MINIMIZING AEROBIC AND POST ANOXIC VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IN TERTIARY

INTEGRATED FIXED-FILM ACTIVATED SLUDGE (IFAS) AND MOVING BED BIOFILM

REACTOR (MBBR) SYSTEMS USING THE AQUIFAS MODEL
Dipankar Sen*, Sudhir Murthy**, Heather Phillips***, Vikram Pattarkine****, Rhodes R. Copithorn*5,
Clifford Randall*6,
*Santa Clara Valley Water District
1290 Bryant Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94040
**DC WASA, Washington DC
***Black & Veatch, Kansas City, MO
****Brinjac Engineering, Harrisburg, PA
*5Stearns & Wheler, Bowie, MD
*6Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

ABSTRACT
Research was undertaken to calibrate and verify the Aquifas semi-empirical and biofilm 1D
models against a full scale Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) system. The model
was then used to evaluate and identify alternatives to upgrade the performance of tertiary IFAS
system and Moving (mobile) Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) systems that could minimize volume
required for nitrogen removal.
For the verification, the model was operated in a dynamic simulation mode over several 31 day
periods was evaluated against observations from a full scale IFAS system. The evaluation was
performed for the semi-empirical and the biofilm 1D versions. While both versions were able to
predict the average effluent ammonium-N, oxidized-N, reactor MLSS, MLVSS and waste sludge
production accurately (within 10% for MLSS, MLVSS, WAS and N, 20% at N concentrations
less than 1 mg/L), the biofilm 1D model was able to simulate the day-to-day variations in
nitrogen forms better. Also, the biofilm 1D model was able to predict the biofilm thickness and
growth to within 20% in each of the aerobic cells operated with media. Because of the
significantly longer time required to run Biofilm 1D models and similarity in the results for
steady state and average 31 day averages in a dynamic simulation mode, the semi-empirical
model was used to analyze alternatives several alternatives for tertiary removal together with
with limited number of runs of Biofilm 1D model.
Several configurations were evaluated for an existing tertiary activated sludge system. The
conditions evaluated were similar to those observed at the DCWASA (Blue Plains) plant. The
system was operated with 40 to 60% aerobic volume and 40% post-anoxic volume (with
methanol addition) at MLSS MCRTs (mean cell residence time) of 8 to 15 days. The plant can
achieve near complete nitrification but suffers from partial loss of denitrification in winter
(NOxN increases from 4 to 12 mg/L). Winter temperatures drop to a range between 13 and 15 C.
The TSS, VSS and BOD5 loadings to the tertiary system can increase during wet weather
conditions. This necessitates evaluation of both normal and wet-weather conditions for tertiary
systems and coupling them to the performance of upstream secondary systems. The
configurations evaluated included (a) activated sludge, (b) activated sludge with media added to
the anoxic cells, and (c) activated sludge with media added to both anoxic and aerobic cells.
Following the application of media with a biofilm surface area of 350 m2/m3, the model showed

that the effluent oxidized-N could be reduced from 11 mg/L to 5 mg/L, as simulated under
winter wet weather conditions. These conditions were evaluated at denitrification rates observed
for methanogenic bacteria (0.7 to 0.75 d-1 at 15 C). Additionally, methanol dosing can be
increased by 20 % during winter wet weather conditions without increasing the effluent COD to
enhance the denitrification rates without impacting the effluent soluble COD (SCOD).
Several additional alternatives were considered for plants where a new tertiary tank can be added
downstream of a high rate secondary treatment system similar to Harrisburg, PA. These
alternatives include a new MBBR dedicated to nitrification and discharging directly to a
denitrification filter (no clarifiers downstream of a MBBR), nitrification and denitrification cells
within the same MBBR volume (40% aerobic, 40% anoxic, 20% reaeration), and nitrification
and denitrification in an IFAS operated at a MLSS MCRT of 4 days within the same volume. In
the MBBR, the effluent MLSS increased from 25 to 35 mg/L when methanol was added and the
effluent oxidized-N decreased from 12 to 6 mg/L, while maintaining an effluent ammonium-N
below 1.5 mg/L at 10 C. The biofilm specific surface area had to be increased from 150 to 225
m2/m3. The IFAS system, which can nitrify and denitrify in both the biofilm and the mixed
liquor had 1000 mg/L MLSS and achieved better performance (<0.5 mg/L NH4N, 6 mg/L
NOxN, lower effluent SCOD) at the same volume and media specific surface area as the
nitrification MBBR. However, unlike the nitrifying MBBR which can discharge directly to a
denitrification filter, it requires clarifiers instead of the denitrifying filter.
KEYWORDS
Nitrification, Denitrification, IFAS, MBBR, Model, Aquifas, Steady State, Dynamic Simulation
INTRODUCTION
One of the challenges facing plants in temperate climates that have limited space to expand or
upgrade is nitrification. Recent applications of moving bed media have shown that this can be
addressed by applying media with a high effective (biofilm) specific surface area (SSA = 300 to
500 m2/m3) within the aeration tank. An example of such a plant is Broomfield, CO (Ratcliffe et
al., 2006). Another challenge facing plants that are facing Enhanced Nitrogen Removal (ENR)
permits is their ability to reduce effluent TN from 8-10 mg/L to 3-5 mg/L. Several plants are
considering addition of a post-anoxic volume with external substrate addition. Unfortunately,
the post-anoxic volume (and HRT) can become a significant part of the overall tank volume,
especially when there is a need to minimize external substrate (eg: methanol) feed to cut down
on costs. This reduces the soluble COD in the post-anoxic tank and reduces denitrification rates.
The DO is another factor in limiting denitrification rates. In some instances, plants have to
maintain DO levels of 4+ mg/L in winter in the flow leaving the aerobic zone to maintain
nitrification. The DO load in the flow entering the post-anoxic tank results in DO levels > 0.5
mg/L in the tank. Increasing the post-anoxic volume and HRT (to compensate for the lower
denit rates) at the expense of some aerobic volume affects the ability to fully nitrify. Therefore,
at land-locked facilities, there is a need to improve both the nitrification rates in the aerobic zone
and the denitrification rates in the post-anoxic zone. This study was undertaken to evaluate
process configurations and design tools that could help identify solutions and improve the
reliability of designs. The focus of this paper is on tertiary systems but the results can be applied
to secondary systems with post-anoxic zones operated for ENR.

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this research were to:
1. Calibrate and verify the Aquifas model in a dynamic simulation mode against extended
periods of input and output data from a full-scale IFAS facility
2. Identify techniques to maximize nitrification and denitrification in existing or new
tertiary tanks originally sized for nitrification
3. Evaluate techniques to combine nitrification and denitrification within a multi-cell reactor
4. Address specific challenges in tertiary systems such as changes in the loadings from the
secondary treatment system during winter high flows.
METHODS
Identify Representative Plants
The researchers identified two representative plants that could serve as templates to illustrate the
challenges faced in tertiary nitrogen removal, and develop and evaluate alternatives. The first
was the Blue Plains WWTP of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA)
that receives 1,400,000 m3/d of flow. This is a two stage activated sludge system: first stage with
a 2 hour hydraulic retention time (HRT) for BOD removal and second stage with a 3.6 hour HRT
for nitrification. The first and second stage cannot be operated in parallel. The second stage has
five cells in series. The plant has been improving nitrogen removal each year by aerating the
first two stages, using the third as a swing (switch zone) that is aerated only during certain
periods of ammonia bleedthrough in winter, and converting the fourth and fifth stage to an
anoxic cell with methanol feed to the fourth stage (Figure 1). The mixed liquor is reaerated in
the channel downstream of the reactor. This configuration has worked well in warmer weather
with the plant achieving full nitrification and as low as 4 mg/L oxidized-N. However, in colder
weather, when the upstream secondary system discharges higher TSS and BOD loadings during
wet weather, the tertiary system has difficulty maintaining good denitrification. The effluent
nitrate-N can increase from 8 to 12 mg/L. This has been attributed to the washout of denitrifriers
when when the tertiary system MCRT decreased at higher loadings.
The second facility is Harrisburg, PA, which receives 75,000 m3/d of flow and has a capacity of
120,000 m3/d. The original facility is designed for BOD5 removal. New tanks are being
considered for nitrification in MBBRs followed by denitrification in denitrification filters. The
effluent from the MBBR is not followed up with clarifiers, instead it goes directly to the
denitrification filters. This paper examines what the volume (and clarification) requirements
would be if a nitrifying MBBR were to be upgraded as a MBBR for nitrification and
denitrification using the same tank volume and as an IFAS. The intent is not to recommend a
process but to evaluate options that could be available to facilities considering tertiary
nitrification and denitrification.
Developing and Verifying Model for IFAS and MBBR
One of the challenges in modeling IFAS and MBBR systems using Aquifas, BIOWINTM or GPSX is the limited full-scale verification. For this reason, during this research, full scale
verification was undertaken as the first step. The results of modeling with Aquifas are
summarized here.

The Aquifas model was run for several 31-day periods of data from the Broomfield WWTP, CO
(Rutt et al., 2006, Sen et al., 2006). This facility is an IFAS plant operated with anaerobic, anoxic
and aerobic cells (Figure 2). The daily data of the reactor influent (primary effluent) are shown
in Table 1. The results of the modeling are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

Methanol

Tertiary
Influent

To Tertiary
Clarifiers

Aerobic

Aerobic Unaerated

Anoxic

Anoxic

Reaeration
In Channel

Aerated
Occasionally
in winter
Figure 1: Schematic of Tertiary Activated Sludge or IFAS
for Nitrification and Denitrification

Nitrate Recycle (0 to 200%)

Partially
Equalized
Primary
Effluent
Anaerobic

Anoxic
Aerobic (with media)

Secondary
Clarifiers

RAS (30 to 50%)

Anox Kaldnes K1 Media at 30% Media Fill Fraction

Biofilm (Effective) specific surface area of 150 m2/m3
Figure 2: Layout of Broomfield WWTP, CO, USA

Plant Description
The Broomfield plant is designed with influent screening and partial flow equalization in the
headworks. It has primary clarifiers. The primary effluent is sent to the secondary treatment
system that is operated in the A2O or modified Johannesburg configuration. The secondary
treatment system is operated with Kaldnes K1 media in the aerobic cells at a 30 percent fill. This
results in a biofilm specific surface area of 150 m2/m3 (when the media is sufficiently loaded in the
winter season to create a biofilm on it). The mixed liquor is operated at around a 5 day MLSS
MCRT of which 3.25 days is aerobic. The plant has secondary clarifiers.

The total volume of the activated sludge tanks is 7015 m3. Of this, 15 percent is in the two
anaerobic cells (also designated as one preanoxic and one anaerobic) that receive the primary
effluent and the RAS, 20 percent is in the two pre-anoxic cells that also receive the mixed liquor
recycle, and 65 percent (4550 m3) is in the two aerobic cells. Both aerobic cells have the Kaldnes
K1 media that is currently at 30 percent fill (media fill fraction, mf = 30%). Bare media surface
area is 750 m2/m3 on the inside of the cylinder and on the two cross vanes. The biofilm surface area
is 500 m2/m3 based on 1 mm thickness and growth on the inner surface.
The aerobic cells are 4.5 m deep. They are aerated with coarse bubble diffusers that are installed
0.25 m above the floor and concentrated at certain points within a grid on the floor (approximately
10 percent of the floor is covered with diffusers). This results in a roll pattern that is similar to a
quarter point arrangement (WEF Aeration Manual of Practice, 1988; Rooney and Huibregtse,
1980). The media is retained by screens. The plant has two similar parallel trains.
The plant is operated similar to an activated sludge system with additional monitoring for the
media. The plant takes samples of the mixed liquor, strains it through a metal sieve to separate the
media from the MLSS, and measures the MLSS, MLVSS and the amount of growth on the media
(referred to as fixed growth below). To measure the growth, the media with the biofilm is dried
and weighed. Its weight is compared to the weight of bare media without the biofilm.
Alternatively, the oven dried biomass (at 105 C) can be removed by physical scraping or chemical
rinsing and the dry media weighed again to obtain the weight of the biomass. While the plant does
not measure the biofilm thickness on a weekly basis, visual observations show that the biofilm is
thinner in summer than in winter. It is thicker in the first aerobic cell (~ 1 +/- 0.2 mm) than in the
second cell (~ 0.6 mm +/- 0.2 mm).
Plant Data
The operating data for December are shown in Table 1. The primary effluent flow averaged 20,000
m3/d (5.3 MGD). The RAS was 40 percent of this flow (8,000 m3/d). The operator estimated the
nitrate recycle to be 150 percent (30,000 m3/d).
Primary Effluent
The plant measures primary effluent flow and temperature daily; it measures the BOD5, TSS,
NH4N, NO2N and NO3N five times each week; and alkalinity once a week. (Note: in this paper,
NH4N is the sum total of NH3N and NH4N, at a pH of 7, most of it exists as NH4N). The plant
measures the COD/BOD5 ratio once a month. This ratio averaged 2.7 for three years of data
(2004-2006) and was 2.67 for a single sample in December. While there was no measurement of
the TKN in the primary effluent, discussions with AnoxKaldnes indicated that their samples
showed an average TKN of 40 mg/L for the typical primary effluent (110 to 120 mg/L BOD5). A
TKN/NH4N ratio and a TSS/Particulate Organic N ratio were used to generate the TKN levels for
December 2006 (Table 1). Additionally, there were a few measurements which showed that 80
percent of the COD measured was filtered COD. There were no data on the VSS in the primary
effluent. Based on typical data, primary effluent VSS was estimated to be 80-85 % of the TSS.
Aerobic Cells
The plant measures MLSS and MLVSS in the aerobic cells and the amount of biomass in the
biofilm. In December 2006, the MLSS averaged 1630 mg/L and the MLVSS averaged 1270 mg/L,

resulting in a percent VSS of 78%. The fixed biomass averaged 2050 mg/L in the first aerobic
cell and 1104 mg/L in the second aerobic cell. For a cell volume of 2271 m3 and a specific surface
area of 150 m2/m3, this quantity of fixed biomass equates to 13.7 and 7.4 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm
surface, respectively. At a biofilm density of 12.5 kg/m3 (12,500 mg/L), the biofilm thickness
would be 1.1 mm in the first aerobic cell and 0.6 mm in the second cell.
The mixed liquor temperature dropped from 19 C at the beginning of the month to 13 C at the end
of the month. The DO averaged 4.2 mg/L in the first aerobic cell and 5.6 mg/L in the second
aerobic cell. The NH4N and NOxN levels were not measured in the anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic
cells.
Secondary / Plant Effluent
The plant achieved complete nitrification in December 2006 with effluent averages less than 0.2
mg/L for NH4N. The NOxN was 14.4 mg/L of which less than 0.1 mg/L was as NO2N. The
NO3N was higher than expected, the reasons for which are discussed later. The effluent TSS and
VSS in the plant effluent were less than 5 mg/L.
Modeling IFAS in Aquifas
Aquifas can model the biofilm in the IFAS system by two different approaches
a) semi-empirical equations
b) 1 and 2 D biofilm modeling
The advantage of the semi-empirical equations is that computations are much faster, especially in
for dynamic simulation of 31 days of data. The advantage of the 1 and 2D biofilm modeling,
where Aquifas breaks the biofilm up into 12 layers, is that it provides additional data such as the
the biofilm thickness for each cell and biofilm yield. Also, it provides a second method of
computation of flux rates.
Since the semi-empirical equations are calibrated to real life conditions, they provide the requisite
accuracy. The section below presents the results of both models and compares them to each other
and to the plant data.
Aquifas can be run with different levels of primary effluent characterization. For this run, the
influent was characterized as described above, which is similar to requirements for Biowin and
GPS-X models. The denitrification kinetics for the MLVSS (in the absence of media in the
anoxic cells) were based on the estimated value of flocculated filtered biodegradable COD (40% of
the total COD, half the filtered COD) (Mamais et al, 1993). The phosphorus removal mechanisms
in the anaerobic cells were driven by the VFAs in the primary effluent and those generated through
fermentation in the anaerobic cells.
Results from Aquifas
Table 2 shows the average values for December 2006 from the plant and those predicted by a 31
day dynamic simulation using the semi-empirical and biofilm 1D models. The input to the model
is the data in Table 1.
The results of the 31 day dynamic simulation (Table 2 and Figure 3) showed that both the semi-

empirical model and the Biofilm 1D model were able to predict the effluent NH4N, NOxN,
alkalinity and phosphorus. However, there was a higher degree of granularity in the ammonium-N
prediction on a day to day basis with the biofilm 1D model. Additionally, the models were
accurate in their prediction of the average MLSS, MLVSS, percent VSS and WAS production.
The COD, NH4N, NO3N profiles from the semi-empirical model and biofilm 1D models are shown
in Figure 4. Both models predict similar profiles. The removals in the biofilm and the mixed
liquor are shown in Figure 5. The semi-empirical model shows a slightly higher nitrification in the
biofilm while the Biofilm 1D model predicts a slightly higher denitrification in the biofilm. This
explains the slightly better nitrification predicted by the semi-empirical model (closer to the level
measured at the plant) and the slightly higher denitrification in the Biofilm 1D model (lower
effluent NO3N compared to the plant data) shown in Table 2. While additional calibration of the
models to this months data would eliminate this difference for December 2006, the calibration
parameters were selected because they were also appropriate for other months modeled (such as
December 2005 when the plants effluent NO3N was lower 10.5 mg/L).
The analysis of the data for the semi-empirical model showed that 32 % of the TKN taken up
across the reactor (for cell synthesis and nitrification) was taken up by the biofilm as compared to
just 4 % for COD. Therefore, 68 % of the TKN and 96 % of the COD was converted/consumed by
biomass in the mixed liquor VSS. The semi-empirical model showed that 47 % of the nitrification
was in the biofilm (35% for the Biofilm 1D); the remaining 53 % was in the mixed liquor VSS. In
the aerobic zone, the contribution of the biofilm towards denitrification was insignificant. Only 2.5
% of the overall denitrification was in the biofilm (12% for the Biofilm 1D). This is because of the
high DO in the aerobic cells and a fairly high turbulence associated with coarse bubble diffusers.
The turbulence can reduce the depth of the stagnant liquid layer and increase the DO levels within
the biofilm (Figure 6).
The quantity of growth (fixed biomass) measured on media in the two aerobic cells in series
compared satisfactorily to the computed values from the Biofilm 1D model (Table 2). The
substrate, electron acceptor and fraction VSS profiles within the 12 layers inside the biofilm in
aerobic cells 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 6.
Key inputs to Aquifas Biofilm 1D
The user has to provide the model with the information on the MLSS concentration of the biofilm
. This should be based on the measurement of fixed solids and thickness of the biofilm on the
carrier particle in each cell. In this plant, the growth on the carrier particle is measured once each
week in each aerobic cell. The Aquifas Biofilm 2D model requires information on biofilm surface
area changes on each carrier particle based on substrate conditions and biofilm thickness. Figure
6b shows how the surface area can change with the biodegradable soluble COD (SCODbio)
concentrations.
Discussion of Aquifas Model and the Accuracy of Results
In general, the Aquifas semi-empirical model was able to predict the effluent satisfactorily and is
significantly faster to run than other Biofilm 1D models.
In the Aquifas biofilm 1D (also called Aquifas 4), the biofilm is broken up into 12 layers. The
layers that are close to the surface are kept thinner than the deeper layers because substrate

concentrations can change rapidly in the surface layers (Figure 6). The total number of layers is
higher than other models; the variation in thickness across the depth of the biofilm as a function of
the steepness of the substrate profile is an additional feature. The fraction of nitrifiers and VSS are
allowed to vary from layer to layer.
The model computes the thickness of the biofilm based on the substrate and electron acceptor
conditions:
Algorithm to compute biofilm thickness
if NO3N>0.5, then Thickness = Multiplier for Anoxic Thickness * [ if (SCODbio * NO3N) > 50, 50, (SCODbio * NO3N) ] * 10,000 / MLVSS * if (NH4N < 0.25, 4* NH4N, 1) / Shear Factor
if DO>1, then Thickness = Multiplier for Aerobic Thickness * [ if (SCODbio * DO) > 50, 50, (SCODbio * DO) ] * 10,000 / MLVSS * if (NH4N < 0.25, 4* NH4N, 1) / Shear Factor
Max Aerobic Thickness at (SCODbio x DO) of
Max Anoxic Thickness at (SCODbio x NO3N) of
Multiplier for aerobic thickness
Multiplier for anoxic thickness
Shear factor for aerobic
Shear factor for anoxic

50
50
0.1
0.05
4
2

(umhanx/ umhaer)*multiplier for aerobic thickness; will vary with umH from preanoxic to post anoxic
Values range from 1 to 5 for aerobic. Increase with turbulence
Values range from 0.5 to 2.5 for anoxic; function of mixing and liquid velocities relative to aerobic zone

The algorithm allows biofilm thickness to increase in the aerobic cells with the SCODbio and DO
up to an upper limit (value of 50). In the anoxic cells, the biofilm thickness increases with
SCODbio and NOxN in the anoxic cells up to its upper limit. The upper limit is based on
experiences with municipal wastewater treatment systems whose primary effluent COD was less
than 500 mg/L. It may have to be relaxed for industrial wastewater treatment systems that have
higher organic concentrations. The formula is standardized to a biofilm MLVSS of 10,000 mg/L.
The thickness increases inversely in proportion to the MLVSS of the biofilm. The multiplier for
anoxic thickness will decrease based on the ratio of m,anx to m,aer. If the m,anx for biofilm MLVSS
is much lower in the post-anoxic cell than in the pre-anoxic cells, the thickness will be less. This is
consistent with the observations at the pilot study for the Mamaroneck WWTP (Johsnson et al.,
2007). The algorithm has been evaluated against the thickness observed at the Broomfield, CO,
full scale IFAS plant (Sen et al., 2007a).
The shear factor in aerobic cells varies from 1 to 5. It is 1 for systems with low mixing or a media
whose design is conducive to the development of a thick biofilm. It is 5 for systems with very
vigorous mixing and an open media structure (such as the AgarTM media which has rings instead of
a cylinder). Typically, the shear factor applied to the anoxic cells is half the value applied to the
aerobic cells. This can be based on measurement of the velocity of the media along the surface of
the tank relative to the velocity measured in the aerobic cells. (This is done by measuring the time
the media takes to move from point A to B along the surface of the aerobic and anoxic cells).
Finally, the formula adjusts the thickness when NH4N concentrations in a cell drop below 0.25
mg/L. This is to simulate thickness of biofilms that are starved of NH4N. The results for biofilm
growth and thickness are shown in Table 3.
Based on these findings and calibration, the Aquifas model was used in the semi-empirical mode
for running several scenarios. The biofilm 1D model was run for one or two selected scenarios to
verify that the output of the semi-empirical model was consistent with the biofilm 1D model.

Table 1: Primary Effluent and Secondary Effluent Data (31 day period, December 2006)
Flow

Flow

TSS

BOD5

COD

NH4N

SKN

TKN

NO2N

NO3N

Alkalinity

m3/d
18889
23583
20252
19343
19116
18283
20593
19343
17829
20100
19192
19116
18548
17564
18019
19835
18586
21350
18473
19495
19495
19306
19911
20441
17224
18208
20744
20214
20100
20744
20971

MGD
4.99
6.23
5.35
5.11
5.05
4.83
5.44
5.11
4.71
5.31
5.07
5.05
4.9
4.64
4.76
5.24
4.91
5.64
4.88
5.15
5.15
5.1
5.26
5.4
4.55
4.81
5.48
5.34
5.31
5.48
5.54

mg/L
103
103
87
88
92
93
88
103
103
85
93
100
97
101
103
103
91
96
99
94
122
103
103
164
116
142
105
105
103
103
97

mg/L
122
122
122
85
109
114
105
122
122
107
98
136
125
149
122
122
144
110
126
91
154
122
122
189
129
133
94
111
122
122
137

mg/L
325.74
325.74
325.74
226.95
291.03
304.38
280.35
325.74
325.74
285.69
261.66
363.12
333.75
397.83
325.74
325.74
384.48
293.7
336.42
242.97
411.18
325.74
325.74
504.63
344.43
355.11
250.98
296.37
325.74
325.74
365.79

mg/L
27.8
27.8
25.8
24.3
28.3
27.8
28.8
27.8
27.8
25
27
27
32.3
33.8
27.8
27.8
27.3
25.3
28.3
30.3
30.5
27.8
27.8
28
28
28
24.5
25.25
27.8
27.8
28

mg/L
32.0
32.0
29.7
27.9
32.5
32.0
33.1
32.0
32.0
28.8
31.1
31.1
37.1
38.9
32.0
32.0
31.4
29.1
32.5
34.8
35.1
32.0
32.0
32.2
32.2
32.2
28.2
29.0
32.0
32.0
32.2

mg/L
41.7
41.7
37.9
36.3
41.3
40.8
41.5
41.7
41.7
36.8
39.9
40.6
46.4
48.5
41.7
41.7
40.0
38.2
42.0
43.8
46.7
41.7
41.7
47.8
43.2
45.7
38.2
39.0
41.7
41.7
41.4

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

19512

5.15

103

32.0

41.7

122.1935 326.2568 27.79194

<0.00
<0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02

<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.23
0.02

<0.01
0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.03

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02

<0.01
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01

0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02

0.02
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02

0.031111 0.018889

Average concentrations were used on days with no data. These are shown in red.

236

267

249

239

248

Mixed Liquor
MLSS T
C
19.4
19.4
19.4
15.6
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
15.6
15.6
17.2
16.1
16.1
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
13.3
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.3
15.0
15.0
15.0
13.9
14.4
13.3
15.6

NH4N

NO3N

NO2N

MLSS

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

0.15
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.08

15.07
14.24
15.37
16.38
16.38

0.03
0.06
0.03
0.24
0.02

0.09
0.16
0.11
0.87
0.17

16.09
14.79
16.29
19.83
18.07

0.01
0.02
0.01
0.17
0.03

0.23
0.09
0.18
0.18
0.18

13.49
11.38
11.03
11.38
17.49

0.01
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02

10.77
12.68
12.28
12.78
12.77

0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03

13.47

0.03

F
67
67
67
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
60
63
61
61
60
60
60
60
60
56
57
57
57
56
59
59
59
57
58
56

mg/L
1560
1660
1580
1651
1793
1785
1726
1732
1712
1584
1616
1656
1298
1720
1766
1694
1646
1633
1633
1848
1633
1617
1651
1680
1633
1588
1568
1504
1476
1490
1500

0.19

14.4

1633

% VSS

0.77

0.76

0.81

0.78

MLVSS

Alkalinity

mg/L
1214
1291
1229
1284
1395
1389
1343
1347
1332
1232
1257
1288
1010
1338
1374
1318
1280
1270
1270
1438
1270
1258
1284
1307
1270
1235
1220
1170
1148
1159
1167

mg/L

1271

90

78

86

100

97

IFAS, Full Scale Plant B

Plant NH4N

Effluent NH4N, Model &

Plant, mg/L

Plant NH4N

Model Eff NH4N

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2.00

Effluent NH4N, Model &

Plant, mg/L

Model Eff NH4N

IFAS, Full Scale Plant B

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Date of Month, Dec 2006

Date of Month, Dec 2006

IFAS, Full Scale Plant B

IFAS, Full Scale Plant B

Plant NO3N

Model Eff NO3N

Model Eff NO3N

20.0
15.0
NO3N

10.0
5.0

20.0
15.0
NO3N

10.0

0.0

5.0
0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Date of Month, Dec 2006

Date of Month, Dec 2006

IFAS, Full Scale Plant B

Model MLSS

Plant MLSS

Model MLVSS

IFAS, Full Scale Plant B

Plant MLVSS

2000

Model MLSS

MLSS & MLVSS, Model &

Plant, mg/L

MLSS & MLVSS, Model &

Plant, mg/L

Plant NO3N

25.0

Effluent NO3N, Model &

Plant, mg/L

Effluent NO3N, Model &

Plant, mg/L

25.0

1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Date of M onth, Dec 2006

Plant MLSS

Model MLVSS

Plant MLVSS

2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Date of M onth, Dec 2006

Figure 3 Aquifas output: The figures on the column to the left are from the Semi-Empirical Model; the figures in the column to the right are from the Biofilm 1D
model. The diffusion model can offer a higher degree of precision in its ability to predict day to day variations in a dynamic simulation but takes substantially
longer to run. Both models are able to predict the diurnal and 31 day average.

COD Profile

COD Profile

90.0

80.0

SCODbio

70.0

SCOD

80.0

SCODbio

70.0

60.0

COD, mg/L

COD, mg/L

90.0

50.0
40.0
30.0

SCOD

60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0

20.0

20.0

10.0

10.0
0.0

0.0
Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Cells in System

Cells in System

NH4N and SKN Profile

NH4N and SKN Profile

30.0

30.0
NH4N

25.0

NH4N

25.0

SKN

SKN

N, mg/L

20.0
N, mg/L

Aerobic

15.0

20.0
15.0

10.0

10.0

5.0

5.0
0.0

0.0
Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Cells in System

Cells in System

Oxidized N Profile

Oxidized N Profile
14.0

16.0

12.0

NO3N

14.0

NO3N

10.0
N, mg/L

N, mg/L

12.0
10.0
8.0

8.0
6.0

6.0

4.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Cells in System

Cells in System

Figure 4.Substrate profiles for COD, NH4N NO3N. The left hand column is from Semi-Empirical Model; the right hand column is from Biofilm 1D Model

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

3000.000

3000.000

Biofilm

2500.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

Biofilm
COD Uptake, kg/d

COD Uptake, kg/d

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

2000.000
1500.000
1000.000
500.000

2500.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

2000.000
1500.000
1000.000
500.000
0.000

0.000
Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

350.000

350.000
NH4N Uptake, kg/d

Biofilm

300.000
NH4N Uptake, kg/d

Anoxic

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

Mixed Liquor VSS

250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000

300.000

Biofilm

250.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000

50.000

0.000
Anaerobic

0.000
Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Clarifier
Feedwell

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

120.000

120.000
Biofilm

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

Anaerobic

Mixed Liquor VSS

100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0.000

0.000
Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Anaerobic

Anaerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Clarifier
Feedwell

Figure 5.COD Uptake, NH4N uptake and Denitrification in the Biofilm and MLVSS. The left hand column is from Semi-Empirical Model. The right hand column
is from the Biofilm 1D Model.

Table 2
Comparison of 31 Day Average from Dynamic Simulation against Plant Data
Aquifas Semi-Empirical and Biofilm 1D Models
Biofilm
Semi
1D
Empirical
Primary Effluent (Input)
Flowrate, m3/d
Flowrate, MGD
BOD, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
VSS (%)
COD, mg/L
SCOD, mg/L (flocculated)
TKN, mg/L
NH3N, mg/L
TP, mg/L
PO4P, mg/L
IFAS Process (Output)
MLSS, mg/L
MLVSS, mg/L
VSS (%)
DO (First Cell), mg/L
DO (Second Cell), mg/L
MLSS SRT (Oxic), days
Fixed Biomass (First Cell), g/m2
Fixed Biomass (Second Cell), g/m2
WAS TS, lb/d
Secondary Effluent (Output)
BOD, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
TKN, mg/L
NH4N, mg/L
NO3N, mg/L
TP, mg/L
PO4P, mg/L
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
Table 3

Plant
Data

19,512
5.33
122
103
82
326
130
41.7
27.8
5
3

19,512
5.33
122
103
82
326
130
41.7
27.8
5
3

19,512
5.33
122
103

1650
1308
79
4.2
5.6
3.3

4802

1650
1310
79
4.2
5.6
3.3
11.7
8.4
4806

1673
1271
78
4.2
5.6
3.3
13.7
7.4
4800

5.0
5.0
1.3
0.24
13.8
0.1
0.1
100

5.4
5.0
1.4
0.26
12.5
0.1
0.1
104

2.6
4.5

326

Notes

It was assumed that the

filtered flocculated COD
was 50% of measured
soluble COD (SCOD)

27.8

0.19
14.4
0.1
0.1
90

Other than the biomass on

the biofilm, which is
computed at 14 C, the rest
of the data are the average
of 31 day dynamic
simulation.

Effluent TKN is based on

an assumed value of 0.5
mg/L non biodegradable
SKN

Measured and Computed values of Biofilm Growth (Aquifas Biofilm 1D)

Biofilm growth (measured)
13.7
7.4
kg/1000m2/d
Biofilm growth (computed)
11.7
8.4
kg/1000m2/d
Thickness as computed

um

Heterotrophic Yield
Autotrophic Yield
fraction nitrifiers in layer1 of biofilm as used in the model
Biofilm MCRT
days

932

679

0.290
0.038
46.29%
24.3

0.249
0.007
41.13%
51.1

DO
NH4N
NOxN
SCODbio
%VSS /10

14
12
10
8

mg/L

6
4
2
0
-0.5

-2 0

0.5

Distance from Surface of biofilm, mm

DO
NH4N
NOxN
SCODbio
% VSS / 10

14
12
10

mg/L

8
6
4
2
0

-0.4

-0.2

-2 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Distance from Surface of biofilm, mm

Figure 6. Substrate profiles (DO, NH4N, NOxN, SCODbio, and Percent VSS) inside the biofilm in Aerobic Cell 1
(top) and Aerobic Cell 2 (bottom)

Cylinder Dimensions:
Outer Diameter = 10 mm
Length = 10 mm
Thickness of annular ring = 1 mm
Thickness of Cross Vane = 1mm
Hypothetical Carrier Particle
has one vane per cylinder
has several fins/ridges/protruberances

Fin/Ridge/Protruberance

10
mm

Figure 2b. Magnitude of difference in

biofilm surface area for thin and "thick"
biofilms on the same carrier particle of
moving bed or IFAS system.
Thin biofilm

Vane

Thick biofilm

Biofilm surface area is the inner surface of the brown biofilm and outer surface of biofilm between fins/ridges/protruberances

Figure 6b: Effect of substrate concentrations (in this instance, SCOD) on biofilm surface area on a carrier
particle

RESULTS
Tertiary IFAS Configuration (DC WASA type of configuration)
The results shown are for 14,000 m3/d facility with 2090 m3 volume in tertiary tanks, resulting in a HRT of
3.6 hours (which is 1/100th size of DCWASA / Blue Plains). Several configurations were evaluated of
which four are presented in this paper (Table 4):
1. Configuration A with no media, which is how the plant operates today with three aerobic cells (the
third cell is operated with mixing and no aeration except when there is some ammonium-N
bleedthrough in winter), two anoxic cells and reaeration in the channel (Figure 1);
2. Configuration B, where media with a specific surface area of 350 m2/m3 was added to the fourth
and fifth anoxic cells (Table 4);
3. Configuration C, where media was also added to the second aerobic cell (Table 4); and
4. Configuration D, in which Configuration C was operated with 20 percent higher methanol dose in
winter to increase the denitrification rates in the biofilm and the mixed liquor, thereby increasing
the denitrification in the biofilm while maintaining an effluent biodegradable SCOD (SCODbio)
level below that in Configuration A.
The secondary feed strength can vary from summer to winter (Table 5). The results shown in Table 6 are
for the average temperature in March 2005 (15 C liquid temperature) for the influent conditions in Table 5.
The results are shown for normal flow and concentrations in the secondary effluent and for conditions
experienced during wet-weather when the secondary clarifiers release a higher level of TSS and BOD5. It
is important to analyze, understand and evaluate the accuracy of the model under both normal and wetweather conditions because the observations at the plant show an increase in the tertiary effluent NOxN
during and following such wet weather conditions in winter. This has been hypothesized to be the result of
higher concentrations of TSS and BOD5 in the tertiary influent and the operating mode in which the
operators try to maintain the same level of MLSS during all flow conditions, thereby reducing the F/M
ratio (where F includes the COD of the VSS in the tertiary influent). The researchers modeled this
condition, in addition to the normal flow condition and were able to confirm the hypothesis.
The results of the modeling were compared with actual observations. For example, the MLSS MCRT of 10
days in winter and 12.5 to 15 days in summer at MLSS levels less than 2000 mg/L (MLVSS of 1400
mg/L), as computed by the model, were in line with the MLSS and MCRTs observed. In the model, the
maximum post-denitrification rate in the post-anoxic cells in the MLVSS was reduced to 1 kg COD
utilized/kg VSS/d at 25 C with a temperature adjustment coefficient of 1.03 in the Arrhenius equation.
This is lower than the default value of 2 kg COD utilized/kg VSS/d at 25 C used for post anoxic
dentrification. This resulted in a rate of 0.74 /d at 15 C, which was close to value of 0.70 /d computed
using the formula presented by Dold et al. (2007) for the DC WASA facility. (Dold et al., 2007 observed a
rate of 1.3/d at 20 C and a temperature coefficient of 1.13). When the biofilm was introduced, the postanoxic rate was kept at 1.1/d at 15 C, based on rates observed in various denitrification studies with media.
The sensitivity of the computations to rates as low as 0.7/d was also evaluated.
The changes in performance from Configuration A to D are presented in Figures 7 and 8. The addition of
media helped improve the performance substantially under wet-weather conditions in winter. The effluent
oxidized-N decreased from 10.8 mg/L to 4.3 mg/L. The sensitivity of the IFAS configuration to further
reduction in denitrification rates was evaluated in both the MLVSS and the biofilm was modeled.
Reducing the rate to 0.7/d resulted in an increase in effluent NOxN to 5.6 mg/L.
To understand the changes in performance, the COD, NH4N and NOxN profiles and uptake rates are
presented in Figures 9, 10, and 11. Figure 9 shows the improvement in COD removal in the anoxic cells

following addition of media. Figure 10 shows that the addition of media to the second aerobic cell in
Configuration C increased its nitrification rate from 80 kg/d to 150 kg/d. Figure 11 shows that the addition
of media increased the denitrification rate from 80 kg/d to 105 kg/d (total of two cells) from Configuration
A to B. Finally, Figure 11 shows that the increase in methanol dosing from 62.5 mg/L to 75 mg/L as COD
(dose is relative to the influent flow rate) increased the denitrification in the post-anoxic cells from 105
kg/d to 140 kg/d. Despite the additional COD addition with the higher methanol dose, the effluent SCOD
remained below the current configuration (Table 6 and COD profiles in Figures 9) because the addition of
biofilm surface area in the anoxic zones allowed the system to assimilate the methanol. The supplemental
methanol addition is recommended in winter months after high flows are experienced. It helps drive the
biofilm kinetics up and compensate for the loss of methanogens in the MLVSS. Figure 7 shows the
performance of Configuration C at warmer temperatures (20 C and higher). At the average and summer
temperatures, the normal methanol dose maintains an effluent NOxN of 4 mg/L.
The model was also run in a dynamic simulation mode with the daily temperature and flow conditions for
March 2006. The results were consistent with the findings at Broomfield where the model predicted the
effluent conditions over the 31 day period (Figure 3).
Table 4. Evaluation of "Blue Plains" Configuration - Tertiary IFAS with Nitrification and Denitrification

current configuration

Current Config A
Media Config B

Cell 1

Cell 2

Cell 3

aerobic

aerobic

no air

aerobic

aerobic
aerobic,
media
aerobic,
media

no air

aerobic

Media Config C
20% higher Methanol in
winter

Media Config D

aerobic

no air
no air

Cell 4
Methanol
anoxic, C

Cell 5
anoxic

anoxic, C,
media
anoxic, C,
media
anoxic, C,
media

anoxic,
media
anoxic,
media
anoxic,
media

Notes:
1
2
3
4
5

Media evaluated at 350 m2/m3 biofilm surface area

Cells with Media are in yellow
All cells occupy 19.5% of the volume; there is reaeration in a channel that occupies 2.5% of volume
DO levels are 2.0 to 2.5 mg/L in Aerobic Cells
In Configurations A and B, Cell 3 is aerated during winter high flows to help maintain nitrification

Table 5. Tertiary System Influent Characteristics Modeled in Steady State and Dynamic Simulation
Normal
High Flow Daily Max
in 30 day period modeled
Flow
m3/d
14008
15398
18927
TSS
mg/L
20
30
50
BOD5
mg/L
15
24
40
TKN
mg/L
18
19
21
Flows modeled are 1/100 of actual flows at the Blue Plains (DC WASA) plant

Table 6. Results from Aquifas Modeling, Blue Plains Type Tertiary IFAS System
Normal Flow, 15 C
During wet weather, Winter (15 C)
MCRT
SCODbio
NH4N
NOxN
MCRT
SCODbio
NH4N
days
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
days
mg/L
mg/L
Current Configuration A
10
12.3
0.4
9.4
8
10.5
0.8

Comments
NOxN
mg/L
10.8

Third cell aerated during higher loadings in

Media Configuration B

10

7.3

0.6

5.9

6.5

0.4

8.7

Third cell aerated during higher loadings in

Media Configuration C

10

0.1

7.4

6.5

0.3

7.4

Only first two cells are aerated at all flows; N

Media Configuration D

8.5

0.2

4.8

1.1

4.3

Only first two cells are aerated at all flows; N

20% additional methanol dose in winter (16

Plant maintains MLVSS between 1400 and 1500 mg/L in all configurations and at all temperatures
Notes:
1 Plant has observed loss of denitrification during high flows. Measured value of NOxN increases to 12 mg/L
2 Performance improves to 5.4 mg/L NOxN under average conditions at 20 C
3 The plant requires media in one aerobic cell to maintain complete nitrification at high flows while operating with 40% aerobic volume

Tertiary Effluent, IFAS Nit-Denit in One Multi-Cell Reactor

Average Winter Month, 15 C, Normal Flow Conditions

NH4N, mg/L

SCODbio

14

0.7

NOxN

SCOD, NOxN, mg/L

12

0.6

NOxN 20 C
NH4N

10

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
A

Plant Category

Figure 7. A comparison of effluent conditions under average flow and load conditions at 15 C (winter).
Configuration A represents the existing condition
Data on NOxN at 20 C is shown for Configuration C. This is to illustrate that normal methanol dose can maintain low
levels of NOxN (between 3 and 5 mg/L) outside the winter months.
Tertiary Effluent, IFAS Nit-Denit in One Multi-Cell Reactor
Winter Month, 15 C, High Flow & Load Conditions
12

1.2

SCODbio
NOxN

10
SCOD, NOxN, mg/L

NH4N, mg/L

NH4N

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
A

Plant Category

Figure 8. A comparison of effluent conditions under wet weather flow and load conditions at 15 C (winter).
Configuration A represents the existing condition
The increase in NH4N from 0.3 to 1.1 mg/L from Configuration C to D is because of the reduction in MLSS MCRT
from 8 to 6 days. The NOxN decreases from 7.4 to 4.3 mg/L because of the higher methanol dose.

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

COD Profile

40.0

SCODbio

35.0

SCOD
COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

45.0

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

500.000
450.000
400.000
350.000
300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0.000

Anoxic

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Cells in System

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

COD Profile

40.0
35.0

SCODbio

400.000

SCOD

350.000

COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Cells in System

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

COD Profile

40.0
35.0

SCODbio

400.000

SCOD

350.000

COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Cells in System

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

COD Profile

40.0

SCODbio

400.000

35.0

SCOD

350.000

COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

45.0

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic
Cells in System

Anoxic

Anoxic

0.000
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Figure 9. Configurations A through D (top to bottom) - Substrate profiles and uptake rates for COD in the MLVSS and the
Biofilm, as identified by modeling conditions observed during and after high flows in winter
Configuration A: No media in reactor; Cells 1, 2 and 3 operated aerobically, Cells 4 and 5 are anoxic with methanol added to 4
Configuration B: Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically with no media, Cells 4 and 5 are operated anoxically and with media.
Methanol is added to Cell 4). Note the increase in COD uptake associated with denitrification following the addition of media.
Configuration C: Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically; Cells 4 and 5 are anoxic; media is installed in Cells 2, 4 and 5;
methanol added to Cell 4. Media contributes towards nitrification in Cell 2 (Figure 10) which allows complete nitrification in
two cells.
Configuration D - In this configuration, an additional 20% methanol is added in winter to enhance the kinetics of denitrification
(75 mg/L of COD supplement instead of 62.5 mg/L in Configuration C). COD uptake rates in the biofilm in Anoxic Cell 4
increased from 180 to 250 kg/d, resulting in improvement in effluent NOxN. The COD profiles show that because of the
presence of media, the effluent SCOD in Configuration D decreased despite the higher methanol feed.

NH4N and SKN Profile

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

9.0
8.0

NH4N

7.0

SKN

120.000

NH4N Uptake, kg/d

N, mg/L

Biofilm

100.000

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0

Mixed Liquor VSS

80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

0.000
Aerobic

Cells in System

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

NH4N and SKN Profile

9.0
NH4N

7.0

SKN

120.000

6.0
N, mg/L

Biofilm

100.000
NH4N Uptake, kg/d

8.0

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0

Mixed Liquor VSS

80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

NH4N and SKN Profile

9.0
NH4N

7.0

SKN

120.000

6.0

N, mg/L

Biofilm

100.000
NH4N Uptake, kg/d

8.0

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0

Mixed Liquor VSS

80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Cells in System

NH4N and SKN Profile

10.0
9.0

NH4N

8.0
7.0

SKN

NH4N Uptake, kg/d

N, mg/L

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic
Cells in System

Anoxic

Anoxic

100.000
90.000
80.000

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Figure 10. Configurations A through D (top to bottom) - Substrate profiles and uptake rates for NH4N in the MLVSS and the
Biofilm, as identified by modeling conditions observed during and after high flows in winter
Configuration A: No media in reactor; Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically, Cells 4 and 5 are anoxic; methanol added to Cell 4
Configuration B: Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically, Cells 4 and 5 are operated anoxically and with media; methanol is
added to Cell 4.
Configuration C: Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically; Cells 4 and 5 are anoxic; media is installed in Cells 2, 4 and 5;
methanol added to Cell 4. Note that media contributes towards nitrification in Cell 2 which allows complete nitrification in two
cells (differences between Configuration B and C).
Configuration D - In this configuration, an additional 20% methanol is added in winter to enhance the kinetics of denitrification.
75 mg/L of COD supplement is added instead of 62.5 mg/L in Configuration C. MLSS MCRT has to be reduced to 6 days to
maintain the operating MLSS. This increases the effluent NH4N during winter wet weather.

Oxidized N Profile

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

14.0

60.000

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

12.0
NO3N

N, mg/L

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Biofilm
50.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Oxidized N Profile

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

14.0
45.000

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

12.0
NO3N

N, mg/L

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

40.000

Biofilm

35.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Oxidized N Profile

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

14.0
60.000

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

12.0
NO3N

N, mg/L

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Biofilm

50.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000

Anoxic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Oxidized N Profile

Aerobic

Aerobic

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

12.0

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

70.000
10.0

NO3N

N, mg/L

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Anoxic

Anoxic

Biofilm

60.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Figure 11. Configurations A through D (top to bottom) - Substrate profiles and uptake rates for NOxN in the MLVSS and the
Biofilm, as identified by modeling conditions observed during and after high flows in winter
Configuration A: No media in reactor; Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically, Cells 4 and 5 are anoxic with methanol added to 4
Configuration B: Cells 1 and, 2 are operated aerobically with no media, Cells 4 and 5 are operated anoxically; media is installed
in Cells 4 and 5. Note the increase in denitrification from 80 to 110 kg/d (sum total of two anoxic cells) following the addition
of media.
Configuration C: Cells 1 and 2 are operated aerobically; Cells 4 and 5 are anoxic; media is installed in Cells 2, 4 and 5;
methanol added to Cell 4. Media contributes towards nitrification in Cell 2 (Figure 10) which allows complete nitrification in
two cells.
Configuration D - In this configuration, an additional 20% methanol is added in winter to enhance the kinetics of denitrification
(75 mg/L of COD supplement instead of 62.5 mg/L in Configuration C). In Cell 4, denitrification rates in the biofilm in Anoxic
Cell 4 increased from 33 to 44 kg/d; denitrification rates in the MLSS increased from 52 to 62 kg/d; improvement in
denitrification rates result in an improvement in effluent NOxN from 7.4 to 4.3 mg/L.

Tertiary MBBR and IFAS as alternatives in a New Tertiary Reactor

In the second example that is based on a plant in Harrisburg, PA, a new reactor can be added downstream
of high rate system for BOD removal. Table 7 shows three of the alternatives that were evaluated. In
Alternative 1, the new nitrification tank is to be designed as a nitrification MBBR. In Alternative 2, the
same volume is to be used for nitrification and denitrification in the MBBR. In Alternative 3, a RAS is
added to Alternative 2 and the facility is operated as an IFAS system. Supplemental carbon is added at a
dose of 50 mg/L of COD in terms of the influent flow to the third cell.
Table 8 shows the tertiary influent conditions that were modeled. These strengths are more typical of
winter conditions when the secondary treatment system is not operating as effectively as in summer and
the plant may be operated at higher flows.
Table 7. Evaluation of Tertiary MBBR and IFAS in One Multi-Cell Reactor for Nitrification and Denitrification
Cell 1

Cell 2

Cell 3

Cell 4

Cell 5

Alternative 1

Nitrification MBBR, no denit

aerobic

aerobic

aerobic

aerobic

aerobic

Alternative 2
Alternative 3

MBBR with Nit and Denit

IFAS with Nit and Denit

aerobic
aerobic

aerobic
aerobic

anoxic, C
anoxic, C

anoxic
anoxic

aerobic
aerobic

Notes:
1
2
3
4

Media evaluated at 150 m2/m3 biofilm surface area (30 % fill) in Alternatives 1 and 3
Capacity can be increased in the future by increasing the fill to 66%
Supplemental Carbon is added to Cell 3 in Alternatives 2 and 3
Media evaluated at 200 and 250 m2/m3 biofilm surface area (40 to 50% fille) in Alternative 2

Table 8. Tertiary System Influent Characteristics

Modeled in Steady State and Dynamic Simulation
Flow
TSS
BOD5
NH4N
TKN
NOxN

m3/d
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

14000
25
25
12
16
0

Table 9. Results from Aquifas Modeling of Tertiary MBBR and IFAS alternatives for N removal integrated in one tank
Reactor
Average Load, 10 C
SCOD added ltered effluent
MLSS MCRT
HRT
MLSS
Media SSA
as Methanol SCODbio
NH4N
MCRT, days
days
mg/L
m2/m3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Alternative 1 Nit MBBR
0.15
0.15
29
150
0
13
0.4

Comments
NOxN
mg/L
11.5

All cells are aerobic

Alternative 2a Nit-Denit MBBR

Alternative 2b Nit-Denit MBBR

0.15

0.15

43
55

200
250

50
62.5

17.8
20.2

1.5
0.7

5.8
4.7

First two cells aerobic, next two cells an

Media specific surface area increased t

Alternative 3a Nit-Denit IFAS

Alternative 3b Nit-Denit IFAS

4.00
4.00

0.15
0.15

990
1070

150
150

50
62.5

3.5
3.8

0.2
0.2

6.6
4.5

First two cells aerobic, next two cells an

Notes:
1 Effluent SBOD5 estimated to be 67% of SCODbio
2 Effluent NOxN can be reduced in MBBR by increasing anoxic biofilm specific surface area together with the methanol dose
3 MBBRs need chemical coagulation and clarification; IFAS needs clarifiers

Table 9 shows the reactor HRT and MLSS MCRT, media specific surface area, MLSS and effluent quality
computed for the three alternatives. The media specific surface area was the same in all cells. These
results at 10 C and are summarized in Figure 12.

In Alternative 1, the MBBR achieves complete nitrification and discharges an effluent NH4N less
than 1 mg/L and NOxN of 11.5 mg/L. The MLSS in the effluent from the MBBR is 25 mg/L for
the tertiary influent conditions. The MLSS is such that a plant can consider the option of
discharging directly to a denitrification filter designed to handle 20 to 30 mg/L TSS.
In Alternative 2, the MBBR was modified to operate with two aerobic cells and two anoxic cells
followed by the reaeration cell. The media fill had to be increased to increase the biofilm specific
surface area from 150 to 200 m2/m3. The effluent NH4N was 1.5 to 2 mg/L. The performance can
be improved further to decrease the effluent NH4N to less than 1 mg/L by increasing the specific
surface area to 250 m2/m3. The addition of methanol increased the MLSS in the reactor effluent
from 25 mg/L to 35 mg/L. Removing the additional MLSS on a filter (instead of settling in a
tertiary clarifier) can be a challenge unless the filter is designed to accommodate the higher
loadings. Typically, a plant would use a coagulant and settle the MLSS in tertiary clarifiers. One
of the concerns is the effluent soluble COD from 13 to 18 mg/L. This can be reduced by increasing
the biofilm specific surface area in the reaeration cell. At the same time, it should be noted that 10
C is the lowest temperature. The performances are substantially better at higher temperatures.
In Alternative 3, a RAS was introduced to increase the MLSS MCRT from 0.15 day to 4 days by
converting to an IFAS configuration. The media specific surface area was kept the same as in
Alternative 1 (150 m2/m3). This helped reduce the effluent soluble biodegradable COD from 15+
mg/L in Alternative 2 to less than 4 mg/L (Table 9). The effluent NH4N improved to less than 0.5
mg/L. The plant achieved good denitrification and can achieve between 2 and 7 mg/L NOxN,
depending on the methanol dose added. The disadvantage of Alternative 3 is that it requires a
secondary clarifier. This is a tradeoff against a denitrification filter which is not necessary with the
IFAS system. The activated sludge portion is a proven element (DC WASA) and the biofilm is a
recently proven element (Broomfield).
Figures 13, 14, and 15 show the COD, NH4N and NOxN profiles and the uptake rates for the three
alternatives. The combination of media with MLVSS in the IFAS configuration in Alternative 3 increases
the ammonium-N uptake rates more than 50 percent in the first two aerobic cells over that computed in
Alternative 1 where the removal in the MLVSS is insignificant. Both of these alternatives are operated at
the same media specific surface area.
Tertiary Effluent from Nitr MBBR (1), Nit-Denit MBBR (2a & 2b), Nit-Denit IFAS (3a & 3b)
in One Multi-Cell Reactor (Total Volume is Constant for all Alternatives)
Temperature of 10 C

30

SCOD, NH4N, NOxN, mg/L

25

33

45

990

1060

MLSS

25
20
SCODbio
NH4N

15

NOxN
10
5
0
1 Nit MBBR

2a Nit-Denit MBBR

2b Nit-Denit MBBR, higher

Methanol + Media

3a Nit-Denit IFAS

3b Nit+Denit IFAS, higher

Methanol

Plant Category

Figure 12. Effluent quality and MLSS resulting from conversion of a MBBR sized for Nitrification (Alternative 1) to a MBBR
Nitrification and Denitrification (Alternatives 2a and 2b) and an IFAS (3a and 3b) while operating with the same volume.
Note that while the effluent NOxN improves from Alternative 1 to 3b, the effluent MLSS discharged from the reactor
also increases. This has implications on the clarifier requirements.

COD Profile

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

40.0
35.0

SCODbio

160.000

SCOD

140.000

COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

120.000
Biofilm

100.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

0.000

Aerobic

Aerobic

Cells in System

COD Profile

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

70.0

50.0

SCODbio

350.000

SCOD

300.000
COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

60.0

40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0

250.000

Biofilm
Mixed Liquor VSS

200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

0.000

Aerobic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

COD Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

COD Profile

35.0

SCODbio

350.000

30.0

SCOD

300.000

Biofilm

250.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

COD Uptake, kg/d

COD, mg/L

40.0

25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic
Cells in System

Anoxic

Aerobic

0.000
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Figure 13. COD profiles and COD uptake in Alternatives 1 (top), 2 (middle) and 3 (bottom) at 10 C.
Note:
1. The COD uptake rates in Cell 3 increased following addition of methanol from Alternative 1 (140 kg/d,
Cell 3 is Aerobic) to Alternative 2 (300 kg/d, Cell 3 is Anoxic) and Alternative 3 (420 kg/d, Anoxic IFAS)
2. The COD uptake rates in the MLVSS exceed the biofilm following conversion from MBBR (Alternative 2)
to IFAS (Alternative 3)
3. The soluble biodegradable COD in the last aerobic cell (which corresponds to the effluent) decreased from
15+ mg/L to < 5 mg/L following conversion to IFAS

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

NH4N and SKN Profile

12.0

60.000

NH4N

10.0

SKN

NH4N Uptake, kg/d

N, mg/L

Biofilm

50.000

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0

Mixed Liquor VSS

40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

0.000
Aerobic

Cells in System

Aerobic

Aerobic

70.000

NH4N

Biofilm

60.000

SKN

NH4N Uptake, kg/d

N, mg/L

Aerobic

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

NH4N and SKN Profile

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0

Aerobic

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Mixed Liquor VSS

50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

0.000

Aerobic

Aerobic

Cells in System

NH4N and SKN Profile

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

NH4N Uptake in Biofilm and MLVSS (kg/d)

7.0
60.000

NH4N

6.0

SKN
NH4N Uptake, kg/d

N, mg/L

Biofilm

50.000

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0

Mixed Liquor VSS

40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic
Cells in System

Anoxic

Aerobic

0.000
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Figure 14. NH4N profiles and uptake in Alternatives 1 (top), 2 (middle) and 3 (bottom) at 10 C.
Note:
1. The NH4N uptake rate in Aerobic Cells 1 and 2 increased almost in proportion to the increase in the biofilm
specific surface area when it was increased from 150 m2/m3 in Alternative 1 to 200 m2/m3 in Alternative 2.
2. The NH4N uptake rate in the MLVSS increased following conversion from MBBR (Alternative 2) to IFAS
(Alternative 3). The sum total of NH4N uptake in the MLVSS and biofilm is higher in the IFAS (165 kg/d in
Aerobic Cells 1 and 2) than the Nitrification MBBR (100 kg/d)
3. The effluent NH4N decreased following conversion to IFAS.

Oxidized N Profile

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

14.0
6.000
Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

12.0

NO3N
N, mg/L

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0

Biofilm

5.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000

0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Cells in System

Oxidized N Profile

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

8.0

45.000

N, mg/L

6.0

Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

7.0
NO3N

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

40.000

Biofilm

35.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Cells in System

Oxidized N Profile

Denitrification in Biofilm and MLVSS

9.0

30.000
Oxidized N Denitrified, kg/d

8.0
7.0
N, mg/L

6.0

NO3N

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic
Cells in System

Anoxic

Aerobic

Biofilm
25.000

Mixed Liquor VSS

20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
Aerobic

Aerobic

Anoxic

Anoxic

Aerobic

Figure 15. Oxidized N profiles and uptake rates in Alternatives 1 (top), 2 (middle) and 3 (bottom) at 10 C.
Note
1. The denitrification in Cell 3 increased from 4 to 40 kg/d following its conversion from aerobic (Alternative
1) to anoxic (Alternative 2) and increasing the biofilm specific surface area from 150 to 200 m2/m3.
2. The denitrification rates in the MLVSS increased following conversion from MBBR (Alternative 2) to IFAS
(Alternative 3). In Alternative 3, the rates were limited by the availability of biodegradable SCOD (also see
Figure 13).
3. Increasing the methanol dose to the IFAS configuration in Alternative by 25 percent (from 50 to 62.5 mg/L)
reduced the effluent oxidized-N from 6.6 to 4.5 mg/L (shown in Table 9).

DISCUSSION
There are several reasons why biofilm support media is attractive for denitrification in post-anoxic zone of
an existing tertiary activated sludge system and also in secondary systems. In post-anoxic application, it is
possible to use higher high fill volume fraction of moving bed media because of the absence of a forward
flux from a nitrate recycle flow passing through the cell. In pre-anoxic cells, nitrate recycle increases
forward flux of media, causing media to accumulate at the downstream end. This makes it difficult to
apply higher fill volume fractions (> 50%) in pre-anoxic cells.
In an IFAS mode, the combination of MLVSS and biofilm enhances the oxygen uptake rate and drives
down the DO. This improves denitrification rates. Overall, the system can maintain a higher fraction of
methanogenic denitrifiers in the MLVSS because of continuous sloughing and seeding from the biofilm.
Further, the ability to grow bacteria in the biofilm in the post-anoxic cells may allow the methanogenic
denitrifier populations to build up the requisite enzyme system and seed the MLVSS through their
sloughing. The system may be less sensitive to temperature than activated sludge systems.
In the instance where new nitrification tanks are being added, the choices for the process configuration
depend on the operator and the engineer. One could go with a nitrification MBBR followed by a
denitrification filter (thereby eliminating the tertiary clarifier) if the denitrifying filter is designed to handle
25 to 30 mg/L of TSS. One could also go with an IFAS system that achieves high levels of nitrification
and denitrification and requires clarifiers that are sized similar to the clarifiers in the secondary treatment
system. The IFAS system has the ability to achieve higher levels of performance in terms of both
ammonium-N and oxidized-N removal and achieve lower levels of effluent soluble BOD. Alternatively,
one could stay with the MBBR for both nitrification and denitrification in a multi-cell reactor and design
high rate clarifiers with lamella plates of tubes when space is a constraint if the MLSS levels coming out of
the anoxic MBBR are too high for filters. Unlike an IFAS, the MBBRs may need a chemical coagulant to
coalesce residual fine particulates and biomass sloughed off the bioflm to improve the settling.
These findings can also be extended to secondary treatment systems operating in an ENR configuration. It
is possible that the quantity of denitrification achieved in the post-anoxic cells can be increased
significantly following the addition of media. This is not only because of denitrification by the biofilm but
also because of the additional and more stable population of methanogenic denitrifiers in the ENR system.
The methanol dose requirements may begin to approach the stoichiometric levels when the media is added
to secondary ENR systems.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Introduction of moving or mobile bed biofilm media with specific surface areas of 300 to 350
m2/m3 in post-anoxic zones of activated sludge plants can increase the volumetric denitrification
rates by 30 to 50% (activated sludge versus IFAS configuration).
2. Conversion from a nitrification MBBR to an IFAS mode can increase the volumetric nitrification
rate by 150 to 200 percent. This increase can reduce the aerobic volume requirements in half. The
magnitude of the increase depends on the media specific area. However, unlike a tertiary MBBR
for nitrification which may go directly to a denitrification filter, IFAS may need its own clarifier.
3. Integration of biofilm and activated sludge in the post anoxic cell of secondary treatment facilities
can be an attractive alternative for land-locked plants that have to upgrade their performance for
Enhanced Nutrient Removal (reduce TN from 10 to 3 mg/L). The volumes required for
nitrification and denitrification can be reduced.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the help and assistance from the staff of the Broomfield WWTP,
the process engineering team at Black & Veatch, and from Anox Kaldnes. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the help from DCWASA, and the funding and support of nitrogen evaluation alternatives in
Pennsylvania from USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program, PA DEP and Virginia Tech.
REFERENCES
AQUASIM 2.1 Model (2007) http://www.aquasim.eawag.ch/
Aquifas Model (2007) www.Aquifas.com
BioWin Model (2007) www.envirosim.com
GPSX Model (2007) http://www.hydromantis.com
Aeration (1988) Manual of Practice FD-13; Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, VA
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. Comprehensive Financial Report, 2000. Paul Bender.
Dold, P., Takacs, I., Mokhayeri, Y., Nichols, A., Hinojosa, J., Riffat, R., Bailey, W., Murthy, S. (2007)
Denitrification with Carbon Addition Kinetic Considerations. Nutrient 2007; Water Env Federation, 218238, Baltimore, MD.
Johnson, T. L.; Shaw, A.; Landi, A.; Lauro, T.; Butler, R; Radko, L. (2007). A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and
MBBR to Achieve Very Low Total Nitrogen Concentrations. Submitted to Water Practice, 2007;
Proceedings: Nutrient 2007. Water Env Federation, 521-535, Baltimore, MD.
Reichert, P. (1998a) AQUASIM 2.0. User Manual. Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and
Technology (EAWAG), Dbendorf, Switzerland.
Reichert, P. and Wanner, O. (1997) Movement of solids in biofilms: significance of liquid phase transport. Water
Science and Technology 36(1) pp. 321-328.
Rooney, T. C.; Huibregtse, G. L. (1980) Increased Oxygen Transfer Efficiency with Coarse Bubble Diffusers. J.
Water Pollut. Control Fed. 52, 9, 2315-2326.
Rutt, K.; Seda, J.; Johnson, C. H (2006) Two Year Case Study of Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) at
Broomfield, CO, WWTP. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical
Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Dallas, Oct 21-25; Water Env. Fed.:Alexandria, VA, 225-239.
Mamais, D.; Jenkins, D.; Pitt, P. (1993) A rapid physical-chemical method for the determination of readily
biodegradable soluble COD in municipal wastewater. Water Research 27 pp. 195-197.
Sen, D.; Copithorn, R. R.; Randall, C. W. (2006) Successful Evaluation of Ten IFAS and MBBR facilities by
Applying the Unified Model to Quantify Biofilm Surface Area Requirements for Nitrification, Determine its
Accuracy in Predicting Effluent Characteristics, and Understand the Contribution of Media towards
Organics Removal and Nitrification. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment Federation
Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Dallas, Oct 21-25; Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, VA, 185-199.
Sriwiriyarat, T.; Randall, C.W; Sen, D. (2005) Computer Program Development for the Design of Integrated Fixed
Film Activated Sludge Processes. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 11, November 2005,
1540-1549
Wanner, O; Eberl, H; Morgenroth, E; Noguera, D; Picioreanu, C; Rittman, B; Loosdrecht, M.V. (2006).
Mathematical Modeling of Biofilms. IWA Task Group on Biofilm Modeling. Scientific and Technical Report
18. IWA Publishing, London.
Wanner, O. and Reichert, P. (1996) Mathematical modeling of mixed-culture biofilms. Biotechnolology and
Bioengineering 49 pp. 172-184.
WERF (2003) Melcer, H.; Dold, P.L.; Jones, R.M.; Bye, C.M.; Takacs, I.; Stensel, H.D.; Wilson, A.W.; Sun, P.;
Bury, S.; Methods for Wastewater Characterization in Activated Sludge Modeling. Final Report. Project 99WWF-3.