite of its many advantages. Control of membrane fouling and its
consequences in terms of plant maintenance, increased operating costs and the high cost
of membrane are the main inevitable obstacles encountered in the application of
membrane processes (Metzger et al., 2007).
Natural organic matter (NOM) plays an important role in membrane fouling (Zularisam
et al., 2006). As analytical techniques and knowledge of structural details of NOM
progress, identification of species responsible for fouling as well as understanding
membrane fouling mechanisms improve. For instance, today, it is well known that
humic substances as well as polysaccharides and proteins can be the major fouling
species for low- and high-pressure membranes (Jacquemet et al., 2005). While some
broad trends for simple colloids are valid for macromolecules like proteins, the labile
nature of proteins and the range of polydispersity of naturally occurring
macromolecules such as polysaccharides and some humic substances add a particular
complexity of the fouling mechanisms (Le-clech et al., 2006). Similarly, bound
extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and soluble microbial products (SMP) are the
two important factors which affect the membrane fouling potential to mixed liquor.
Bound EPS, which is directly related to the fouling, is a complex mixture of
macromolecular polyelectrolytes such as proteins, humic compounds that determines
the most of the sludge characteristics. SMP can absorb onto the membrane surface
which can block the membrane pores forming a gel like structure on the membrane
surface and introduce the hydraulic resistance to permeate flow (Feng et al., 2012).
26

Membrane pore clogging and sludge cake formation on membranes can be attributed to
the membrane fouling. Membrane fouling leads to decline in permeate flux or increase
in TMP, necessary to frequent membrane cleaning and replacement (Baek et al., 2009).
Therefore, for the economical and efficient operation of membrane process, it is
becoming very important to take a remarkable step on membrane fouling control.
Membrane fouling mechanism can be described as (Guo et al., 2012; Meng et. al.,
2009):
1. Adsorption of solutes or colloids within/on membranes,
2. Deposition of sludge flocs onto the membrane surface,
3. Formation of a cake layer on the membrane surface,
4. Detachment of foulants attributed mainly to shear forces,
5. Biological fouling and
6. Pore blocking.
Membrane flux and TMP are the best indicators of membrane fouling; membrane
fouling occurs during an increase in TMP to maintain a particular flux or during
decrease in flux when the system is operated at constant pressure (Guo et al., 2012).
Under constant flux operation, TMP increases to compensate for the fouling. On the
other hand, under constant pressure operation, flux declines due to membrane fouling.
The TMP jump is believed to be the consequence of severe membrane fouling. The
sudden TMP jump is not only due to the local flux effect, but also caused by the sudden
change of biofilm or cake layer structure (Zhang et al., 2006). A more recent
investigation also confirmed that the sudden TMP jump is closely related to the sudden
increase in the concentration of EPS at the bottom of the cake layer, which might be
attributed to the death of bacteria in the inner of cake layer (Hwang et al., 2008). Thus,
to control membrane fouling, occurrence of TMP jump must be minimized.
Generally, membrane fouling can be classified as:
a. Removable and irremovable fouling
The removable fouling can be removed easily by physical processes such as
backwashing. The irremovable fouling cannot be removed by physical measures but by
27

chemical cleaning. The removable fouling and reversible fouling are the same. The
removable fouling is caused by loosely attached foulants or the cake layer formed on the
surface of the membrane while irremovable fouling is caused by pore blocking and
strongly attached foulants during filtration. The irreversible fouling is a perpetual
fouling and cannot be removed by any measures (Chang et al., 2002).
b. Biofouling, organic fouling and inorganic fouling
Biofouling is the deposition, growth and metabolism of undesirable bacteria cells or
flocs on the surface of the membranes, which has stimulated a significant concern in
membrane filtration processes. Biofouling is a major problem for low pressure
membranes like UF and MF because must foulants (microbial flocs) in MBRs are much
larger than the membrane pore size. The deposition of biopolymers (proteins and
polysaccharides) on the membranes causes the organic fouling. Due to small size, the
biopolymers can be deposited onto the membranes more readily due to the permeate
flow, but they have low back transport velocity due to lift forces in comparison to large
particles (colloids and sludge flocs) (Meng et al., 2009). The inorganic fouling can be
formed through two ways; chemical precipitation and biological precipitation. In
general, membrane fouling in MBRs is mainly governed by biofouling and organic
fouling rather than inorganic fouling, although all of them take place simultaneously
during membrane filtration of activated sludge (Meng et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2002).
All the parameters involved in the design and operation of membrane processes have an
influence on membrane fouling. The factors affecting membrane fouling can be
classified into four groups: membrane characteristics, biomass characteristics, feed
water characteristics and operating conditions as shown in Figure 2.4 below (Le-clech et
al., 2006; Chang et al., 2002). There are also some membrane fouling constituents
which determine the severity of fouling and technique needed to be used to control it.
These fouling constituents can be organic or inorganic particles which form a cake layer
on the membrane surface or microbiological organisms which can stick to the
membrane surface and hence produce biofouling. Some of these factors have a direct
influence on fouling while others enhance the fouling propensity. Therefore it is very
important to fully understand the biological, chemical and physical phenomena
occurring in membrane operation to evaluate fouling propensity and mechanisms.
28

Factors affecting fouling

Membrane

Biomass

Operating condition

Configuration

MLSS

Configuration

Material

EPS

CFV

Hydrophobicity

Floc structure

Aeration

Porosity

Dissolved matter

HRT/SRT

Pore size

Floc size

TMP

Figure 2.4 Factors influencing membrane fouling in membrane processes (Le-cleach et

al., 2006; Chang et al., 2002)
The techniques used to control membrane fouling in membrane processes are
categorized into the following groups (Yang et al., 2006):
Modification of membrane module design by optimizing the packing density of
hollow fibers flat sheets, the location of aerators, the orientation of fibers and
diameters of fibers.
Reduction of cake layer formation on membrane surfaces by controlling the
filtration process below the critical flux, by air-sparging in vicinity of membrane
and by operating in intermittent mode.
Improvement of the filtration characteristics of the mixed liquor by adding
adsorbents such as PAC.
Removal of the fouling materials after its formation by back-washing, backpushing and by chemical cleaning.
Although the above mentioned methods can effectively prevent the membrane fouling
to a certain extent, the decrease of membrane permeability is inevitable due to pore
clogging, sludge cake formation and biofouling. Once the membrane flux has decreased
below the design value, membrane cleaning needed to be done to recover the membrane
permeability. Pretreatment of the feed water is one approach to control membrane
fouling by reducing TSS and bacterial content of the feed water. Sometimes the feed
29

water will be conditioned chemically to limit chemical precipitation within the units.
Back flushing with water and /or air is the most commonly used methods to improve the
membrane performance by moving colloidal particles and cell waste away from
membrane pores into the mixed liquor and eliminate the accumulated materials from
membrane surface. Chemical treatment is used to remove constituents that are not
removed during back washing (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
Several investigations have been performed to remove the membrane fouling and to get
more detailed information about it (Aryal et al., 2009; Baek et al. 2009; Metzger et al.,
2007; Le-clech et al., 2006; Jacquemet et al., 2005). Control of fouling is of utmost
importance. It can be reduced by maintaining turbulent conditions, operating at subcritical flux and /or by the selection of a suitable fouling resistance membrane material
(Liang et al., 2012). Chang (2011) did the critical review of previous researches and
concluded that the submerged hollow fiber membrane modules are effective membrane
module design for the MBR applications. However, the cost efficiency of the system
depends on the membrane properties, fiber diameter and configurations, aeration types
and the cassette design. For the long term stable operation of the membrane, it is
necessary to do the regular maintenance and recovery chemical cleaning of the
membranes. Sombatsompop et al. (2006) evaluated the biofouling phenomenon in
suspended and attached MBR systems during their research and found that MLSS
concentrations play vital role in the fouling process. They concluded that the membrane
fouling increased with increase in MLSS concentration and it is affected by the design
of operating system i.e. reactor with and without the media. They found out the attached
growth reactor has lower fouling and prolong filtration compared to the suspended
reactor due to the difference in particle size distribution of biomass between the two
reactors. Kim et al. (2008) conducted the experiment to control the membrane fouling
by changing the depth of membrane module in SMBR and concluded that if the
membrane module is elevated vertically to the upper zone of the reactor where MLSS
concentration is lower compared to the lower zone of the reactor, the membrane fouling
can be reduced and total nitrogen removal efficiency can also be improved. Park et al.
(2010) also carried out the experiment to reduce the membrane fouling by using a
vertically oriented hollow fiber membrane module equipped with a simultaneous
upward and downward air sparging. In this study, two different membrane air sparging
configurations; simultaneous upward and downward and single upward air sparging
30

were used to compare the fouling propensity in terms of TMP increasing rate,
membrane permeability decreasing rate, irreversible fouling coefficient and fouling
resistance values. This research concluded that the dual header vertically oriented HF
membrane module with simultaneous up and downward air sparging configuration was
more efficient than the single upward air sparging configuration in terms of reduced
membrane fouling rate and enhanced membrane permeability which means reduction in
the operating cost.
However, many researches have been done from more than decades in membrane
fouling and many advanced information have been achieved in this area, membrane
fouling in MBR is still complicated to understand because of its complex characteristics
and some of its phenomena which are difficult to understand. This complex nature of
membrane fouling cannot be explained by any single technique (Meng et al., 2010).
Improved aeration reduced MLSS concentration in the bioreactor, membrane
backwashing and improved membrane modules are some of the processes that have
been done to control membrane fouling. It is very important to carry out further research
in membrane fouling in order to expand the use of membrane technology in wastewater
treatment.

2.3 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) from Wastewater

It is very important to remove nutrient from wastewater before it reaches the natural
water bodies to prevent eutrophication process and protect the quality of water in water
bodies. Excess nutrients cause oxygen deficient, algal growth, increase in ammonia and
phosphorus, harmful algal blooms, high microbial activity and turbidity in the receiving
water bodies which is very harmful to the human health as well as aquatic lives. To
minimize such effects, more stringent effluent limit for nitrogen and phosphorus has
been setup to discharge the effluents into the water bodies. This leads the requirement of
improved wastewater treatment technology to achieve the lower limit of nutrient and
organic matters in effluent. Biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes remove total
nitrogen and total phosphorus from wastewater through the use of microorganisms
under different environmental conditions in the treatment process (Metcalf and Eddy,
2003). The biological nutrient removal processes require various combinations of
31

anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic conditions to remove nutrient. For nitrogen removal
aerobic-anoxic condition is favorable while alternating anaerobic-aerobic condition is
better for the phosphorous removal. Attached growth treatment technology has become
popular and promising method for the nutrient removal. Many successful researches
have been done using this technology for the successful biological nutrient removal
from different types of wastewater. Nowadays, specially designed biomass carriers such
as plastic media or polyurethane foam have been used in wastewater treatment process
to enhance the nutrient removal efficiency.

2.3.1 Nitrogen removal

Wastewater generated from municipal, industrial and agricultural processes mostly
contain nitrogen. Total nitrogen in wastewater can be divided as organic nitrogen,
ammonium, nitrite and nitrate (Tchobanoglous et al., 2001). In domestic wastewater
60% of total nitrogen belongs to ammonium nitrite and nitrate while 40% of total
nitrogen belongs to organic nitrogen. Exposure to high concentration of ammonia or
nitrogen can cause many health effects such as; skin and eye irritation, disease related to
the respiratory tract, corrosive damage to mouth, throat and stomach and many other
risks. Nitrogen can be removed from wastewater by biological processes such as
nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification process required oxygen and in the
presence of oxygen ammonium nitrogen is converted into nitrite and nitrate with the
help of nitrosomonas or ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrobacter or nitriteoxidizing bacteria (NOB) respectively. This process can be explained by the following
equations;
2NH4+ + 3O2

2NO2- + 2H2O + 4H+

2NO2- + O2

2NO3-

Nitrification process requires adequate oxygen, long SRT, low food to microorganism
ratio, adequate temperature and pH. It reaches the maximum rate at dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentration of 1 mg/L or more, pH between 6.5 - 7.0, and temperature between
30C - 35C.

32

During denitrification Process, nitrate is reduced to gaseous nitrogen by denitrifying

microorganisms and this process occurs in the absence of oxygen as a result
microorganisms start consuming nitrate as a source of oxygen. Bacteria break nitrate to
nitrous oxide and then to nitrogen to gain oxygen which is very important for the
microorganisms to survive. The produced free nitrogen gas mix into the atmosphere as
it is a major component of air. The equation below can illustrate the denitrification
process;
6NO3- + 5CH3OH

3N2 + 5CO2 + 7H2O + 6OH-

Carbon, oxygen, pH, nitrate concentration and temperature play a major role in the
denitrification process. Optimum condition for denitrification occur at pH between 7
8.5, temperature between 5C 30C and DO less than 0.5 mg/L, while readily
biodegradable COD is used as a source of organic carbon.

2.3.2 Phosphorus removal

Phosphorus is a vital factor for the growth of living organisms. It is a multivalent nonmetal of the nitrogen group and can be found in nature in several allotropic forms.
Phosphorus is useful for many applications such as; production of fertilizers,
pyrotechnics, pesticides, toothpaste, detergents productions. Phosphates are important
for human body because they are a part of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) materials and
they helps in energy distribution. However, the excess amount of phosphate can cause
health problems like kidney damage and less amount of phosphate also cause the health
problems. Similarly, excess amount of phosphorus in water bodies enhances the
eutrophication process. The treated effluent must have 0.10 2.0 mg/L of phosphorus
depending upon the potential impact on receiving water bodies (Metcalf and Eddy,
2003). Phosphorus is never found in the environment in its pure form, it appears only as
phosphates. Phosphorus can be found in wastewater as orthophosphate, polyphosphate
and organically bound phosphorus. Phosphorus is found as an ion in wastewater and can
be removed by converting it into insoluble solid fractions. This insoluble solid fraction
of phosphate can be recycled and used as a raw material in the phosphate industry.
Some part of phosphorus in wastewater is consumed by the microorganisms for cell
33

synthesis and energy transport. Normally, an anoxic reactor followed by anaerobic and
aerobic reactor is used for the phosphorus removal. Adam et al. (2002) carried out the
MBR bench scale pilot plant in parallel to the conventional plant under the similar
operation condition and their study showed that the MBR can remove phosphorus
effectively.
Phosphorus removal in wastewater is achieved mostly by phosphate accumulating
organism (PAO) which can store phosphorus within its cell. PAO store volatile fatty
acid (VFA) as intracellular products. For the biological phosphorus removal, VFA in
wastewater in anaerobic condition and DO in aerobic condition is required (Fuhs et al.,
1975).

2.4. Attached Growth Processes for Wastewater Treatment

The performance of biological wastewater treatment system depends on the total
biomass concentration on the system (Jianlong et al., 2000). Attached growth process is
a biological treatment process in which microorganisms grow and build a thin biofilm
layer in a specially designed inert materials such as gravel, sand, peat, or specially
woven fabric, plastic or sponges, moving freely in the whole volume of the reactor by
absorbing organic matter or other harmful constituents in wastewater. The basic
principle of the process is that the biomass grows on a specially designed mobile
carriers introduced in the reactor simultaneously with the oxidation of organic or
inorganic compounds in wastewater. Certain agitation is setup in the process to make
the carriers mobile by aeration in aerobic condition or mechanical mixing in anaerobic
and anoxic condition. The biofilm carriers provide a large protected surface area for the
aerobic biofilm and optimal conditions for the bacteria culture to grow and thrive. They
also improve volumetric nitrification rates and accomplish denitrification in the aeration
tanks by having anoxic zone within the biofilm depth. These microorganisms are
primarily aerobic and oxygen is a key requirement for their survival. Raw wastewater
must be treated before supplying into the attached growth system to remove the larger
solids and floating debris, because these solids can plug the filter. Attached growth
processes in wastewater treatment are very effective for BOD removal, nitrification, and
denitrification. The main advantage of the attached growth system is the high biomass
34

concentration, which enables stability under high organic and hydraulic loading, very
high sludge residence time, lower sensitivity to toxic effects, and easier adaptation to
feed pollutants. In addition, the compact size of these systems drastically reduces the
capital cost while operating cost is minimal in cases where natural aeration takes place
(trickling filters and RBCs) (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). Disadvantages are a larger land
requirement, poor operation in cold weather, and potential odor problems. There are
many variations and combinations of these processes, sometimes referred to as hybrids
that use the attached growth process in combination with other technologies
(Sombatsompop et al., 2006). The biomass growth systems can generally be classified
as shown in Figure 2.5.
Biomass in wastewater

Suspended growth

Dispersed growth
Lagoons

Flocculated growth
Activated sludge
Anaerobic sludge
Blanket reactor

Attached growth/Biofilm
Trickling filter
Rotating biological contactor
Biological activated sludge
anaerobic

Hybrid growth
Fluidized bed reactor
Expanded bed reactor
Immersed media systems
Porous support systems
Carriers activated sludge
Figure 2.5 Biomass growth systems in wastewater treatment systems (Jianlong et al.,
2000).
Attached growth processes can be classified into two groups with regard to the carrier
status as; fixed bed and moving bed reactors. The moving bed reactors are defined as
the biomass growth on small carrier materials that move along with water in the reactor
(e.g. Rotating biological contactor). In the fixed film systems the media are held in
place, allowing the wastewater to flow over the bed (such as trickling filters). Figure 2.6
35

best illustrates these two types of reactors. In most cases, drains under the media collect
the effluent and either send it back through the filter or send it on for further treatment.
Different types of attached growth systems for wastewater treatment are summarized in
Table 2.6.

Effluen

Air supply line

Influe
MBBR

Effluen

Air supply line

Influe
Fixed bed bioreactor

Figure 2.6 Typical diagram for MBBR and fixed bed bioreactor.
The attached growth bioreactor using specific materials is an alternative process to
overcome from the problem of fouling in MBR (Ngo et al., 2006). Combining a biofilm
reactor with membrane separation of the suspended solids may help to reduce the effect
of membrane fouling by high biomass concentrations (Leiknes et al., 2001). Biological
processes often required large land area due to the requirement for high HRT. They also
require high energy input for aeration and sludge management that is another problem
with these processes. Attached growth biofilm can form aerobic zone, anoxic zone and
anaerobic zone along the direction of mass transfer, providing a favourable environment
for simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. It could be presumed that the biofilm
can improve the total nitrogen removal in aerobic phase and inhibit the transfer of
nitrate into the anaerobic phase. As a result, simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus
removal could be resolved in a single tank (Yang et al., 2010).

36

Table 2.6 Different types of attached growth systems (Odegaard, 1999)

Type of attached growth
systems
Tricking filter
Rotating biological
contactor (RBC)
Fixed media submerged
biofilter

Granular media biofilter

Fluidized bed reactor

(FBR)
Air lift
MBBR

Hybrid bed Filter

Comments
High surface area for biofilm attachment
Require low power for operation
Not volume effective
High surface area for biofilm attachment
Mechanical failure
High surface area for biofilm attachment
Simultaneous biological treatment and
suspended solid removal
Poor distribution of the load on the hole carrier
Simultaneous biological treatment and
suspended solid removal
Need backwashing
Highest volumetric rate for carbon and
nitrogen removal
Stability for shock loading
Hydraulic instability, expensive
Good mixing capacities and enhanced mass
transfer
Good oxygen transfer,
Auto-regulation of biofilm thickness
Simple distribution of liquid flow that enable
raw unsettled wastewater to be treated directly.
No need for high rate effluent recirculation and
concomitant pumping energy
Maximize biomass concentration in reactor
Increase cost to the system due to added
support medias.

Loukidou et al. (2001) concluded on their experiment that the attached growth biofilm
treatment method can be an attractive another option to the CAS process for the
effective biological removal of carbon and nitrogen content from sanitary landfill
leachate. Khan et al. (2011) studied the performance of attached and suspended growth
process in membrane bioreactor. They found the presence of small bio particles having
a higher microbial activity and the growth of complex biomass captured within the
suspended sponge carrier resulted in improved total nitrogen and total phosphorus
removal efficiency in an attached growth membrane bioreactor. Attached growth
bioreactors having specific materials like sponge, polyethylene sheet has been used to
modify biological processes and to obtain effective nutrient removal efficiencies.

37

2.4.1 Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)

The MBBR technology was developed in Norway in the late 1980s and early 1990s
when the nitrogen removal from the wastewater was the main focus and later on organic
matter removal has been more investigated (Odegaard, 1999). This technology adopts
the best from activated sludge processes and biofilter processes and can be operated as a
standalone process or it can be used to specifically enhance or upgrade the treatment
capacity of old plants which has limited space for the future extension. This process has
become popular in the field of wastewater treatment because it maximizes the capacity
and efficiency of the treatment plant while minimizing the footprints. It has the capacity
to withstand the challenges of wastewater industry like; retrofitting the old treatment
plants, higher nutrient removal capacity, produce less sludge as a result of high biomass
retention time, minimize process complexities and operators, no need of backwashing,
easy maintenance, economical, self regulating process with fluctuating organic loads
and so on. MBBR systems are mainly based on the aeration rate and reactors filled with
the specially designed carriers to provide a surface to colonize by bacteria (Rahimi et
al., 2011). When the suspended porous biofilm carriers are kept in continuously mixed
and operated aeration tank, active biomass grows as a biofilm on the surface of these
carriers having a density slightly less than the water (Kermani et al., 2008). MBBR
system is the efficient method to retain slow growing microorganisms such as nitrifiers
in the form of biofilm.
The MBBR system can be operated under aerobic conditions for BOD removal and
nitrification or under anoxic conditions for denitrification. During operation, the carriers
are kept in constant circulation. In an aerobic reactor, circulation is induced through the
action of air bubbles injected into the tank by a coarse bubble diffuser system. In an
anoxic reactor, a submerged mechanical mixer is typically supplied. Specific area of the
biomass carrier, flow and the mixing condition in the reactor and DO concentration are
the main factors that affect the operation of MBBR.

38

2.4.2 Different types of media used in MBBR

The media on which the biofilm develops are carefully designed with high internal
surface area having density slightly less than the water so that it can easily float. The
most commonly used solid surface for attached growth processes are; stones, clinker,
sand, activated charcoal, kieselguhr, metals, plastic sheets, and foams. There are
different types of media which can be used as a media for the microbial growth. The
physical appearance and characteristics of these media are shown in Table 2.7 and
Figure 2.7. The biofilm carrier is selected to have low density close to water (sponge or
plastic carriers), high specific surface area, good holding capacity, and it must avoid the
clogging by increased biomass.
By means of biomass carriers, it is possible to obtain a two fold increase in biomass
concentration in the aeration tanks compared to that in the conventional activated sludge
process (Jianlong et al., 2000). Tavares et al. (1995) stated that the microorganisms
produce a kind of natural polymer which helps them to attach to the surface of inert
carrier resulting the biofilm layer formation.

39

Polyethylene
beads (PB)

PVA-gel

Tezontle grains

Sand

Polyethylene
granule (PG)

Cylindrical
polypropylene (CP)

Poly propylene

Polyethylene Ball

HDPE grains

LDPE grains

BioPortzTM

WD-f10-4 bioMTM

Polyethylene
sheet (PS)

KaldnesTM K1

KaldnesTM K3

Flocor RMP-HPS Ceramic carriers Honeycomb ceramic Ceramic spheres

polypropylene
cubes

Natrix C10/10

Figure 2.7 The physical appearance of the media used in attached growth processes
40

Sponges (S)

polyurethane
SESSIL

Polyethylene tape

Loofa sponge

Table 2.7 Characteristics of media used in the attached growth processes

Media

Shape

Size

Specific Surface
area (m2/g)

PB

Beads

0.9 mm

2.5410-3

PG

Granules

3 mm

1.2210-3

CP

Cylindrical

Int. 3 mm
Ext 4 mm
Length 5 mm

5.8110-3

PS

Sheet

11 cm

1.9410-3

Cubic

151515 mm

0.91

K1

Cylindrical

10 mm
Length 7mm

5.010-3

K3

Cylindrical

10 mm
Length 7 mm

0.510-3

Spherical

4 mm

BioPortzTM

Cylindrical

20 mm
Length 20 mm

0.5810-3

poly propylene

Cylindrical

granules

0.3510-3

Polyethylene Ball

Circular

10 mm
Length 7 mm

0.3210-3

WD-F10-4bioMTM

Cylindrical

25 mm

0.910-3

10 mm
Length 10 mm
20.5 mm
Length 18.2 mm

2.7710-3

Cylindrical

20 mm
Length 15 mm

0.910-3

Ceramic spheres

Spherical

Outer 20 cm
inner 18 cm
Length 18 cm

1.03210-3

Tezontle grains

Cylindrical

3.25 mm

1.2110-3

HDPE grains

Granules

3.0 mm

1.17710-3

LDPE grains

Granules

4.5 mm

0.75510-3

Polypropylene grains

Granules

3.5 mm

1.00110-3

Cubes

252525 mm

1.10210-3

PVA-gel beads

Flocor
RMP-HSP
PVC plastic
tubes
Nonwoven hollow
cylinder

Polyurethane cubes

Cylindrical
Cylindrical

0.1510-3

41

Polyethylene tape
SESSIL
Loofa sponge

Tapes

30150 mm

1.09810-3

Cylindrical

Length 36.25 cm

Natrix C 10/10

Cylindrical

31-36 mm
Length 32 mm

0.3110-3

Circular

3.0 mm

820 m-1

Cubes

555 mm

Sand
Polyether foam cube

The biofilm carrier should provide a suitable larger internal surface area and good
surface texture for quick biomass growth and to hold biomass against shear and
sloughing (Chaudhary et al., 2003). The design of biofilm carrier is important due to
requirements for good mass transfer and nutrients to microorganisms. The key
parameters of the biofilm carriers are its shape and the percentage of the tank filled with
it (Robescu et al., 2009). For the effective growth of biofilm and its performance in a
reactor we need to take special care while we design the specific surface area of the
carrier and the filling fraction of the carrier in the reactor (Odegaard et al., 2000). The
specific surface area of the carrier reflects the amount of surface area available for
biofilm development per unit volume of the carrier on a bulk volume basis. The reactor
specific surface area equals the specific surface area of the carrier multiplied by the
fraction of the total reactor volume that the carrier occupies (bulk volume basis) (Weiss
et al., 2005).
The attachment of microorganism to the surface and the subsequent growth of the
biofilm community depend upon the surface of the biofilm carriers that are rougher,
more hydrophobic, and coated with surface-conditioning films (Vayenas, 2011). Sponge
has been considered as a reasonable attached growth media because it can act as a
mobile carrier for active biomass resulting in improved organic and nutrient removal as
well as reduces fouling of the membrane by reducing the cake layers formed on the
surface of the membrane and retain microorganisms by incorporating a hybrid growth
system (Guo et al., 2009; Ngo et al., 2006).

42

2.4.3 Theory of attached growth processes

Biological wastewater treatment process has been performed as one of the most
effective treatment processes for the removal of organic pollutants from wastewater.
The biological process has been improved during the last few years and one of these
new improved process includes the addition of specially designed porous mobile
elements called carriers into the aeration tank that provide a surface for the biological
growth (Robescu et al., 2009). The basic principle of the process is that the biomass
grows on the specially designed carriers that move into the reactor by the agitation setup
by aeration in aerobic condition or mechanical mixing in anaerobic and anoxic
condition. It might take a few days or months to grow biofilm depending on the feed
water organic concentration and the biomass carrier types. It is very important to control
and maintain a healthy biomass on the surface of the media (Chaudhary et al., 2003). As
shown in the Figure 2.8, a biomass layer sticks to the surface of the solid media and
start growing. The liquid wastewater passes adjacent to the biomass layer forming a
liquid layer. During the passage of the wastewater in the liquid layer and its contacts
with the biofilm layer, the organic matter, ammonia, phosphate and DO in addition to
other dissolved materials penetrate into the biomass layer by diffusion. The biochemical
reactions such as organic matter oxidation, nitrification occurs inside the biofilm layer.
The end products such as CO2, H2O and NO3 leave the biofilm layer back to the liquid
layer and move out with the liquid flow of the effluent stream.

Biofilm media

Liquid inflow

Organic matter, NH4, O2

End products (CO2 + H2O + NO3)

Biofilm layer

Liquid outflow

Figure 2.8 Schematic diagram of attached growth Process.

43

The bacteria in the biomass layer grow and some will die. The dead bacteria lose its
sticky characteristics and it is removed from the biomass layer by the action of the
moving liquid while the fixed bacteria within the media are very stable and active.
Denitrification can be achieved in the attached growth system in the lower parts of the
system where anoxic conditions exist (Ngo et al., 2006). In an aqueous environment,
microorganisms attach to wet surfaces, multiply, and embed themselves in a slimy
matrix composed of the EPS they produce, forming a biofilm. Attached cells metabolize
prevailing energy and carbon substrates, consume electron acceptors, grow, replicate,
and produce more insoluble extracellular polymers, predominantly polysaccharides,
thus accumulating a viable biofilm community. As the microorganisms grow, the
thickness of the biofilm layer in the carrier increases that results the consumption of
diffused oxygen and the metabolization of adsorbed organic matter before it can reach
the microorganisms near the carrier face. These results the microorganisms near the
carrier face enter into an endogenous phase of growth and lose their ability to cling to
the carrier surface. The liquid flow then washed away the biofilm from the carrier, and a
new biofilm layer starts to grow (Vayenas, 2011).

2.4.4 MBR and MBBR for nutrient removal

Although the activated sludge process has been used in biological treatment of
wastewater as one of the most economical and widely used method for more than 100
years, lots of modifications have been made because of the higher quality effluent
requirement and the more strict rules and regulations for discharging treated wastewater
into the natural water bodies. Compact wastewater treatment plants that produce an
effluent of high standard in the presence of smaller footprint and minimize waste is
increasingly become worldwide concern particularly in the densely populated areas
where limited space is available for the treatment plants (Leiknes et al., 2001).
Biological processes particularly MBBR is one of the advanced treatment processes in
wastewater treatment which offer compact treatment plant design to overcome the
drawbacks of CAS process and produce higher quality effluent even in smaller foot
print.

44

MBBR has been successfully applied to full-scale treatment of municipal and industrial
wastewaters (Pal et al., 2012). Specially designed biomass carriers having high specific
surface area, surface roughness, high durability, strength and porosity is one of the
important parts of MBBR. In MBBR system, the biofilm helps to maintain high
biomass age which gives favorable conditions for the specific slowly growing bacteria
(nitrifiers) (Rahimi et al., 2011). Many studies carried out for nutrient removal from
wastewater using MBBR found that MBBR technique is very useful to meet the recent
stringent rules of nutrient discharge limits. In this technique, simultaneous nitrification
and denitrification is possible in the continuously aerated bioreactor by introducing
biofilm carrier in the reactor. For example, Guo et al. (2010) did experiment on the
MBBR using Polyurethane foam (PU) cubes with different sizes as carrier and got
100% phosphorus removal. Similarly, Chu et al. (2011) investigated the performance of
MBBR using PU foam and biodegradable polymers including polycaprolactone (PCL)
as biofilm carriers separately and found that MBBR filled with PU carriers gave good
removal of TOC and ammonium (90% and 65% removal efficiency) while MBBR filled
with biodegradable PCL carriers are good for TN removal (58% removal efficiency).
Research to optimize wastewater treatment units has been demanding because of the
strict environmental standards to be faced in coming future. Integrated MBR with
MBBR is the most popular treatment configuration (Guo et al., 2008). MBR system is
widely used in the wastewater treatment by the improvements in membrane stability
and cost effectiveness. However, MBR is facing problem of membrane fouling which
lead to decrease in membrane performance by the deposition of foulants on the
membrane surface resulting decrease in flux and membrane area. From researches and
study, MBBR or addition of specially designed media in the MBR is proven as one of
the best option to minimize these problems and enhance the nutrient removal efficiency.
The use of media for attached growth in the MBR system become popular in the field of
biological nutrient removal from different types of wastewater. Khan et al. (2011)
carried out an experiment using suspended and attached growth MBR for nutrient
removal from synthetic wastewater and they concluded that the attached growth MBR
has higher efficiency for the nutrient removal compared to the suspended growth MBR.
Guo et al. (2009) investigated the effect of different sponge sizes on a submerged MBR
for improved nutrient removal from wastewater and concluded that the system is
effective for high nutrient removal. Similarly, Leiknes et al. (2007) investigated the
45

potential of biofilm membrane bioreactor (BFMBR) combining the MBBR with

membrane separation and found that the BFMBR is an alternative strategy to reduce
the effect of membrane fouling by high biomass concentrations, particularly under low
loading rates. They also concluded that the process has good treatment efficiencies and
produces a consistent high-quality effluent, irrespective of loading rates.

2.4.5 Application of MBBR for nutrient removal from wastewater

MBBR is one of the best solutions for Wastewater treatment plants to withstand the
high stringent legislation and improve the efficiency of organics and nutrient removal
from wastewater. To date, MBBR have been successfully employed to treat sewage and
industrial wastewater and to upgrade small wastewater plants (Loukidou et al., 2001).
Many successful investigations and researches have been done in MBBR for nutrient
removal from wastewater. Brief results of some of theses studies are described here.
Welander et al. (1998) did the experiment for treatment of leachate from municipal
landfill deposited both domestic and industrial waste using a pilot scale suspended
carrier biofilm reactors for the biological nitrogen and organic matter removal. They
carried out this investigation in two stage suspended carrier biofilm process. They used
Natrix model 6/6 C, ANOX AB, Lund plastic carrier with specific surface area of 210
m2/m3 and its performance was compared with a new carrier of model Natrix 12/12c,
ANOX AB, Lund with specific surface area of 390 m2/m3. They operated one reactor in
aerobic condition for nitrification and organic matter removal which was 5 m3 plastic
tank filled 60% of its volume with Natrix model 6/6 C, ANOX AB, Lund model carrier.
They operated the another reactor in an anorexic mode for denitrification with the
addition of external carbon source which was 900 L plastic tank filled 40% of its
volume with the same carrier as first reactor. They operated the third reactor in aerobic
condition for nitrification to compare the performance of the carrier used in both
reactors with the new carrier Natrix model 6/6 C, ANOX AB, Lund. The third reactors
volume was 900 L filled 60% of its volume with the new model carrier. From the study,
they showed that suspended carrier biofilm technology be useful process for the
biological nitrogen removal from landfill leachate. They achieved the highest
volumetric nitrification rate, 24 g/Nm3.h (16 C) in third reactor filled with the carriers
46

of largest surface area. The maximum denitrification rate with methanol as carbon
source was 55 gN/m3.h (17 C). They achieved around 90% removal of inorganic and
total nitrogen when the process reached the optimal operating condition. The
comparison between two carriers of different specific area showed that the carrier with
the largest surface area is better for the full scale nitrification of leachate.
Ngo et al. (2006) developed a study to further enhance the performance of a novel
attached cultures sponge bioreactor and emphasize the approaches towards making an
alternative system that is compact, cost effective and low maintenance in a wide range
of applications. For this study, they used a laboratory scale attached cultures sponge
bioreactor consisting of a number of trays and selected the sponge type, shape and the
sponge tray inclination very specifically. Each tray was designed to hold sponge of
different shapes like semi circular, semi hexagonal and triangular. The sponge was
reticulated, flexible polyester polyurethane sponge having unique three dimensional,
uniform open cell structures. They used two types of wastewater: one was synthetic
wastewater and the other was biologically treated sewage effluent from a water
reclamation plant. The synthetic wastewater was fed to an influent channel that flows
under gravity onto the surface of the sponge bioreactor which was placed at different
inclination angles (0, 30, 45, 60 and 90). The suitable sponge type and shape for the
system was selected through the investigation on biomass growth onto the sponge at a
predetermined flow rate. The biologically treated wastewater was fed into the sponge
bioreactor system through the collection tank. This system was designed to run the trays
at a 10 inclination. The performance of this system was evaluated in terms of total
nitrogen, ammonia, ortho-phosphate and chemical oxygen demand. The results showed
that the highest NH4-N removal was about 90% in 18 days operation with an effluent
concentration of less than 0.04 mg/L. The COD removal efficiency varied in the range
of 20 - 100%. This study concluded that the selected triangular shaped sponge with a
sponge type of 70 - 90 cells/in2 and designated slope of sponge tray at 10 led to the
highest pollutant removal.
Yang et al. (2010) studied the biological nutrient removal in a sequencing batch moving
bed membrane bioreactor. They added carriers in the reactor instead of activated sludge
in order to advance the nutrient removal efficiency. For this study, they used a 30 L
reactor and divided the reactor into two parts with a volume ratio of 4:1 using a piece of
47

clapboard having bores in it. In the bigger part of the reactor, they filled 30% of the
volume of the reactor with a new kind of non-woven carriers having density 0.27 g/cm3
and specific surface area 900 m2/m3. To avoid the carriers accumulating around the
membrane module, they put the hollow fiber membrane made of polypropylene with a
pore size of 0.1m and the filtration area 0.4m2 in the small part of the reactor. They
run the system continuously for about 5 months. They inoculated the system with
activated sludge taken from the secondary settlement tank of municipal wastewater
treatment plant and fed synthetic wastewater contained 400 mg COD/L, 30 mg NH4N/L and 4 mg PO4-P/L. The water was fed into the reactor in the anaerobic phase and
the discharging of water occurred in aerobic phase. This study showed good
performance on organic substance and nitrogen removal. The TN, ammonium nitrogen
and COD removal efficiencies were averaged at 82.6%, 95.6% and 93.5% respectively.
The total phosphorus removal was closely correlated with the length of aerobic and
anaerobic phase. The average TP removal efficiency reached to 84.1% when both
aerobic and anaerobic phases were operated at HRT of 2 hours (h). This study showed
that the sequencing batch operation mode was beneficial for improving membrane
fouling since filamentous bacteria was restrained in the reactor.
Guo et al. (2009) developed a study to investigate the performance of three different
sizes of reticulated polyester urethane sponge (S28-30/45R, S28-30/60R and S28-30/90R)
coupled with continuous aerated submerged membrane bioreactor to improve the
phosphorus and nitrogen removal, improving membrane fouling and enhancing
permeate flux. Synthetic wastewater containing glucose, ammonium sulphate,
potassium dihydrogen phosphate and trace nutrients was used in the experiment. 10% of
the volume of the reactor was filled with the sponge. The sponge submerged membrane
bioreactor was inoculated with sludge from the local wastewater treatment plant and
adapted to synthetic wastewater. The three different sizes of sponge were evaluated
depending upon the removal efficiencies of NH4-N, PO4-P, DOC, COD and biomass
concentration. The result of this experiment showed that the denser the sponge, the
more biomass can grow on the sponge. All three sizes of sponge performed well to
remove DOC, PO4-P whereas S28-30/45R and S28-30/60R can remove more than 99%
NH4-N from wastewater. The single size sponge submerged membrane bioreactor gave
good results in terms of organic and nutrient removal. Also mixed sponge in
conjunction with hollow fiber submerged membrane bioreactor and non-woven
48

submerged membrane bioreactor of ratio 1: 1: 1 showed superior removal of NH4-N

(over 99.8%) associated with over 99% removal of PO4-P and low TMP development
during 15 days of operation.
Guo et al. (2010) investigated the performance of sponge as an active carrier for
attached growth biomass in three typical types of aerobic bioreactors to treat a high
strength synthetic wastewater. They investigated the effect of sponge thickness on
sponge biofilter (SBF) using a low dense sponge (S45R) and high density sponge
(S90R), effect of the sponge volume on sponge batch reactor (SBR) using S45R and
S90R, and the effect of filtration rate and pH on sponge submerged membrane
bioreactor (SSMBR) using an intermediate dense sponge (S60R) in terms of
simultaneous organic, nitrogen and phosphorus removal. They used a SBF column
fitted with a single piece of sponge at the bottom of the column to study the effect of
sponge thickness. They compared three different thicknesses of sponges (1, 2 and 3 cm
respectively) to treat wastewater with COD of 0.4 kg/m3.d pumped upward through the
column at a flow rate of 20 mL/min. This study found that the organic and nutrient
removal decrease with the increase of sponge thickness. They found 15% less DOC
removal efficiency with 3 cm thickness of S45R and S90R sponges while the removal
efficiency was quite similar with 1 and 2 cm sponges. The system demonstrated that the
sponge itself has the function of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification and
verified the decreasing DO gradient occurring inside of the sponge cubes. This
experiment found the 1 cm sponge is best for high TN and TP removal (39.9% and
61.0% for S45R and 51.7% and 89.1% for S90R respectively) compared to 2cm and
3cm sponges. They used acclimatized 1 cm sponge as a moving bed media to determine
the effect of sponge volume using SBR equipped with air diffuser. Aeration rate was 8
L/min and HRT was 8 h. This experiment showed that the sponge volume played a
significant role in phosphorus removal while it has only little influence in organic and
TN removal. In this experiment they obtained high TP removal with S90R sponge
volume at 10 and 20% (99 and 100% respectively) within the short retention time (6 h
and 3 h respectively) while it was only 68.7 and 69.2% within 8 h with S45R sponge.
The DOC removal achieved more than 92% at all conditions while TN removal was
very low (around 10% for S45R and 20 - 30% for S90R). Therefore, from this
investigation they concluded that to get better TN removal, either high sponge volume
or the moving bed reactor coupled with suspended growth is required which helps to
49

improve the nitrification rate in the system. They also evaluated the system for
improved nitrogen removal in SSMBR using S60R sponge. They examined three
filtration fluxes (10, 15 and 20 L/m2.h) under pH values of 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5 and 8.
They maintained the MLSS of suspended growth at 10 g/L and used sponge volume of
10%. The result showed the more than 96% DOC removal efficiency when the filtration
flux and pH varied in the range of 10 - 20 L/m2.h and 5 - 8 respectively. While optimum
ammonium removal (100%) was achieved at pH of 6 - 7 and filtration flux of 10 and 20
l/m2h and more than 91% phosphorus removal was obtained at pH range of 6 - 7 at all
filtration flux range.
Odegaard et al. (2000) analyzed the influence of carrier size and shape on the
performance of moving bed biofilm process related to highly loaded plants working in
municipal wastewater. For this experiment, they used a pilot plant with one moving bed
bioreactor and a linked settling tank, operated in parallel on the same wastewater. They
carried out the comparison test at various COD loads using carriers of different size and
shape having same density and analyze the results on the basis of volumetric removal
rate as well as area removal rate. In the first part of the experiment, three parallel lines
each consisting of one moving bed reactor and one linked settling tank, were used. The
reactors were 20 L capacity for line 1 and 2 and 30 L capacity for line 3. The surface of
the settling tank was 0.068 m2 for line 1 and 2 and 0.102 m2 for line 3. The moving bed
bioreactors were filled with three different types of carriers (KMT, AWT and ANOX,
characteristics are described in the Table 2.8 below) made of high density polyethylene
having density 0.95 g/cm3. In the first period of the experiment of first part, all three
reactors were filled with different carriers with same filling fraction (60%) in order to
give same volumetric load while in the second period the filling fraction was varied to
give same effective area load at constant flow. Comparison of two kaldnes carriers K1
and K2 was carried out in the second part of the experiment using the same plant. The
two lines were operated in three periods at close to constant flow and the same
volumetric loading rate in each period. The filling fraction was 70% in both reactors.

50

Table 2.8 Characteristics data for the four different carriers used (Odegaard et al., 2000)
Specific
surface area

KMT
carrier K1

KMT
carrier K2

AWT
carrier

ANOX
carrier

Estimated
surface area
(mm2/piece)

total: 670
effective: 490

total: 3465
effect.: 1910

total: 2200
effect.: 1500

total: 10000
effective: 7700

1030

159

203

24

Bulk carriers
(number/liter)
Specific surface
area(m2/m3)

total: 690
total: 550
total: 450
effective: 500 effective: 315 effective: 310

total: 240
effective: 190

From this study, they concluded that the organic surface area loading rate (g COD/m2.d)
is the main component for the removal of organic matter in municipal wastewater using
moving bed biofilm reactor. The comparison test at various COD loads using carriers of
different size and shape having same density showed no significant variation. They also
concluded that the residence time of the bioreactor has only an influence at long
residence times and hydrolysis plays a major role. In short residence times, hydrolysis
play a minor role and the reactor should be designed for the removal of easily
biodegradable soluble organic matter. In order to increase the settleability of the
biomass in high rate system, there is a need of enhanced settling by coagulation or
alternative separation techniques.
Quan et al. (2012) demonstrated the MBBR performance for nutrient removal efficiency
from synthetic wastewater at different packing rates (20, 30 and 40%) of cubic shaped
PUF carriers. Their experimental results indicated that the PUF packing rate had a bit
influence on the COD removal and got 81% COD removal efficiency on average while
the ammonium removal and the biofilm structure had a high effect with the different
packing rates and COD loading rates. From this experiment, they proved that higher the
packing rate higher will be the ammonium removal efficiency. They achieved 96.3%
ammonium removal efficiency in 40% of the reactor packing rate at a HRT of 5 h while
only 37.4% ammonium removal efficiency at 20% of the reactor packing rate.
Chu et al. (2011) investigated the performance of MBBR for the removal of organics
and nitrogen from wastewater with a low C/N ratio using the two different materials as
51

a carrier for their research, namely PUF and biodegradable polymer PCL particles. This
study demonstrated the MBBR with PUF had good results in the TOC and ammonium
removal, 90% and 65%, compared with 72% and 56% for reactor filled with PCL
carriers at an average HRT of 14 h. This is because of the higher attached
microorganism on the PUF enhanced the nitrifiers to reside. The MBBR with
biodegradable PCL carrier showed good performance in terms of TN removal (59%
with PCL carriers and 14% with PU carriers) as these carriers are an effective substrate
providing reduced power for denitrification. However, the high cost of the
biodegradable PCL is the drawback for its application as external carbon source and
biofilm media.
Shore et al. (2012) examined the use of MBBR with BioPortzTM as carriers for tertiary
ammonia treatment in high temperature (35 45 C) industrial wastewater in their
experiment and found that the system was successful to remove more than 90% of the
influent ammonia from synthetic and industrial wastewater. At 45 C, nitrification could
not be sustained for more than 24 h. However, the MBBR was recovered within two
weeks once the temperature was lowered to 30 C. In this experiment they also
investigated the effect of temperature on the biomass in the reactor and they found
biomass reduction with increasing temperature, however values were not statistically
significantly different following the increase in reactor temperature. Therefore, they
mentioned the decrease in biomass may be decrease in bioavailable substrates which
affect the growth and some detachment of the heterotrophic organisms in the biofilm.
Kermani et al. (2008) evaluated MBBR filled with FLOCOR RMP in terms of
organics and nutrient removal efficiency from synthetic wastewater which showed that
the MBBR could be used as an ultimate and efficient option for the total nutrient
removal from municipal wastewater. In their study, they applied MBBR in series with
anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic units in four separate reactors and operated continuously
at different nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates. At the optimum condition (500 mg
COD/L, 62.5 mg NH4-N/L and 12.5 mg PO4-P/L), close to complete nitrification
99.72% of ammonium removal efficiency occurred in the aerobic reactor. Most of the
biodegradable organic matter was consumed during the denitrification process in the
anoxic reactor. The experiment showed that the system was a very effective process for
almost complete organic and nutrient removal, with average soluble COD, TN and TP
52

removal efficiencies of 96.9, 84.6 and 95.8% respectively during optimum operating
conditions.
Nguyen et al. (2011) used sponge tray bioreactor for wastewater treatment at different
operating conditions. In their experiment, they investigated the effect of different
organic loading rate (OLR), flow velocity and HRT on the performance of sponge tray
bioreactor. They use 0.6, 1.2, 2.4 and 3.6 kg COD/m3 sponge day OLR and concluded
that the optimal OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day was the most appropriate OLR in
terms of high COD and nutrient removal. They achieved more than 92% organic carbon
removal efficiency at OLR of 1.2 and 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day while the system
removed less than 86% at OLR of 0.6 and 3.6 kg COD/m3 sponge day. Similarly, at
OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day, the system could eliminate 56% of PO4-P and
40.2% NH4-N and 41.9% TN while these removal efficiencies decreased at other OLR.
Using the optimal OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day, Nguyen et al. (2011) also
investigated the effect of different flow velocities (4, 8, 20, 28 and 40 mL/min) and
concluded that the flow velocity has no significant effect on DOC removal as the
system could successfully achieve more than 90% of DOC removal at all the flow
velocities. However, it affects the PO4-P, TN and NH4-N removal. They achieved high
PO4-P, TN and NH4-N (87.4%, 54.8% and 52.9% respectively) removal efficiency at 28
ml/min flow velocity. Therefore, they concluded that 28 mL/min flow velocity is
optimum for higher pollutant removal and reducing membrane fouling. They conducted
experiments to investigate the effect of HRT on the performance of sponge tray
bioreactor using optimal OLR of 2.4 kg COD/m3 sponge day and Flow velocity of 28
ml/min at four different HRTs of 40, 80, 120 and 180 min. The result showed that at
increasing HRT, the system could give better performance in terms of reducing
membrane fouling and nutrient removal. They also concluded that at high HRT, there is
a chance of biomass growth in the sponge. From this experiment, they concluded that
the simple and compact sponge tray bioreactor system could remove nutrients and
organics efficiently from wastewater and to achieve excellent performance, the system
needs to operate at the optimal OLR flow velocity and HRT which helps to provide
suitable conditions for biomass growth on the sponge media.
Jing et al. (2009) did an experiment on the carrier effects on oxygen mass transfer
behavior by varying the suspended carrier filling rate and aeration rate to seek the
53

optimal operating conditions under which MBBR can be run at high efficiency and with
low power expense. In this experiment, they used a reactor of 2 L capacity and bio
carriers of model WD-f10-4 bioMTM having a specific surface area of 900 m2/m3 and a
density of 0.96 0.98 g/cm3 to investigate the effect of carrier filling rate and intensity
of aeration on the volumetric oxygen mass transfer (KLa) coefficient by the dynamic
oxygen dissolution method. They found that within the fluidizable flow rate, the
efficiency of oxygen mass transfer increased with the carrier filling rate and KLa reached
its highest when the carrier filling rate was 40% while it decreased by two fold when the
carrier filling rate was only 10%. They also found the increasing KLa trend with an
increase in aeration intensity but high aeration rate was not favorable for reactor
operation. Through their investigation, they concluded the aeration intensity of 0.3 m3/h
and the carrier filling rate of 30 - 50% is the favorable condition for the better oxygen
mass transfer effect and higher oxygen transfer efficiency. They also concluded that the
possible mechanisms that can account for carrier effect on oxygen mass transfer are the
changes in the gas-liquid interfacial area. They applied this experimental conclusion to
the NH4-N removal performance of the coking plant wastewater in MBBR for its proof
in practical performance and found satisfactory result with NH4-N removal efficiency of
93%.
Levstek and Plazl (2009) evaluated the effect of carrier type on nitrification in moving
bed biofilm process using two different types of carriers fundamentally different in size,
shape and structure. One of the carriers they used was a cylindrical high density
polyethylene ring shaped carrier (AnoxKaldnes, K1 carrier) and the other was a
spherical polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) gel bead shaped carrier (Kuraray, PVA-gel carrier).
For this investigation they used two separate continuously aerated lab scale continuous
stirred tank reactors (CSTR); one with 7.3 L capacity and the 37% volume of this
reactor was filled with K1 carrier taken from an oxic reactor of an industrial scale pilot
plant while the other reactor having 3.54 L capacity and the 9.6% volume of the reactor
was filled with PVA-gel bead carrier taken from an oxic reactor of the semi - industrial
scale pilot plant used for nitrogen removal. They operated the both reactors in the same
conditions and supplied synthetic wastewater which contains only ammonium,
phosphate and growth minerals. They used the carrier filling ratios less than the
recommended ratio by the manufacturers to achieve good mixing of carriers so that
there is the proper distribution of substrates to the biofilm in the reactor. They operated
54

the system continuously for six months at temperature of 20 1 C and oxygen was
maintained at 8.0 5 mg/L. Form this operation they achieved 93% nitrification
efficiency and average total biomass concentration in the reactor was 1.12 0.14 gTS/L
in reactor filled with K1 carrier while the nitrification rate was 86.5% and average total
biomass concentration in the reactor was 0.83 0.36 gTS/L in reactor filled with PVAgel bead carrier. Their experimental results showed that the process with PVA-gel
beads, however, had a lower carrier filling rate than that of K1 carriers, about the same
maximal nitrification rate were achieved from both systems. They concluded that the
reason for this appears to be the higher effective specific surface area of about 2,534
m2/m3 for PVA-gel beads versus the effective surface area of about 500 m2/m3 for the
K1 carrier. From their investigation they found the different carrier types does not affect
the concentration of the autotrophic biomass and nitrification rate in an attached growth
process.
Marques et al. (2008) demonstrated attached biomass growth and substrate utilization
rate in MBBR using synthetic wastewater and polyether form cubes of size 555 mm
and density of 0.65. They developed their study using 3.8 L MBBR filled with a
maximum content of polyester foam (0.13% by volume) and 2 L/min air was supplied
in the reactor. From their study they found that the biomass growth in the polyether
foam was quite fast most probably by the mechanism of entrapment of biomass flocks
instead of the attachment of microorganisms on the surface. In their experiment they
found the system saturation about 30 h of continuous operation. They also found the
increase in substrate utilization rate with the organic load due to the high biomass to
carrier ratios, whose maximum value was about 0.8 kg biomass/kg inert carrier. Form
this study they concluded that MBBR can withstand about 2 times the volumetric
organic loads experienced by the other modalities of activated sludge reactor processes
and by using MBBR the area required for the treatment process can be reduced and also
the capacity of the existing conventional plants can be increased by introducing inert
carriers in the system.

55

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Wastewater
In order to provide a continuous source of completely biodegradable organic pollutants
and maintain the constant feed concentration, synthetic wastewater was used as an
influent in this experiment and prepared to represent the primarily treated sewage
effluent (PTSE). This wastewater contains glucose as the main carbon source and
ammonium sulphate and potassium phosphate as the main source of nutrient. The
synthetic wastewater consists of DOC of 120 130 mg/L, COD of 330 360 mg/L,
ammonium nitrogen (NH4-N) of 18 19 mg/L, ortho-phosphate (PO4-P) of 3.3 3.5
mg/L (COD: N: P = 100: 5: 1) and trace elements in tap water. The synthetic
wastewater having above mentioned concentrations is adequate to provide required
nutrients for the microorganism growth. The chemical composition of synthetic
wastewater used for this experiment is as shown in Table 3.1. The synthetic wastewater
was prepared everyday to avoid microbial growth on the feed tank and kept at room
temperature.

3.1.2 Polyethylene (PE) carriers

The PE carriers, circular in shape with the diameter of 4.50 cm were used as biofilm
carriers. These carriers consist of smaller dividers inside the carriers and fins outside
where microorganisms can attach and grow on. The characteristics of PE carriers used
in this experiment are summarized in Table 3.2. The specific surface area, density and
weight of each PE carriers were 6.22 cm2, 0.613 g/cm3 and 1.226 g respectively. The
picture of PE carriers is shown in Figure 3.1. These PE carriers were slightly lighter
than the density of water (1 g/cm3) and developed specifically for use in wastewater
treatment reactors.

56

Table 3.1 Characteristics of synthetic wastewater

Compounds

Concentration (mg/L)

Organics and nutrients

Glucose(C6H12O6)

280

Ammonium sulfate((NH4)3SO4)

72

Potassium phosphate (KH2PO4)

13.2
Trace nutrients

Calcium chloride (CaCl22H2O)

0.368

Magnesium sulfate (MgSO47H2O)

5.07

Manganese chloride (MnCl24H2O)

0.275

Zinc sulfate (ZnSO47H2O)

0.44

Ferric chloride anhydrous (FeCl3)

1.45

Cupric sulfate (CuSO45H2O)

0.391

Cobalt chloride (CoCl26H2O)

0.42

Sodium molybdate dihydrate (Na2MoO42H2O)

1.26

Yeast extract

30

Table 3.2 Characteristics of PE carriers

Media

Polyethylene

Shape

Circular

Diameter
Specific surface area

4.5cm
6.22 cm2

Density

0.613 g/cm3

Weight

1.226 g

57

Figure 3.1 Polyethylene (PE) carriers

3.1.3 Membrane module

A flat sheet membrane module made of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) was used in
this experiment for the membrane filtration process. The characteristic of the membrane
module used in this experiment is summarized in Table 3.3. This membrane module had
8 separate vertical sheets of filtration at an approximate interval of 1.1 cm. This type of
membrane module has the capacity to resist high and low pH, higher water permutation
rates and ability to withstand oxidizing agent such as sodium hypochlorite during
membrane cleaning (Johir et al., 2012). Figure 3.2 shows a picture of the flat sheet
membrane module used in this experiment.
Table 3.3 Characteristics of membrane
Item

Characteristics

Module

M70

Membrane material

PVDF

Membrane configuration

Flat sheet

Dimension

10.511.522.5 cm

Pore size

0.14 m

Surface area

0.2 m2

Manufacture

A3 Water Solutions GmbH, German

58

Figure 3.2 Flat sheet membrane module

3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Experimental conditions
Firstly, this study put forward a systematic study on the effects of PE carriers filling
rate, aeration rate and HRT on nutrient removal in a continuous MBBR system.
Afterwards, the system was combined with a MF membrane module to investigate the
performance of the combined system and evaluate the membrane fouling phenomenon.
In order to achieve these tasks, an acrylic reactor with a working volume of 12 L was
used. A sketch of the laboratory scale experimental setup is shown in figure 3.3 (A) and
(B) respectively.

59

(A)

(B)
Figure 3.3 Experimental arrangements of (A) MBBR and (B) MBBR-MF
The laboratory scale experiment was conducted in four different sets of experiments.
The flow chart in Figure 3.4 describes the order of different activities and their
interrelation which were carried out during the research time.

60

Experimental investigation

Experimental
PE carrier
acclimatization

Effect of PE carrier filling rates in nutrient

removal from municipal wastewater using
MBBR
Effect of aeration rates in nutrient removal
from municipal wastewater using MBBR

Laboratory operations
Effect of hydraulic retention time in nutrient
removal from municipal wastewater
using MBBR

Nutrient removal from municipal wastewater

using MBBR - MF and evaluate the
membrane fouling Phenomenon at different
flux rate

Conclusion
Figure 3.4 Flow chart of the research activities
The acclimatization of PE carriers is one of the essential components to provide
preferably active biomass growth on the carriers so that this biomass can perform well
in the wastewater treatment process. Therefore, about one month prior to starting
experiment in the reactor, the PE carriers were acclimatized in a separate aeration tank
(30 L) filled with synthetic wastewater and activated sludge from a wastewater
treatment plant in Sydney. Figure 3.5 shows the aeration tank used for the PE carriers
acclimatization in the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) laboratory. Everyday,
10 L synthetic wastewater was added in the aeration tank and pH was maintained to 7
by adding sulphuric acid (H2SO4) or sodium carbonate anhydrous (NaHCO3) to support
the microbial growth. MLSS in the tank was maintained to 8 - 10 g/L. The PE carriers
were acclimatized after 25 days. The acclimatization of these PE carriers was
determined by observing the biomass growth rate on the surface of PE carriers at every
5 days interval.

61

Figure 3.5 PE carriers acclimatization tank

For the first set of experiment, the acclimatized PE carriers were transferred into the
reactor filled with synthetic wastewater. The filling volume of the PE carriers was
started from 10% and increased to 20%, 30% and 40% by volume of the reactor
respectively. The reactor was operated at least 20 days for each filling condition. The
reactor was positioned with certain inclination (10) giving some support at the bottom
in order to create a uniform movement of PE carriers. The air was moving in the reactor
by supplying the air through air diffuser at the bottom of the reactor. Air bubbles also
supplied oxygen for the biological activity of biomass and kept the PE carriers floating
and moving throughout the reactor volume accurately. The pH of the reactor was
maintained to 7 everyday by adding H2SO4 or NaHCO3. The DO of the reactor was
observed 3.0 - 4.8 mg/L in all the cases. The synthetic wastewater was supplied from
the bottom of the reactor using a feeding pump. Everyday 11.52 L synthetic wastewater
was treated by the reactor with the constant aeration rate of 4.5 L/min and HRT of 25 h.
In order to promote microbial growth on the carriers, the HRT was kept higher as the
carriers were very sensitive and took long time for acclimatization. However, once the
microorganisms grow on the carriers, they performed well in nutrient removal from the
wastewater. MLSS concentration in the reactor was in the range of 0.19 0.32 g/L at all
the cycles. Everyday the influent and effluent sample was taken and stored in fridge by
adding adequate acid. The biomass growth rate in PE carriers and oxygen uptake rate
(OUR) of suspended and attached biomass in the reactor were measured at every 5 days
interval.
Similarly, Table 3.4 describes the experimental conditions for another set of
experiments. The second experiment was conducted to determine the effect of different
aeration rate on nutrient removal from wastewater while the third experiment was
62

conducted to determine the effect of different HRTs in nutrient removal from

wastewater.
Table 3.4 Experimental conditions to determine effect of different aeration rates and
HRTs in nutrient removal from wastewater
Experiment

Carrier filling

Aeration

HRT

DO concentration

MLSS

No.

rate (%)

rate (L/min)

(h)

(mg/L)

(g/L)

10

4.5

25

7.41-9.50

0.25- 0.45

20

4.5

25

3.43-5.54

0.25-0.20

30

4.5

25

3.26-4.76

0.20-0.25

40

4.5

25

2.33-3.07

0.20-0.15

20

2.5

25

3.54.0

0.150.30

20

4.5

25

3.04.8

0.150.30

20

6.0

25

3.754.16

0.150.30

20

4.5

25

3.04.8

0.150.30

20

4.5

12

3.35-3.66

0.10-0.20

20

4.5

3.28-4.19

0.10-0.30

20

4.5

3.6-4.24

0.10-0.30

20

4.5

2.5-3.64

0.30-0.40

After 20 days of continuous operation of MBBR at each HRT, the MBBR was then
connected with the membrane filtration tank. The effluent discharged from the MBBR
was introduced into the membrane filtration tank from the top of the tank. The
membrane filtration process was conducted without any relaxation or backwash
procedure. Permeate was pumped out using a pump at constant flux. The flow rate of
synthetic wastewater into MBBR and permeate flux into membrane filtration tank was
maintained same at all the time. Pressure transducer with online data acquisition was
used to monitor the TMP of the membrane. Figure 3.6 shows the pictures of a
laboratory setup for the MBBR and Figure 3.7 shows a picture of the laboratory setup of
MBBR-MF system.

63

Figure 3.6 Laboratory setup of MBBR

Permeate out flow

Membrane filtration system

Feed pump for

MBBR and MF

control pump
MBBR unit

Pressure sensor
Air supply system
Flat sheet membrane module

Figure 3.7 Laboratory setup of MBBR-MF system

64

3.2.2 Analytical methods

The analysis of COD and the measuring of MLSS and mixed liquor volatile suspended
solid (MLVSS) were carried out according to Standard Methods (APHA, 1998). The
COD was measured using COD reagent and a photometry. The MLSS and MLVSS
were measured by filtering the mixed liquor sample through a GFC Whatmans 1.2 m
filter paper. The retained solid residue on the filter paper was dried by placing in an
oven at 105 C for 2 h followed by desiccation for 20 min and finally weighted to
calculate the MLSS. Then the dried residue on the filter paper was again heated in a
furnace at 550 C for 20 min followed by desiccation for 20 min and weighted to
calculate MLVSS. DOC of the influent and effluent was measured using the
Analytikjena Multi N/C 3100. PO4-P, NO2-N, NO3-N and NH4-N were measured by a
photometric method using Spectroquant Cell Test (NOVA 60, Merck). YSI 5300
Biological Oxygen Monitor was used to measure the OUR. The oxygen consumption
measurement can be achieved through the use of oxygen electrode with oxygen
permeable Teflon membrane. The voltage generated from the reaction is proportional to
the oxygen concentration of the sample and produces oxygen uptake during a period of
2 30 min. pH and DO of the reactor were measured everyday using pH meter
(HANNA instrument, model no. HI 9025) and DO meter (HORIBA Ltd. Japan, model
no. OM -51E) respectively.

3.2.3 Biomass growth rate calculation

To determine attached biomass fixed in PE carriers, three pieces of the PE carriers were
taken out of the reactor and kept in three separate beakers with millique water. The
beakers were inserted into Ultrasonic cleaner (POWER SONIC 405, Thermoline
Scientific), until the attached biomass on the carriers were slugged off from the carriers.
Then the solution of biomass and milique water was filtered through a GFC Whatmans
1.2 m filter paper. The filter paper was then kept in the oven at 105 C at least for 1 h
followed by desiccation for 20 min and measured weight. The filter paper was again
kept in a furnace at 550 C for 20 min followed by desiccation for 20 min and measured
weight. The average biomass was calculated as the average MLVSS value of the
acclimatized carriers.
65

3.2.4 Velocity measurement and circulation of kinetic energy for

moving media
The following equation gives the kinetic energy (KE) of a moving object;
KE = mv2

(1)

Where, m is the mass of an object and v is velocity of the object. Velocity of an object
can be obtained from the following equation;
v = d / T ...

(2)

To measures the wet mass of a carrier coated with biofilm layer, ten pieces of PE
carriers were randomly taken from the reactor and the mass of each piece was
measured. The average wet mass of a carrier was calculated to be 3.52 ( 0.21) g. The
mean velocity of a moving carrier at each operating condition was obtained by
multiplying the circulation frequency (Fc) by the circulation distance (circulating
distance per circulation) of a carrier respectively. The circulation distance of moving
carriers was fixed at 20 cm and the circulating frequency to travel 20 cm distance by the
carriers were observed five times and then the average value was taken as the
circulating frequency. The total kinetic energy (KET) is the sum of the kinetic energy of
all carriers in the reactor which can be obtained by the following formula (Lee et al.,
2006);
KET = KEn...

(3)

Where, n is the total number of PE carriers in the reactor. These numbers are 252, 504,
756 and 1008 PE carriers at the filling fractions of 10, 20, 30 and 40% by volume of the
reactor respectively.

3.2.5 Membrane resistance calculation

Characteristics of membrane fouling can be demonstrated by using Darcys Law
relating flux (J) to transmembrane pressure (PT), Viscosity () and total resistance to
water filtration (RT). According to this model, the permeate flux (J) took the following
form (Chang et al, 1998):
J= PT / (. RT)

(4)

RT= Rm + Rc + Rp

(5)

66

In equation (4) flux (J) is inversely proportional to flow resistance (RT). Assuming
constant TMP, less water is filtered with increasing resistance to flow (RT).
Where,
J

= Permeation flux

PT = Transmembrane pressure

= Viscosity of the permeate,

RT

= Total combined resistance across a membrane,

Rm

= Membrane material resistance,

Rc

= Cake resistance formed by cake layer deposited over membrane surface,

Rp,

= The resistance caused by pore plugging and/or solute adsorption onto the
membrane pore and surface.
Rc = RT - (Rm + Rp)...

(6)

Rm = PT/ (. J)...

(7)

Rp = RT Rm Rc

(8)

After completion of every cycle, the fouled membrane was taken out from the reactor
and submerged into distilled water and total resistance (RT = Rc + Rm + Rp) was
calculated by changing the flux. Then the membrane was cleaned with the distilled
water giving a gentle shake so that the deposited cake layer from the membrane surface
can be washed out. The washed membrane was again submerged into the distilled water
and membrane resistance and pore block resistance (Rm + Rp) was calculated by
changing the flux. Finally the membrane was cleaned with chemicals (sodium
hydroxide (NaOH), citric acid and sodium hypochlorite (NaClO)). The membrane
resistance (Rm) was calculated by submerging the clean membrane inside the distilled
water and the water was withdrawn through the membrane at different fluxes at least for
1 h at each flux. The pressure was measured through the pressure gauge.

67

3.2.6 Membrane cleaning procedure

After completion of each cycle, membrane module was taken out from the reactor and
washed with tap water by submerging it into a water tank to remove the sludge that
accumulated between the membrane sheets. Then, the module was soaked in 2 L of
NaOH solution (0.5%) for 20 h. Afterwards, the membrane was cleaned by submerging
into the citric acid (0.5%) solution for 5 h followed by NaClO solution (200 ppm) for
the next 5 h.

68

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Determination of Optimum Operating Conditions for MBBR
System in Terms of Carrier Filling Rate, Aeration Rate and HRT
The optimum operating conditions for MBBR system in terms of PE carrier filling rate,
aeration rate and HRT was determined by considering the nutrient and organic removal
efficiencies of the MBBR at different filling rates, aeration rates and HRTs.

4.1.1 Evaluation of microbial growth in PE carriers and its

performance at different carriers filling rates, aeration rates and
HRTs
It is very important to select suitable biofilm carrier because it affect the mass transfer
of substrate and oxygen to the microorganisms within it which in turn affect the biofilm
growth rate in the carriers. Some important qualities of biofilm carrier materials are;
small size, large protected specific surface area such as; high porosity, low density, high
resistance to attrition and capacity for biofilm attachment and activity (Andersson et al.,
2008). Therefore, the PE carriers were selected as the biofilm carriers for this research
as these carriers exhibit the above mentioned qualities for instance low density and high
protected specific surface area. The PE carrier is designed specially to provide
interspaces for the suspended microorganisms so that these microorganisms can attach
into the voids of these carriers and grow effectively. The microorganisms entrapped in
the internal space of the carriers form a thin layer of biofilm which is very active and
play a vital role in the nutrient and organic removal from wastewater. For the growth of
the microorganisms on the PE carriers, the MBBR system should be operated at
favorable operating conditions by maintaining suitable carrier filling rate, aeration rate
and HRT. During this experimental study, at the 10% carrier filling rate and aeration
rate of 4.5 L/min, it was observed that the carriers were rapidly circulated in the reactor.
This rapid movement of the carriers caused huge collision among the carriers and led
the loss of microorganisms attached into the carriers. While at 20% carrier filling rate,
the carriers moved uniformly with less collision problem in the reactor, which resulted
in the favorable condition for the attached microorganisms on and inside the carriers to
69

adsorbed enough foods (nutrient and organic matters) and DO from the wastewater and
at the same time prevented the loss of the microorganisms from the carriers enhancing
growth of thin layer of biomass in the carriers and improved the nutrient and organic
removal efficiency. At 30 and 40% filling rates, due to the larger number of PE carriers,
the carriers moved slowly in the reactor and a dense layer of biomass was formed
around the carrier surface. These dense layer of biomass obstructed DO, nutrient and
organic matters to penetrate inside the carriers. As a result the nutrient and organic
removal efficiency at 30 and 40% filling rate was decreased. The attached biofilm layer
in PE carrier at different filling rates and aeration rates are shown in Figure 4.1 (A) and
(B) respectively. The average biomass concentration on PE carriers at different
percentages of filling rates is shown in Figure 4.2. At 20% carrier filling rate the
average biomass growth rate was 15.7 mg/g while the growth rate were 10.6, 22.4 and
24.4 mg/g at 10, 30 and 40% carrier filling rates, respectively. At 20% filling rate the
carriers moved uniformly and helped prevent the accumulation of excess biomass on the
surface of the carriers as well as loss of biomass due to collision of the carries. Thus, the
biomass in the carriers could consume the more organics and nutrients in the presence
of adequate DO level and their removals were the highest compared with the 10, 30 and
40% filling rates.
Figure 4.3 shows the relation between biofilm concentration on the PE carriers and
aeration rates. At a low aeration rate (2.5 L/min), DO concentration in reactor decreased
which enhanced the ratio of sloughing on biofilm growth and biomass was washed out
from the reactor. At the same time, nitrification process also affected because of low
DO. Meanwhile, there was more friction among the biofilm carriers because of the high
turbulence induced by the high aeration rates (6 L/min). Therefore, the PO4-P uptake
rate and nitrification rate declined at a higher aeration rate (6 L/min). Although it was
observed that the NH4-N removal was the highest at the aeration rate of 2.5 L/min, the
4.5 L/min aeration rate achieved the best TN and PO4-P removal. According to the
experimental results, it was concluded that the aeration rate of 4.5 L/min was favorable
for the growth of active and effective microorganisms in PE carriers and gave higher
nutrient and organic removal from wastewater.
Figure 4.4 demonstrated the biomass concentration on PE carriers at different HRTs.
The biomass concentration on PE carriers increased when the OLR of feed water
70

increased. In other word, the biomass concentration on the carriers increased with
decreasing HRT of MBBR. The results showed that when the HRT was decreased from
25 h to 2 h (increased OLR from 0.33 to 4.14 kg COD/m3.d), the biomass concentration
on PE carriers was increased from 15.7 to 21 mg/g and the carriers were fully covered
with the biofilm. This increased biomass concentration on the carriers enhanced the
organic and nutrient removal from the system.

(A)

(B)
Figure 4.1 Biomass growth in PE carriers
(at different (A) filling rates and (B) aeration rates)
71

Biomass concentration
(mg/L)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Carrier filling rate (%)

Biomass concentration
(mg/g)

Figure 4.2 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different filling rates

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
0

Aeration rate (L/min)

Biomass concentration
(mg/g)

Figure 4.3 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different aeration rates
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

HRT (h)
Figure 4.4 Variation of biomass concentration in the carriers at different HRTs
72

This research was completely focused on the attached biofilm and its growth on the PE
carriers provided in the reactor. To evaluate the contribution of attached biomass on the
organic and nutrient removal from the system, the MLSS concentrations of suspended
biomass in the reactor (with none retained in the PE carriers) were measured every day,
which was remained around 0.15 0.32 g/L in all the cases. The MLSS concentration in
the reactor was lower at higher packing rates and aeration rates, whereas the MLSS
concentration increased with increasing OLR. Average biomass growth rate and
average nutrient and organic removal efficiency at different operating conditions are
summarized in the Table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 4.1 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different filling rates of PE Carrier
(aeration rate = 4.5 L/min, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
PE carrier
filling
volume
(%)

DOC
COD
PO4-P
NH4-N
removal removal removal removal
efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)

MLSS
(g/L)

Biomass
growth
rate in
carriers
(mg/g)

10

93.0

75.7

56.8

49.5

0.22

10.6

20

95.8

91.4

65.9

66.1

0.25

15.7

30

95.4

86

40.5

59.5

0.25

22.4

40

93.2

79.5

30.2

70.5

0.21

24.4

Table 4.2 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different aeration rates (carrier
filling volume = 20%, flow rate = 8 mL/min, HRT = 25 h)
Biomass
growth
rate in
carriers
(mg/g)

Aeration
rate
(L/min)

DOC
removal
efficiency
(%)

COD
removal
efficiency
(%)

PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)

NH4-N
removal
efficiency
(%)

2.5

95.1

93.1

27.6

74.8

0.305

17.8

4.5

95.8

91.4

65.9

66.1

0.25

15.7

6.0

94.1

87.3

47.3

68.5

0.22

16.4

MLSS

(g/L)

73

Table 4.3 Organic and nutrient removal efficiency at different HRTs (carrier filling
volume = 20%, aeration rate = 4.5 L/min)
Biomass
growth
rate in
carriers
(mg/g)

HRT (H)

DOC
removal
efficiency
(%)

COD
removal
efficiency
(%)

PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)

NH4-N
removal
efficiency
(%)

25

95.8

91.4

65.9

66.1

0.25

15.7

12

93.7

86.7

40.2

64.1

0.18

15.5

94.2

80.8

51.9

65.8

0.19

15.4

94.6

90.3

57.6

71.5

0.22

18.6

96.0

91.4

81.8

71.2

0.39

21.0

MLSS

(g/L)

In addition, OUR tests of the suspended biomass taken from the reactor and the attached
biomass on the PE carriers were conducted periodically. As oxygen plays an important
role in nitrogen and phosphorus removal, DO consumed by the biomass should be
monitored. The results exhibited that the higher the DO consumption rate, the more
efficient of the bacterial biodegradation could be achieved. Guo et al. (2007) also
demonstrated this type of results in their experiment. The average DO consumption rate
of suspended biomass on wastewater were around 19.7, 13.8 and 22.9% at different
carrier filling rates, different aeration rates and HRTs, respectively. The average DO
consumption rate of the attached biomass on PE carriers at different carrier filling rates,
aeration rates and HRT were around 49, 52.6 and 98%, respectively. That means the
contribution of microbial activity from the attached biomass on the PE carriers was
much stronger than the suspended biomass on the wastewater. All these parameters
indicated that the removal efficiency achieved by the system was mainly due to the
attached growth biomass on the PE carriers. The trends of DO consumption rates at
different operating conditions are displayed in Figure 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8, respectively.

74

100

DO concentration (%)

95

10% filling

20% filling

30% filling

40% filling

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time (min)
Figure 4.5 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different PE carrier filling rates

100

DO concentration (%)

2.5 L/min

4.5 L/min

6 L/min

95
90
85
80
75
70
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time (min)
Figure 4.6 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different aeration rates

75

DO concentration (%)

100

25 h

12 h

8h

5h

2h

90
80
70
60
50
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time (min)
Figure 4.7 Average DO consumption rate variation of the suspended biomass on the
wastewater at different HRTs

100

filling rate

DO concentration (%)

90

aeration rate

HRT

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

15

Time (min)

20

25

30

Figure 4.8 Average DO consumption rate variation of the attached biomass on PE

carriers at different carrier filling rates, areation rates and HRTs.
76

4.1.2 Correlation between removal efficiency and total kinetic energy

(KET) at different PE carrier filling rates and aeration rates
Table 4.4 shows the velocity and total kinetic energy at different conditions calculated
using the equations (1), (2) and (3) as derived in Chapter 3. For the stable and effective
biofilm process, there must be a proper balance between the biofilm growth and
detachment which can be maintained by proper carrier filling rate and the aeration rate.
The different carrier filling rates and aeration rates affect the collision frequency
between the carriers. At the higher aeration rates and carrier filling rates, stronger
turbulence is produced and led to the increase in circulation frequency (FC) and kinetic
energy (KE) of the PE carriers moving inside the reactor. These two operating
parameters are the important factors affecting the nutrient and organic removal
efficiency in MBBR system. In terms of mass transfer, a fast fluid flow can be
beneficial to biofilm developed in the PE carriers as it will assure more solute transport
through a thinner boundary layer, thus providing better solute exchange between
biofilm and bulk liquid. However, faster flows also exert larger forces on the biofilm,
which lead to larger stresses in the biofilm structure and eventually some loss of
biomass with the effluent, particularly from the exposed surface layer of the biofilm
(Taherzadeh et al., 2012; Henriksson et al., 2011). The biofilm are the complex
microbial community which has visco-elastic properties for their beneficial. These
biofilm have a small immobile base attached to the biofilm carriers and a flexible tail
elongated in the liquid flow direction which can vibrate in fast flow (Taherzadeh et al.,
2012). The increase in speed of these biofilm tail movements relatively to the
surrounding liquid significantly enhances the substrate uptake ( or removal efficiency).
As shown in Figure 4.9 (A), the KET of PE carriers depended on the percentage of
filling fraction. The high KET of the carriers was obtained at 20% PE carrier filling rate
which was 3.25510-2 Joule while the KET of the carriers were comparatively less at 10,
30 and 40% filling rates and the substrate uptake were also less compared to the 20%
filling rate. It was because at 20% carrier filling rate, the microbial inhabitants of
biofilm got better transport of substrate which provided better solute exchange between
biofilm and bulk liquid thus enhanced the substrate uptake i.e. the removal efficiency.
At the same time, the aeration rates also had impact on the KET of the carriers and
hence the overall substrate uptake. As we can see in the Figure 4.9 (B), the KET was
directly proportional to the aeration rate that means higher the aeration rate is, higher
77

the KET will be. However, for better removal efficiency, there must be a optimum KET
for the biofilm carriers which can protect the healthy microbial community. From this
experiment, we determined 4.5 L/min aeration rate at 20% carrier filling rate gave
optimum condition to obtain the best removal efficiencies.
Table 4.4 Calculation of total kinetic energy

252

Total kinetic
energy, KET
(x 10-2 Joule)
1.949

10% Carrier filling rate

0.192

504

3.255

20% Carrier filling rate

0.152

756

3.073

30% Carrier filling rate

0.100

1008

1.785

40% Carrier filling rate

0.103

504

0.945

2.5 L/ min aeration rate

0.192

504

3.255

4.5 L/ min aeration rate

0.244

504

5.303

6 L/ min aeration rate

-2

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Number of
carriers (n)

Total KE (X 10 J)

-2

Total KE ( X 10 J)

Velocity of PE
carriers, V
(M/Sec)
0.210

y = -1E-05x + 0.012x - 0.558

R2 = 0.995
0

500

1000

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

1500

Remarks

y = 1.240x - 2.206
2

R = 0.997

Aeration rate (L/Min)

Number of PE carriers (n)

(A)

(B)

Figure 4.9 Correlation between the kinetic energy and (A) PE carrier filling rates and
(B) aeration rates

78

4.1.3 Nutrient and organic removal efficiency on MBBR at different

PE carrier filling rates
4.1.3.1 PO4-P removal efficiency
As shown in Figure 4.10, it was observed that the PO4-P removal efficiency was
increased and then decreased at first few days of operation at 10% PE carrier filling
rate, whereas 20, 30 and 40% filling rate showed relatively stable removal. However,
20% filling rate gave the best overall PO4-P removal efficiency (Figure 4.11) with
average PO4-P removal efficiency of 65.9%, while the removal efficiency was 56.8,
40.5 and 30.2% for 10, 30 and 40% filling rates, respectively. This is because at 10%
filling rate, the carrier circulation frequency in the reactor was faster. Due to the faster
circulation, the attached biomass in the carriers sloughed off and the new
microorganism growth in the carriers consumed the phosphorus from the system. While
at 20 % filling rate, the carriers moved uniformly and freely throughout the reactor that
helped in the formation of thin layer of active biofilm inside and around the carriers. As
a result, the PO4-P removal efficiency was higher at 20% filling rate. On the contrary, at
30 and 40% filling rate, due to larger number of carriers in the reactor, their movement
throughout the reactor became slower resulting formation of thick layer of biomass on
the surface of the carriers. That dense biomass on the carriers obstructed the flow of
DO, nutrient and organic matter inside the carriers which led to decrease in the PO4-P
removal efficiency. As phosphorus is one of the essential nutrients for microbial
growth, biomass growth in this system enhanced the biological phosphorus removal.
This operation proved that the biomass growth in the PE carriers could remove
phosphorus even in the absence of suspended and cell growth system in the MBBR
system. The elements for the enhancement of PO4-P removal is PAO which may also
have developed within the PE carriers and enhanced the better phosphorus removal in
the system.

79

PO4-P removal efficiency (%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

10% carriers
30% carriers

11

20% carriers
40% carriers

13

15

17

19

21

Time (Days)

PO4-P removal efficiency (%)

Figure 4.10 PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10

20

30

40

PE carrier filling rate (%)

Figure 4.11 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates

4.1.3.2 NH4-N removal efficiency

NH4-N can be removed from wastewater in two ways: either assimilation into biomass
or biological nitrification and denitrification process under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions respectively. Figure 4.12 shows the NH4-N removal trend at different PE
carriers filling rates. The NH4-N removal achieved at 10, 20, 30 and 40% filling rate in
MBBR showed that the NH4-N removal was effective at 20% filling rate. In this
experiment, from the day first to the day 15, NH4-N removal efficiency fluctuated
around 60% at all the filling rates. As the nitrification process was not good during that
period because the microorganisms attached to the biofilm carriers required time to
80

acclimate into the new environment. After day 16 at 20% carrier filling rate, the NH4-N
removal efficiency increased to 75% and became constant while it was still fluctuating
at 10, 30 and 40% carrier filling rates. As the carriers moved freely and uniformly
throughout the reactor at 20% carrier filling rate, the nitrifiers got favorable condition to
grow more inside the biofilm and got enough oxygen for the nitrification. Figure 4.13
shows the average NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates.
Similarly, as demonstrated in Figure 4.14, in terms of TN removal efficiency, it was
49.3% at 20% filling rate while it was 39.8, 36.5 and 52.7% at 10, 30 and 40% filling
rates respectively. Although at 40% filling volume, TN removal was achieved higher
compared to at other filling rates, the TN removal at 20% filling rate was quite uniform
and the PO4-P removal was not removed effectively at 40% filling volume. Therefore,
from the experimental results, the 20% carrier filling rate was considered as an effective

NH4-N Removal Efficiency (%)

filling volume for nutrient removal.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

10% carriers
30% carriers

20% carriers
40% carriers

11
13
Time (Days)

15

17

19

21

Figure 4.12 NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates

NH4 -N removal efficiency (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10

20

30

40

PE carrier filling rate (%)

Figure 4.13 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates
81

10% carriers
30% carriers

80

20% Carriers
40% carriers

TN removal efficiency (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

11

13

Time (Days)

15

17

19

21

Figure 4.14 TN removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates

4.1.3.3 DOC and COD removal efficiency

The MBBR at different filling rates performed well in terms of DOC and COD removal
which are demonstrated in Figure 4.15 and 4.16 respectively. The DOC removal
efficiency was found above 92% at all filling rates and the average removal efficiency
at 20% PE carriers filling rate was found the highest and uniform (95.8%). Although the
removal efficiency at 30% filling rate was observed higher sometimes (around 98%),
the overall performance was very fluctuating owing to the no uniform movement of the
carriers in the reactor that obstructed the carrier fluidization. The average COD removal
efficiency at 10, 20, 30 and 40% filling rates were 75.7, 91.1, 85.5 and 79.6%
respectively. These results also showed that the MBBR system achieved higher DOC
and COD removal efficiency at 20% PE carrier filling rate under the same condition of
influent organic loading rate.

82

DOC removal efficiency (%)

100

10% carriers

20% carriers

98

30% carriers

40% carriers

96
94
92
90
88
86
1

11

13

15

17

19

21

Time (Days)

COD removal efficiency (%)

Figure 4.15 DOC removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates

100
90
80
70
60
50
40

10% carriers
30% carriers

30
20

20% carriers
40% carriers

10
0
0

10

15

20

Time (Days)
Figure 4.16 COD removal efficiency at different PE carrier filling rates

4.1.4 Nutrient and organic removal efficiency on MBBR at different

aeration rates
Aeration plays a vital role on the microbial growth and development, as well as its
stability on the carriers and its movement throughout the reactor. Aeration supplies the
microbial oxidation with oxygen and also enhances the turbulent intensity of fluid,
which are important for the efficiency of wastewater treatment (Li et al., 2011).
83

Therefore, it is important to provide suitable aeration rate for the stable operation of
MBBR.

4.1.4.1 PO4-P removal efficiency

Figure 4.17 shows the trend of PO4-P removal efficiency of MBBR at different aeration
rates during the time period of 19 days. As demonstrated in Figure 4.18, in the MBBR
filled with 20% carriers, the average PO4-P removal efficiency achieved were 27.6, 65.9
and 47.3% at aeration rates of 2.5, 4.5 and 6 L/min, respectively. The effective PO4-P
removal in MBBR with 20% filling rate at aeration rate of 4.5 L/min due to the
favorable condition that helped to move the PE carriers uniformly throughout the

PO4-P removal efficency(%)

reactor which led to sufficient transfer of DO, nutrient and organic components.
90

2.5 L/min.

80

4.5 L/min.

6 L/min.

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

11

13

15

17

19

Time (Days)
Figure 4.17 PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates

PO4-P removal efficiency (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2.5

4.5

Aeration rate (L/min)

Figure 4.18 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different aeration rates

84

4.1.4.2 NH4-N removal efficiency

The trend of NH4-N removal efficiency of MBBR at different aeration rates during the
time period of 19 days is presented in Figure 4.19 and 4.20. The average NH4-N
removal at aeration rates of 2.5, 4.5 and 6 L/min were 74.8, 66.1 and 68.5%
respectively. Similarly, the trend of TN removal efficiency in the MBBR at different
aeration rates is displayed in Figure 4.21. The average TN removal achieved at 2.5, 4.5
and 6 L/min aeration rates were 25.4, 49.3 and 43.9% respectively which indicated that
simultaneous nitrification denitrification (SND) took place in the reactor. The TN
removal rate at 4.5 L/min aeration rate was higher compared to 2.5 and 6 L/min aeration
rate at the constant HRT of 25 h. Since the reactor was operated continuously in an
aerobic condition, the TN removal might be obtained due to DO gradient in the biofilm
layer.

NH4 -N removal efficency (%)

90

2.5 L/min

4.5 L/min

6 L/min

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

11

13

15

17

19

Time (Days)

Figure 4.19 NH4-N removal efficiency at different aeration rates

85

NH4 -N removal efficiency (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
2.5

4.5

Aeration rate (L/min)

Figure 4.20 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different aeration rates

TN removal efficency (%)

80

2.5 L/min

70

4.5 L/min

6 L/min

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

11

13

15

17

19

Time(Days)
Figure 4.21 TN removal efficiency at different aeration rates

4.1.4.3 DOC and COD removal efficiency

It was observed in this experiment that the MBBR filled with 20% carriers at different
aeration rates demonstrated the best results in DOC removal (Figure 4.22). For an
influent DOC of around 120 130 mg/L, the effluent DOC was achieved around 5 - 6
mg/L at the influent flow rate of 8 mL/min. That means the average DOC removal was
above 94% at all three different aeration rates. Similarly, at all three aeration modes, the
86

COD removals were more than 85% (Figure 4.23), which demonstrated that the
presence of sufficient DO (4 mg/L) did not affect the organic removal efficiency even at
the different aeration rates. Rahimi et al. (2011) also demonstrated this in their
experimental study.
2.5 L/min.

DOC removal efficiency (%)

98

4.5 L/min.

6 L/min.

96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
1

11

13

15

17

19

COD removal efficency (%)

Time (Days)
Figure 4.22 DOC removal efficiency at different aeration rates

100

2.5 L/min.

4.5 L/min.

6 L/min.

95
90
85
80
75
1

11

13

15

17

19

Time (Days)

Figure 4.23 COD removal efficiency at different aeration rates

87

4.1.5 Nutrient and organic removal efficiency on MBBR at different

HRTs
4.1.5.1 PO4-P removal efficiency
From this set of experiment it was found that the HRT had significant effect on the PO4P removal. It can be demonstrated from Figure 4.24 that the PO4-P removal increased
with decreasing HRT. As shown in Figure 4.25, the average PO4-P removal efficiency
obtained were 65.9, 40.2, 52.0, 57.6 and 81.8% at HRTs of 25, 12, 8, 5 and 2 h
respectively. At 25 h of HRT, the system consumed more phosphorus for the microbial
growth while the consumption rate decreased at HRT of 12 h and the consumption rate
again increased and reached its peak at HRT of 2 h. The high PO4-P removal at HRT of
25 h was because of the consumption of phosphorus by the attached microorganisms in
the carriers for their growth while at 12 h HRT, the biomass growth on the carriers
became constant which caused the decreased PO4-P removal. When the HRT again
reduced to 8, 5 and 2 h respectively the OLRs in the reactor increased and that led to the
increased biomass growth rate on the carriers. As a result, the PO4-P removal also

PO4-P removal efficiency (%)

increased.

100

25h

12h

8h

5h

2h

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

11

13

15

17

19

Time (Days)

Figure 4.24 PO4-P removal efficiency at different HRTs

88

PO4-P removal efficiency (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25

12

HRT (h)

Figure 4.25 Average PO4-P removal efficiency at different HRTs

4.1.5.2 NH4-N removal efficiency

The trend of NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs during 20 days period is
shown in Figure 4.26. the ammonium loading rate in the system at the HRTs of 25, 12,
8,5 and 2 h were 18.2, 38, 57, 91.2 and 228 NH4-N/m3.d respectively. This experimental
results suggested that the increased ammonium loading rate led to the increase in
nitrification rate. It may be because of the presence of a thin layer of heterotrops biofilm
on the surface of the PE carriers and higher density of nitrifiers developed on the PE
carriers which enhanced the nitrification in the system. The oxygen concentration,
ammonium concentration and organic loading are the three main factors which
determine the nitrification rate (Kermani et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2008). As shown in
Figure 4.27, the average NH4-N removal efficiency at the ammonium loading rate of
18.2 g NH4-N/m3.d was 66.1% while it increased to 71.2% at an ammonium loading
rate of 228 g NH4-N/m3.d. The TN removals at different HRTs are given in Figure 4.28.
The results showed that at HRT of 2 h, the lab scale MBBR had an average TN removal
efficiency of 67.4% during the operation, while the TN removals were 49.3, 49, 52.5
and 63% at HRTs of 25, 12, 8 and 5 h respectively.

89

NH4-N removal efficiency (%)

25h

80

12h

8h

5h

2h

70
60
50
40
30
20
1

11

13

Time (Days)

15

17

19

NH4-N removal efficiency (%)

Figure 4.26 NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs

72
70
68
66
64
62
60
18.24

38

57

91.2

228

NH4 -N loading rate (G NH4 -N/m3 .D)

Figure 4.27 Average NH4-N removal efficiency at different HRTs

25h

TN removal efficency (%)

80

12h

8h

5h

2h

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

11

Time (Days)

13

15

17

19

Figure 4.28 TN removal efficiency at different HRTs

90

4.1.5.3 DOC and COD removal efficiency

As shown in the Figure 4.29, the DOC removal efficiency was evaluated at different
HRTs in the continuous aerobic MBBR. It was observed that the average DOC removal
efficiency was more than 94% at all the HRT conditions. However, the average DOC
removal efficiency was observed highest at HRT of 2 h which was 96% while the HRTs
of 25, 12, 8 and 5 h had 95, 94, 94 and 94% of removal, respectively. Similarly, the
experimental results indicated that the average COD removal efficiency at all the HRTs
was above 80% however the highest COD removal was achieved at HRT of 2 h (Figure
4.30). When the HRT was decreased from 25 h to 12, 8, 5 and 2 h with constant influent
COD concentration of 330 360 mg/L, the organic loading rate (OLR) started to
increase from 0.33 kg COD/m3.d to 0.69, 1.035, 1.66 and 4.14 kg COD/m3.d,
respectively. The average COD removal efficiency at 25, 12 and 8 h HRTs were
gradually declinded (91.9, 86.7 and 80.8%, respectively), while the removal efficiency
was again increased to 90.3 and 91.4% at the HRTs of 5 and 2 h respectively. The
results evidence that the organic removal was due to microbial metabolism in the
system. It was observed from the experimental results that HRT had little effect on the
performance of continuous aerobic MBBR in case of DOC and COD removal. As
shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3, the synthetic wastewater contains totally
biodegradable compounds, which is one of the factors for the high DOC and COD
removal from the system. Similarly, the high concentration of biomass accumulated in
the PE carriers and its high activity which were developed and increased respectively
due to decreasing HRT i.e. increasing OLR, is the other factor for the high DOC and
COD removal.

91

100

DOC removal efficiency (%)

25h

12h

8h

5h

2h

95

90

85
1

9
11
Time (Days)

13

15

17

19

Figure 4.29 DOC removal efficiency at different HRTs

COD removal efficiency (%)

100

25h

12h

8h

5h

2h

90

80

70

60
1

11

13

15

17

19

Time (Days)

Figure 4.30 COD removal efficiency at different HRTs

In conclusion, the optimum operating conditions in terms of carrier filling rate, aeration
rate and HRT for MBBR system are 20% filling rate over effective volume of the
reactor, 4.5 L/min and 2 h respectively.

92

4.2 Evaluation of the performance of MBBR-MF System

The concept of MBBR-MF system is that the biofilm in MBBR removes nutrient and
organic matters from the wastewater and the MF physically separates the biomass and
colloidal matters from the effluent. The removal efficiencies are described in detailed
below.

4.2.1 Nutrient and organic removal

After finalization of the optimum operating conditions for the MBBR in terms of PE
carrier filling rate and aeration rate the MBBR-MF system was operated at different
HRTs of 12, 8.5 and 2 h to evaluate the nutrient and organic removal efficiency. The
corresponding fluxes for these HRTs were 5, 7.5, 12 and 30 L/m2.h respectively. A
constant supply of aeration at the rate of 1.35 m3/m2.h was maintained to the membrane
filtration system all the time. Before connecting the MBBR with membrane filtration
unit at each flux, the MBBR was continuously operated for 20 days. After completion
of each cycle, the flat sheet membrane unit was subjected to chemical cleaning
procedure before starting the new cycle. The combined system was operated until there
occurred a sudden TMP jump or the TMP was constant or uniform even after 20 days of
the operation. The combined system was operated for 20, 20, 6 and 3 days at different
fluxes of 5, 7.5, 12 and 30 L/m2.h respectively. After operation of the system for the
above mentioned period, sudden rise in TMP i.e. membrane resistance of 4.01011,
5.11011 and 5.31011 m-1 were observed at fluxes of 7.5, 12 and 30 L/m2.h respectively
while the system was still at constant TMP of 0.611011 m-1at a flux of 5 L/m2.h.
The result of nutrient and organic removal from this combined system gave the DOC
and COD removal efficiencies of 94 - 96% and 89 - 95% respectively at all the flux
conditions. Which means the system was successful to remove organic compounds from
the wastewater. Similarly, the PO4-P removal efficiency were 38.9, 31.4, 38.7 and 86%
at fluxes of 5, 7.5, 12 and 30 L/m2.h respectively, while at the same fluxes, the
respective NH4-N removal efficiency obtained were 73.6, 76.6, 77.6 and 72.1%. These
results clearly indicated that system was successfully achieved higher PO4-P removal at
the flux of 30 L/m2.h while the same system achieved higher NH4-N removal at the flux
93

of 12 L/m2.h. The average concentration of NO2-N and NO3-N on the feed water was
0.01 and 1.7 mg/L respectively. After MBBR-MF treatment process from, the
concentration of NO2-N and NO3-N increased to 0.23 and 5.8 mg/L respectively. These
results indicated the nitrification process occurred in the treatment system.
When comparing the removal efficiencies after the MBBR treatment and after the
MBBR-MF treatment, it was observed that the organic removal efficiency was quite
similar but the nutrient removal efficiency was quite different. The comparative results
are tabulated in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Comparison of organic and nutrient removal between MBBR and MBBR
MF systems at different filtration fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h, membrane area:
0.2 m2)
Flux
(L/m2.h)

After MBBR (%)

After MBBR-MF (%)

DOC

COD PO4-P

NH4-N

DOC COD PO4-P

NH4-N

5.0

93.7

86.7

40.2

64.0

94.7

95.0

38.9

73.6

7.5

94.2

80.8

51.9

65.8

94.4

89.5

31.4

76.6

12.0

94.6

90.3

57.6

71.4

95.0

90.3

38.7

77.6

30.0

96.0

91.4

81.8

71.1

96.0

89.0

86.0

72.1

4.2.2 Membrane resistance characteristics at different permeate flux

conditions
MLSS concentration is one of the most important factors affecting membrane fouling or
membrane resistance (Rahimi et al., 2011). Membrane fouling not only reduces the
treatment quality and capacity of the system but also decreases the membrane life.
Therefore, the effect of MBBR permeate on MF fouling was studied by measuring the
membrane resistance at different permeate fluxes of 5, 7.5, 12 and 30 L/m2.h (the
corresponding fluxes for these HRTs were 5, 7.5, 12 and 30 L/m2.h respectively). The
membrane resistance was calculated as a function of the rate of change of TMP
development with flux. The calculated membrane resistance of the clean membrane was
3.96E+10 m-1.From this experiment, it was clearly demonstrated that the membrane
resistance increased with increased flux. During the experimental period, as
demonstrated in Figure 4.31, it was observed that at the flux of 5 L/m2.h, the total
94

membrane resistance was around 0 to 1.51011 m-1 during 20 days of operation and
there was no sign of rise in membrane resistance even after 20 days of operation while
there was a sudden rise in membrane resistance (from 0 to 5.31011 m-1) only after 3
days of operation at the flux of 30 L/m2.h. This could be because of high amount of
suspended solids accumulated on the reactor due to increase in OLR with increased flux
and its accumulation on the membrane surface. This accumulated solid in turn formed a
cake layer onto the membrane surface as shown in Figure 4.32. From these
experimental results, it was observed that permeate flux plays determining role in
membrane resistance control. It has been also demonstrated by Nguyen et al., 2012;
Johir et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2006 in their research based on MBR.

Membrane resistance (m -1)

6.E+11
5.E+11

Flux 5 L/m2.h

Flux 7.5 L/m2.h

Flux 12 L/m2.h

Flux 30 L/m2.h

4.E+11
3.E+11
2.E+11
1.E+11
0.E+00
0

10

12

Time (Days)

14

16

18

20

Figure 4.31 Effect of permeate flux on total membrane resistance (aeration rate: 1.35
m3/m2.h, membrane area: 0.2 m2)

Cake layer formation

Figure 4.32 Cake layer formations on the surface of flat sheet membrane module
95

Therefore to reduce membrane resistance or membrane fouling, there should be lower

permeate flux rate in the system. This can be explained by the difference in suction
pressure produced on the membrane surface at different fluxes. However, the TMP
jump or higher membrane resistance at higher flux might not be only due to the flux but
also due to change in structure of cake layer developed on the membrane surface
(Zhang et al., 2006). From the literature, it is clear that the main factor in membrane
resistance is Rc (Le-Clech et al., 2006; Meng et al., 2008). It can be also seen in this
experimental result. As shown in Table 4.6, the membrane fouling occurred in the short
period when the Rc was higher. As we can see from the Table 4.6, with the increased
permeate flux, the RT also increased. It was because of the increased Rc and Rp due to
higher flux. It might be because at higher flux the deposition of suspended solids onto
the membrane surface should be faster and the cake layer developed should be stable
and stronger than that built at lower flux. Which ultimately cause the decreased
treatment quality and increased frequency of membrane cleaning (both physical and
chemical).
Table 4.6 Rc, Rp, Rm and RT at different permeate fluxes (aeration rate: 1.35 m3/m2.h,
membrane area: 0.2 m2)
Pore block
resistance (Rp)

(m-1)

% of RT

(m-1)

% of RT

(m-1)

% of RT

(m-1)

5.0

5.38E+10

35.63

5.76E+10

38.15

3.96E+10

26.22

1.51E+11

7.5

1.49E+11

53.91

8.76E+10

31.74

3.96E+10

14.35

2.76E+11

12.0

2.79E+11

54.23

1.96E+11

38.08

3.96E+10

7.70

5.15E+11

30.0

3.88E+11

73.16

1.03E+11

19.37

3.96E+10

7.47

5.30E+11

Flux

(L/m2.h)

Membrane
resistance (Rm)

Total
resistance
(RT)

Cake layer
resistance (Rc)

96

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
MBBR is gaining impetus around the world. Its application in Australia for wastewater
treatment is also growing. It is a leading edge wastewater treatment technology as this
system can operate at smaller footprints and give higher removal efficiency. Therefore
this research study mainly focused on determination of optimum operating conditions
for MBBR to enhance higher nutrient and organic removal efficiency. The research also
evaluated the MBBR-MF system for nutrient and organic removal efficiency and
membrane resistance behavior at different permeate fluxes. From this study, it was
demonstrated that the optimum operating condition for the effective nutrient and
organic removal efficiency at 12 L volume of the reactor were; 20% of PE carrier filling
rate by the volume of reactor, 4.5 L/min aeration rate and HRT of 2 h. At that condition,
the attached biomass developed on and inside the carriers can adsorbed enough foods
(nutrient and organic matters) and DO from the wastewater and at the same time
prevented the loss of the biomass from the carriers enhancing growth of thin layer of
biomass in the carriers and improved the nutrient and organic removal efficiency. The
supplied aeration produced the high kinetic energy and the PE carriers moved uniformly
inside the reactor. It was also demonstrated in this experiment that the DOC and COD
removal was not significantly affected by the different operating conditions.
The key findings during the study of the determination of optimum carrier filling rate
are listed below:
There was a relationship between the biofilm thickness on the PE carriers and its
filling rate on the reactor. The biofilm thickness on the PE carriers increased
with increased filling rates of PE carriers in the reactor.
Higher removal efficiency was observed with a thin biofilm layer on the
carriers. It was because in thin biofilm layers high rate of substrate diffusion
took place through the micro channels in the biofilm.
At 20% filling rates of PE carriers by volume of the reactor, the average NH4-N
and PO4-P removal obtained were 66.1 and 65.9% respectively.

97

The key findings during the study of the determination of optimum aeration rate follow
as below:
The different aeration rates influenced the biofilm development on the carriers,
its stability on the carriers and movement of the carriers throughout the reactor.
At higher aeration rate (6 L/min), the biomass on the carriers was easily washed
off due to the stronger turbulence.
At lower aeration rate (2.5 L/min), the thick biomass layer was formed on the
carriers which were not effective and did not enhance the nutrient removal
efficiency. It was because thick biofilm layers could block the micro channels in
the biofilm through which substrate diffusion took place. Thus, the substrate
diffusion was reduced and caused a reduction in removal efficiency.
Following findings were extracted from the study of the effect of different HRTs on
nutrient removal from MBBR:
HRT had significant effect on nutrient removal. The NH4-N and PO4-P removal
increased with decreased HRT.
The low HRT enhanced the high nitrification process in the system and gave
higher NH4-N removal efficiency mianly due to the development of higher
density of nitrifiers on the PE carriers.
The results of OUR for suspended biomass on the reactor and the attached biomass on
the PE carriers at different operating conditions demonstrated that the microbial activity
by the attached biomass on the PE carriers was stronger than the suspended biomass on
the wastewater. These findings indicated that the removal efficiency achieved by the
system was because of the attached biomass layer developed on and inside the PE
carriers.
Similarly, the experiment on the MBBRMF at different fluxes was conducted to
evaluate nutrient and organic removal efficiency. From the experimental results it was
found that the organic and nutrient removal particularly NH4-N removal after MBBR
MF system was significantly higher compared to treatment after MBBR. Therefore, it
was concluded that the MBBRMF is suitable for the higher organic and nutrient
removal efficiency. At the same time, it was also observed that the flux had a strong
effect on membrane fouling or membrane resistance. It was noticed that with the
98

increased flux, membrane fouling also increased. Therefore, the system should operate
at an optimum flux condition which helps to reduce the membrane fouling and increase
the membrane life.

5.2 Recommendations for Future Research

The following recommendations have been made for the future research in order to
achieve higher nutrient and organic removal from this type of system:
The further research on MBBR system to improve PO4-P removal efficiency
would be interesting. Enhanced biological treatment (providing oxic, anoxic and
anaerobic environment in the system) or chemical removal techniques using
metal salts (e.g. iron, aluminium etc.) can be helpful to improve PO4-P removal.
This study was carried out using PE carriers as biofilm carriers. It would be
interesting to compare the removal efficiency using different types of biofilm
carriers at different filling volumes.
As this study was carried out on synthetic wastewater similar to PTSE, it will be
worth to carry out the same investigation using real municipal wastewater and
industrial wastewater such as oil recovery wastewater to verify the effectiveness
of this system and implement this type of system in practical field.
Further detailed investigation on the MBBRMF system is recommended.
Aeration is the most costly factor in terms of energy consumption. Therefore the
investigation area on this system can be extended to varying aeration rate in MF
reactor and its influence on the fouling behavior. In-depth study of foulants will
be also helpful in order to develop biofouling control strategies.
The detailed investigation on effect of different organic loading rate on MBBR
MF system can also be the useful investigation for this type of system.

99

REFERENCES
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2006. Water Account Australia. Report no.
4610.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Commonwealth of Australia.
http://www.abs.gov.au.
Adam, C., Gnirss R., Lesjean, B., Buisson, H. and Kraume, M. (2002). Enhanced
biological phosphorus removal in membrane bioreactors. Water Science and
Technology, 46 (4-5)281-286. IWA publishing.
Adam, C., Kraume, M., Gnirss, R. and Lesjean, B. (2003). Membrane bioreactor
configurations for enhanced biological phosphorus removal. Water Science
Technology Water Supply, 3 (56), 237244.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2004). ToxFAQs for Ammonia.
Division of Toxicology, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public
Health Service: Atlanta, GA.
Amokrane, A., Comel, C., and Veron, J. (1997). Landfill leachates pretreatment by
coagulation-flocculation. Water Research, 31, 2775-2782.
Andersson, S., Nilsson, M., Dalhammar, G. and Rajarao, G. K. (2008). Assessment of
carrier materials for biofilm formation and denitrification. Department of
Environmental Microbiology, School of Biotechnology, KTH, AlbaNova
University Center, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. VATTEN 64: 201207. Lund.
APHA, AWWA, and WEF, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Aryal, R., Lebegue, J., Vigneswaran, S., Kandasamy, J. and Grasmick, A. (2009).
Identification and characterisation of biofilm formed on membrane bio-reactor.
Separation and Purification Technology, 67, 8694.
Bae, B., Jung, E., Kim, Y., and Shin, H. (1999). Treatment of landfill leachate using
activated sludge process and electron-beam radiation. Water Research, 33, 26692673.
Bae, J.H., Cho, K.W., Bum, B.S., Lee, S.J., and Yoon, B.H. (1998). Effects of leachate
recycle and anaerobic digester sludge recycle on the methane production from
solid waste. Water Science and Technology, 38, 159-168.
Baek, S.O., and Chang, I.S. (2009). Pretreatments to control membrane fouling in
membrane filtration of secondary effluents. Desalination, 244, 153-163.
Broeck, R.V.D., Dierdonck, J.V., Nijskens, V, Dotremont, C. Krzeminski, P., Graaf,
J.H.J.M.V.D., Lier, J.B.V., Impe, J.F.M.V. and Smets I.Y. (2012). The influence
of solids retention time on activated sludge bioflocculation and membrane fouling
in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Journal of Membrane Science, 401402, 4855.

100

Camargo, J.A. and Alonso, A. (2006). Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic
nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: A global assessment. Reiew article,
Environment International, 32, 831849.
Ceen, F., and Aktas, O. (2001). Effect of PAC addition in combined treatment of
landfill leachate and domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fedbatch and
continuous-flow reactors. Water SA, 27, 177-188.
Ceen, F., and Aktas, O. (2004). Aerobic co-treatment of landfill leachate with domestic
wastewater. Environmental Engineering Science, 21, 303-312.
Chang, I.S., and Lee, C.H. (1998). Membrane filtration characteristics in membrane
coupled activated sludge system The effect of physiological states of activated
sludge on membrane fouling. Desalination, 120, 221-233.
Chang, I.S., Le Clech, P., Jefferson, B. and Judd, S. (2002). Membrane Fouling in
Membrane Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 1019-1029.
Chang, S. (2011). Application of submerged hollow fibre membrane in membrane
bioreactors: Filtration principles, operation and membrane fouling. Desalination,
283, 31-39.
Chaudhary, D.S., Vigneswaran, S., Ngo, H.H., Shim, W.G. and Moon, H. (2003).
Biofilter in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Korean Journal Chemical
Engineering, 20(6), 1054-1065.
Chen, W. and Liu, J. (2012). The possibility and applicability of coagulation-MBR
hybrid system in reclamation of dairy wastewater. Desalination, 285, 226231.
Chon, K., Shon, H.K. and Cho, J. (2012). Membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration
hybrid system for reclamation of municipal wastewater: Removal of nutrients,
organic matter and micropollutants. Bioresource Technology.
Chu, L. and Wang, J. (2011). Comparison of polyurethane foam and biodegradable
polymer as carriers in moving bed biofilm reactor for treating wastewater with a
low C/N ratio. Chemosphere, 83, 6368.
Cicek, N. (2003). A review of membrane bioreactor and their potential application in
the treatment of agricultural wastewater. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 45,
6.37-6.46.
Cisneros, R. Bytnerowicz, B., Schweizer, D., Zhong, S., Traina, S. and Bennett, D.H.
(2010). Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for people and
ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental Pollution, 158,
3261-3271.
Coats, E.R., Watkins, D.L. and Kranenburg, D. (2011). A Comparative Environmental
Life-Cycle Analysis for Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater: Biological
versus Physical/ Chemical Processes. Water Environmental Research, 83, 750.
101

Drews, A. (2010). Review: Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors Characterisation, contradictions, cause and cures. Journal of Membrane Science,
363, 128.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority), 910-R-07-002. (2007). Advanced
Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water and Watersheds.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority). (2005). Environmental Protection (Water
Quality) Policy Version 3 South Australia.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority), EPA 832-F-00-018 (1998).Wastewater
Technology Fact Sheet Chemical Precipitation. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Water.
Erisman, J.W., Galloway, J., Seitzinger, S., XBleeker, A. and Bahl, K.B. (2011).
Reactive nitrogen in the environment and its effect on climate change. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 281290.
Ersu, C. B., Ong, S.K., Arslankaya, E. and Brown, P. (2008). Comparison of
recirculation configurations for biological nutrient removal in a membrane
bioreactor. Water Research, 42(67), 16511663.
Feng, S., Zhang, N., Liu, H., Du, X., Liu, Y. and Lin, H. (2012). The effect of COD/N
ratio on process performance and membrane fouling in a submerged bioreactor.
Desalination, 285, 232238.
Fu, Z., Yang, F., Zhou, F. and Xue, Y. (2009). Control of COD/N ratio for nutrient
removal in a modified membrane bioreactor (MBR) treating high strength
wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 100, 136141.
Fuhs, G.W. and Chen, M. (1975). Microbiological basis phosphate removal in the
activated sludge process for the treatment of wastewater. Microbiology Ecology, 2
(2), 119-138.
Galil, N.I., Malachi, K.B.D. and Sheindorf Chaim. (2009). Biological nutrient removal
in membrane biological reactors. Environmental Engineering Science, 26 (4),
mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2008.0234.
Guo, H., Wyart, Y., Perot, J., Nauleau, F. and Moulin, P. (2010). Low-pressure
membrane integrity tests for drinking water treatment: A review. Water Research,
44, 41-57.
Guo, W. S., Ngo, H. H., Dharmawan, F. and Palmer, C. G. (2010). Roles of
polyurethane foam in aerobic moving and fixed bed bioreactors. Bioresource
Technology, 101 (5), 1435-1439.
Guo, W.S., Ngo, H.H. and Li, J. (2012). A mini-review on membrane fouling.
Bioresource Technology.

102

Guo, W.S., Ngo, H.H., Palmer, C.G., Xing, W., Hu, A.Y.J., and Listowski, A. (2009).
Roles of sponge sizes and membrane types in single stage sponge submerged
membrane bioreactor for improving nutrient removal from wastewater for reuse.
Desalination, 249, 672-676.
Guo, W.S., Ngo, H.H., Vigneswaran, S., Xing, W., Goteti, P. (2008). A novel sponge
submerged membrane bioreactor (SSMBR) for wastewater treatment and reuse.
Separation Science and Technology, 43, 273285.
Guo, W.S., Vigneswaran, S., Ngo, H.H. and Xing, W. (2007). Experimental
investigation on acclimatized wastewater for membrane bioreactors. Desalination,
207, 383-391.
Henriksson, K. and Tenfalt, O. (2011). Measurements of Hydrolysis in Moving Bed
Biofilm Reactor Carriers - Evaluation by means of Oxygen Uptake Rate
Measurements. Masters Thesis, Water and Environmental Engineering,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lund University.
Henze, M. (2008). Biological wastewater treatment: principles modeling and design.
Edited by Henze, M., Loosdrecht, M.C.M.V., Ekama, G.A., and Brdjanovic, D.
ISBN: 9781843391883. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Henze, M., Harremoes, P., La Cour Jansen J., and Arvin E. (2002). Wastewater
treatment: biological and chemical processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (3).
Hwang, B.k., Lee, W.N., Yeon, K.m., Park, P.K., Lee, C.H., Chang, I.S., Drews, A.,
and Kraume, M. (2008). Correlating TMP increase with microbial characterstics in
the bio-cake on the membrane surface in a membrane bioreactor. Environmental
science and technology, 42(11), 3963-3968.
Jacquemet, V., Gaval, G., Rosenberger, S., Lesjean, B., and Schrotter, J. C. (2005).
Towards a better characterisation and understanding of membrane fouling in water
treatment. Desalination 178, 13-20.
Jarusutthirak, C. and Amy, G. (2001). Membrane filtration of wastewater effluents for
reuse: effluent organic matter rejection and fouling, Water Science Technology,
43, 225.
Jianlong, W., Hanchang, S. and Yi, Q. (2000). Wastewater treatment in a hybrid
biological reactor (HBR): effect of organic loading rates. Process Biochemistry,
36, 297303.
Jing, J.Y., Feng, J. and Li, W.Y. (2009). Carrier effects on oxygen transfer behaviour in
a moving bed biofilm reactor. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 4,
618-623.
Jiuhui, Q. (2008). Research progress of novel adsorption processes in water
purification: A review. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20, 113.

103

Johir, M.A.H., Vigneswaran, S., Sathasivan, A., Kandasamy, J. and Chang, C.Y.
(2012). Effect of organic loading rate on organic matter and foulant characteristics
in membrane bio-reactor. Bioresource Technology 113, 154160.
Judd, S. (2007). The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends Biotechnology,
26(2), 109116.
Kermani, M., Bina, B., Movahedian, H., Amin, M.M. and Nikaein, M. (2008).
Application of moving bed biofilm process for biological organics and nutrients
removal from municipal wastewater. American Journal of Environmental Sciences,
4 (6), 675-682.
Khan, S.J., Ilyas, S., Javid, S., Visvanathan, C. and Jegatheesan, V. (2011).
Performance of suspended and attached growth MBR systems in treating high
strength synthetic wastewater. Bioresource technology, 102, 5331-5336.
Kim, H.G., Jang, H.N., Kim, H.M., Lee, D.S., Eusebio, R.C., Kim, H.S. and Chung,
T.H. (2010). Enhancing nutrient removal efficiency by changing the internal
recycling ratio and position in a pilot-scale MBR process. Desalination, 262, 50
56.
Kim, J.Y., Chang, I.S., Shin, D.H. and Park, H.H. (2008). Membrane fouling control
through the change of the depth of a membrane module in a submerged membrane
bioreactor for advanced wastewater treatment. Desalination, 231, 3543.
Kraume, M., Bracklow, U., Vocks, M. and Drews, A. (2005). Nutrients removal in
MBRs for municipal wastewater treatment. Water Science Technology, 51 (6-7),
391-402.
Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., and Fane, T.A.G. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors used
in wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 284, 17-53.
Lee, W.N., Kang, I.J. and Lee, C.H. (2006). Factors affecting filtration characteristics in
membrane coupled moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Research 40, 1827 1835.
Leiknes, T. and Odegaard, H. (2001). Moving bed biofilm membrane reactor (MBB-MR): Characteristics and potentials of hybrid process design for compact wastewater
treatment plants. Proceedings, Engineering with Membranes, Granada, Spain.
Leiknes, T. and Odegaard, H. (2007). The development of a biofilm membrane
bioreactor. Desalination, 202, 135-143
Lesjean, B. Gnirss, R. and Adam, C. (2002). Process configurations adapted to
membrane bioreactors for enhanced biological phosphorous and nitrogen removal.
Desalination, Volume 149, (13), 217-224.
Levstek, M. and Plazl, I. (2009). Influence of carrier type on nitrification in the movingbed biofilm process. Water Science & Technology, 59 (5). IWA Publishing.

104

Li, S.R., Cheng, W., Wang, M. and Chen, C. (2011). The flow patterns of bubble plume
in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 23 (4), 510-515.
Lianga, S., Zhao, T., Zhang, J., Sun, F., Liu, C. and Song, L. (2012). Determination of
fouling-related critical flux in self-forming dynamic membrane bioreactors:
Interference of membrane compressibility. Journal of Membrane Science 390
391, 113 120.
Loukidou, M.X., and Zouboulis, A.I. (2001). Comparison of two biological treatment
process using attached growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachate treatment.
Environmental Pollution, 111, 273-281.
Mandal, T., Maity, S., Dasgupta, D., and Datta, S. (2010). Advanced oxidation process
and biotreatment: Their roles in combined industrial wastewater treatment.
Desalination, 250, 8794.
Marques, J.J., Souza, R.R., Souza, C.S. and Rocha, I.C.C. (2008). Attached biomass
growth and substrate utilization rate in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Brazilian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 25 (04) 665-670.
Mekala, G.D., Davidson, B., Samad, M. and Boland, A.M. (2008). Wastewater Reuse
and Recycling Systems: A Perspective into India and Australia. IWMI Working
Paper 128. International Water Management Institute.
Melin, T., Jefferson, B., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., Wilde, W.D., Koning, J. D., Graaf,
J.V.D., and Wintgens, T. (2006). Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater
treatment and reuse. Desalination, 187,271282.
Meng, F., Chae, S.R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H.S., and Yang, F. (2009). Recent
advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane fouling and membrane
material. Water Research, 43, 1489-1512.
Meng, F., Liao, B., Liang, S., Yang, F., Zhang, H. and Song, L. (2010). Morphological
visualization, componential characterization and microbiological identification of
membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Journal of Membrane
Science, 361, 114.
Meng, F., Yang, F., Shi, B., and Zhang, H. (2008). A comprehensive study on
membrane fouling in submerged membrane bioreactors operated under different
aeration intensities. Separation and purification Technology, 59, 91-100.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment & reuse. 4th edition,
McGraw Hill.
Metzger, U., Le-Clech, P., Stuetz, R.M., Frimmel, F.H., Chen, V. (2007).
Characterisation of polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of
different filtration modes. Journal of Membrane Science, 301, 180189.
Mohammadi, T. and Esmaeelifar, A. (2005).Wastewater treatment of a vegetable oil
factory by a hybrid ultrafiltration-activated carbon process. Journal of Membrane
Science, 254, 129137.
105

Moon, J., Kang, M-S., Lim, J-L., Kim, C-H. and Park, H-D. (2009). Evaluation of a
low-pressure membrane filtration for drinking water treatment: pre-treatment by
coagulation/sedimentation for the MF membrane. Desalination, 249, 271284.
Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., and Xing, W. (2008). Applied Technologies in Municipal Solid
waste landfill leachate Treatment. Faculty of engineering & Information
Technology, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, university of
Technology Sydney, Australia.
Ngo, H.H., Nguyen, M.C., Sangvikar, N.G., Hoang, T.T.L., and Guo, W.S. (2006).
Simple approach towards a design of an attached-growth sponge bioreactor
(AGSB) for wastewater treatment and reuse. Water Science Technology, 54, 191197.
Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Phuntsho, S. and Li, J. (2011). A new sponge tray
bioreactor in primary treated sewage effluent treatment. Bioresource Technology,
102 (9), 5444-5447.
Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Listowski, A. and Li, J. (2012). Evaluation of
sponge tray-membrane bioreactor (ST-MBR) for primary treated sewage effluent
treatment. Bioresource Technology, 113, 143147.
Odegaard, H. (1999). The moving bed biofilm Reactor. Igarashi, T., Watanabe, Y.,
Asano, T., and Tambo, N. Water environmental engineering and reuse of water,
Hokkaido press, 250-305.
Odegaard, H., Gisvold, B. and Strickland J. (2000). The Influence of carrier size and
shape in the moving bed biofilm process. Water Science and Technology, 41(4-5),
383391 IWA Publishing.
Pal, L., Kraigher, B., Humar, B.B., Levstek, M. and Mulec, I.M. (2012). Total bacterial
and ammonia-oxidizer community structure in moving bed biofilm reactors
treating municipal wastewater and inorganic synthetic wastewater. Bioresource
Technology, 110,135143.
Park, H.D., Lee, Y.H., Kim, H.B., Moon, J., Ahn, C.H., Kim, K.T. and Kang, M.S.
(2010). Reduction of membrane fouling by simultaneous upward and downward
air sparging in a pilot-scale submerged membrane bioreactor treating municipal
wastewater. Desalination, 251, 7582.
Phattaranawik, J. and Leiknes, T. (2011). Extractive biofilm membrane bioreactor with
energy recovery from excess aeration and new membrane fouling control.
Bioresource Technology, 102, 23012307.
Poyatos, J. M., Munio, M. M., Almecija, M. C., Torres , J. C., Hontoria , E. and Osorio,
F. (2010). Advanced Oxidation Processes for Wastewater Treatment: State of the
Art. Water Air Soil Pollutant, 205, 187204.
106

Quan, F., Yuxiao, W., Tianmin, W., Hao, Z., Libing, C., Chong, Z., Hongzhang, C.,
Xiuqin, K. and Hui, X.X. (2012). Effects of packing rates of cubic-shaped
polyurethane foam carriers on the microbial community and the removal of
organics and nitrogen in moving bed biofilm reactors. Bioresource Technology,
117, 201207.
Radjenovic, J., Matosic, M., Mijatovic, I., Petrovic, M., and Barcelo1, D. (2008).
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) as an advanced wastewater treatment technology.
Spain Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, 5( S/2), 37101.
Rahimi, Y., Torabian, A., Mehrdadi, N., Rezaie, M.H., Pezeshk, H. and Bidhendi,
G.R.N. (2011). Optimizing aeration rates for minimizing membrane fouling and its
effect on sludge characteristics in a moving bed membrane bioreactor. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 186, 10971102.
Renou, S., Givaudan, J.G., Poulian, S., Dirassouyan, F. and Moulin, P. (2008). Landfill
leachate treatment: Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 150,
468-493.
Robescu, D., Calin, A., Robescu, D. and Nasaramb, B. (2009). Simulation of attached
growth biological wastewater treatment process in the mobile bed biofilm reactor.
Proceeding of the 10th WSEAS international conference on mathematic and
computers in biology and chemistry. Bucharest, Romania.
Rubio, J., Souza, M.L. and Smith, R.W. (2002). Overview of flotation as a wastewater
treatment technique. Minerals Engineering, 15, 139155.
Sharrer, M.J., Tal, Y., Ferrier, D., Hankins, J.A. and Summerfelt, S.T. (2007).
Membrane biological reactor treatment of a saline backwash flow from a
recirculating aquaculture system. Aquacultural Engineering, 36 (2), 159-176.
Shore, J.L., MCoy, W.S., Gunsch, C.K. and Deshusses, M.A. (2012). Application of a
moving bed biofilm reactor for tertiary ammonia treatment in high temperature
industrial wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 112, 5160.
Show, K.Y. and Tay, J.H. (1999) Influence of support media on biomass growth and
retention in anaerobic filters. Water Research, 33(6), 1471-1481.
Smith, C.V., DiGregorio, D. and Talcott, R.M. (1969). The use of ultrafiltration
membranes for activated sludge separation, in: Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Sombatsompop, K., Visvanathan, C. and Aim, R.B. (2006). Evaluation of biofouling
phenomenon in suspended and attached growth membrane bioreactor systems.
Desalination, 201, 138149.
Song, K.G., Cho, J., Ko, E.T. and Alan, K.H. (2004). Characteristics of nitrogen and
phosphorous removal in a sequencing anoxic/anaerobic membrane bioreactor
(SAM) process. 4th IWA World Water Congress, Marrakech, Morocco.
107

Sonune, A. and Ghate, R. (2004). Developments in wastewater treatment methods.

Desalination, 167, 5563.
Soto, M.L., Moure, A., Dominguez, H. and Parajo, J.C. (2011). Recovery, concentration
and purification of phenolic compounds by adsorption: A review. Journal of Food
Engineering, 105, 127.
Srinivasan, A., Chowdhury, P. and Viraraghavan, T. (2008). Air stripping in industrial
wastewater treatment. Water and wastewater treatment technologies. UnescoEOLSS.
Sutherland, K. (2010). The rise of membrane bioreactors. Filtration & Separation, 47
(5), 14-16.
Taherzadeh, D., Picioreanu, C. and Horn, H. (2012). Mass Transfer Enhancement in
Moving Biofilm Structures. Biophysical Journal, 102 (7), 1483-1492.
Tavares, C.R.G., Santanna Jr., G.L. and Capdeville, B. (1995). The effect of air
superficial velocity on biofilm accumulation in a three phase fluidized-bed reactor.
Water Resources, 29(10) 2293-2298.
Tchobanoglous, G., Darby, J., Bourgeous, K., McArdle, J., Genest, P. and Tylla, M.
(1998). Ultrafiltration as an advanced tertiary treatment process for municipal
wastewater. Desalination, 119, 315-322.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Pollution prevention (P2)
guidance Manual for the pesticide formulating, Packing and repacking industries:
implementing the P2 alternative.
EPA-821-B-98-017. Office of Water.
Washington, D.C.
US EPA (2000) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater
Technology Fact Sheet -Trickling Filters. . EPA 832-F-00-014. Office of Water.
Washington, D.C.
Vayenas, D.V. (2011). Attached Growth Biological Systems in the Treatment of
PoTable Water and Wastewater. Comprehensive Biotechnology, 6(2), 371-383.
Vigneswaran, S., Vigneswaran, B. and Aim, R.B. (1991). Application of Microfiltration
for water and wastewater treatment. Environmental sanitation information centre.
Asian institute of technology.
Wang, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, J., Yin, J. and Wang, H. (2009). Investigation of
microfiltration for treatment of emulsified oily wastewater from the processing of
petroleum products. Desalination, 249, 12231227.
Weiss, J.S., Alvarez, M., Tang, C.C., Horvath, R.W. and Stahl, J.F. (2005). Evaluation
of moving bed biofilm reactor technology for enhancing nitrogen removal in a
stabilization pond treatment plant. WEFTEC

108

Welander,U., Henrysson, H., and welander, T. (1998). Biological nitrogen removal

from municipal Landfill leachate in a pilot scale suspended Carrier biofilm
process. Wat. Res., 32, (5) 1564 - 1570.
Yacubowicz, H. and Yacubowicz, J. (2005). Nanofiltration: properties and uses.
Filtration & Separation, 42(7), 16-21.
Yang, S., Yang, F., Fu, Z., Wang, T. and Lei, R. (2010). Simultaneous nitrogen and
phosphorus removal by novel sequencing batch moving bed membrane bioreactor
for wastewater treatment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 175, 551-557.
Yang, W., Cicek, N. and Ilg, J. (2006). State-of-the-art of membrane bioreactors:
Worldwide research and commercial applications in North America. Journal of
Membrane Science, 270, 201-211.
Yuan, L.M., Zhang, C.Y., Zhang, Y.Q., Ding, Y. and Xi, D.L. (2008). Biological
nutrient removal using an alternating of anoxic and anaerobic membrane bioreactor
(AAAM) process. Desalination, 221(13), 566-575.
Zhang, J., Chua, H.C., Zhou, J., and Fane, A.G. (2006). Factors affecting the membrane
performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science,
284(1-2), 54-66.
Zheng, H., Zhu, G., Jiang, S., Tshukudu, T., Xiang, X., Zhang, P. and He, Q. (2011).
Investigations of coagulationflocculation process by performance optimization,
model prediction and fractal structure of flocs. Desalination, 269, 148-156.
Zularisama, A.W., Ismaila, A.F., Salim, R. (2006). Behaviours of natural organic zatter
in membrane filtration for surface water treatment a review. Desalination, 194,
211231.

109

Appendix A
pH, DO, T, MLSS, MLVSS, COD, DOC, NH4-N, PO4-P and TN data for MBBR at
different PE carrier filling rates

110

Table A1. pH, DO and T in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates ( flow rate; 8
mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
pH
7.35
6.65
4.80
6.78
6.92
6.67
6.68
6.31
6.58
6.55
5.38
5.12
4.67
4.87
4.77
4.69
4.64
4.63
4.51
4.66
4.80
4.80
4.88
4.75
4.75
5.53

DO (mg/L)
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.28
9.07
8.58
8.57
7.96
7.41
7.48
5.54
5.24
5.08
5.11
4.24
4.08
4.04
3.43
4.36
4.76
5.22
5.24
4.72
4.61
4.29
3.42

T (C)
20.30
21.40
21.00
20.40
21.70
22.20
22.00
21.60
22.30
21.10
21.60
21.10
20.90
20.60
19.90
20.50
20.50
22.00
22.40
22.3
22.40
22.40
20.50
19.80
19.90
22.30

Days
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
30
32
37
40
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
57

5.42

3.26

21.70

60

5.15
5.33
5.22
4.80
5.22
3.91
4.78

3.07
2.99
2.71
2.67
2.54
2.38
2.36

20.80
20.30
20.70
21.20
19.20
19.60
19.70

61
65
67
69
70
73
75

4.52

2.33

20.10

80

Remarks
10% PE carrier filling
rate by volume of
reactor

20% PE carrier filling

rate by volume of
reactor

30% PE carrier filling

rate by volume of
reactor

40% PE carrier filling

rate by volume of
reactor

111

Table A2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates (flow rate;
8 ml/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
MLSS (g/L)

MLVSS (g/L)

Days

1.30
0.70
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.25

1.30
0.70
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.15
0.35
0.20
0.70
0.30
0.30
0.00
0.05
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.55
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.35
0.35
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.20

1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
30
32
37
39
40
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
65
67
69
70
73
75
77
80

Remarks

10% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor

20% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor

30% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor

40% PE carrier
filling rate by
volume of reactor

112

Table A3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
PE carrier filling rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, aeration rate; 4.5 L/min)
DOC
COD
PO4-P
NH4-N
TN
removal removal removal removal removal
efficency efficency efficency efficency efficency
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
96.11
94.07
93.45
91.90
91.34
94.22
93.99
92.36
91.64
94.12
95.03
95.31
95.79
95.89
96.10
96.65
96.80
95.22
94.97
96.17
95.56
97.92
97.97
95.18
92.87
95.61
95.15
95.09
95.17
96.16
93.74
90.41
90.23
92.84
91.89
94.71
94.58

73.50
61.35
68.90
81.70
84.75
81.36
83.88
87.17
87.04
89.29
91.92
92.24
96.36
91.98
92.20
81.34
95.07
83.53
85.71
80.40
87.30
86.27
93.20
88.10
87.30
83.94
86.45
88.05
79.60
75.81
69.44
78.46
86.64
86.40
65.48
81.30
79.84

28.38
84.52
73.89
56.63
50.00
44.30
35.14
45.72
44.82
62.15
63.96
68.63
67.08
67.83
66.08
63.16
76.17
29.81
31.05
43.92
57.99
55.75
47.99
30.50
15.97
41.99
40.75
54.42
49.70
36.86
25.34
33.96
30.09
25.32
22.26
24.76
23.72

6.25
67.68
72.13
47.37
56.41
65.79
47.31
38.98
44.44
54.29
54.02
50.46
55.37
72.85
77.14
76.47
81.06
72.00
66.67
66.67
54.29
50.89
59.09
57.79
25.74
48.10
60.59
75.61
68.45
73.00
72.73
60.61
61.54
68.42
70.81
70.00
73.13

55.48
54.39
64.46
42.70
50.33
56.64
33.71
24.11
31.34
9.56
25.44
34.22
41.00
63.35
61.63
57.81
61.60
55.48
56.79
57.05
42.70
35.14
23.01
33.71
6.60
38.80
31.34
27.64
36.12
48.10
34.50
18.59
61.46
68.33
70.72
53.48
73.05

Days
1
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
28
30
32
37
39
40
41
46
48
50
53
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
65
67
69
70
73
75
77
80

Remarks

10% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

20% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

30% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

40% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

113

Appendix B
pH, DO, T, MLSS, MLVSS, COD, DOC, NH4-N, PO4-P and TN data for MBBR at
different aeration rates

114

Table B1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different aeration rates( flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
pH
5.10
3.84
4.73
4.48
4.25
4.64
4.25
4.43
3.99
4.01
4.08
4,.17
4.02
4.11
4.04
4.19
4.40
4.14
3.90
4.14

DO(mg/L)
4.16
4.12
3.96
3.75
4.04
4.00
4.15
4.23
4.12
3.97
3.95
3.78
3.88
4.00
3.90
3.77
3.57
3.53
3.54
3.50

T (C)
22.80
22.80
23.30
21.50
22.50
20.60
18.80
22.00
20.30
20.80
21.40
22.00
21.50
21.10
20.60
21.00
20.70
20.90
20.10
20.80

Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
14
15
18
20
21
22
25
27
30
32
34
35
39
40

Remarks
6 L/min aeration rate

2.5 L/min aeration

rate

115

Table B2. MLSS and MLVSS in MBBR at different aeration rates (flow rate; 8
mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
MLSS (g/L)
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.05
0.10
0.25

MLVSS (g/L)
0.15
0.35
0.25
0.05
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.45
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.25
0.55
0.35
0.10
0.20
0.70

Days
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
25
26
28
30
32
34
35
37
40

Remarks

at 6 L/min

at 2.5 L/min

116

Table B3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
aeration rates (flow rate; 8 mL/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
DOC
removal
efficency
(%)

COD
removal
efficency
(%)

PO4-P
removal
efficency
(%)

NH4-N
removal
efficency
(%)

TN
removal
efficency
(%)

87.59
93.85
94.38
95.34
94.28
95.46
94.56
94.29
94.37
94.20
94.47
94.19
95.03
95.51
95.11
95.03
95.72
95.69
94.73
94.82

85.45
86.67
86.03
85.71
86.22
88.21
88.89
88.79
88.05
88.89
90.87
90.39
90.95
90.83
91.91
92.14
94.74
95.28
96.41
98.21

65.31
56.45
54.17
49.62
44.28
44.80
37.73
38.83
39.49
42.12
40.36
30.74
26.85
21.45
22.01
33.24
29.79
25.00
21.93
24.47

35.71
70.89
70.89
70.89
68.35
70.89
74.68
75.95
75.95
70.89
70.89
73.33
73.33
76.00
75.34
75.34
76.00
75.48
77.22
75.32

5.11
49.13
45.07
43.40
41.53
47.56
48.69
50.18
51.33
40.99
37.75
24.92
27.08
43.19
15.37
13.57
15.83
21.64
25.85
28.96

Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Remarks

6 L/min

2.5 L/min

117

Appendix C
pH, DO, T, MLSS, MLVSS, COD, DOC, NH4-N, PO4-P and TN data for MBBR at
different HRTs

118

Table C1. pH, DO and T of MBBR at different HRTs ( aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE
carrier filling rate; 20%)
pH

DO(mg/L)

T (C)

Days

4.07
3.76
3.67
3.72
3.70
3.55
4.08
3.99
3.89
4.19
4.11
4.13
4.04
4.25
4.30
4.22
4.15
4.22
4.07
4.30
3.85
3.78
4.35
4.16
4.10
3.90
4.01
3.99
4.00
3.25
3.99
4.59
4.05
4.19
4.29
4.13
4.16
4.10
3.90
4.10
4.13

3.66
3.41
3.35
3.48
3.40
3.58
3.50
3.47
3.40
3.56
3.44
3.28
3.61
3.85
4.06
4.23
4.13
4.00
4.18
4.13
4.19
4.15
4.17
4.24
4.13
3.76
3.60
3.75
3.96
3.71
4.16
3.64
2.23
2.54
2.64
2.54
2.54
2.50
2.66
2.54
2.64

21.60
21.30
21.70
21.40
21.60
20.40
21.00
21.20
21.70
22.60
23.20
21.80
21.10
20.90
20.90
21.10
21.60
22.30
21.90
21.80
21.50
22.10
22.50
22.30
22.60
23.00
23.00
23.70
21.90
22.40
22.10
22.30
22.60
21.80
21.60
22.80
22.30
22.60
23.00
21.50
21.60

1
5
6
7
8
10
15
20
35
40
41
44
50
54
55
60
63
65
70
75
79
80
85
90
92
95
97
99
100
102
105
107
110
112
115
118
120
122
125
127
130

Remarks

12 h

8h

5h

2h

119

Table C2. MLSS and MLVSS of MBBR at different HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min,
PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
MLSS (g/L)
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.35

MLVSS (g/L)
0.55
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.15
0.55
0.35
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.25
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.30

Days
1
5
7
9
15
21
25
35
40
41
47
51
55
61
63
65
75
79
80
85
87
90
92
95
97
100
102
105
107
110
112
115
118
120
122
125
127
130

Remarks

12 h

8h

5h

2h

120

Table C3. DOC, COD, PO4-P, NH4-N and TN removal efficiency in MBBR at different
HRTs (aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, PE carrier filling rate; 20%)
DOC
COD
removal removal
efficiency efficiency
(%)
(%)
93.49
93.84
94.86
95.00
92.66
93.12
94.58
94.51
93.06
95.16
95.38
93.78
94.01
92.68
94.37
94.12
94.29
94.22
95.52
94.87
94.10
93.92
94.31
93.82
95.32
95.32
94.88
94.57
94.90
95.66
95.27
95.42
96.77
96.81
96.37
96.78
96.81

76.47
82.72
80.00
92.00
86.09
92.15
89.88
91.57
93.55
75.08
72.09
83.08
75.20
84.15
86.07
80.82
87.57
87.37
87.57
89.37
89.43
90.95
89.80
91.32
91.63
90.91
90.79
91.02
73.08
67.06
65.00
69.51
70.51
75.86
74.19
75.08
74.13

PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)
49.25
48.59
50.93
46.38
41.16
20.36
29.33
41.87
33.33
50.84
42.00
45.94
56.09
52.17
45.99
45.95
55.22
63.32
63.32
58.96
55.36
53.42
63.32
58.96
55.36
53.42
55.67
57.93
53.42
90.23
92.44
90.99
84.94
82.00
81.61
83.61
83.65

NH4-N
TN
removal
removal
efficiency efficiency
(%)
(%)
62.50
56.67
65.05
71.05
68.23
68.13
60.53
71.67
65.00
78.31
56.46
59.72
67.74
67.86
53.70
56.60
70.64
71.46
71.46
63.95
72.76
73.08
71.46
63.95
72.76
73.08
75.86
76.11
73.08
67.06
65.00
69.51
70.51
75.86
74.19
75.08
74.13

46.22
45.82
44.95
53.91
45.75
56.57
50.27
61.28
45.13
62.57
37.52
35.98
52.11
57.09
46.93
50.08
63.13
65.28
65.28
54.41
62.30
64.38
61.08
53.08
60.68
59.31
75.86
76.11
59.62
62.70
60.92
64.07
65.32
75.86
74.19
75.08
74.13

Days
1
5
7
9
11
13
15
18
20
41
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
80
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
107
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125

Remarks

12 h

8h

5h

2h

121

Appendix D
NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates, aeration rates
and HRTs

122

Table D1. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different PE carrier filling rates
(aeration rate; 4.5 L/min, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
NO2-N (mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.57
0.01
1.05
0.00
0.39
0.01
0.35
0.00
0.39
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02

NO3-N (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
2.70
17.80
2.80
6.70
2.40
3.20
2.40
2.20
1.10
2.20
2.00
2.80
2.00
3.30
1.60
3.20
1.20
3.20
1.70
2.90
0.70
11.90
1.10
7.30
1.40
3.90
1.60
4.00
1.10
3.20
0.90
3.20
2.40
3.10
1.70
4.20
1.40
3.10
1.50
24.30
1.30
9.60
2.50
5.60
1.10
5.20
2.00
4.80
2.00
5.30
1.60
5.60
1.90
6.20
1.40
4.70
1.20
10.70
1.80
5.90
1.90
8.80
2.00
10.90
2.30
4.90
1.90
5.90
2.30
7.20
2.30
7.20
1.90
7.10

Days
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
21
24
26
28
30
32
39
40
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
56
57
60
61
65
67
69
70
73
75
77
80

Remarks

10% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

20% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

30% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

40% PE
carrier
filling rate
by volume
of reactor

123

Table D2. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different aeration rates (PE carrier
filling rate; 20%, flow rate; 8 mL/min)
NO2-N (mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

NO3-N (mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
1.00
7.90
1.90
4.40
1.50
4.90
1.00
4.90
1.00
4.80
1.00
4.20
1.40
4.80
1.40
2.00
1.90
4.80
1.50
5.60
1.90
6.40
0.60
7.70
0.50
7.30
2.60
6.40
1.00
9.60
1.60
10.40
2.10
10.80
2.00
9.90
1.20
9.00
1.10
8.10

Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Remarks

6 L/min

2.5 L/min

124

Table D3. NO2-N and NO3-N data for MBBR at different HRTs (PE carrier filling rate;
20%, aeration rate; 4.5 L/ min)
NO2-N (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.29
0.00
0.26
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

NO3-N (mg/L)
Influent Effluent
1.50
4.70
1.70
4.10
1.20
3.90
1.00
4.30
1.20
3.80
0.90
4.80
1.40
4.30
1.40
4.60
1.20
4.20
0.90
6.40
1.60
6.50
1.20
6.70
1.80
4.80
1.80
5.90
1.70
5.60
1.70
3.70
1.80
4.60
1.30
4.10
1.90
3.40
1.90
3.10
1.90
3.90
1.90
3.40
2.30
3.30
2.30
5.00
2.00
4.40
2.30
4.00
1.90
4.70
1.90
4.60
1.70
4.90
1.90
4.40
1.90
4.00
1.80
5.10
1.90
4.70

Days
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
18
20
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
59
80
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
107
109
111
113
115
117

Remarks

12 h

8h

5h

2h

125

Appendix E
Total membrane resistance (RT), DOC, COD, PO4-P and NH4-N data for MBBRMF
system at fluxes

126

Table E1. Total membrane resistance at different fluxes

Flux
(L/m2.h)

7.5

12

30

RT
x10 (m-1)
0.61
0.90
0.90
1.12
1.01
1.19
0.61
0.26
0.50
1.15
2.09
3.07
3.82
3.96
0.21
0.42
0.56
0.67
1.28
5.15
6.44
0.19
3.77
5.30
11

Days

Remarks

1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3

127

Table E2. DOC, COD, PO4-P and NH4-N removal efficiency in MBBR-MF at different
HRTs
DOC
removal
efficiency
(%)

COD
removal
efficiency
(%)

PO4-P
removal
efficiency
(%)

NH4-N
removal
efficiency
(%)

Days

95.64
94.52
94.07
93.49
93.70
94.92
94.08
94.83
95.26
93.38
94.06
94.43
94.01
95.08
94.78
94.82
94.60
95.57
95.07
96.27
95.74
96.17

94.51
96.39
95.48
95.15
94.28
94.84
94.19
88.08
88.43
84.15
93.61
93.61
93.20
92.10
87.04
90.94
91.32
92.24
92.00
85.20
89.50
92.20

39.16
38.82
40.63
42.64
42.31
37.58
32.00
42.50
35.26
34.45
31.42
30.74
21.55
23.20
55.36
48.97
62.45
33.56
33.78
84.59
83.50
91.00

66.67
69.23
63.93
63.33
83.46
86.18
83.33
73.46
76.13
74.64
83.00
79.25
75.07
74.75
85.31
79.50
74.29
70.71
77.05
65.03
77.50
74.12

1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
4
7
10
12
15
19
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3

Remarks

12 h

8h

5h

2h

128

Appendix F
Figure of all the equipments used in this experiment

129

Figure F1. Oven

Figure F2. Furnace

130

Figure F3. pH meter (HANNA instrument, model no. HI 9025)

Figure F4. DO meter (HORIBA Ltd. Japan, model no. OM -51E)

131

Figure F5. COD Sample heater and a photometry

Figure F6. Analytikjena multi N/C 3100

132

Figure F7. Spectroquant cell test (NOVA 60, Merck)

Figure F8. YSI 5300 Biological oxygen monitor

133

Figure F9. GFC Whatmans 1.2 m filter paper, and syringe filters (0.45 and 1.20)

Figure F10. Ultrasonic cleaner (POWER SONIC 405, Thermoline scientific)

134