Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Bioreactors for treatment of VOCs and odours – A review

Sandeep Mudliar*, Balendu Giri, Kiran Padoley, Dewanand Satpute, Rashmi Dixit,
Praveena Bhatt, Ram Pandey, Asha Juwarkar, Atul Vaidya
Environmental Biotechnology Division, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nehru Marg, Nagpur 440 020, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and odorous compounds discharged into the environment create
Received 25 August 2008 ecological and health hazards. In the recent past, biological waste air treatment processes using biore-
Received in revised form actors have gained popularity in control of VOCs and odour, since they offer a cost effective and envi-
12 December 2009
ronment friendly alternative to conventional air pollution control technologies. This review provides an
Accepted 3 January 2010
overview of the various bioreactors that are used in VOC and odour abatement, along with details on
Available online 23 February 2010
their configuration and design, mechanism of operation, insights into the microbial biodegradation
process and future R&D needs in this area.
Keywords:
VOC Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Odour
Biological treatment
Bioreactor
Biofilter
Membrane bioreactor

1. Introduction design and configuration, as well as necessary parameters for their

operation will not only help in increasing the efficiency of the
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and odorous compounds treatment process but also give insights to develop newer, better
emitted from various industries pose problem to human and and robust treatment techniques. This review attempts to provide
environmental health. With increasing population, and new resi- an overview of the various bioreactors used for the control of VOCs
dential and industrial developments, the demand for VOC and and odours, their merits and demerits, their important operational
odour control systems to provide nuisance-free breathable air is parameters and future R&D needs in this area.
increasing. Stringent environmental legislations enforced by
government agencies, have led polluting industries to adopt
2. Bioreactors in VOC and odour control
effective air pollution treatment processes in order to comply with
these regulations. As a consequence, biological treatment tech-
Bioreactors play a very important role in the control of VOCs and
niques for VOC and odor control have gained tremendous popu-
odorous gases that are emitted by polluting industries. Although
larity in view of the several advantages they offer in comparison to
a number of different configurations exist, the main types of
traditional physical and chemical removal methods. Biological
conventional air phase biological reactors include biofilters, bio-
waste air treatment processes are not only cost effective as
trickling filters and bioscrubbers. Among the newly developed
compared to conventional techniques such as incineration or
reactors are the membrane reactors (Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005;
adsorption but are also environment friendly (Devinny et al., 1999;
Kumar et al., 2008a,b), which have been used for VOC and odour
Delhomenie and Heitz, 2005; Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005).
abatement. Although, the basic pollutant removal mechanisms of all
Biological waste air treatment technology makes use of several
the reactors are more or less similar, differences exist in the use of
types of bioreactors depending on the load and kind of pollutant to
microorganisms (may be either in suspended (in liquid) or immo-
be treated. The type of bioreactor used for abatement has a direct
bilized (biofilm) form), packing media, pollutant concentration etc.
consequence on the efficiency of the treatment process. An under-
standing of the bioreactors used for VOC and odour treatment, their
3. Biofilter

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 712 2240097; fax: þ91 712 2249900/2249961. Biofilters (BFs) are reactors in which a humid polluted air stream
E-mail address: sn_mudliar@neeri.res.in (S. Mudliar). is passed through a porous packed bed on which a mixed culture of

0301-4797/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.006
1040 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054

pollutant-degrading organisms is immobilized (Fig. 1). Generally,  The close design BFs, with either ascending or descending gas
the pollutant gases flow through the porous packing media, are flows, installed in closed rooms. These reactors require less
transported from the gaseous phase to the microbial biofilm space than the open configuration.
(through liquid phase or moisture) and the biological oxidation of
VOCs occurs.
3.1. Biofilter operation
BFs are used to treat a wide variety of organic and inorganic
pollutants in industrial and municipal exhaust streams. Although,
The operation of BFs involve a series of steps beginning with the
traditionally used for treatment of odorous gases from sewage
transfer of the pollutant from the air to the water phase, adsorption
treatment plants and composting facilities, BFs now find wide
to the medium or absorption into the biofilm, and finally biodegra-
application in treatment of several VOCs and odours. Among these
dation of the VOC/odorant within the biofilm (Devinny et al., 1999).
are odourants such as ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, mercaptan,
The most important physical, chemical and biological parameters
disulphides, etc., and VOCs like propane, butane, styrene, phenols,
influencing the biofiltration process are described below.
ethylene chloride, methanol, etc. Bench and pilot scale studies
have shown that 60 out of 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) can
3.1.1. Transfer and partitioning of pollutant
be successfully treated with biofiltration (Devinny et al., 1999;
The first step in the biofiltration process is the transfer of
Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005). In Europe, more than 600 chemical
contaminants from the air to the water phase. This is generally not
processing industries use BFs for deodorization and treatment of
a rate-limiting step, and so one frequently assumes that the gas and
VOCs.
liquid are at equilibrium. At equilibrium, the partition between air
BFs are typically used for the treatment of large volumes of air
and water is generally described by Henry’s law, which is given by
streams containing low concentration of VOCs or odorants. The
the equation:
advantages and disadvantages of BFs are discussed below.
Advantages: Cgi ¼ Hi Cli

(a) Cost effective with (low operating and capital costs) where Cgi is the concentration of pollutant i in the gas phase, Hi is
(b) Low pressure drop Henry’s coefficient and Cli is the concentration of i in the liquid
(c) Treat large volumes of low concentration VOCs or odorants phase (Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005).
(d) Secondary waste streams are not produced Henrys’ coefficient (constant of proportionality Hi in above
equation) has been described in different units in literature. Using
Disadvantages: a non-dimensional Henrys’ coefficient, substances with values over
0.01 are considered volatile, and the higher the value, the less
(a) Clogging of the medium due to particulate matter soluble the substrate is in water. For example, the non-dimensional
(b) Problem of medium deterioration Henrys’ coefficient (at 25  C) for ammonia is reported to be 0.0005,
(c) Less treatment efficiency at high concentrations of pollutants while for H2S it is 0.92. Henrys’ coefficient depends on the
(d) Difficulty in moisture and pH control temperature and the chemical potential in the liquid phase
(Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005).
There are two BF configurations conventionally used for VOC In general, the elimination capacity of a BF declines with
and odour treatment viz. increasing Henry’s law constant since this indicates a tendency to
partition away from the liquid/biofilm phase where degradation is
 The open design BFs, with ascending gas flows, installed taking place.
outside the VOC/odour generating units. These reactors require
large areas, and are also exposed to climate changes. 3.1.2. Biofilm
The biofilm is a key element of the BF, which brings about the
biodegradation of the pollutants viz. VOC and odorous compounds.
‘‘Biofilm’’ is the mass of organisms growing on the surface of the
solid support; it carries out the catabolic activity and transforms the
pollutants to harmless products.
The thickness of the biofilm is influenced by several factors.
These include the type of pollutant, its rate of flow through the BF,
the bedding material used, and the design and configuration of the
treatment system being used. Biofilm thickness usually varies from
tens of micrometers to more than 1 cm, although an average of
1 mm or less is usually observed (Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005).
The activity increases with the thickness of the biofilm, up to a level
termed the ‘active thickness’. Above this level, the diffusion of
nutrients becomes a limiting factor (Devinny et al., 1999). Various
steady state and dynamic mathematical models have been reported
in literature to predict the substrate, oxygen and nutrient pene-
tration profile in the biofilm and facilitate evaluation of overall
biofilm effectiveness factor (Mudliar et al., 2008a,b; Shareefdeen
and Singh, 2005; Metris et al., 2001).

3.1.3. Biofilter bed

The BF bed constitutes the heart of the biofiltration process
because it provides the support for microbial growth. Bohn (1992)
Fig. 1. Schematics of a biofilter unit. established a list of characteristics that an ideal BF bed should
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
possess. The most important desirable characteristics of the BF bed
include (a) high specific surface area for development of a microbial
biofilm and gas-biofilm mass transfer, (b) high porosity to facilitate
homogeneous distribution of gases, (c) a good water retention
capacity to avoid bed drying, (d) presence and availability of
intrinsic nutrients, and (e) presence of a dense and diverse indig-
enous microflora.
Peat, soil, compost, and wood chips, are the most frequently
employed basic materials in BF beds. These materials satisfy most of
the required desirable criteria, and are widely available at low cost.
Each of these materials has their own merits and demerits. The
main advantage of soil is that, it offers a rich and varied microflora.
It however, contains only a few intrinsic nutrients, presents low
specific surface area and generates high-pressure drops (Swanson
and Loehr, 1997). Peat has high amounts of organic matter, high
specific surface area, and good water holding capacity and good
permeability. However, peat contains neither high levels of mineral
nutrients nor a dense indigenous microflora as in the case of soil or
compost. Composts are materials that are most frequently
employed in biofiltration for a variety of reasons. Compost offers
a dense and varied microbial system, good water holding capacity,
good air permeability, and contains large amounts of intrinsic
nutrients. Moreover, the utilization of compost in BFs constitutes an
effective way of recycling and utilizing waste residual organic
matter, such as activated sludge from wastewater treatment plants,
forest products (branches, leaves, barks), domestic residues, etc.
(Alexander, 1999). However, composts are often less stable than soil
or peat and have the tendency to break down and become compact,
leading to increase in pressure drop in BF beds. This among other
reasons is attributed to their high water holding capacity. Some
authors have studied biofiltration using wood chips or barks as
packing material (Smet et al., 1996a,b, 1999; Hong and Park, 2004).
However, in general these authors have concluded that perfor-
mances obtained with such filtering materials are less satisfactory
than those obtained with compost or peat. This has been explained
by the low pH-buffering capacity, the low specific surface areas and
the low nutrient content of such materials. Despite these defi-
ciencies, wood barks are still widely used in BFs as support mate-
rials, in association with peat or compost.
Indeed, to prevent bed crushing and compaction, most authors
suggest materials that provide the bed with good structure, easy
maintenance and rigidity, which consequently delay the clogging
phenomena which thereby increases the bed lifespan. Examples
include wood chips or barks (Luo, 2001), perlite (Woertz et al.,
2002), vermiculite (Pineda et al., 2000), glass beads (Zilli et al.,
2000), polyurethane foam (Moe and Irvine, 2000), polystyrene
(Arulneyam and Swaminathan, 2000), lava rock (Chitwood and
Devinny, 2001), etc. Ibrahim et al. (2001) prepared a filter bed
composed of activated sludge immobilized on gel beads. Christen
et al. (2002) and Sene et al. (2002) developed a sugarcane-baggase-
based bed, for the treatment of ethanol and benzene. Some bed-
structuring agents also possess interesting chemical characteristics
which they impart on the bed such as pH-buffering capacity
(limestone), or general adsorbing capacity (activated carbon;
Abumaizar et al., 1998).
The efficiency of a BF material with respect to the pollutant for
treatment is given by its adsorption coefficient or partition coeffi-
cient. Tang and Hwang (1997) reported partition coefficients of
toluene as 1.43 mg g1 with compost, 2.00 mg g1 with diatoma-
ceous earth, and 0.89 mg g1 with chaff. Beds containing activated
carbon (granulated or powdered) provide adsorption coefficients
for toluene approximately 10–20 times greater (50.6 mg g1 of
granulated activated carbon) (Tang and Hwang, 1997; Acuna et al.,
1999). Literature reports indicate that addition of activated carbon
leads to improvement in biofilter degrading capacity (Abumaizar
1041
et al., 1998), elimination of hydrophobic compounds, and better
control of loading variations (Mason et al., 2000).
3.1.4. Oxygen levels
Oxygen levels play a very vital role in the performance of a BF.
However, this is very case specific as can be seen from experiments
discussed below, conducted by separate authors, on the effect of
oxygen limitation on biofiltration. Experiments by Shareefdeen
et al. (1997) using air enriched with oxygen improved the perfor-
mance of the BF and demonstrated that oxygen was indeed
a limiting factor. In another experiment, Deshusses et al. (1996)
found that there was no significant improvement in the simulta-
neous removal of a mixture of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and
methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), when the oxygen content in air was
increased. In this case, the fact that significant cross-inhibition of
MEK and MIBK biodegradation occurred suggested that kinetic
effects were more important than diffusion effects. This was further
demonstrated in transient experiments where spikes of either
compound were injected into BFs, and both cross- and self-inhi-
bitions were observed. Thus, role of oxygen in BF performance
seems to be case specific. Oxygen is most likely to affect high-
performance BFs or when thick biofilms exist.
In general principal in most applications, BF operations seek to
avoid anaerobic conditions. This is because, existence of even
micro-anaerobic conditions lead to the formation of compounds,
which themselves are odorous and this deviates from the overall
goal of eliminating odorants and VOCs. Some studies, however
suggest that, fortuitous anaerobic microenvironment conditions
that exist in BFs, help in the degradation of organic pollutants
(Shareefdeen et al., 1997).
3.1.5. Nutrients
The pollutants introduced into the BFs, form the major carbon
and energy source for microbial activity. Hydrogen and oxygen are
found in the air, in the growth medium, and sometimes in the VOCs.
The availability of the other macronutrients (N, P, K, and S) and
micronutrients (vitamins, metals) is partially fulfilled by the
filtering materials used in the BF. Materials such as composts are
well known to contain various nutrients.
Studies have demonstrated that irrespective of the filtering
material employed, the steady addition of nutrients is necessary to
sustain a satisfactory microbial degradation activity. For example,
some studies have shown that long-term utilization of compost-
based beds lead to progressive exhaustion of the intrinsic nutritive
resources (Morgenroth et al., 1996). This progressive nutrient
deficiency then becomes a limiting factor for the long-term bio-
filtration performance (Delhomenie et al., 2001a,b).
Models of biofiltration performance as a function of nutrient
supply, and of nitrogen in particular have been developed and
experimentally validated (Delhomenie et al., 2001a,b; Alonso et al.,
2001; Metris et al., 2001; Dorado et al., 2008). Nutrients for
microbial growth are supplied either in the solid form which is
directly inserted into the filter bed (Gribbins and Loehr, 1998), or as
aqueous solutions, which is the most frequently used method. Wu
et al. (1999) reviewed the most common nutrient solutions used in
BFs. These include KH2PO4, NaxH(3x)PO4, KNO3, (NH4)2SO4, NH4Cl,
NH4HCO3, CaCl2, MgSO4, MnSO4, FeSO4, Na2MoO4, and vitamins
(B1, etc.). Given the wide range of elements and compounds
influencing microbial behavior, the optimization of nutrient solu-
tions for BFs is a challenging area of study.
3.1.6. pH
As is the case with several biological processes, pH has an
important influence on biofiltration efficiency. Above or below an
optimum pH range, microbial activity is severely affected. Most of
1042 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
the microorganisms in BFs are neutrophilic i.e. their optimum pH is
7. Lu et al. (2002), observed maximum degradation of BTEX
between pH values of 7.5 and 8.0. Lee et al. (2002) also reported
a pH of 7.0 to be optimal for BTEX degradation. Veiga et al. (1999),
studied the effect of pH on alkyl benzene degradation (between pH
3.5 and 7.0), and found that alkyl benzene degradation increased
with pH. Arnold et al. (1997) stated that styrene elimination
improved in a neutral medium.
VOCs that contain hetero-atoms (S, O, and N) are converted into
acidic products, which tend to reduce the pH (Christen et al., 2002),
affect microorganisms and cause corrosion problems in down-
stream conduits (Webster and Devinny, 1998). Similar observations
during VOC degradation due to formation of acidic intermediates
have also been reported by various authors (Shareefdeen and Singh,
2005; Maestre et al., 2007). Kennes and Thalasso (1998) reported
that among the organic materials employed in BFs, soil exhibited
the best intrinsic pH-buffering capacity followed by composts and
wood chips. Peats are naturally acidic (pH 3.0–4.0), and have low
buffering capacity. To maintain the pH (at neutral) some authors
have reported insertion of buffer materials into the filter beds, for
e.g. – calcium carbonate (Smet et al., 1996a,b), and dolomite (Smet
et al., 1999). The pH can also be controlled by bed irrigation with
nutrient solutions that contain pH buffers, for example Ca (OH)2,
NaOH (Zilli et al., 2000), NaHCO3 (Tang and Hwang, 1997), and urea
(Delhomenie et al., 2002), etc.
3.1.7. Moisture content
The moisture content of the filter bed is a critical factor for
biofilter performance because microorganisms require water to
carry out their normal metabolic activity. Sub-optimal moisture
levels leads to drying of the bed and development of fissures that
cause channeling and short-circuiting (Shareefdeen and Singh,
2005). Deprivation of water to microorganisms causes a significant
reduction in the biodegradation rate. Excess water inhibits transfer
of oxygen and hydrophobic pollutants to the biofilm, thereby
promoting the development of anaerobic zones within the bed and
limiting the reaction rate. Too much water can also result in foul
smelling emissions due to the lack of oxygen, increasing back-
pressure due to reduced void volume, and channeling of the gas
within the bed.
Optimal water levels vary with different filtering material,
depending on medium, surface area, porosity and other factors.
Moisture content for optimal operation of the biological filter
should be within 30–60% by weight, depending on the filtering
medium used. Moisture levels in a biofilter are often maintained
through pre- humidification of the inlet gas stream. Also, it is often
necessary to provide direct application of water to the bed through
a sprinkler system at the top of the bed. More advanced controls
include the use of load cells that sense the weight of filter bed and
are connected to sprinkler controls. Supplemental moisture supply
may be required because bio-oxidation is an exothermic reaction,
and so drying can occur within the bed. Drying of the packing
material can lead to localize dry spots, and can result in non-
uniform gas distribution and reduction in the activity of microor-
ganisms (Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005). Recently, it has been
reported that, biofilters tend to experience drying at the air inlet
port, which causes decreased pollutant removal over time (Sakuma
et al., 2009).
Control of moisture requires a better understanding of the
drying of the support due to changes in inlet air temperature and
relative humidity and from production of metabolic heat during
pollutant oxidation. Various models are now available to study
drying and its effect on biofilter performance. These models
describe the variations in pollutant concentration, air relative
humidity, temperature, and water content of the media, to predict
water evaporation from the packing material as a consequence of
metabolic heat generation and variations of the relative humidity
of the inlet air stream, and also the resulting decrease in biofilter
performance (Devinny and Hodge, 1995; Devinny et al., 1999;
Metris et al., 2001; Morales et al., 2003).
3.1.8. Microorganisms
Microorganisms are the catalysts for biodegradation of VOCs
and odours. For the degradation of VOCs, heterotrophic microor-
ganisms have been extensively reported (most often bacteria or
fungi). The bed inoculation depends on both the nature of the
filtering material and the biodegradability level of the VOC to be
treated. Many scientific workers prefer taking advantage of the
ecosystems already prevailing in the beds (Delhomenie et al.,
2001a,b, 2002; Mohseni and Allen, 2000). After an acclimatization
period, the most resistant population to the toxic VOC is naturally
selected and a microbial hierarchy is established in the bed. In other
cases (such as for recalcitrant VOCs), researchers inoculate the BF
beds with consortia extracted from sewage sludge, or strains
derived from either commercial sources or isolated from previously
operated BF. In general, in terms of biomass density, a BF contains
between 106 and 1010 cfu of bacteria and actinomycetes per gram of
bed (Krailas et al., 2000). Pedersen and Arvin (1995), Pedersen et al.
(1997), and Delhomenie et al. (2001a), have reported that in BFs,
the degrading species represents between 1 and 15% of the total
population.
3.1.9. Biofilm architecture
VOC elimination is the result of many, interdependent processes
that simultaneously take place inside the biofilter. To date, little
information exists about biofilm architecture in BFs. Previous work
with scanning confocal laser microscopy has revealed the existence
of cell-free channels extending from the biofilm-liquid interface to
the substratum and their possible role in enhancing pollutant and
oxygen mass transfer (Cox and Deshusses, 1998). A new and
promising development is the use of computed axial tomography
(CAT) X-ray scanning to characterize the biofilm macro- architec-
ture (Shareefdeen et al., 1997). CAT scans of a toluene-degrading BF
containing a large amount of biomass immobilized on poly-
propylene pall rings showed a heterogeneous distribution of
biomass with large areas completely filled with biomass whereas
other sections of the reactor covered by <1 mm thick biomass.
Further, image analysis revealed the presence of air/water channels
ranging in area from <5 to380 mm2, with smaller channels (0–
60 mm2) contributing to more than 80% of the interfacial area. In
future, further application of high resolution X-ray and possibly CAT
scanning techniques could contribute to a better understanding of
the architecture of biofilms. Such progress could lead to a better
understanding of pollutant mass transfer in BFs and ultimately to
a better design of materials for stable culture support (Shareefdeen
et al., 1997).
3.2. Future needs
Biofiltration has clearly been shown to be a cost and energy
efficient technology for treatment of a range of waste emissions
containing VOCs and odours. There is a need to work on innovative
strategies such as pretreatment of VOCs and odours to remove
particulates and/or enhance biodegradability and improve tech-
niques to treat more complicated polluted airstreams especially
multiple pollutant mixtures. Moreover, BF technology found field
application well before its fundamental principles were under-
stood. This has resulted in several cases of unsuccessful or subop-
timum operation of large-scale BFs. Today, with much better
understanding of the fundamental principles underlying the
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
biofiltration process, scope exists for designing better bioreactors
with optimal operating conditions. A number of fundamental
questions however remain unanswered These include the quanti-
fication of biomass turnover, the understanding of biodegradation
kinetic relationships and factors influencing these relationships,
complex ecological complexity of BFs, and the interrelationships
between pollutants, oxygen and essential nutrients (Cox and
Deshusses, 1998). All these factors have been shown to significantly
influence both the performance and the long-term stability of BFs,
and thus require further investigation. In particular, quantitative
studies are necessary. This would be made easier with the
expanding use of modern tools of biotechnology. Further, there is
need to develop design correlations on mass/heat transfer, diffu-
sion coefficient in biofilm, gas/liquid holds up to facilitate improved
biofilter design. Furthermore, the conventional phenomenological
models are best with difficulties such as requirement of the
detailed knowledge of the underlying physicochemical phenomena
and extensive time required for their development, testing and
validation. Hence, there is also a need to develop generic mathe-
matical models of the biofiltration process using biological inspired
computing techniques for quantitative robust prediction and
design optimization (Narendra et al., 2006; Omkar et al., 2008).
Finally, the largest problem to overcome will be the translation of
recent and future basic advances into real process improvements.
4. Biotrickling filter
The schematic description of a typical biotrickling filter (BTF) is
provided in Fig. 2 (Delhomenie and Heitz, 2005). In such a filter, the
gas is carried through a packed bed, which is continuously irrigated
with an aqueous solution containing essential nutrients required by
the biological system. Several studies have shown that the choice of
a co- or counter-current configuration for liquid and gaseous pha-
ses does not influence the biodegradation performance (Cox and
Deshusses, 1999). Microorganisms grow on the packing material of
the biofilter as biofilm. The pollutant to be treated is initially
absorbed by the aqueous film that surrounds the biofilm, and then
the biodegradation takes place within the biofilm.
Fig. 2. Schematics of a biotrickling filter unit.
1043
The filtering material used in a BTF has to facilitate the gas and
liquid flows through the bed, favor the development of the
microflora, and should resist crushing and compaction. BTF packing
that best meet these specifications are made from inert materials
such as resins, ceramics, celite, polyurethane, foam (Centinkaya
et al., 2000) etc. However, most of these materials present limited
specific surface areas between 100 and 300 m1 (Roh, 2000) with
exceptions in some cases where >1000 m1 for polyurethane-
based beds have been reported. As they are made from inert or
synthetic material, BTFs need to be inoculated with suitable
microbial culture. The use of activated sludge as initial microbial
inoculum has been extensively reported (Lu et al., 2002; Oh and
Bartha, 1997).
The advantages and limitations of BTFs include the following.
Advantages:
(a) Less operating and capital costs
(b) Low pressure drop
(c) Capability to treat acid degradation products of VOCs
Disadvantages:
(a) Accumulation of excess biomass in the filter bed
(b) Complexity in construction and operation
(c) Secondary waste streams
Due to the permanent trickling mechanism, biofiltration
processes are more adapted for the elimination of water soluble
VOCs. Nevertheless, as the contact between microorganisms and
the pollutants occur simultaneously (Cox and Deshusses, 1999), the
solubility specifications are less stringent than for bioscrubbers
(Henry coefficient <0.1; Van Groenestijn and Hesselink, 1993). In
a typical BTF, VOC inlet concentrations are generally less than
0.5 g m3. The continuous distribution of the nutrient solution
facilitates the control of the biological operating parameters (viz.
pH etc.).
As the contact between the microorganisms and the pollutants
occurs after the VOC diffusion in the liquid film, the liquid flow rate
and the recycling rate are recognized to be critical parameters for
BTF operation. Research has suggested that an increase in the liquid
flow rate should result in proportional increase in the active
exchange surface for gas–liquid mass transfer, and then improve
the degradation rate (Alonso et al., 2000). Some researchers have
shown that maintaining minimum water and nutrient supply is
sufficient to achieve good performance (Lu et al., 2002; Thalasso
et al., 1996). In addition, as the distribution and the recycling of
nutrient solutions add to energy costs, other studies suggest that
the optimum recycling and distribution flow rates have to be found
experimentally and on a case-by-case basis (Dolfing et al., 1993).
The major drawback of BTFs is the accumulation of excess
biomass in the filter bed. Some researchers have demonstrated
that, in the course of the degradation process, the biofilm thickness
can be several millimeters (Janni et al., 2001; Cohen, 2001) which
can cause clogging, an increase in pressure drop, bed channeling,
creation of anaerobic zones and can ultimately lead to performance
loss (Alonso et al., 2001). Several studies have been attempted to
develop solutions to the clogging problem in BTF. The control
strategies suggested are of three types: mechanical, chemical or
biological. Mechanical treatment includes bed stirring (Wubker
et al., 1997; Laurenzis et al., 1998) or bed back washings with water
(counter-current washings), which permit the draining of excess
accumulated biomass (Smith et al., 1996). Chemical treatments
include dissociation of the chemical binding between the biomass
and the bed particle surface either by damage to the biomass by
creating nutrient or water deficiency, or utilization of disinfecting
1044 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
agents (Diks et al., 1994; Schonduve et al., 1996; Cox and
Deshusses, 1999; Armon et al., 2000; Chen and Stewart, 2000).
Biological methods utilize biomass predators, such as protozoa
(Cox and Deshusses, 1999). Amongst all of these methods, back
washings with water are the most efficient and certainly cause less
disruption to the biotrickling filter ecosystem and performance
(Cai et al., 2004).
4.1. Operation and applications of biotrickling filters
The important parameters of bioreactors in general (nutrients,
pH, microorganisms, oxygen levels, etc.) have been described in
detail for BFs in the preceding section. They will therefore not be
dealt with individually for all reactors.
BTFs find wide application in VOC and odour treatment. As
compared to conventional compost or soil bed BFs which are
generally limited to the elimination of odorous compounds and non-
chlorinated volatile organic compounds, a wider range of pollutants
can potentially be treated in BTFs. This is because, environmental
conditions can be better controlled in the BTFs and potentially toxic
dead-end metabolites can be purged out of the system. Also, labo-
ratory BTFs offer the opportunity to work with monocultures,
especially using genetically engineered microorganisms.
Oh and Bartha (1997) first reported the elimination of nitro-
benzene vapors in a laboratory scale BTF. They used a stable
microbial consortium enriched from sewage sludge and immobi-
lized it on perlite. During the start up period of four weeks, the inlet
nitrobenzene concentration was kept relatively low (<80 mg m3)
to avoid poisoning of the culture, after which high and sustained
nitrobenzene elimination was observed with 80–90% degradation
for inlet concentrations ranging from 100 to 300 mg m3 and an
empty bed gas contact time of 21 seconds. This corresponds to an
elimination capacity of 50 g m3 h1, a high value that could lead to
an economically viable process. A nitrogen balance showed that
98% of the nitrobenzene nitrogen was converted into ammonia
while a small amount of nitrite was produced.
Two other compounds of interest, namely diethyl ether (Bauerle
and Fischer, 1987) and gasoline additive methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE) (Fortin and Deshusses, 1999) were reported to be bio-
degraded in laboratory BTFs. Fortin and Deshusses (1999) achieved
75% removal efficiency for an inlet MTBE concentration of 0.8 g m3
with empty bed residence time less than a minute in BTF. This
corresponds to an elimination capacity of 50 g m3h1, an
extremely high value for a compound for which biodegradation in
situ still remains a challenge. The reactor studied by Fortin and
Deshusses (1999) was originally inoculated with various samples of
aquifer material and soil contaminated with MTBE. Interestingly,
MTBE removal was significant only after addition of traces of a peat
humic substance (PHS) extract to the recycle liquid. As biomass
accumulated in the reactors, the benefits of the PHS were no longer
significant. While several reports exist on bio-stimulation using
PHS in wastewater treatment, the exact mechanisms involved in
bio-stimulation using PHS are yet to be elucidated.
Also noteworthy, is a study by Sun and Wood (1997), who
immobilized a pure culture of Burkholderia cepacia PR123 (TOM23C)
constitutively expressing toluene ortho-monooxygenase to co-
metabolize the biodegradation of trichloroethylene (TCE) vapors in
a BTF. Aerobic biodegradation of TCE only occurs through co-
metabolism, and addition of a growth substrate (usually toluene,
methane, propane, phenol, or ammonia), which is required to
induce the expression of the appropriate TCE-degrading enzyme.
Bacterium B. cepacia PR123, however, expresses toluene ortho-
monooxygenase constitutively, which circumvents the problem of
competitive inhibition of TCE oxidation by the usual inducers
during the growth phase. The authors Sun and Wood (1997) used
glucose as a carbon and energy source and observed TCE elimina-
tions up to 200 times higher than previously reported. As observed
in other bioreactors for TCE aerobic co-metabolism, rapid inacti-
vation of the TCE-degrading enzyme by TCE breakdown products
(e.g. TCE epoxide) remained a problem.
Biotrickling filtration is a maturing technology, and the number
of full-scale BTFs is rapidly increasing. In the past few 2–3 years,
several successful conversions of full-scale chemical scrubbers to
biotrickling filters have been demonstrated (Kraakman, 2001;
Kraakman, 2003; Gabriel and Deshusses, 2003). Until recently, it
was thought that successful bio-treatment in BTFs required a gas
contact time ranging from 10 to 30 s (Wu et al., 2001). However,
some researchers have shown that in BTFs the residence time can
be reduced to 5 s (Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005). Recently, an
alkaline biotrickling filter was shown to be very effective for
treatment of H2S odours (Sanchez et al., 2008).
4.2. Future needs
Recent research in the field of biotrickling filtration for air
pollution control have focused on various aspects pertaining to the
microbiology of pollutant-degrading microorganisms, kinetics of
pollutant uptake, and means to control biomass accumulation.
Nevertheless, additional information on the fundamental princi-
ples underlying biotrickling filtration is needed. Key questions to be
addressed are mainly concerned with the complex ecology of bio-
films. In particular, studies are needed to understand the overall
role of secondary processes (i.e. those processes not directly asso-
ciated with the elimination of the primary pollutant) and how
these can be controlled in practice. In the future, the ability to
control the ecology of biofilms in BTFs may enable optimal
balancing of the net growth of biomass, so that reactor stability can
be ensured over a very long period. Additional research is needed
for better understanding of the kinetic relationships for pollutant
biodegradation. Particularly, understanding of the biodegradation
of mixtures of pollutants, role and impact of oxygen and ancillary
nutrients on the rate of biodegradation and on the biomass yield,
and to determine the influences of various stresses, such as
changing conditions and mass transfer limitations, is important.
These studies are extremely relevant for future implementation of
BTFs in actual field conditions (Cox and Deshusses, 1999).
In a nutshell, review of the recent research work emphasizes on
the need of fundamental understanding of the degradation process
through in situ analysis and extended application of modern tools
in biotechnology. This is essential in order to establish baseline
information (presently not available) for rational reactor design and
optimum process operation. This, together with number of pilot
scale application and demonstration of techno-economic viability,
would transfer this technology from lab to the field.
5. Bioscrubber
A bioscrubber unit (Fig. 3, Delhomenie and Heitz, 2005) consists
of two subunits namely (1) an absorption unit and (2) a bioreactor
unit. In the absorption unit, input gaseous contaminants are
transferred to the liquid phase. Gas and liquid phases flow counter-
currently within the column, which may contain the packing
material. Nevertheless, the addition of inert packing provides
increased transfer surface between the VOC and the aqueous phase
(Van Groenestijn and Hesselink, 1993). The washed gaseous phase
is released at the top of the column whereas the separated
contaminated liquid phase is pumped to an agitated, aerated
bioreactor. This reactor unit contains the appropriate microbial
strains suspended in the aqueous phase in nutrient solution
(media) essential for their growth and maintenance.
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
Fig. 3. Schematics of a bioscrubber unit.
Most of the bioscrubbers being operated presently use activated
sludge derived from wastewater treatment plants as inoculum
(Ottengraf, 1987). In some cases, bioreactors are directly inoculated
with specific degrading strains. The residence time for such
bioreactors range between 20 and 40 days and these are operated
practically as activated sludge processes including recycle of sludge.
Part of the treated solution is recycled for absorption of VOCs to the
absorption unit.
The advantages of bioscrubbers are as follows.
(a) Operational stability and better control of operating parame-
ters (pH, nutrients);
(b) Relatively lower pressure drops
(c) Relatively smaller space requirement.
Disadvantages of bioscrubbers include-
(a) Bioscrubbers are adapted to treat readily soluble VOCs (alco-
hols, ketones), with low Henry coefficients (<0.01), and at
concentrations less than 5 g m3 in the gaseous phase
(b) Provides low specific surface area for gas–liquid mass transfer
(generally <300 m1)
(c) Excess sludge generation
(d) Generation of liquid waste
Some studies have shown that the addition of emulsifying
agents (silicon oil, phthalate) in the aqueous solution can signifi-
cantly improve the elimination of less soluble compounds, because
they favor the VOC mass transfer from gas to the liquid phase
(Mortgat, 2001).
5.1. Variations in bioscrubber design
Substantial modifications in bioscrubber design have been done
in the recent past to enhance their performance for VOC and odour
treatment. Some modified bioscrubber units are listed below.
5.1.1. Sorptive-slurry bioscrubber
The sorptive-slurry bioscrubber consists of a suspended growth
bioscrubber with powdered activated carbon (PAC) added to the
biomass slurry (Kok, 1992). Gaseous VOCs partition into the slurry
in the absorber unit and adsorb onto the carbon. Adsorption on the
1045
column and any biodegradation in the absorber lowers
the pollutant concentration in the liquid, which increases the
concentration gradient and gas transfer. Biodegradation in the
bioreactor unit continues to drive the pollutant concentration to
low levels. The carbon is regenerated as the VOCs desorb and
degrade, and is then recycled to the absorber. PAC also provides
a surface for the growth of biofilms, and may assist in treating peak
loads and in decreasing inhibition by toxic compounds. Addition of
2–5% PAC to biomass slurry is recommended to improve bio-
scrubber performance (Hammervold et al., 2000).
5.1.2. Anoxic bioscrubber
Aerobic bioreactors are used to transform inorganic pollutants
and degrade organic pollutants in conventional bioscrubbers,
whereas systems combining scrubbers and up flow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) bioreactors have been used for the degra-
dation of perchloroethylene and also to treat waste gases contain-
ing NOX and SOX (Centinkaya et al., 2000; Janssen et al., 2000;
Shareefdeen and Singh, 2005).
5.1.3. Two-liquid phase bioscrubber
The concept of two-liquid phase bioscrubber unit originates
from the fact that application of conventional bioscrubbers
becomes limited for the treatment of pollutants that are readily
soluble in water. Consequently, the addition of an organic solvent to
the water phase can enhance biodegradation of more hydrophobic
compounds (Deziel et al., 1999), and facilitate the elimination of
a range of hydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds. Besides
improving bioavailability, solvents can reduce the toxicity of
contaminants, and can act as a buffer system for fluctuating loads of
pollutants. The addition of 10–30% water immiscible high boiling-
point solvent to the liquid phase facilitates the absorption of
hydrophobic compounds from the gas phase in the absorber. Two-
liquid phase bioreactor systems have been tested for the removal of
alkanes, benzene, styrene, phenol, naphthalene, and pentachloro-
phenol. Solvents such as silicon oil, paraffin oil, dibutyl phthalate,
di-n-octyl phthalate, di-n-nonylphthalate, and pristine are good
candidates for this application, and among them silicon oil has been
found to be the best for two-liquid phase systems (Yeom and
Daugulis, 2001).
5.1.4. Airlift bioscrubber
Edwards and Nirmalakhandan (1999), have described an airlift
bioscrubber having a combined absorption/biodegradation reactor
configuration, for the removal of air phase benzene, toluene and
xylene (BTEX) compounds. The reactor comprises of two concentric
tubes, with the inner tube shorter than the outer tube. As in some
conventional airlift bioreactors, the inner tube serves as the down
comer, and the annular space between the two tubes works as
a riser (Ward, 1989). Air is introduced into the reactor through the
sparger, which is located near the bottom of the riser. The combined
medium of mixture of air and water in the riser has lower density
than the water in the down comer, resulting in a fluid circulation
within the reactor. A mathematical model developed for this
process indicated that removal rates of >99% can be achieved for
benzene and toluene in the air stream with concentrations
<1000 ppmv, and that the airlift bioscrubber should be operated at
biomass concentrations of 2 g 11 or greater for operational
stability. Recently, Jianping et al. (2005) reported the simultaneous
removal of ethyl acetate and ethanol in air streams using a gas–
liquid-solid three-phase flow airlift bioreactor.
5.1.5. Spray column bioscrubber
Bioscrubbers have been suitably modified as per the demand
and nature of the odorants to be treated. A modified bioscrubber for
1046 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
treatment of large volumes of waste gas and industrial emissions
with low concentration of odorants with poor solubility was
investigated by Cesario et al. (1992). The modified system consists
of two bioreactor units, which include (a) a spray column bioreactor
with liquid impelled loop reactor (LILR) and (b) a spray column
bioreactor connected to an airlift loop reactor (AIR). In both the
systems, gaseous odorants/liquid contactor is a spray column for
transfer of the odorants from gas to the water phase. This is inter-
connected to either liquid impelled loop reactor or airlift loop
reactor. Both the attached systems (LILR and ALR) contain culture
medium and the biomass. The spray column and LILR/ALR are
interconnected having a provision for recycling of the contents of
the reactor (Cesario et al., 1992).
The spray column reactor with LILR contains nutrient medium.
It is necessary that the nutrient medium in the reactor must possess
characteristics such as immiscibility with water, non-biodegrad-
ability, should be non-toxic to the biocatalyst, should have low
vapor pressure, relatively low viscosity, and a density different from
the density of water. The water immiscible liquid is recycled
between the absorber and the bioreactor. However, the operation
(recycling) depends upon (a) the volume of industrial emission to
be treated, (b) physicochemical characteristics and (c) the
concentration of the odorants in the gaseous emission and also (d)
the targeted removal efficiency.
The novel reactor of a spray column system with LILR/ALR is still
on laboratory scale and requires extensive investigations to ascer-
tain the odorant transfer from gas to the liquid absorber (ALR).
5.2. Future needs
Bioscrubber are generally considered to be useful for the treat-
ment of waste gases containing water soluble pollutants (Henry’s
law coefficient, H < 0.01), but depending on the concentration and
type of pollutant, bioscrubbers may also efficiently be used for
odorous gases with other characteristics. Bioscrubbers, provide
substantial advantages for waste gas treatment because of their
smaller space requirements, high loading rates, reliable operation,
process control, low risk of clogging, and low operating cost. When
high concentrations of contaminants are to be treated, bioscrubbers
offer more advantages than conventional BFs, BTFs, and chemical
scrubbers. Combination of bioscrubbers and some polishing steps
may improve the treatment efficiency for gases with mixture of
hydrophobic and hydrophilic compounds.
Bioscrubbers offer higher elimination efficiencies for gases
generated from liquid wastes, viz. H2S, NH3, and organic sulfur
compounds. However, due to the acidifying nature of these
substances, substantial oxidation and sulfuric acid production in
the scrubber may cause the pH to drop and decrease mass transfer
efficiency. The capacity of the adsorption section for handling
higher H2S concentration needs to be further improved. This could
be achieved by increasing the buffering capacity of the scrubbing
medium and also through pH control.
The bioscrubber application can be made more attractive than
the use of other conventional BF or BTF at relatively high pollutant
concentration (>0.5 g m3) with necessary modifications. There is
also a need to develop integrated/hybrid reactor configurations to
achieve optimal and efficient bio-treatment of VOCs/odours, indi-
vidually and in mixtures.
6. Membrane bioreactors
Membrane bioreactors were designed as an alternative to
conventional bioreactors for waste gas treatment. The membrane
bioreactor allows the selective permeation of the pollutant, which
is not allowed in any of the reactors discussed previously.
Application of membrane bioreactors for waste gas treatment has
been reviewed before (Reij et al., 1998; Kumar et al., 2008a,b). The
concentration difference between the gas phase and the biofilm
phase provides the driving force for diffusion across the membrane.
A pressure difference is not applied. The driving force depends
strongly on the air–water partition coefficient of the diffusing
volatile component. For components with a high partition coeffi-
cient the driving force for mass transfer is small. The concentration
in the liquid, which depends on the biodegrading activity of the
microbial population, also affects the driving force. The surface of
the membrane forms the contact area (Reij et al., 1998).
In a BF bioreactor unit, waste gas is blown through a bed of
compost or soil, where microorganisms consume or degrade the
gaseous organic pollutants. No separate water phase is present. An
advantage of the membrane bioreactor over the BF is the presence
of a discrete water phase allowing optimal humidification of the
biomass and removal of the degradation products, thus avoiding
inactivation of the biomass. In a membrane bioreactor, the
membrane serves as the interface between the gas phase and the
liquid phase (Fig. 4, Reij et al., 1998). The gas–liquid interface thus
created (e.g. in hollow fibre reactors) is larger than in other types of
gas–liquid contactors (Yang and Cussler, 1986). Moreover, in bio-
trickling filter and the bioscrubber, a packed bed of inert material is
present on which water is continuously sprayed. The pollutants in
these reactors have to diffuse through the water phase before it is
consumed by the microorganisms. For pollutants with poor water-
solubility such a layer of water causes a substantial additional
resistance for mass transfer (De Heijder et al., 1994). In the
membrane bioreactor, on the contrary, the liquid phase is situated
at the opposite side of the biofilm and hardly forms a barrier for
mass transfer of the poorly water soluble pollutants (Fig. 4). As
mentioned before, large gas–liquid interfaces of 1000–
10,000 m2m3 can be created in hollow fibre reactors (Rautenbach
and Albrecht, 1989), allowing high mass transfer rates. The pressure
drop in the gas phase is much lower than observed in BFs, where
pressure drop may become significant.
Advantages of membrane bioreactors include.
(a) No moving parts
(b) Process easy to scale up
(c) Flow of gas and liquid can be varied independently, without the
problems of flooding, loading, or foaming
Disadvantages of the bioreactor are-
(a) High construction costs
(b) Long-term operational stability (needs investigation)
Fig. 4. Schematics of a membrane bioreactor containing microporous hydrophobic
membrane, a biofilm and suspended cells.
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
(c) Possible clogging of the liquid channels due the formation of
excess biomass
6.1. Membrane materials
Two types of membrane materials have been used to prevent
mixing of the gas and liquid phases and simultaneous transfer of
volatile components. These types are hydrophobic micro porous
membrane and dense membrane.
6.1.1. Micro porous membranes
A micro porous membrane has a highly porous structure, with
a typical commercial membrane containing 30–85% pore space
(Hartmans et al., 1992), including open pores in the surface of the
membrane. The surface pores are generally sub micrometer in size,
which prevents organisms from passing through the pores. If the
pore size distribution is not sufficiently controlled or pore size is too
large, then intrusion by organisms and organics will occur, signifi-
cantly reducing mass transfer and potentially plugging the gas
phase (Hartmans et al., 1992; Attaway et al., 2002; Fitch et al., 2003).
Hydrophobic micro porous membranes consist of a polymer matrix
of polypropylene or Teflon and contain pores with a diameter in the
range of 0.01–1.0 mm. Since the membrane material is hydrophobic,
the pores are filled with gas. Water does not enter the pores, unless
a certain critical pressure at the liquid side is exceeded.
If the transferred component disappears by chemical reaction,
its mass transfer rate increases (Prasad and Sirkar, 1992). Active
microorganisms present in the liquid will thus enhance it signifi-
cantly. If the microorganisms are present as a biofilm on the
membrane, liquid flow close to the membrane is absent and as
a consequence the mass transfer coefficient does not apply at all. In
this case (biofilm), simultaneous diffusion and reaction in a stag-
nant layer need to be calculated (Reij et al., 1995).
6.1.2. Dense membranes
A dense-phase membrane has no pores for removal to occur. The
contaminant must dissolve in to the membrane and diffuse through
the membrane. In case of transport through a dense membrane, the
diffusing volatile component is absorbed in the membrane material
and diffusion takes place in the dense polymer (Reij et al., 1998).
The mass transfer coefficient inside a dense membrane depends
on both the solubility and the diffusivity of the volatile component
in the dense matrix (Crank and Park, 1968). Interaction between the
various gaseous components is assumed to be absent, i.e. inde-
pendent diffusion. For each volatile component, the solubility and
diffusivity are different and the mass transfer resistances of dense
membranes for various gases may differ considerably due to
specific interactions between the components in the gas phase and
the membrane material. As a consequence, components can be
selectively extracted from or retained in the gas phase by a proper
choice of the membrane material (Reij et al., 1998).
6.2. Gas–liquid contactors for membrane bioreactors
Both micro porous and dense membranes have been used for
a variety of processes that involve gas–liquid contact. Micro porous
material is generally applied in hollow fibres, although spiral-
wound and plate-and-frame modules have also been used (Sirkar,
1992; Wickramasinghe et al., 1992). Micro porous membranes can
be applied as gas–liquid contactors when selective action of the
membrane is not required. Volatile components diffuse through
this material depending on their diffusion coefficient in air and
their vapor pressure, while the membrane serves as gas–liquid
contact area.
1047
Dense material is available as tubes (usually silicone tubing),
with a wall-thickness of at least several hundred micrometers, and
as composite membranes. Composite membranes consist of a thin,
selective top layer (<1–30 mm) of dense material, supported by
a highly porous support layer of, for, e.g. non-woven polyester or
a microfiltration membrane. Composite membranes can be applied
in spiral-wound, plate-and-frame and in hollow fibre modules.
Examples of the application of both micro porous and dense
membranes as gas–liquid contactors are given in the following
section (Reij et al., 1998).
6.3. Applications of membrane bioreactors in waste gas treatment
In addition to the relatively new process of membrane-based
gas absorption (Sirkar, 1992), membrane contactors have recently
been tested for biological treatment of gas streams. In such
a process, the pollutants diffuse through the membrane and are
degraded by the microbial population present in the liquid phase.
In this context, various publications were critically reviewed and
the summarized results are presented in Table 1. In general, the
biomass is supplied with carbon and oxygen from the gas phase,
while water and mineral nutrients are supplied through the liquid
phase. Microorganisms grow as a biofilm on the membrane, but
may also be suspended in the liquid phase.
Most studies on membrane bioreactors concern the removal of
hydrophobic pollutants from air. Hydrophobic pollutants, like
xylene, toluene, hexane, and propene, have a high air–water
partition coefficient. The driving force for the transfer of these
pollutants to the water phase is very small and as a consequence,
mass transfer limits the biodegradation and therefore the design of
the bioreactor becomes critical (Dingemansa et al., 2008a,b; Witte
et al., 2009). The large gas–liquid interface and excellent mass
transfer properties of membrane reactors (Yang and Cussler, 1986;
Karoor and Sirkar, 1993) have inspired several workers to test
membrane bioreactors for the removal of less water soluble
pollutants from air (Reij et al., 1995; Bauerle et al., 1986, 1987). A
dual tube dense-phase silicone membrane bioreactor was investi-
gated for control of cyclohexane-contaminated air as part of a jet
propulsion fuel remediation investigation strategy (Roberts, 2006).
Mass transfer characteristics for VOC permeation through flat sheet
porous and composite membranes showed that the contribution of
the porous ‘‘backing’’ layer for mechanical support can be
substantial in comparison to the porous layer in contact with the
dense layer (Dingemans et al., 2008). Removal in the bioreactor
ranged from 29.4 to 596.6 mg m2 m1 in and measured elimina-
tion capacities ranged from 46.7 to 947.9 g m3 h1.
The membrane materials used in several studies were chosen
such that they were impermeable to microorganisms (Hartmans
et al., 1992; Freitas dos Santos et al., 1995). As a consequence, these
organisms could not contaminate the gas phase. This precaution
was considered to be important in case the membrane bioreactor
was applied for the treatment of indoor air or manned space cabin
(Binot et al., 1994).
Freitas dos Santos et al. (1995) tested a reactor with silicone
tubes to remove 1,2-dichloroethane from air. For the destruction of
trichloroethene (TCE), Parvatiyar et al. (1996a,b) designed a new
membrane bioreactor in which both an aerobic and an anaerobic
region were present (Fig. 5). In the anaerobic zone, TCE is partially
dechlorinated and the products are supposedly degraded further in
the aerobic zone of the biofilm.
The silicone membranes due to their selectivity for hydrophobic
components, retains acid vapors (SO2) that hamper biodegradation
of 1,2-dichloroethane (Freitas dos Santos et al., 1995).
Dense membranes may also serve as a buffer, in case the supply
of pollutants is variable. It should be noted, however, that due to
1048 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054

Table 1
Application of membrane bioreactor for VOC and odour treatment.

Contaminant Membrane Load EC Operation Gas HRT Flux References

(g m3) (g m3 h1) (g m3 h1) (days) (s) (mg m2 h1)
Xylol (0.1–0.6) HF silicone rubber 1.8-8.1 1.8–7.9 n.r.a 2.5-14 67–302 Bauerle et al. (1986)
Butanol (0.1–0.5) 1.8–7.3 1.3–5.4 48–207 Weckhuysen et al. (1993)
DCM (0.2–0.4) 2.4-11 1–4 37–151
Toluene (0.38) HF polyporous pp 2-31 33–1500 w90 0.9–6.3 13–180 Ergas and McGrath
(1997)
Toluene (0.7–3.4) HF polyporous PP 23-121 16-42 > 20 0.9-1.8 15–35 Ergas et al. (1999)
Nitrogen oxide (0.1) HF polyporous PP 1.3 0.1–0.9 105 1.9 3–8 Min et al. (2002)
DCM (0.65) Spiral-wound silicone rubber 14–35 12–28 11 n.r.a 25–55 Freitas dos Santos et al.
(1995)
Methane, TCE in Silicone rubber tubing n.a.b 12 w120 n.a.b 130 Clapp et al. (1999)
liquid (264)
Dimethyl sulfide Flat composite silicone 5–270 5–200 79 8–24 De Bo et al. (2002)
(0.036–1.81) rubber on polysulfone (De Bo, 2003)
a a
Toluene (0.75–1.5) HF polyporous polysulfone, n.r. n.r. >140 16 or 32 80 Parvatiyar et al.
two in series (1996a,b)
a a
Methanol (0.01–2.6) Composite with silicone 36 25 n.r. n.r. 420 Resier et al. (1994)
Toluene (0.03–4.2) rubber 58 40 – – 670
Hexane (0.03–2.4) 33 24 – – 400
Xylol (0.1–0.6) Composite with silicone 600 360 52 4.3–15 170 Attaway et al. (2001)
BBTEX (7.7–15.4) rubber
BTEX (2.2–9.8) HF polyporous PP 118 105 20 8–16 312 Attaway et al. (2002)
DCM (0.16) Flat polyporous PP 180 80 <1 1.6–9.6 320 Hartmans et al. (1992)
Toluene (0.075) Flat composite, 84 29 117 De Bo et al. (2002)
Toluene (0.004–3.18) Silicone rubber on PVDF 32–470 30–395 339 2–24 790
Toluene (0–0.97) Flat composite, silicone 0–170 0–170 20 24 n.r.a De Bo et al. (2002)
rubber on PVDF
TCE (0.04) Flat composite, silicone rubber 6 0–6 n.r.a De Bo et al. (2002)
Dimethy1 sulfide On PVDF 5–170 5–130 20–144 4–24
(0.011–1.63)
Toluene (0.5–0.75) HF polyporous PP 16–96 32–72 >8 1.8–7.2 6–60 Dolasa and Ergas (2000)
TCE (0.04–0.2) 3–9 0–6 3.6–7.2 0–5 Dolasa and Ergas (2000)
Butanol (0.6–2.3) HF polyporous polysulfone 13–26 3.8–13 105 1.6 and 2.9 13–326 Fitch and England (2002)
TCE (0.13–0.21) HF polyporous PP 0.03–0.1 0.01–0.06 21 96–300 0.06–0.2 Pressmann et al. (2000)
Benzene (0.1) HF polyporous PP 7–60 4.8–58 100 0.17–1.4 4.2–20.4 Fitch et al. (2003)
Benzene (0.1) Latex rubber tubing 7-28 2.5–18 40 0.55–1.4 670–2700 Fitch and England (2002)
Cyclohexane Dual tube silicone rubber 395–2189 47–947 40 – 29–597 Robert et al. (2006)
DMS Thermophilic membrane 64 54 270 24 128 Munkhtsetseg et al.
(2008)
Toluene Composite porous PAN 0.72 0.6 165 2–24 – Kumar et al. (2008a,b)
Cyclohexane Dual tube silicone rubber 46.7 947 46.7 40 1764–35,760 Robert et al. (2006)

Configurations: HF: hollow fibre (i.d. < 0.5 mm); C: capillary (0.5 mm < i.d. < 10 mm); PP: polypropylene; PDMS: polydimethylsiloxane; PVDF: polyvinylidenefluoride;
Zrf: zirfon.
Compounds: MeOH: methanol; BuOH: 1-butanol; NH3: ammonia; BENZ: benzene; TCE: trichloroethylene; TOL: toluene; PROP: propylene; NO: nitric oxide; HEX: hexane;
DMS: dimethylsulfide; BTEX: mixture of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes; DMS: dimethylsulfide; DCM: dichloromethane; DCE: dichloroethane.
a
n.r., Not reported or not sufficient data to calculate.
b
n.a., Not applicable (e.g., static gas phase).

simple thermodynamics, the equilibrium concentration in the
water phase would never change upon the insertion of any type of
membrane between the gas phase and the water phase.
Irrespective of the membrane resistance, the driving force for
mass transfer depends on the concentration to which the pollutant
is reduced in the liquid phase. Therefore, the removal rate in
a membrane bioreactor depends largely on the activity of the
microbial population. In most of the reported studies, biofilm
formation was observed to be an essential part of reactor operation
(Ergas et al., 1999). Both mixed cultures and pure cultures were
used for biofilm generation. The hydrophobic nature of both micro
porous and silicone membranes facilitates microbial adhesion. The
microorganisms located close to the membrane are exposed to
higher substrate concentrations than suspended cells, making it
more likely that most cell growth occurs close to the membrane.
Biofilm growth may cause serious problems if excess biomass is
not sloughed off. Freitas dos Santos et al. (1995) attributed the
decreasing reactor performance and the increasing pressure drop
over the liquid phase to extensive biofilm formation in the spiral-
wound membrane module they studied. Clogging of hollow fibres
with a biofilm of propene-degrading Xanthobacter cells could be
prevented by applying a very high liquid velocity, but still the
reactor performance decreased over a period of 3–6 months as the
biofilm matured. These results suggest that, even if clogging is
prevented, biofilms are prone to aging (Reij and Hartmans, 1996).
During the degradation of dichloromethane (Bauerle et al., 1986)
a good biofilm did not develop on the reactor membrane. The bio-
film growing on dichloromethane sheared off the membrane after
94 days, causing a drop in reactor performance (Reij et al., 1995).
Recently investigation on DMS removal in thermophilic membrane
bioreactor indicated an elimination capacity of 54 g m3 h1 with
the removal efficiency 84% at gas retention time (GRT) 24 s
(Munkhtsetseg et al., 2008). The reason suggested for this was that
hydrochloric acid was produced during the degradation of
dichloromethane, which accumulated in the biofilm to toxic levels
and destabilized the biofilm.
Aziz et al. (1995) purposely repressed biofilm formation in
a membrane reactor for wastewater treatment by the addition of
a sequestering agent. This membrane reactor was part of a two-
stage bioreactor, in which methanotrophs were circulated. In the
membrane reactor, the methanotrophs degraded trichloroethylene
(TCE) and in a separate reactor, growth substrate was supplied.
Separate reactors were required for the study, since TCE itself did
not support microbial growth and could be degraded only co-
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
Fig. 5. Aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation of trichloroethene (TCE) in membrane
bioreactor.
metabolically when a primary substrate was supplied. Such a two-
stage process may not only be used for wastewater treatment but
also for the removal of TCE from waste gas.
A completely new strategy for the removal of TCE from air was
designed by Parvatiyar et al. (1996a,b). In their newly designed
membrane bioreactor, acetate was added to the liquid phase as
carbon source and as electron donor to lower the oxygen tension in
the biofilm. Under anaerobic conditions created in this way, TCE
was partially dechlorinated. Subsequently, the products of the
anaerobic dechlorination were degraded further in the aerobic
zone of the biofilm (Fig. 5, Cesario et al., 1992). Their work, however,
did not contain experimental evidence that both the aerobic and
the anaerobic zone are present, but it is the first report on the
continuous removal of TCE from air in the absence of volatile
growth substrates.
While reviewing literature (Table 1), it was found that the
experiments reported are very varied and the approach in each case
is different. For example-in most studies oxygen was made to diffuse
through the membrane along with the compound to be removed
from air, but Freitas dos Santos et al. (1995) supplied oxygen in the
water phase. Parvatiyar et al. (1996a,b), on the other hand, main-
tained the liquid phase anaerobic, to allow anaerobic degradation.
Secondly, the time period in each experiment varied, while some
lasted for more than a year, some were completed within a few days.
6.4. Future needs
All studies carried out on membrane reactors are laboratory scale
experiments. To the best of our knowledge, no reports are available
on pilot-plant investigations or full-scale applications of membrane
reactors in biological waste gas treatment. Membrane modules
appear relatively easy to scale up given their modular nature (Karoor
and Sirkar, 1993); however an extensive long-term performance
testing is necessary before they can be applied on full-scale.
The effect of biomass on the membrane material, in the long run
has not sufficiently been tested. During prolonged operation
microbial polysaccharides might get absorbed to the membrane
material, decreasing the critical pressure, and allowing liquid to
penetrate the pores of hydrophobic micro porous membrane. This
wetting of the membrane may significantly increase membrane
resistance (De Heijder et al., 1994) and will be a bottleneck for long-
term operation of reactors with micro porous membranes. No
experimental evidence on this subject has been reported so far.
Wetting of the membrane could be prevented by a thin coating of
dense material applied on the liquid side of a porous membrane.
Such composite membranes have been used in blood oxygenation
to suppress blood-trauma and prevent the pores from filling with
liquid and cell debris (Sirkar, 1992).
1049
In addition to the durability of the membrane material, the
stability of the biomass is essential as well. The formation of thick
biofilms (Freitas dos Santos et al., 1995) and clogging of the liquid
channels (Kreulen et al., 1993) were shown to deteriorate reactor
performance. Even when clogging was prevented by a very fast
liquid flow, the performance of hollow fibre modules decreased
with time (Kreulen et al., 1993). Therefore, strategies have to be
developed to monitor the biofilm, to stabilize its activity, and to
remove excess biomass from the membrane modules.
The removal of poorly water soluble pollutants from air can be
considered to be the most promising application for membrane
bioreactors. The mass transfer resistance of membranes for this
group of pollutants is negligible. Recently, Kumar et al. (2009), have
reported enhance performance of a composite membrane biore-
actor for treating toluene vapors. The composite membrane con-
sisting of a porous poly acrylonitrile (PAN) support layer coated
with a very thin (0.3 microm) dense polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)
top layer indicated maximum elimination capacity of
609 g m3 h1 along with the flux 1.2 g m3 h1. Moreover, the
large gas–liquid interface of membrane modules enables efficient
removal of these pollutants that in general are difficult to remove
from air.
Other niches for the application of membrane bioreactors are
indoor applications and the removal of pollutants that require
a specific microbial population (like TCE and nitrogen monoxide).
Recently, the membrane bioreactor with both an anaerobic and an
aerobic zone was proposed (De Heijder et al., 1994). Such a biore-
actor might enable the biodegradation of pollutants, such as highly
chlorinated hydrocarbons, that until now were considered to be
beyond the reach of aerobic biological waste gas treatment.
7. Comparison of conventional bioreactors and membrane
bioreactor for VOC and odour control
The application areas and comparative performance evaluation
of bioreactors (biofilter, biotrickling filter, bioscrubber, membrane
bioreactor) widely reported for VOC and odour control is presented
in Tables 2a and 2b, respectively. The target pollutant concentration
for bioscrubber is relatively higher than biofilter and biotrickling
filter, while in case of membrane bioreactor the membrane flux
limit should allow for higher VOC and odour concentration. Bio-
filters usually have a media layer of 1–2 m to prevent excessive air
velocities through the media, which easily results in high-pressure
drop or airflow preferences. Biotrickling filters and bioscrubbers do
not require an upfront humidifier, like biofilter do, to increase the
inlet air humidity up to a preferable 100%. The footprint of bio-
trickling and bioscrubber reactors is normally much smaller, since
they usually contain a more open packing that can be more than
2 m high. The media in biofilters needs to be replaced frequently,
due to the deterioration of the (usually organic) media, or the
increasingly worse process conditions like pH decrease, nutrient
depletion, or extensive biomass accumulation, salt content or
pressure drop. In biotrickling and bioscrubber reactors, no medium
change-out is required, since inert packing material is used and
process conditions can be better controlled. Operational costs can
be saved with biotrickling or bioscrubber reactors, since up to 40%
of the operational cost of a biofilter is typically related to the
medium change-out. Further, the biofilter reactor do not have
a continuous and distinct liquid phase as found in the case of bio-
trickling and bioscrubber. Therefore, important process conditions
like pH, salt content, nutrients, toxic intermediates or end products
of microbial degradation are much easier to analyze and to control
in biotrickling and bioscrubber. Also, the liquid phase itself (the
water content) can be better controlled to obtain the optimal water
content through the bioreactor system, and to minimize drying out
1050 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054

Table 2a
Comparative performance evaluation of bioreactors for VOC and odour control.

Bioreactor Target VOCs Treatment efficiency for Pressure Capital Operational Bioprocess
Type and Odours drop cost cost controla
Low conc. High conc. High water Low water Fluctuating
conc. g/m3
of VOCs of VOCs soluble insoluble feed conditions
/Odours /Odours VOCs VOCs
Biofilter <1 High Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low
Biotrickling <0.5 High Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low
filter
Bioscrubber <5 High High High Low High Very low Medium Medium High
Membrane High High High High High Need long- Need long- High High Need long-
reactor term evaluation term evaluation term evaluation
a
Comparative evaluation on bioprocess control parameter is given in Table 2b.

Table 2b
Critical bioprocess control parameters for different bioreactor configurations.

Type Moisture Nutrient/pH Clogging Transient response Airflow channeling Startup

Biofilter Highly sensitive Highly sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Highly sensitive Sensitive
Biotrickling filter Not sensitive Not sensitive Highly sensitive Highly sensitive Sensitive Highly sensitive
Rotating contactors Not sensitive Not sensitive Not sensitive Highly sensitive Not sensitive Highly sensitive
Bioscrubber Not sensitive Not sensitive Not sensitive Highly sensitive Not sensitive Sensitive
Suspended growth Not sensitive Not sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Not sensitive Sensitive
Membrane reactor Not sensitive Not sensitive Highly sensitive Sensitive Not sensitive Highly sensitive

of the packing material or the biofilm on the packing material.
Heslinga (1994) mentioned that probably 50–75% of the problems
with conventional biofilters are related to a poor control of the
water content in the biofilter media.
An important disadvantage of biotrickling and bioscrubber
reactors is the higher complexity to construct and to operate. The
startup of biotrickling and bioscrubber reactors is also more
complicated, since the inert medium does not contain microor-
ganisms at the start. As soon as the microorganisms are present,
they can be washed out by the required drainage of the process
water; a problem that is encountered with full-scale operations of
bioscrubbers. Pressure drop control is more complex especially
with biotrickling reactors. Compared to a biofilter, higher air
velocities through the media results more easily in a higher pres-
sure drop. When biotrickling or bioscrubber reactors are applied for
the treatment of pollutants like hydrogen sulfide, ammonia or
chlorinated compounds, the degradation produces acid end prod-
ucts in the drain water, which needs further processing. Biotrickling
and bioscrubber reactors make a better process control possible,
which require, on the other hand, measurement or control
instrumentation.
The location of the water film with respect to the biomass
differs in biotrickling filter, bioscrubber and membrane bioreactor.
In the trickling bed reactor and in the bioscrubber pollutants have
to diffuse through the water phase, before they can be consumed
by the microorganisms. For pollutants with a poor water-solu-
bility, such a layer of water causes a substantial additional resis-
tance for mass transfer. In the membrane bioreactor, on the
contrary, the liquid phase is situated at he opposite side of the
biofilm and hardly forms a barrier for mass transfer of the poorly
water soluble pollutants. Therefore, the removal of poorly water
soluble pollutants from air can be considered as the most prom-
ising application for membrane bioreactors. The mass transfer
resistance of membranes for this poorly water soluble pollutants is
negligible. Moreover, the large gas–liquid interface of membrane
modules enables efficient removal of these pollutants, which in
general are difficult to remove from air. Other niches for the
application of membrane bioreactors are indoor application and
the removal of pollutants that require a specific microbial pop-
ulation, like TCE and nitrogen monoxide. Very recently,
a membrane bioreactor with both an anaerobic and an aerobic
zone was proposed. Such a bioreactor might enable the biodeg-
radation of pollutants, such as highly chlorinated hydrocarbons,
that until now are considered to be beyond the reach of (aerobic)
biological waste gas treatment.
Disadvantages of membrane bioreactors are the high invest-
ment cost, particularly compared to other bioreactor, and possible
clogging of the liquid channels due the formation of excess
biomass. Compared to other types of bioreactors, the membrane
may form an additional barrier for mass transfer. So far, membrane-
based biological waste gas treatment has only been tested on
laboratory scale. If the long-term stability of these reactors can be
demonstrated, membrane bioreactor technology can be useful in
the treatment of gas streams containing poorly water soluble
pollutants and highly chlorinated hydrocarbons, which are difficult
to treat with conventional methods for biological waste gas
treatment.
8. Other bioreactor configurations
Apart from bioreactors described in the preceding sections for
VOC and odour treatment, several other bioreactors have also been
reported. An innovative design was reported by Yang et al. (2002),
which consists of a rotating drum BF. Open pore reticulated poly-
urethane foam was used as the BF packing medium and this new
design resulted in better distribution of VOCs, oxygen, nutrients,
and biomass, over conventional BFs. Two types of rotating drum BFs
were investigated to study the effect of medium configuration on
BF performance for VOC treatment. One was a single-layer BF that
consisted of a thick layer of open pore reticulated polyurethane
foam media. The other was a multi-layer BF that used a set of four
concentric thinner layers of the media. The effect of the two
different media configurations was examined using diethyl ether at
various organic loading rates. The results showed that the multi-
layer BF could maintain more stable and higher ether removal
efficiencies at gas empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 30 s, when
compared to the single-layer BF at gas EBCT of 90 s, and at organic
loading rates ranging from 32.1 to 128.4 g (ether) m3 l1. The multi-
layer BF also exhibited a more even biomass distribution on the
concentric surface at medium depth than the single-layer BF, which
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
suggested a reduced possibility of short-circuiting of gas streams
and, consequently, better performance (Yang et al., 2002).
A novel rotating rope bioreactor was described by Mudliar et al.
(2008a,b), especially for the treatment of VOCs characterized by
high volatility along with high water-solubility. The bioreactor
could be used for treatment of vapor phase VOCs by suitably
scrubbing the compound in water and subjecting it to the new
bioreactor referred to as the rotating rope bioreactor (RRB) for
treatment. The novel bioreactor provided higher interfacial area
(per unit reactor liquid volume) along with high oxygen mass
transfer rate, greater microbial culture stability and consequently
higher substrate loadings and removal rates in comparison to other
conventional reactors (e.g. BFs) widely used for the treatment of
VOCs. Pyridine was used as a model compound to demonstrate the
enhanced performance of RRB. The experimental results showed
that the novel RRB system was able to degrade synthetic waste-
water containing pyridine with removal efficiency of more than
85% up to a loading of 66.86 g m3 h1. Further, the authors also
described a single stage reactor called the rotating rope biofilter for
direct treatment of VOCs instead of a two-stage process described
above. This reactor is a modified closed RRB where the waste air
containing the VOC is directly sparged through the water hold-up
of the reactor and the water soluble VOCs are absorbed in the
aqueous phase. It is then degraded by the microbial consortium
immobilized on the RRB rope media.
Kan and Deshusses (2003) reported a new type of bioreactor for
air pollution control referred to as a foamed emulsion bioreactor
(FEBR). The new reactor was based on an organic-phase emulsion
and actively growing pollutant-degrading microorganisms, made
into foam with the air being treated. As there is no packing in the
reactor, the FEBR is not subjected to clogging. Mathematical
modeling of the process and proof of concept using a laboratory
prototype revealed that the foamed emulsion bioreactor greatly
surpasses the performance of existing gas phase bioreactors.
Experimental results showed a toluene elimination capacity as high
as 285 g (toluene) m3 (reactor) h1 with removal efficiency of 95% at
a gas residence time of 15 s and a toluene inlet concentration of
1–1.3 g m3.
Study of toluene degradation in a flat plate vapor phase biore-
actor by a Pseudomonas putida 54 G biofilm using oxygen micro
sensors was reported by Villaverde et al. (1997). Oxygen micro-
electrodes were used to measure oxygen concentration profiles
through the gas, liquid, and biofilm phases. The linear shape of the
dissolved oxygen concentration profile in the outer 87% of the
biofilm thickness suggested an absence of reaction in this layer.
Oxygen consumption in the remaining 13% biofilm layer (0.3 mm)
followed zero order kinetics with a rate constant of 102.2 g m3 h1,
for toluene gas concentration of 1.5 g m3. The increase in respi-
ratory activity near the substratum was confirmed by microscopic
study of cryogenic biofilm sections, and the lack of activity in the
surface film was interpreted as a consequence of injury exerted by
the toxic substrate. The accumulation of dead cells on the top of the
biofilm contributed resistance to the transport of substrates to
deeper layers of the biofilm suggesting a protective role of the outer
layer against the harmful effect of the toxic substrate. These results
highlight a new conceptual biofilm model in which both microbial
growth and inactivation are controlled by substrate transport,
leading to a structure that by itself controls substrate availability.
9. Conclusions
This review provides an overview of the various bioreactors
used for waste gas treatment, limitations of existing bioreactors,
and new avenues required in bioreactor development and design.
Clearly, many of the bioreactor designs discussed herein still
1051
require improvement, and confirmation of significantly better
performance compared to existing designs. For example, consid-
ering the volatile nature of VOCs and odourous compounds, sus-
pended growth reactor systems/bioscrubbers may find limited
application in the field at higher substrate concentration and
loadings, and oxygen transfer can become a limitation, since air
purging cannot be used in such systems. In future, improved
‘‘rational bioreactor design’’ techniques need to be gradually
developed. The knowledge needed to do this can be developed by
further research on topics such as the mechanisms of clogging, the
kinetics of biofilm growth, and fundamental microbial ecology.
Flow characterization through the bioreactor is important, since gas
flow, liquid flow and gas velocity have an important impact on
process parameters like mean gas resident time, gas dispersion in
the reactor, and pressure drop over the system. These parameters
are important to scale up and to operate a bioreactor at optimum
conditions. The bioreactor development should be also focused on
issues like robustness (flexible to process fluctuations/failures),
large pollutant loadings, high temperatures, halogenated
compounds and poorly water soluble compounds. It is a big and
challenging task to design a bioreactor from fundamental theory,
but definitely the understanding of biological treatment is growing
with time.
Further, developments of innovative combined bioreactor
designs remain a high priority, since a single bioreactor configu-
ration will never provide a universal solution to existing VOC and
odour problems. In many instances, progresses in reactor design
and development will require similar advances in understanding
the fundamentals of the bioprocess, so that a more logical, creative
and focused approach in bioreactor design can be implemented.
Hence, to improve the performance of the biological air treatment
system for VOCs and odours, there is a need for continuous inno-
vation in bioreactor configurations.
References
Abumaizar, R.J., Kocher, W., Smith, E.H., 1998. Biofiltration of BTEX contaminated
streams using compost-activated carbon filter media. Journal of Hazardous
Material 60, 111–126.
Acuna, M.E., Perez, F., Auria, R., Revah, S., 1999. Microbiological and kinetic aspects
of a biofilter for the removal of toluene from waste gases. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 63, 175–184.
Alexander, R., 1999. Compost markets grow with environmental applications. Bio-
cycle 40, 43–48.
Alonso, C., Zhu, X., Suidan, M.T., Kim, B.R., Kim, B.J., 2000. Parameter estimation in
biofilter systems. Environmental Science and Technology 34, 2318–2323.
Alonso, C., Zhu, X., Suidan, M.T., Kim, B.R., Kim, B.J., 2001. Mathematical model of
biofiltration of VOCs: effect of nitrate concentration and backwashing. Journal
of Environmental Engineering 127, 655–664.
Armon, R., Laot, N., Lev, O., Shuval, H., Fattal, B., 2000. Controlling biofilm formation
by hydrogen peroxide and silver combined disinfectant. Water Science and
Technology 42, 187–193.
Arnold, M., Reittu, A., Von, W.A., Martikainen, P.J., Suikho, M.L., 1997. Bacterial
degradation of styrene in waste gases using a peat filter. Applied Microbiology
and Biotechnology 48, 738–744.
Arulneyam, D., Swaminathan, T., 2000. Biodegradation of ethanol vapour in a bio-
filter. Bioprocess Engineering 22, 63–67.
Attaway, H., Gooding, C.H., Schmidt, M.G., 2001. Biodegradation of BTEX vapors in
a silicone membrane bioreactor system. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and
Biotechnology 26, 316–325.
Attaway, H., Gooding, C.H., Schmidt, M.G., 2002. Comparison of microporous and
nonporous membrane bioreactor systems for the treatment of BTEX in vapor
streams. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 28, 245–251.
Aziz, C.E., Fitch, M.W., Linquist, L.K., Pressman, J.G., Georgiou, G., Speitel, G.E., 1995.
Methanotrophic biodegradation of trichloroethylene in a hollow fiber
membrane bioreactor. Environmental Science and Technology 29, 2574–2583.
Bauerle, U., Fischer, K., 1987. Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur Eliminierung schwer
wasserloslicher und leicht fluchtiger Verunreinigungen aus einem Abluft-bzw.
Abgasstrom durch biologische Oxidation. Patent DE 3542599.
Bauerle, U., Fischer, K., Bardtke, D., 1986. Biologische Abluftreinigung mit Hilfe eines
neuartigen Permeationsreaktors. Staub Reinhalt Luft 46, 233–235.
Binot, R.A., Paul, P., Keuning, S., Hartmans, S., de Hoop, D., 1994. Biological air filters.
Part 1 – conception and design. Preparing for the future. ESA Technology
Progress Quarterly 4, 14–15.
1052 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
Bohn, H., 1992. Considering biofiltration for decontaminating gases. Chemical
Engineering Progress 88, 34–40.
Cai, Z., Kim, D., Sorial, G.A., 2004. Evaluation of trickle-bed air biofilter performance
for MEK removal. Journal of Hazardous Material 114, 153–158.
Cesario, M.T., Beeftink, H.H., Tramper, J., 1992. Biological treatment of waste gases
containing poorly water soluble pollutants. In: DragtHam, J.V. (Ed.), Bio-
techniques for Air Pollution Abtatement and Odour Control Policies. Elsevier
Science, Amsterdam.
Cetinkaya, B., Sahlin, R.K., Abma, W.R., Dijkman, H., Mayer, S.F., Kampter, S.M., 2000.
Control FCC flu-gas emission. Hyrocarb Process 79, 55–62.
Chen, X., Stewart, P.S., 2000. Biofilm removal caused by chemical treatments. Water
Research 34, 4229–4233.
Chitwood, D.E., Devinny, J.S., 2001. Treatment of mixed hydrogen sulfide and
organic vapors in a rock medium biofilter. Water and Environmental Research
73, 426–435.
Christen, P., Domenech, F., Michelena, G., Auria, R., Revah, S., 2002. Biofiltration of
volatile ethanol using sugar cane bagasse inoculated with Candida utilis. Journal
of Hazardous Material 89, 253–265.
Clapp, L.W., Regan, J.M., Ali, F., Newmann, J.D., John, M., 1999. Activity, structure,
and stratification of membrane-attached methanotrophic biofilms comet-
abolically degrading trichloroethylene. Water Science and Technology 39,
153–161.
Cohen, Y., 2001. Biofiltration – the treatment of fluids by microorganisms immo-
bilized into the filter bedding material: a review. Bioresource Technology 77,
257–274.
Cox, H.H.J., Deshusses, M.A., 1998. Biological waste air treatment in biotrickling
filters. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 9, 256–262.
Cox, H.J., Deshusses, M.A., 1999. Chemical removal of biomass from waste air bio-
trickling filters: screening of chemicals of potential interest. Water Research 33,
2383–2392.
Crank, J., Park, G.S., 1968. Diffusion in Polymers. Academic Press, London.
De Bo, I., Van Langenhove, H., Heyman, J., 2002. Removal of dimethyl sulfide from
waste air in a membrane bioreactor. Desalination 148, 281–287.
De Bo, I., 2003. Membrane Biofiltration of Single-Compound Waste Gas Streams.
Ph.D. thesis, Ghent University, Belgium.
De Heijder, B., Overmeire, A., Van Langenhove, H., Verstraete, W., 1994. Ethene
removal from a synthetic waste gas using a dry biobed. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 44, 642–648.
Delhomenie, M.C., Bibeau, L., Bredin, N., Roy, S., Brousseau, S., Kugelmass, J.L.,
Brzezinski, R., Heitz, M., 2002. Biofiltration of air contaminated with toluene on
a compost-based bed. Advances in Environmental Research 6, 239–244.
Delhomenie, M.C., Bibeau, L., Gendron, J., Brzezinski, R., Heitz, M., 2001b. Influence
of nitrogen on the degradation of toluene in a compost-based biofilter. Journal
of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 76, 997–1006.
Delhomenie, M.C., Bibeau, L., Gendron, J., Brzezinski, R., Heitz, M., 2001a. Air
treatment by biofiltration: influence of nitrogen concentration on operational
parameters. Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research 40, 5405–5414.
Delhomenie, M.C., Heitz, M., 2005. Biofiltration of air: a review. Critical Reviews in
Biotechnology 25, 53–72.
Deshusses, M.A., Hamer, G., Dunn, U., 1996. Transient state behaviour of a biofilter
removing mixtures of vapours of MEK and MIBK from air. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 49, 587–598.
Devinny, J.S., Deshusses, M.A., Webster, T.S., 1999. Biofiltration for Air Pollution
Control. Lewis Publishers, New York, 1–5 pp.
Devinny, J.S., Hodge, D.S., 1995. Formation of acidic and toxic intermediates in
overloaded ethanol biofilters. Journal of Air Waste Management Association 45,
125–131.
Deziel, E., Comeau, Y., Villemeur, R., 1999. Two-liquid phase bioreactors for
enhanced degradation of hydrophobic/toxic compounds. Biodegradation 10,
219–233.
Diks, R.M.M., Ottengraf, S.P.P., Van den Oever, A.H.C., 1994. The influence of NaCl on
the degradation rate of dichloromethane by Hyphomicrobium sp. Biodegrada-
tion 5, 129–141.
Dingemansa, M., Dewulf, J., Braeckmana, L., Langenhovea, H.V., Friess, K.,
Hynekb, V., Sipekb, M., 2008. Mass transfer characteristics for VOC permeation
through flat sheet porous and composite membranes: The impact of the
different membrane layers on the overall membrane resistance. Journal of
Membrane Science 322, 234–242.
Dingemansa, M., Dewulf, J., Braeckmana, L., Langenhovea, H.V., Friess, K.,
Hynekb, V., Sipekb, M., 2008a. Mass transfer characteristics for VOC permeation
through flat sheet porous and composite membranes: the impact of the
different membrane layers on the overall membrane resistance. Journal of
Membrane Science 322, 234–242.
Dingemansa, M., Dewulf, J., Hecke, W.V., Langenhove, H.V., 2008b. Determination of
ozone solubility in polymeric materials. Chemical Engineering Journal 138,
172–178.
Dolasa, A.R., Ergas, S.J., 2000. Membrane bioreactor for cometabolism of tri-
chloroethene air emissions. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126 (10),
969–973.
Dolfing, J., Wijngaard, A.J., Janssen, D.B., 1993. Microbiological aspects of the
removal of chlorinated hydrocarbons from air. Biodegradation 4, 261–282.
Dorado, A.D., Baquerizo, G., Maestre, J.P., Gamisans, X., Gabriel, D., Lafuente, J., 2008.
Modeling of a bacterial and fungal biofilter applied to toluene abatement:
kinetic parameters estimation and model validation. Chemical Engineering
Journal 140, 52–61.
Edwards, F.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., 1999. Modeling an airlift Bioscrubber for
removal of air-phase BTEX. Journal of Environmental Engineering 125,
1062–1070.
Ergas, S.J., McGrath, M.S., 1997. Membrane bioreactor for control of volatile
organic compound emissions. Journal of Environmental Engineering 123,
593–598.
Ergas, S.J., Shumway, L., Fitch, M.W., Neemann, J.J., 1999. Membrane process for
biological treatment of contaminated gas streams. Biotechnology and Bioen-
gineering 63, 431–441.
Fitch, M., Neeman, J., England, E., 2003. Mass transfer and benzene removal from air
using latex rubber tubing and a hollow-fiber membrane module. Applied
Biochemistry and Biotechnology 104, 199–214.
Fitch, M.W., England, E., 2002. 1-Butanol removal from contaminated air stream
under continuous and diurnal loading conditions. Air and Waste Management
Association 52, 1288–1297.
Fortin, N.Y., Deshusses, M.A., 1999. Treatment of MTBE vapors in biotrickling filters:
1. Reactor startup, steady-state performance, and culture characteristics. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 33, 2980–2986.
Freitas dos Santos, L.M., Hommerich, U., Livingston, A.G., 1995. Dichloroethane
removal from gas streams by an extractive membrane bioreactor. Biotechnology
Progress 11, 194–201.
Gabriel, D., Deshusses, M.A., 2003. Performance of a full-scale biotrickling filter
treating H2S at a gas contact time of 1.6–2.2 seconds. Environmental Progress
22, 111–118.
Gribbins, M.J., Loehr, R.C., 1998. Effect of media nitrogen concentration on
biofilter performance. Journal of Air Waste Management Association 48,
216–226.
Hammervold, R.E., Overcamp, T.J., Grady Jr., C.P.L., Smets, B.F., 2000. Sorptive slurry
Bioscrubber for the control of acetone. Journal of Air Waste Management
Association 50, 954–960.
Hartmans, S., Leenen, E.J.T.M., Voskuilen, G.T.H., 1992. Membrane Bioreactor with
Porous Hydrophobic Membranes for Waste Gas Treatment. Elsevier, Amster-
dam, 103–106 pp.
Heslinga, D.C., 1994. Biofiltration technology. In: Proceedings of Biological Waste
Gas Cleaning Conference, Heidelberg. VDI Berichte, 1104, pp. 13–18.
Hong, J.H., Park, K.J., 2004. Wood chip biofilter performance of ammonia gas from
composting manure. Compost Science and Utilization 12, 25–30.
Ibrahim, M.A., Mizuno, H., Yasuda, Y., Fukunaga, K., Nakao, K., 2001. Removal of
mixtures of acetaldehyde and propionaldehyde from waste gas in packed
column with immobilized activated sludge gel beads. Journal of Biochemical
Engineering 8, 9–18.
Janni, K.A., Maier, W.J., Kuehn, T.H., Yang, C.H., Bridges, B.B., Velsey, D., Nellis, M.A.,
2001. Evaluation of biofiltration of air – an innovative air pollution control
technology. ASHRAE Transactions 107, 198–214.
Janssen, A.J.H., Dijkman, H., Janseen, G., 2000. Novel biological processes for the
removal of H2S and SO2 from the gas streams. In: Lens, P., Hulshoff, P.L. (Eds.),
Environmental Technologies to Treat Sulfur Pollution. IWA, London.
Jianping, W., Xiaoqiang, C.Y.J., Dongyan, C., 2005. Simultaneous removal of ethyl
acetate and ethanol in air streams using a gas–liquid–solid three-phase flow
airlift loop bioreactor. Journal of Chemical Engineering 106, 171–175.
Kan, E., Deshusses, M.A., 2003. Development of foamed Emulsion Bioreactor for air
pollution control. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 84, 241–244.
Karoor, S., Sirkar, K.K., 1993. Gas absorption studies in microporous hollow
fiber membrane modules. Industrial Engineering Chemical Research 32,
674–684.
Kennes, C., Thalasso, F., 1998. Waste gas biotreatment technology. Journal of
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 72, 303–319.
Kok, H.J.G., 1992. Bioscrubbing of air contaminated with high concentrations of
hydrocarbons. In: Dragt, A.J., van Ham, J. (Eds.), Biotechniques for Air Pollution
Abatement and Odor Control Policies. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 77–82.
Kraakman, N.J.R., 2001. New bioreactor system for treating sulphur- or nitrogen-
compounds. In: Kennes, C., Veiga, M.C. (Eds.), Bioreactors for Waste Gas
Treatment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 269–284.
Kraakman, N.J.R., 2003. Full-scale biological treatment of industrial CS2-emissions
at extreme conditions. The robustness of a biological system and its risks
to the waste gas purification. Journal of Environmental Engineering 22,
79–86.
Krailas, S., Pham, Q.T., Amal, R., Jiang, J.K., Heitz, M., 2000. Effect of inlet mass
loading, water and total bacteria count on methanol elimination using upward
flow and downward flow biofilters. Journal of Chemical Technology and
Biotechnology 75, 299–305.
Kreulen, H., Smolders, C.A., Versteeg, G.F., van Swaaij, W.P.M., 1993. Determination
of mass transfer rates in wetted and non-wetted microporous membranes.
Chemical Engineering Science 48, 2093–2102.
Kumar, A., Dewulf, J., Langenhove, H.V., 2008a. Membrane-based biological waste
gas treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal 136, 82–91.
Kumar, A., Luvsanjamba, J.D.M., Langenhove, H.V., 2008b. Continuous operation of
membrane bioreactor treating toluene vapors by Burkholderia vietnamiensis G4.
Chemical Engineering Journal 140, 193–200.
Kumar, A., Dewulf, J., Vercruyssen, A., Langenhove, H.V., 2009. Performance of
a composite membrane bioreactor treating toluene vapors: inocula selection,
reactor performance and behavior under transient conditions. Bioresource
Technology 100, 2381–2387.
Laurenzis, A., Heits, H., Wubker, S.M., Heinze, U., Friedrich, C., Werner, U., 1998.
Continuous biological waste gas treatment in a stirred trickle-bed reactor with
 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054
discontinuous removal of biomass. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 57,
497–503.
Lee, E.Y., Jun, Y.S., Cho, K.S., Ryu, H.W., 2002. Degradation characteristics of toluene,
benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia T3-C.
Journal of Air Waste Management Association 52, 400–406.
Lu, C., Lin, M.-R., Chu, C., 2002. Effects of pH, moisture, and flow pattern on trickle-
bed air biofilter performance for BTEX removal. Advance Environmental
Research 6, 99–106.
Luo, J., 2001. A pilot-scale study on biofilters for controlling animal rendering
process odours. Water Science and Technology 44, 277–285.
Maestre, J.P., Gamisans, X., Gabriel, D., Lafuente, J., 2007. Fungal biofilters for toluene
biofiltration: evaluation of the performance with four packing materials under
different operating conditions. Chemosphere 67, 684–692.
Mason, C.A., Ward, G., Abu-Salah, K., Keren, O., Dosoretz, C.G., 2000. Biodegradation
of BTEX by bacteria on powdered activated carbon. Bioprocess Engineering 23,
331–336.
Metris, A., Gerrard, A.M., Cumming, R.H., Weigner, P., Paca, J., 2001. Modelling shock
loadings and starvation in the biofiltration of toluene and xylene. Journal of
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 76, 565–572.
Min, K.N., Ergas, S.J., Harrison, M., 2002. Hollow fiber membrane bioreactor for
nitric oxide removal. Environmental Engineering Science 19, 575–583.
Moe, W.M., Irvine, R.L., 2000. Polyurethane foam medium for biofiltration. I –
characterization. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126, 815–825.
Mohseni, M., Allen, D.G., 2000. Biofiltration of mixtures of hydrophilic and hydro-
phobic volatile organic compounds. Chemical Engineering Science 55,
1545–1558.
Morales, M., Hernandez, S., Cornabe, T., Revah, S., Auria, R., 2003. Effect of drying on
biofilter performance: modeling and experimental approach. Environmental
Science and Technology 37, 985–992.
Morgenroth, E., Schroeder, E.D., Chang, D.P.Y., Scow, K.M., 1996. Nutrient limitation
in a compost biofilter degrading hexane. Journal of Air Waste Management
Association 46, 300–308.
Mortgat, B., 2001. Traitement biologique des odeurs et COV. Environnement et
Techniques 203, 39–42.
Mudliar, S.N., Banerjee, S., Vaidya, A.N., Devotta, S., 2008a. Steady state model for
evaluation of external and internal mass transfer effects in an immobilized
biofilm. Bioresource Technology 99, 3468–3474.
Mudliar, S.N., Padoley, K.V., Bhatt, P., Kumar, S.M., Lokhande, S.K., Pandey, R.A.,
Vaidya, A.N., 2008b. Pyridine biodegradation in a novel rotating rope bioreactor.
Bioresource Technology 99, 1044–1051.
Munkhtsetseg, L., Kumar, A., Langenhove, H.V., 2008. Removal of dimethyl sulfide in
a thermophilic membrane bioreactor. Journal of Chemical Technology and
Biotechnology 83, 1218–1225.
Munkhtsetseg, L., Kumar, A., Langenhove, H.V., 2008. Removal of dimethyl sulfide in
a thermophilic membrane bioreactor. Journal of Chemical Technology &
Biotechnology 83 (9), 1218–1225 (8).
Narendra, B.S., Shivapullaiah, P.V., Suresh, S., Omkar, S.N., 2006. Prediction on
unconfined compressive strength of soft grounds using computational
intelligence techniques: a comparative study. Computer and Geotechniques
33, 196.
Oh, Y.S., Bartha, R., 1997. Removal of nitrobenzene vapors by a trickling air biofilter.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology Biotechnology 18, 293–296.
Omkar, S.N., Khandelwal, R., Yathindra, S.G., Naik, N., Gopalkrishnan, S., 2008.
Artificial immune system for multi-objective design optimization of composite
structures. Engineering Application of Artificial Intelligence 21, 1418.
Ottengraf, S.P.P., 1987. Biological systems for waste gas elimination. Trends in
Biotechnology 5, 132–136.
Parvatiyar, M.G., Govind, R., Bishop, D.F., 1996a. Treatment of trichloroethylene
(TCE) in a membrane biofilter. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 50, 57–64.
Parvatiyar, M.G., Govind, R., Bishop, D.F., 1996b. Biodegradation of toluene in
a membrane biofilter. Journal of Membrane Science 119, 17–24.
Pedersen, A.R., Arvin, E., 1995. Removal of toluene in waste gases using a biological
trickling filter. Biodegradation 6, 109–118.
Pedersen, A.R., Moller, S., Molin, S., Arvin, E., 1997. Activity of toluene-degrading
Pseudomonas putida in the early growth phase of a biofilm for waste gas
treatment. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 54, 131–142.
Pineda, J., Auria, R., Perez-Guevara, F., Revah, S., 2000. Biofiltration of toluene vapors
using a model support. Bioprocess Engineering 23, 479–486.
Prasad, R., Sirkar, K.K., 1992. Membrane-based solvent extraction. In: Ho, W.S.W.,
Sirkar, K.K. (Eds.), Membrane Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.
727–763.
Pressmann, G., Georgiou, G., Speitel, G.E., 2000. A hollow-fibre membrane biore-
actor for the removal of trichloroethylene from the vapour phase. Biotech-
nology and Bioengineering 68, 548–556.
Rautenbach, R., Albrecht, R., 1989. Membrane Processes. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Reij, M.W., de Gooijer, C.D., de Bont, J.A.M., Hartmans, S., 1995. Membrane bioreactor
with a porous hydrophobic membrane as a gas–liquid contactor for waste gas
treatment. Biotechnology and Bioengineeing 45, 107–115.
Reij, M.W., Hartmans, S., 1996. Propene removal from synthetic waste gas using
a hollow-fibre membrane bioreactor. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
45, 730–736.
Reij, M.W., Keurenties, J.T.F., Hartmans, S., 1998. Membrane Bioreactors for waste
gas treatment. Journal of Biotechnology 59, 155–167.
1053
Resier, M., Fischer, K., Engesser, K.H., 1994. Kombination aus Biowascher- und bio-
membranverfahren zur reinigung von Abluuft und hydrophilen und hydro-
phoben Inhaltsstoffen. VDI Berichte 1104, 103.
Rho, D., 2000. La bio Õpuration de l’air, biofiltres et biolaveurs: un univers. ‘a la
rencontre de la microbiologie et de l’ingÕnierie. Vecteur Environment 33 (1),
22–31.
Roberts, M., 2006. Cyclohexane removal in a dual-tube membrane bioreactor.
Bioremediation Journal 0, 5–11.
Roberts, M., England, E., Bleckmann, C., 2006. Cyclohexane Removal in a Dual-Tube
Membrane Bioremediation Journal 10 (1–2), 5–11.
Sakuma, T., Hattori, T., Deshusses, M.A., 2009. The effects of a lower irrigation
system on pollutant removal and on the microflora of a biofilter. Environmental
Technology 30, 621–627.
Sanchez, A.G., Revah, S., Deshusses, M.A., 2008. Alkaline biofiltration of H2S. Envi-
ronmenatal Science and Technology 42, 7398–7404.
Schonduve, P., Sara, M., Friedl, A., 1996. Influence of physiologically relevant
parameters on biomass formation in a trickle-bed bioreactor used for waste gas
cleaning. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 45, 286–292.
Sene, L., Converti, A., Felipe, M.G.A., Zilli, M., 2002. Sugarcane bagasse as alternative
packing material for biofiltration of benzene polluted gaseous streams:
a preliminary study. Bioresource Technology 83, 153–157.
Shareefdeen, Z., Singh, A., 2005. Biotechnology for Odor and Air Pollution Control.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Shareefdeen, Z., Shaikh, A.A., Ansar, Z., 1997. Development, experimental validation
and dynamic analysis of a general transient biofilter model. Chemical Engi-
neering Science 52, 759–773.
Sirkar, K.K., 1992. Other new membrane processes. In: Ho, W.S.W., Sirkar, K.K. (Eds.),
Membrane Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 885–899.
Smet, E., Chasaya, G., Langenhove, H.V., Verstraete, W., 1996a. The effect of inocu-
lation and the type of carrier material used on the biofiltration of methyl
sulphides. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 45, 293–298.
Smet, E., van Langenhove, H., Verstraete, W., 1996b. Long-term stability of a biofilter
treating dimethyl sulphide. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 46,
191–196.
Smet, E., van Langenhove, H., Philips, G., 1999. Dolomite limits acidification of
a biofilter degrading dimethyl sulphide. Biodegradation 10, 399–404.
Smith, F.L., Sorial, G.A., Suidan, M.T., Breen, A.W., Biswas, P., Brenner, R.C., 1996.
Development of two biomass control strategies for extended, stable operation
of highly efficient biofilters with high toluene loadings. Environmental Science
and Technology 30, 1744–1751.
Sun, A.K., Wood, T.K., 1997. Trichloroethylene mineralization in a fixed film biore-
actor using a pure culture expressing constitutively toluene ortho-mono-
oxygenase. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 55, 674–685.
Swanson, W.J., Loehr, R.C., 1997. Biofiltration: fundamentals, design and operation
principles, and applications. Journal of Environmental Engineering 123, 538–
546.
Tang, H.-M., Hwang, S.-J., 1997. Transient behavior of the biofilters for toluene
removal. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 47, 1142–1151.
Thalasso, F., Naveau, H., Nyns, E.-J., 1996. Effects of dry periods in a mist-foam
bioreactor design for gaseous substrate. Environmental Technology 17,
909–913.
Van Groenestijn, J.W., Hesselink, P.G.M., 1993. Biotechniques for air pollution
control. Biodegradation 4, 283–302.
Veiga, M.C., Fraga, M., Amor, L., Kennes, C., 1999. Biofilter performance and char-
acterization of a biocatalyst degrading alkyl benzene gases. Biodegradation 10,
169.
Villaverde, S., Mirpuri, R.G., Lewandowski, Z., Jones, W.L., 1997a. Physiological and
chemical gradients in a Pseudomonas putida 54 G biofilm degrading toluene in
a flat plate vapor phase bioreactor. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 56, 361–
371.
Ward, O.P., 1989. Fermentation Biotechnology. Open University Press, Milton
Keynes, UK.
Weckhuysen, B., Vriens, L., Verachtert, H., 1993. The effect of nutrient supplemen-
tation on the biofiltration removal of butanal in contaminated air. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology 39, 395–399.
Webster, T.S., Devinny, J.S., 1998. Biofiltration. In: Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Environmental Analysis and Remediation, 8. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp.
653–665.
Wickramasinghe, S.R., Semmens, M.J., Cussler, E.L., 1992. Mass transfer in various
hollow fiber geometries. Journal of Membrane Science 69, 235–250.
Witte, B.De., Dewulf, J., Langenhove, H.V., 2009. Ozonation and advanced oxidation
by the peroxone process of ciprofloxacin in water. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 161, 701–708.
Woertz, J.R., Van Heiningen, W.N.M., Van Eekert, M.H.A., Kraakman, N.J.R.,
Kinney, K.A., Van Groenestijn, J.W., 2002. Dynamic bioreactor operation: effects
of packing material and mite predation on toluene removal from off-gas.
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 58, 690–694.
Wu, G., Dupuy, A., Leroux, A., Brzezinski, R., Heitz, M., 1999. Peat based toluene
biofiltration: a new approach to the control of nutrients and pH. Environmental
Technology 20, 367–376.
Wu, L., Loo, Y.Y., Koe, L.C.C., 2001. A pilot study of a biotrickling filter for the
treatment of odourous sewage air. Water Science and Technology 44, 295–299.
Wubker, S.-M., Laurenzis, A., Werner, U., Friedrich, C., 1997. Controlled biomass
formation and kinetics of toluene degradation in a bioscrubber and in a reactor
1054 S. Mudliar et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 1039–1054

with a periodically moved trickle-bed. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 55,
686–692.
Yang, C., Suidan, M.T., Zhu, X., Kim, B.J., 2002. Comparison of structures and
performance of two types of rotating biofilters for VOC removal. In: Hodge, D.S.,
Reynolds Jr., F.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the USC-TRG Conference on Biofiltration.
The Reynolds Group, Tusin, C.A, pp. 231–240.
Yang, M.C., Cussler, E.L., 1986. Designing hollow-fiber contactors. AIChE Journal 32,
1910–1916.
Yeom, S.H., Daugulis, A.J., 2001. Development of a novel bioreactor system for
treatment of gaseous benzene. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 72, 156–165.
Zilli, M., Del Borghi, A., Converti, A., 2000. Toluene vapours removal in a laboratory-
scale biofilter. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54, 248–255.