Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.

1 (2007) 25-38

Anaerobic Hybrid Reactor - A Promising Technology for the Treatment of Distillery

Spent Wash
Gupta Sunil Kumar , Gupta, S. K.2, Singh, Gurdeep1
1
1
Centre of Mining Environment, Indian school of Mines, Dhanbad, 826004, (India) Telefax: +91-326-2206372 (O),
E-mail: skgsunil@gmail.com, (Corresponding author)
2
Centre for Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Mumbai, 400076,
(India) Telefax: +91-22-2207853, E-mail: skgupta@cc.iitb.ac.in

ABSTRACT
A laboratory scale study was conducted to investigate the performance of anaerobic hybrid
(combining sludge blanket and filter) and UASB (upflow anaerobic sludge blanket) reactors for
the treatment of distillery-spent wash. The start-up and granulation study demonstrated that early
start-up and granulation were achieved in case of hybrid reactor (45 days) as compared to UASB
reactor (60 days). The investigation of the effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the
performance of reactors indicated that at optimum HRT (5 days) and organic loading rate (OLR)
8.7 kg COD/m3.d the COD removal in hybrid and UASB reactors were found to be 79% and
74.5%, respectively. The rate of sludge washout reduced by 25% in hybrid reactor as compared
to the UASB reactor. The study on the shock loading capacity of the reactors revealed that
hybrid reactor is capable of resisting organic shock load up to 2 times as compared to the UASB
reactor capable of resisting the shock loading up to 1.5 times of normal organic load.
(Keywords: Anaerobic hybrid reactor, UASB reactor, hydraulic retention time, sludge washout,
shock loading, distillery spent wash,)

INTRODUCTION
Industries generate wastewater that contains a mixture of different pollutants, which often suffer
from low biodegradability and are recalcitrant to biological treatment. Owing to a great
variability of chemical structure and properties of compounds present in industrial wastewater
and the risk of toxicity, conventional biological processes, even though commonly used due to
their low costs, are seldom efficient. There is urgent need of developing innovative treatment
technologies capable of degrading toxic or refractory pollutants present in the wastewater.
Distillery spent wash is as one of the caramelized and recalcitrant wastes containing
extremely high COD, BOD, SS, inorganic solids, color and low in pH (Preeti et al., 2006,
Biradar, 2005, Shin et al., 1992; Saha et al., 2005). Treatment of the spent wash generated from
the distilleries is perceived as one of the serious pollution problems of the countries producing
alcohol from the fermentation and subsequent distillation of sugar cane molasses (Inamdar,
1991; Saha et al., 2005). In India, presently, there are 285 distilleries producing 2.7 billion liters
of alcohol and generating 40 billion liters of wastewaters annually (Raghukumar et al., 2004).
Various treatment technologies such as incineration, physico-chemical treatment, composting,
and biological treatment have been investigated by the researchers (Pena et al., 2003; Hayase et
al., 1984; Sheehan and Greenfield, 1980). Various researchers (Gurudatta, 1992; Nandi et al.,
2002; and Karhadkar et al., 1990) have demonstrated that anaerobic processes enabling recovery
of biogas appear to be the most promising technology for the treatment of spent wash. Bardiya
(1988); Goyal et al. (1996); Cohen at al. (1979); Ghose and Pohland (1974); Massey and
Pohland (1978) advocated the superiority of diphasic anaerobic digestion of spent wash.
However, there is no general agreement yet on the most appropriate method of treatment of spent
wash. Due to several constraints, practical problems and drawbacks associated with the processes
they are not techno-economically feasible. The anaerobic hybrid reactor combining the sludge
blanket in the lower part and filter in the upper part has been reported to promote the advantages
of both upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and upflow filter, while minimizing their

25
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

limitations (Kimata et al., 1993 and Guiot and van den Berg, 1985). Since its conception, this
hybrid reactor has been studied by many researchers and found to be efficient in treating dilute
to medium strength wastewaters (Ramjeawon et al., 1995, Fang and Kwong, 1994, Bardiya et al.,
1995 and Ozatijrk et al., 1993). However, the quantitative information on the process
performance of this reactor for the high strength industrial wastewaters needs to be explored.
This modified configuration is yet to find its large-scale application owing to paucity of
information on its performance for different types of industrial wastewater.
Due to stringent effluent standards imposed the regulatory authorities, the distilleries are
in urgent need of adopting techno-economical and most efficient treatment methods to solve
their problems. Hence, the present study was undertaken to investigate the efficiency of most
innovative- anaerobic hybrid reactor as compared to the existing UASB reactor which could
cope –up with the need of present distillers. Hence, the present study was undertaken to evaluate
the feasibility of anaerobic hybrid reactor in for the treatment of distillery-spent wash. The
specific objectives of the study are as under:
• Evaluate the effect of hydraulic retention time on the performance of reactors
• To assess the rate of sludge washout of the reactors
• Investigate the effect of shock loading on the normal performance of reactors
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND METHODOLOGY
Experimental set-up

For the study, two sets of reactors (Anaerobic hybrid and UASB reactors) of volume, 15.5 liters
each were designed and fabricated as per the guidelines given by Letting and Hulshoff (1991).
The schematic diagrams of both reactors are given in Figure 1. The feeding system of reactors
was designed in such a way that the inlet end opens towards the bottom of reactor, which allows
feed to first strike at the bottom and then gets evenly distributed while rising upward in a hopper
bottom. GLSS device is placed at the top by assuming 20 % of the reactor volume with inclined
walls at 50o. Baffles of sufficient overlap were provided below the GLSS in order to avoid the
entry of biogas into settling compartment. The outlet of the gas was provided at the apex of
pyramid, which is connected to the biogas collection chamber. The reactors were provided with
six equidistance ports along its height to facilitate sampling. In hybrid reactor a PVC filter media
(2.54 cm x 2.54 cm PVC pipes) of length 30.48 cm was provided additionally than UASB
reactor below the outlet.

Start-up of the reactors and methodology

The reactors were first inoculated with seed sludge (232.5 g on VSS basis) collected from
anaerobic digester of sewage treatment plant, IIT, Bombay, Mumbai. The quantity of seed sludge
was estimated as per the guidelines mentioned in the literature (Hickey et al. 1991). The reactors
were fed with 1% (v/v) spent wash collected from SSK Ltd. Nasik Maharashtra. The
characteristics of the spent wash used in the study are given in Table 1. The start-up and
granulation period in both the reactors were first examined and later the OLR in the reactors
were gradually increased to acclimatize the biomass to the concentrated spent wash. To study the
effect of HRT on the process performance, the reactors were operated at various HRTs i.e. 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8 days. The organic loading rates corresponding to various HRTs were 11.13, 8.70, 7.13,
5.73 and 4.53 kg COD/ m3.d.

26
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

Biogas Biogas

Settler

GSS
Effluent Effluent

Sludge
blanket
Filter media

Sludge blanket

Sampling ports
Sampling ports
Sludge
bed
Sludge bed

Influent Influent

UASB Reactor Hybrid Reactor

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of UASB and Hybrid Reactor

27
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

Table 1: Characteristics of spent wash collected from S.S.K. Distilleries (Ltd.), Niphad,
Nasik, Maharashtra.

Parameters Value*
pH 3.3-3.9
COD 90000-1,30,000
BOD5 45,000-60,000
TSS 9000-10000
TDS 70,000-78,000
TVS 45000-48,000
Fixed solids 25000-30,000
SO4 6000-6500
Cl- 5500-6000
(*All values except pH are in mg/L)
Many Researchers (Bardia et al., 1995 & Karhadkar et al., 1990) have already demonstrated that
that maximum organic removal efficiency was obtained at an optimum HRT range of 8-10 days
in case of anaerobic biodegradation of distillery spent wash. Hence, in the present study, initially
it was decided to operate the reactors at an HRT range from 4-10 days. However, later the
performance of the reactors in terms of COD removal efficiency decreased continuously from 6
to 8 days. Hence, the further studies beyond HRT of 8 days were discontinued. The influent
alkalinity and pH was kept as 3950 ± 50 mg/L and 7 ± 0.2respectively. The reactors were
operated at steady state for about 20-25 days at each HRT and the average values of each
parameter were worked out. To study the washout of biomass from the reactors the rate of sludge
washout at various organic loading rate were analyzed as shown in experimental design of study
(Figure 2). To study the effect of shock loading on the performance of reactors four different
organic shock loads of 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2 times of the normal COD concentration was applied.
HRT of the system was kept constant as 5 days throughout the study. The HRT study indicated
that the performance of the reactors was optimum at HRT of 5 days. Hence to assess the effects
of variation in organic loading rate in the normal performance of the reactors, shock-loading
study was performed an HRT of 5 days. The pH of the influent was kept constant to 7±0.1. The
shock loads were administered continuously for a period of four days before switching back to
the normal loading. The system was then allowed to return to the normal conditions before
administering the next shock load.
Analytical methods
Alkalinity, pH, COD, SO42-, SVI (Sludge Volume Index), specific gravity, SS, (Suspended
Solids) VSS (Volatile Suspended Solids) and TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) were analyzed
according to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA,
AWWA and WPCF 1989). Biogas production was measured by using water displacement
method for a collection period of 3 h, twice in a day and average value for the particular day has
been estimated. Methane (CH4) content of the biogas was measured by injecting 1 ml of biogas
through gas chromatograph equipped with Thermal Conductivity Detector using Porapack - Q
(80-100), stainless steel column (2.4 m X 3 mm). The analysis with Porapack column was
carried out at oven temperature 1100C, Detector Temp. 2000C. The carrier gas hydrogen was
applied at a flow rate of 40-50 mL/min. Volatile fatty acid in the effluent was measured by
injecting 2 µL of filtered and acidified samples through gas chromatograph equipped with Flame

28
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

Ionization Detector using a 10% FFAP on (60/80) Chromosorb WHP/0.1% H3PO4 stainless
steel column. The analysis was carried out at an oven temperature of 1500C, injector
temperature of 1800C and detector temperature of 2500C. Hydrogen and zero air were used to
fuel the flame while nitrogen as carrier gas was applied at the rate of 20 mL/min.
The SRT was obtained by estimating total biomass in the reactor divided by outgoing
biomass from the reactor per day along with the treated effluent. The total biomass in hybrid
reactor was calculated by adding suspended and attached biomass present in the reactor. For
determining the suspended biomass in the reactor, sludge samples from top, bottom and middle
section of sludge bed were taken and analyzed for the VSS (biomass) concentration of sludge.
The quantity of the sludge present in the sludge bed was measured and multiplied with the
average VSS concentration of sludge samples to get the total biomass in the sludge bed. Then
VSS concentration of the reactor effluent was determined and multiplied with the volume of
reactor effluent to get the biomass concentration in the sludge blanket. These two biomass were
added to get the total suspended biomass present in the reactor.

29
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

Spent wash From

SSK Ltd. Nasik

IIT, Mumbai

Neutralization Lime

with Lime

HRT Study

HRT = 4 days HRT = 5 days HRT = 6 days HRT = 7 days HRT = 8 days
OLR = 4.53 OLR = 5.73 OLR =7.13 OLR = 8.70 OLR = 11.13

Treated effluent

Shock Loading Study

1.5 times 1.75 times 2.0 times

1.25 times

COD, 56250 mg/l COD, 67500 mg/l COD, 78750 mg/l COD, 90000 mg/l

Treated effluent Treated effluent Treated effluent Treated effluent

OLR, kg COD/m3.d

Fig. 2: Schematic of experimental design of the study

30
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

To estimate the quantity of attached biomass on the filter media, the 6 samples of filter media
(PVC pipe pieces) attached with biomass was taken from top, middle and bottom sections of the
filter media and average VSS attached with per piece of PVC pipe (filter media) was estimated.
This attached biomass per piece of PVC pipe was then multiplied with the total number of PVC
pipe pieces used in the filter media to get the attached biomass in the reactor.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Start-up and granulation study
To investigate early start-up and granulation of biomass, the reactors were operated for a period
of 60 days with 1% spent wash (v/v) till the Pseudo-steady-state and granulations in both the
reactors were observed. The process performance data during the start-up and granulation phase
indicated that Pseudo-steady-state in hybrid and UASB reactors achieved after 40 and 50 days,
respectively (Gupta and Gupta, 2005). The Pseudo-steady-state in this case was defined based on
the COD removal efficiency supported with fairly constant pH and alkalinity profile. The
granules of almost spherical shape and black in color first appeared in hybrid reactor on day 45
while it could be seen after 60 days in UASB reactor (Gupta and Gupta, 2005). The granulation
period 45-60 days as obtained in the present study is comparable to granulation period of 120
days reported by Shin et al. (1992) during the anaerobic digestion of distillery-spent wash. Datar
et al. (2001) reported that granulation period could even be reduced to 15 days by introducing a
slime layer produced by aerobes in the reactor.
Study the effect of hydraulic retention time on the performance of reactors
The process performance of the reactors in term of COD removal and biogas generation profiles,
sulphate reduction and VFA profiles and SS profile of reactors at various HRTs and organic
loading rates are shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5. It can be seen from the Figures 3 that the COD
removal and methane yield of the reactors increased with increase in HRT from 4 to 5 days and
found to be decreased on further increase in HRT beyond 5 days. The maximum COD removal
were found to be 79% and 74.5% at HRT, 5 days and OLR, 8.7 kg COD/ m3.d in hybrid and
UASB reactors, respectively.

31
Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

32
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

The biogas production varied from 23.60 l/d to 64.33 l/d in hybrid reactor while it varied from
22.70 to l/d to 62.70 l/d in UASB reactor at HRTs from 8 to 4 days. The methane content of
biogas increased from 67% to 70% in hybrid reactor and from 65 to 68% in UASB reactor by
increasing the HRT from 4 to 5 days and then decreased at higher HRT and found to be 60% at
HRT 8 days. However, the methane yields per kg of COD removed were found to be maximum
i.e. 0.344 m3/kg CODr and 0.341 m3/kg CODr in hybrid and UASB reactors, respectively at
HRT, 5 days and OLR, 8.7 kg COD/ m3.d. The decrease in COD removal and methane yield
beyond HRT, 5 days can be attributed to the increase in the sulphide and VFA concentrations
(Figure 4). An increase in sulfide concentration more than 100 mg/L at higher HRTs caused
sulfide toxicity to the methanogens and inhibited the conversion of VFA into methane leading to
the decreased performance of reactors at higher HRTs. Bal et al (2001) reported that sulphide
concentration more than 100 mg/L is toxic for the acetate and H2 utilizing methanogens. Parkin
et al (1983) reported that sulphide toxicity to the bacterial population could be observed at a
concentration of 50 mg/L as S. Lawrence et al. (1964) has reported a severe process inhibition at
sulphide concentration more than 200 mg/L led to the failure of reactor.
Further, the optimum COD removal efficiency of hybrid reactor in the present study
found to be approximately 5% more than the UASB reactor. Higher COD removal efficiency of
hybrid reactor can be attributed to higher sludge retention time (SRT) and plug flow pattern of
hybrid reactor than UASB reactor having completely mixed flow pattern. Table 2 shows the
biomass profile and SRT values of the reactors at various HRT. It can be seen from the table that
higher SRT values (75-989 days) was obtained in hybrid reactor as compared to UASB reactor
(67-511 days). In addition, on an average, the total biomass retention capacity of hybrid reactor
was about 10.23% higher than UASB reactor at HRT from 4-8 days which can be attributed to
attached growth biomass. Higher biomass concentration and less washout rate of the sludge in
hybrid reactor give rise to higher SRT and better performance as compared to UASB reactor.
The COD removal efficiency and methane yield of the reactors found in the present study are
comparable with COD removal (60-65%) and methane yield (0.30 - 0.34 m3/kg CODr) reported
by other researchers (Shin et al., 1992 and Vaidyanathan et al., 1995, Jimenez, 2003, Karhadkar
et al., 1990, Ramjeawon et al. (1995) and Bardiya et al. 1995) for different configurations of
anaerobic reactors in the treatment of spent wash.

Table 2: Biomass Profile of Hybrid and UASB reactors at various HRTs

Parameter HRT, days
4 5 6 7 8
Biomass Attached with filter 34.35 34.35 34.35 34.35 34.35
media in Hybrid reactor, g
Biomass in Suspended form
415.40 412.99 441.36 457.62 475.19
in Hybrid reactor, g
Total Biomass in Hybrid
449.75 447.34 475.71 491.97 509.54
reactor, g
Total Biomass in UASB
reactor 412.64 397.90 426.92 445.81 472.01
Additional biomass in
8.99% 12.42% 11.43% 10.35% 7.95%
Hybrid reactor
SRT in hybrid reactor, days 75 125 244 420 989
SRT in UASB reactor, days 67 106 168 266 511

The volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration in the reactors increased from 95 mg/l to 570
mg/l with increase in HRT from 4 to 8 days (Figure 4). However, the pH of the effluent ranges

33
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

from 7.8-8.0 at all HRT. This can be attributed to the enough buffering capacity present in the
reactors. The effluent alkalinity in hybrid and UASB reactors was found to be (4050-4350
mg/L) and (4150-4550 mg/L) as CaCO3, respectively at various HRTs. Many researchers (Goyal
et al., 1996 and Vaidyanathan et al., 1995) have reported pH (7.3 to 7.9) in anaerobic treatment
of distillery-spent wash. Vaidyanathan et al. (1995) have reported that even accumulation of
VFA up to a level of 21800 mg/L did not affect the operation of anaerobic lagoon in treatment of
distillery-spent wash. Goyal et al. (1996) have been reported that VFA concentration up to 2134
mg/L did not cause any inhibition to the methanogens. Hence, it can be inferred that the
efficiency of the reactors decreased due to sulphide inhibition rather than VFA inhibition.
Washout of sludge
The rate of sludge washout and percentage SS removal at various organic loading rates and
HRTs are plotted in Figure 5. It can be seen from the figure that the rate of sludge washout in
both the reactors increased with increase in OLR while SS removal decreases with increase in
OLR. The rate of sludge washout was found to be maximum i.e. 17.83 g SS/day and 23.25 g
SS/day, in hybrid and UASB reactors, respectively, at HRT, 4 days and OLR of 11.13 kg
COD/m3.d. While the SS removal in hybrid and UASB reactors ranges from 30 - 65% and 10 -
40% in hybrid and UASB reactors, respectively. The study demonstrates that the rate of sludge
washout, which is one of the major drawbacks of UASB reactor, is reduced by 25% in hybrid
reactor. Decreased rate of sludge washout and higher SS removal efficiency of the hybrid reactor
resulted could be attributed to the sieving mechanism of filter media attached in the reactor. A
part of washed out sludge gets attached to the filter media resulting decreased washout of sludge
in hybrid reactor.
Shock loading study
Daily variations in influent and effluent COD along with the VFA profile during shock loading
in hybrid and UASB reactors are plotted in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. It can be seen from the
Figure 6 shows that during the shock loading of 1.25 times (COD, 56250 mg/L) effluent COD
and VFA concentration remains almost constant showing no affect in the COD removal
efficiency of the hybrid reactor. While, the COD removal efficiency decreased slightly from
74.5% to about 69.5% with an increase in VFA concentration from 250 to 365 mg/L in case of
UASB reactor on application of 1.25 times shock loading (Figure 7). The UASB reactor took 8
days to return to its normal operation on switching back to the normal organic loading.
At a shock loading of 1.5 times (COD, 67500 mg/L) a slight decrease in the performance of
hybrid reactor (COD removal decreased from 79% to 78% with an increase in VFA
concentration from 220 mg/L to 350 mg/L) was observed. While, comparatively more stress in
the performance of UASB reactor was observed. This is evident by the decrease of COD removal
from 74.5% to 60% and increase in VFA concentration from 250 to 1260 mg/L in case of UASB
reactor. On switching back to its normal organic loading rate hybrid reactor took only 8 days to
return to its normal operation which UASB reactor could be recovered to its original
performance beyond 16 days. On further increase in shock loading to 1.75 times (COD, 78750
mg/L) slightly more stress in the performance of hybrid reactor (COD removal decreased from
79% to 70% with a continuous increase in VFA from 220 mg/L to 850 mg/L) was observed. The
reactor in this case took 12 days to return to its normal operation. On the other hand the failure of
UASB reactor was noticed which is evident from the continuous decrease in COD removal (from
74.5 to 35%) and increase in VFA concentration from 250 to 3560 mg/L on day 10th.

34
Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

35
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38
The process failure resulted irreversibly because even after switching back to normal organic
loading, the reactor did not return to its normal operation and a further decrease in COD
removal up to 20% with an increase in VFA concentration to 8500 mg/L was recorded on day
20th.
On further increase in the shock loading of two folds (COD, 90000 mg/L), considerable
stress in the performance of hybrid reactor was recorded. While, the UASB reactor was not
subjected to this shock loading due to its failure at 1.75 times of shock loading. The COD
removal decreased from 79% to 60 % with an increase in VFA concentration 220 mg/l to 1680
mg/L. The reactor in this case took 18 days to recover to its normal operation.
The shock loading study demonstrated that hybrid reactor was robust enough to sustain
up to 2 times of shock load while the UASB reactor could not withstand even 1.75 times of
shock loading and process failure resulted irreversibly.
Comparative performance of hybrid reactor
Based on the above studies a comparative evaluation of hybrid reactor vs. UASB reactor has
been made and given in Table 3. It can be seen from the table that the earlier start-up and
granulation period found in hybrid reactor makes it superior than UASB reactor in terms of early
adoption of the reactor in the field. In terms of efficiency, COD removal efficiency and biogas
yield of hybrid reactor was found to be 5% more than the UASB reactor. An estimate of COD
removal and biogas production for a 30 KLD (Kilolitre per day) distillery plant shows that
hybrid reactor can result an additional 900 kg COD/day of COD reduction and result in an
additional methane production of 326.76 L/day. Energy equivalent of additional biogas produced
in hybrid reactor is 11.4 MJ/day, which can be achieved by employing hybrid reactor in place of
UASB reactor.
Moreover, the washout of the sludge, a serious drawback of UASB reactor, can be
reduced by 25% in hybrid reactor than UASB reactor. In terms of shock loading, the hybrid
reactor found to be robust enough to resist the shock load up to 2 times of normal organic load
while the UASB reactor could withstand only up to shock loading of 1.5 times. In additional, the
problem of plugging and choking of effluent and vent pipes was often realized in UASB reactor
but it was never observed in case of hybrid reactor.

Table 3 Comparative performance of hybrid reactor vs. UASB reactor

Point of comparison Hybrid reactor UASB reactor

Start-up period, days 40 50
Granulation period, days 45 60
Size of the granules, mm 1.4 1.3
Settling velocity, m/h 61.50 50.32
Percentage granulation 46 40
Biomass yield, d-1 0.078 0.075
COD removal efficiency, (%) 79% 74.5
Additional COD removal for 30 kL of alcohol 900 -
production, kg/day
Biogas production, L/day 52.37 50.6`
Percentage methane in biogas 70 68
Additional methane production for 30 kL of 326.76 -
alcohol production, L/day
Energy saving through additional biogas 11.4 -

36
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38

production for 30 kL of alcohol production,

MJ/day
Percent SS reduction 30-65 % 10-40 %
Additional SS removal 25 %
Rate of sludge washout g SS/day 17.83 23.25
Capacity to resist shock load Up to 2 times of Up to 1.5 times of
normal OLR normal OLR

CONCLUSIONS
The study concludes that anaerobic hybrid reactor is superior and a promising technology as
compared to UASB reactor for the treatment of distillery spent wash. The specific conclusions
drawn from the studies are as under:
• The hybrid reactor is more efficient in terms of COD removal and biogas production as
compared to UASB reactor. At optimum HRT, 5 days and OLR, 8.7 kg COD/m3.d, the
COD removal efficiency and methane yield in hybrid reactor were approximately 5%
more than UASB reactor.
• The rate of sludge washout, which is a major drawback of UASB reactor, can be reduced
by 25% in hybrid reactor.
• Hybrid reactor is capable of resisting up to 2 times of shock load as compared to UASB
reactor capable of resisting only 1.5 times of shock loading.
• The problem of plugging and choking of effluent and vent pipes, the usual occurring
problem of UASB reactor, can be avoided by employing hybrid reactor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by a grant from Council of Scientific and Industrial
research, New Delhi.

REFERENCES
_________________________________________________________________________
• APHA, AWWA and WPCF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association
and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington. D.C., 1989.

• Bal, A.S. and Dhagat, N.N., “Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor-A review”, Indian
J. Environ Health. 43 (2), (2001) 1-83.

• Bardiya, M. C., Hashia, R., and Chandna, S., “Performance of hybrid reactor for
anaerobic digestion of distillery effluent”, J. Indian Association of Environmental
Management. 22 (1995) 237 - 239.

• Bardiya M.P., Diphasic anaerobic process for distillery spent wash, A Report submitted
to Department of Non conventional Energy sources, Govt. of India, 1988

• Biradar, A., Post-Anaerobic Treatment of Distillery Spent wash. Ph.D. Thesis Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay (India), 2005.

37
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38
• Cohen A., Zoetemeyer R.J., Deursen A. van and Andel J.G. van, “Anaerobic digestion
of glucose with separated acid production and methane formation”, Water Res. 13, (1979) 571-
580.

• Datar, M. T., Dubey, D. R., and Singh, A. N., “Quick start-up and quick steady state
technique for UAFFB reactor”, Ind. J. Environ. Health, 43(3) (2001) 92-103.

• Fang, H. H. P. and Kwong, T. S., “Degradation of starch particulate in a hybrid reactor”,

Wat. Sci. Tech. 30 (4) (1994) 97-104.

• Ghose, S., and Pohland, F.G., “Kinetics of substrate assimilation and product formation
in anaerobic digestion”, J Water Pollut Control Fed. 46 (4) (1974), 748-759.

• Goyal, S. K., Seth, R., and Handa, B. K., “Diphasic fixed film biomethanation of
distillery spent wash”, Biores. Technol. 56, (1996) 239 – 244.

• Guiot, S. R., and van den Berg, L., “Performance of an anaerobic reactor combining a
sludge blanket and a filter treating sugar waste”, Biotechnol. Bioeng. (xxvii) (1985) 800-
806.

• Gupta, Sunil Kumar; Gupta, S.K., “Morphological Study of the Granules in UASB and
Hybrid Reactors”, Clean Techn Environ Policy. 7 (2005): 203-212.

• Gurudatta, H., Composting of spentwash with different filter materials. M.E.

Dissertation, Shivaji University, Pune (India), 1992.

• Hayes, F., Kim, S.M. and Kato, H., “Decolorization and degradation products of the
melanoidins by Hydrogen peroxide”, Agric. Biol. Chem. 48 (11) (1984) 2711–2717.

• Hickey R.F. Wu, W.M., Veiga, M.C. and Jones, R., “Start-up, operation, monitoring and
control of high rate anaerobic treatment system”, Wat. Sci. Tech. 24 (8) (1991b) 207-255.

• Inamdar, S.N., “The distillery industry growth prospects for the 90s”, Chem. Engg.
World. XXVI (9) (1991) 43-46.

• Jimenez, A.M, Borja, R. and Martin, A., “Aerobic–anaerobic biodegradation of beet

molasses alcoholic fermentation wastewater”, Proc. Biochem. 38, (2003) 1275–1284.

• Karhadkar, P.P., Handa, B.K. and Khanna P., ”Pilot-Scale Distillery Spent wash
Biomethanation”, J. Envir. Engrg. 116 (6) (1990) 1029-1045.

• Kimata, T., Kainoi, T., Tada, M., Tomkar, K., Shirabe, K., and Shirrizu, K., “Anaerobic
treatment of thermal sludge conditioning liquor with granular sludge”, Water Environ.
Res. 65, (1993) 6 – 14.

• Lettinga G. and Hulshoff Pol., “UASB-process design for various types of wastewater”,
Wat. Sci. Tech. 24 (8), (1991) 87-107.

• Massey, M.L. and Pohland, F.G., “Phase separation of anaerobic stabilization by kinetic
controls”, J Water Pollut Control Fed. 50 (9) (1978) 2204-2222.

38
 Journal of Indian School of Mines, Vol.11, No.1 (2007) 25-38
• Nandy, T., S. Shastry and S.N. Kaul, “Wastewater management in cane molasses
distillery involving bioresource recovery”, J. Environ. Manage. 65 (2002) 25–38.

• Ozatijrk, I., Eroglu, V., Ubay, G., and Demir, I., “Hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor (HUASBR) treatment of dairy effluents”, Wat. Sci. Tech. 28 (2) (1993)
77 - 85.

• Parkin. G.F., Speece, R.E., Yang, C.H.J. and Kocher, W.M., “Response of methane
formation systems to Industrial Toxicants”, J Water Pollut Control Fed. 55 (1983) 44-48.

• Pena, M.; Coca, M.; Gonzalez, G.; Rioja, R. and Garcia, M.T., “Chemical oxidation of
wastewater from molasses fermentation with ozone”, Chemosphere 51, (2003) 893–900.

• Preeti, C Sangave and Pandit, Aniruddha B., “Enhancement in biodegradability of

distillery wastewater using enzymatic pretreatment”, J. Env. Management. 78 (1) (2006)
76-85.

• Raghukumar, C.; Mohandass, C.; Kamat, S.; Shailaja, M.S., “Simultaneous detoxification
and decolorization of molasses spent wash by the immobilized white-rot fungus isolated
from a marine habitat”, Enzyme Microb. Technol. 35, (2004) 197-202.

• Ramjeawon, T., Boguant, J. and Horan, N. J., “UASB system for treating sugar cane
wastewater in Mauritius–A pilot scale study. J” Indian Association Environmental
Management. 22 (1995) 42 – 49.

• Saha, N.K.; Balakrishnan, M. and Batra, V.S., “Improving industrial water use: case
study for an Indian distillery”, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43 (2005) 163–174.

• Sheehan, G.J. and Green field, P.F., “Utilization, Treatment and Disposal of Distillery
Wastewater”, Water Res. 14 (1980) 257-265.

• Shin, H.-S.; Bae, B.-U.; Lee, J.-J.; Paik; B.-C., “Anaerobic digestion of distillery
wastewater in a two-phase UASB reactor system”, Wat. Sci. Tech. 25 (7) (1992) 361-
371.

• Vaidyanathan, R., Meenambal, T., and Gokuldas, K., “Biokinetic coefficients for the
design of two stage anaerobic digester to treat distillery waste”, Ind. J. Environ. Health.
37(4) (1995) 237–242.

39