Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Process Biochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/procbio

An integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor (IAAB) for the treatment of palm oil

mill effluent (POME): Start-up and steady state performance
Yi Jing Chan, Mei Fong Chong ∗ , Chung Lim Law
School of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia

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

Article history: Palm oil mill effluent (POME) with average chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen
Received 28 April 2011 demand (BOD) of 70,000 and 30,000 mg/L, respectively, can cause serious environmental hazards if dis-
Received in revised form 31 October 2011 charged untreated. There are conventional palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment systems that require
Accepted 12 December 2011
large footprint, long HRT and fail to meet the Malaysian Department of Environment (DOE) discharge
Available online 24 December 2011
limit. Hence, the current research is aimed to design a novel integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor
(IAAB) for POME treatment in order to overcome these shortcomings of the conventional system. IAAB
Keywords:
is a new bioreactor configuration which integrates anaerobic and aerobic digestion in one reactor. The
Palm oil mill effluent (POME)
Anaerobic
overall removal efficiencies in steady state condition in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD), bio-
Aerobic chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) were more than 99% at the organic
Wastewater loading rate (OLR) of 10.5 g COD/L day with methane yield of 0.24 L CH4 /g COD removed. The effluent
Start-up quality remained stable (BOD < 70 mg/L) and complied with the discharge limit (BOD < 100 mg/L). Over-
all, the IAAB system exhibited good stability and pH adjustment was unnecessary. The results show
that the IAAB achieves higher performance in terms of organic removal efficiency and methane yield at
higher OLR and shorter HRT as compared to the conventional system. Further evaluations of its long-term
performance are proposed for the subsequent study.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to the environment. In order to obviate these problems, improved

The palm oil industry in Malaysia has grown by leaps and
bounds over the last four decades. Malaysia currently accounts for
39% of world palm oil production and 44% of world exports [1].
Due to this high production, a large quantity of polluted wastew-
ater, commonly referred to as palm oil mill effluent (POME) is
generated. If the effluent is discharged untreated, it can cause
significant environmental impact due to its high biochemical oxy-
gen demand (BOD) (25,000 mg/L), chemical oxygen demand (COD)
(53,630 mg/L), oil and grease (O&G) (8370 mg/L), and total solids
(43,635 mg/L) [2]. Therefore, a cost-effective treatment of POME to
an acceptable level for discharge continues to be a big challenge to
the industry.
The most common POME treatment systems are ponding sys-
tem and open tank digester. More than 85% of palm oil mills use
solely ponding systems due to their low costs [3]. Nonetheless,
these methods for treatment of POME have several disadvantages
such as long hydraulic retention time (HRT), large areas of lands or
digester are required and difficulty in collecting and utilizing the
methane generated, which causes a detrimental greenhouse effect
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8924 8347; fax: +60 3 8924 8017.
E-mail address: MeiFong.Chong@nottingham.edu.my (M.F. Chong).
high-rate anaerobic bioreactors, which have higher treatment effi-
ciency and smaller foot print have been tested in the treatment of
POME. These include anaerobic filter and anaerobic fluidized bed
bioreactor [4]; two stage upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
bioreactor [5]; modified anaerobic baffled bioreactor [6,7]; upflow
anaerobic filter [8] and up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket fixed film
(UASFF) bioreactor [9]. Experimental results indicate that these
high rate anaerobic bioreactors give better treatment efficiencies at
shorter HRT compared to conventional practices. However, there is
still lacking large scale implementation of such improved systems
because of their unsatisfactory performances and/or high operating
costs [10].
On the other hand, the aerobic treatment efficiency of POME
was investigated by using: fungus Trichoderma viride in the fermen-
tation of POME [11]; a tropical marine yeast (Yarrowia lipolytica)
NCIM 3589 in the degradation of POME in a lagoon [12]; trick-
ling filter [13]; rotating biological contactors [14]; and activated
sludge process with a diffused aeration system [15]. Nevertheless,
aerobic treatment system is not suitable for treating high organic
strength wastewater especially raw POME. This high organic
level makes aerobic treatment on its own difficult to achieve the
desired treatment performance technically and economically.
Moreover, the raw POME’s BOD:N:P ratio of 100:3:0.8 is slightly
nutrient deficient for aerobic treatment, as the minimum nutrient

1359-5113/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2011.12.005
486 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495

requirement for aerobic growth in terms of BOD:N:P ratio is 100:5:1

[16].
Consequently, prior to aerobic treatment, anaerobic process
should be used to reduce the organic strength of POME. Some of the
palm oil mills have adopted open tank digester and extended aera-
tion systems in POME treatment. In this system, POME is treated in
a two phase anaerobic digestion process followed by extended aer-
ation in a pond which requires a HRT of about 40 days. If properly
operated and maintained, this treatment system is able to meet the
discharge limit [2]. Although these combined anaerobic–aerobic
systems show great potential in treating POME efficiently, the con-
straints lie on the availability of sufficient land for building the
ponds and the length of the HRT taken to treat the POME. Hence,
treating POME within a short period of time at reduced space utility
by using a high-rate integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor may
offer a viable solution to the treatment problems.
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the high-rate
integrated bioreactors which combine the aerobic and anaerobic
processes in a single reactor. It has been reported that a combi-
nation of aerobic and anaerobic degradation pathways in a single
reactor is capable of enhancing the overall degradation efficiency
of the system [17]. The integrated bioreactors are cost effective,
efficient and have smaller foot prints as compared to the aforemen-
tioned anaerobic–aerobic systems [17]. Nonetheless, the design,
operation and process development of integrated bioreactors are
still in its infancy and limited to a few studies. Thus, the objective
of the current study is to propose a novel bioreactor configuration
which is the integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor (IAAB) that
operates as a single treatment unit. The IAAB is aimed to remove
organic matter from POME to produce effluent which is suitable
for discharge while producing methane gas as a source of renew-
able energy. The design, start-up and steady state performance of
this newly proposed bioreactor is addressed in detail in the present
study.

2. Integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor (IAAB)

2.1. Bioreactor configuration and setup

The basic configuration of the IAAB is depicted in Fig. 1. It is a sin-

gle bioreactor configuration with compartmentalization in which
the first, second and last compartment are designed for anaero-
bic process (23 L), aerobic process (24 L) and sedimentation (8 L),
respectively.

2.2. Anaerobic system

The design of this anaerobic compartment incorporates the

technology of upflow anaerobic filter and UASB, which is a hybrid
anaerobic bioreactor, or known as UASFF bioreactor. The lower part
of the anaerobic compartment as shown in Fig. 1(a) is the UASB
portion where sludge bed is developed. The sludge is composed by
different microbial species responsible for the conversion of organic
matter into methane and carbon dioxide. The middle part serves
as a fixed film bioreactor and is randomly packed with ceramic
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram and (b) actual view of the IAAB system.
Bio-rings [18,19], functioning as biomass immobilizer to reduce
the loss of sludge. The top part of the anaerobic compartment is a
square pyramid which serves as a gas–liquid–solid separator (GLSS) bacterial cells with very little loss of bacteria from the bioreactor.
to allow separation of the biogas and washed out solids from the The use of packing media in the middle section mitigates chan-
liquid phase. In general, the sludge bed occupies 65% of the total neling problem and loss of biomass due to flotation associated
bioreactor volume, 20% of the total volume is provided for packing with the poor performance of UASB bioreactors. The immobilized
media and GLSS occupies remaining 15% of the total volume. biomass which forms biofilm in the packing media provides greater
Taking into consideration the slow growth rate of many biomass surface area to be in contact with the wastewater, play-
anaerobic microorganisms particularly methanogens, an efficient ing an important role in improving treatment efficiency. A study
anaerobic bioreactor must be designed to have high retention of by Najafpour et al. [9] showed that UASFF successfully achieved a
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495 487

high COD removal of 89% in the treatment of high strength POME at Table 1
Characteristics of POME.
high OLR (23.15 g COD/L day) and short HRT (1.5 days). Apart from
this, the UASFF bioreactor has also been implemented successfully Parameter Units Average Range
for the treatment of other industrial wastewaters, such as slaugh- pH – 4.5 ± 0.10 4.18–4.7
terhouse, swine and starchy wastewater [9,20,21]. Hence, the use BOD mg/L 30,100 ± 10,391 19,100–46,700
of UASFF bioreactor is invariably a good strategy to retain high COD mg/L 70,000 ± 7612 65,900–85,300
biomass concentration and achieve high COD removal efficiency TSS mg/L 28,900 ± 3065 24,200–34,300
TN mg/L 980 ± 50 900–1050
in a short period of time. All these advantages offered by the UASFF
TP mg/L 608 ± 81 690–910
have prompted the adoption of this technology in the IAAB. VFA mg/L 470 ± 240 300–870
However, the UASFF may face clogging problems within the Oil and grease mg/L 10,540 ± 1000 8700–13,800
packing due to the continuous loading of organic matter and sus-
pended solids after a long operation [22]. As a result, the active
3.2. Operating procedure
volume of the bioreactor decreases and thus it limits the treatment
capacity of the process. Furthermore, part of the bioreactor volume The process flow diagram (PFD) of the POME treatment using IAAB system is
may then be operated as a “dead zone”, decreasing the retention shown in Fig. 2. From the 24 L feed tank (T101), POME as substrate was continu-
time of wastewater in the bioreactor as well as the degree of contact ously fed to the anaerobic compartment through the base using a peristaltic feed
between incoming substrates and the viable microbial populations. pump (P101) (Watson-Marlow, England). In order to achieve a homogeneous and
uniform distribution of substrate along the sludge bed, the wastewater was recircu-
This condition may even worsen as high TSS concentration in POME
lated from W1 to the bottom of the anaerobic compartment, R1 using a peristaltic
will provoke bed clogging. Gas clogging in the packing material has pump (P102) (Longer pump, China). The wastewater flowed upward and overflowed
also been reported [23]. To mitigate the clogging problems, mod- into the aerobic compartment for further aerobic biodegradation. Air was supplied
ification has been made on the packing section, where a hollow to the aerobic compartment through a membrane diffuser. The aerobically treated
wastewater entered the settling compartment for further separation of sludge. This
channel is structured vertically in the middle of the packing media
settling compartment was designed with a hopper at the bottom for settling process
as shown in Fig. 1(a). Hence, the biomass immobilization can still and subdivided into two parts by a baffle. The treated effluent from the aerobic com-
be achieved in the packing media with the hollow channel ensur- partment which contained high suspended solids flowed downwards as directed by
ing smooth flow of effluent out from the anaerobic compartment the baffle. The suspended solids then settled into the hopper section. A blanket was
as well as the biogas into the GLSS. formed in the deposition zone of the hopper due to the high solids concentration. A
clear separation interface existed between the solid phase and the liquid phase. The
Undoubtedly, the GLSS system is an imperative part of the
level of the interface moved downwards as a result of the sedimentation of the sludge
bioreactor design and construction. Proper design of this device is blanket. Because of the 45◦ turn out angle, the baffle caused the clarified effluent to
necessary to retain maximum sludge in the bioreactor to affirm rise to the discharge point. After the sludge blanket had formed, a portion of the set-
high solid retention time (SRT) and to facilitate treatment with tled sludge was wasted from the bottom of the settling column, W2. The remaining
portion was recycled to R2 in the aerobic compartment by using returned activated
short HRT. In this study, the GLSS system in the IAAB was designed
sludge pump (P103) (Watson-Marlow, England). Finally, the clarified wastewater
according to the guidelines given by Lettinga and Hulshoff which was discharged at the top of the settling tank. A gas sampling port was provided
has been proven to be efficient [9,24,25]. for the determination of biogas composition by using a biogas analyser (GFM 416
series, UK). The GLSS was connected to a water displacement system to measure the
volume of biogas produced. Seven sampling ports (SP1–SP7) were placed at suitable
2.3. Aerobic system and sedimentation distances along the height of the anaerobic compartment to facilitate sampling of
the sludge (Fig. 2). Besides, sludge samples in aerobic compartment were collected
for the analysis of MLVSS concentration and SVI through SP8. In case of a treatment
Aerobic biodegradation of the anaerobically digested POME system disorder, sludge samples will be collected from SP9 and SP10 for the MLVSS
takes place in the second compartment of the IAAB. In the aerobic concentration and SVI analysis in order to examine the quality and settleability of
compartment design, an activated sludge technology is employed. the activated sludge in the settling compartment.
The aerobic treatment system consists of the following three basic
3.3. Seed sludge
components: (i) an aerobic compartment in which the microorgan-
isms responsible for treatment are kept in suspension and aerated, The anaerobic compartment was inoculated with anaerobic sludge obtained
(ii) liquid–solids separation in the settling compartment, (iii) a from an anaerobic pond treating POME in Kajang, Malaysia. Meanwhile, the aerobic
returned activated sludge (RAS) system for returning solids that compartment was inoculated with the acclimatized activated sludge obtained from
are removed from the settling compartment back to the aerobic the laboratory scale sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treating anaerobically digested
POME. Both the anaerobic and aerobic sludge were preserved at temperature of
compartment. about 4 ◦ C in order to prevent the sludge from undergoing biodegradation. The char-
Returning the thickened sludge is an essential feature of the acteristics of anaerobic and aerobic sludge are presented in Table 2. VSS/TSS ratio
process as without the solids’ feedback, it would not be possi- is the volatile fraction which denotes the biologically active portion of the solids in
ble to maintain the desired biomass concentration in the aerobic the sludge.
compartment to achieve the desired degree of treatment. Another
3.4. Bioreactor parameters
important feature of the aerobic process in IAAB is the formation of
flocculent settleable solids that can be removed by gravity settling Main parameters monitored in this study and calculation methods are presented
in the settling compartment. in Table 3, where Qin is the influent flow rate (L/day), V is the volume of the bioreactor
(L), CODout,an is the COD concentration of anaerobically treated POME, MLVSSi is the
biomass concentration at sampling port i, Vi is the volume of section i, CODin is the
3. Materials and methods influent COD concentration (mg/L), CODout is the treated effluent COD concentration
(mg/L), BODin is the influent BOD concentration (mg/L), BODout is the treated effluent
3.1. Wastewater preparation BOD concentration (mg/L), TSSin is the influent TSS concentration (mg/L), TSSout is
the treated effluent TSS concentration (mg/L) and QCH4 is the methane production
POME was sourced from Seri Ulu Langat Palm Oil Mill, Dengkil, Malaysia and its rate (L/day). The CODin was measured prior to calculation of the correct Qin by using
characteristics are presented in Table 1. In order to prevent the wastewater from Eq. (10).
undergoing biodegradation due to microbial action, it was preserved at temperature
less than 4 ◦ C, but above its freezing point. The required volume was thawed to room 3.5. Bioreactor start-up
temperature (28 ◦ C) before feeding into the anaerobic compartment. The optimum
nutrient requirement for anaerobic growth in terms of BOD:N:P ratio is 100:0.5:0.1 3.5.1. Anaerobic process
[26]. Since the raw POME’s BOD:N:P ratio is 100:2.6:2.0, signifying that POME is The start-up strategy of the anaerobic compartment of the IAAB is presented in
suitable for anaerobic process without the additional cost of adding nutrients into Table 4. Basically, the start-up period was divided into four stages. At stage 1, the
the system. packing material was filled into the anaerobic compartment. It was then inoculated
488 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495

Biogas Analyzer

To water displacement system

Legend Air

R 101 - Integrated anaerobic-aerobic bioreactor

T 101 - Feed tank (24L) Sampling valve
P 101 - Feed pump
SP 7
P 102 - Recirculation pump Effluent
pH
P 103 - Returned activated sludge pump TI pH
TI SP 9
SP - Sampling point
SP 6
R1 - Anaerobic recirculation inlet point
SP 5 Baffle
W1 - Anaerobic recirculation outlet point
R2 - Returned activated sludge inlet point
SP 4 SP 8
W2 - Returned activated sludge outlet point
W1
SP 3 Anaerobic Aerobic Settling
Compartment Compartment Compartment

SP 2 SP 10

P 102
SP 1

Hopper
R1
R2
R 101
Recirculation W2
To drain
Returned Waste activated sludge flow
activated
LI sludge flow

T 101 P 103
P 101

Fig. 2. The process flow diagram (PFD) of the POME treatment using the IAAB system.

with 5 L of anaerobic sludge (which represents 20% of the effective volume
of the anaerobic compartment). In order to replace the air inside the anaerobic
compartment, oxygen-free nitrogen gas was charged into the compartment from its
bottom. As shown in Table 4, no feed was added to the anaerobic sludge at stage 1.
The sludge was left resting for 24 h in order to allow its gradual adaption to ambient
temperature. At the same time, the recirculation pump (P102) as shown in Fig. 2
was initiated at a recirculation ratio, R of 15, which corresponds to the recirculation
flow rate, Qr of 75 L/day in order to enhance the mixing in the anaerobic tank.
After the end of the rest period, the anaerobic compartment was fed with POME
at a series of dilution factors of 5.0, 2.0 and 1.0 at stage 2, 3 and 4, respectively;
with the aim of reducing the organic load impact on anaerobic microorganisms. At
each loading condition, the IAAB was closely monitored with respect to COD and
TSS removal efficiencies, rCH4 , methane yield, VFA concentration, TA, and VFA/TA
ratio. When the COD removal efficiency remained relatively constant within 5%
for three consecutive days whereas the effluent VFA was less than 500 mg/L, the
OLR was increased by reducing the dilution factor from 5.0 to 2.0 and finally 1.0.
Concurrently, the influent flow rate was adjusted to 5.0, 3.5 and 3.5 L/day in order
to attain the OLR of 3.0, 5.5 and 10.5 g COD/L day in stage 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
The aerobic process was initiated once the anaerobic compartment has reached its
steady state at stage 4 and achieved at least 85% COD removal efficiency.
3.5.2. Aerobic process
In order to allow the activated sludge to adapt to the continuous operating mode
as well as to this new bioreactor configuration, the OLRa was kept low during the
start-up period. As the IAAB system is operated with an anaerobic–aerobic arrange-
ment, the effluent of the anaerobic compartment is directly used as the feed of the
aerobic compartment. Consequently, the OLRa is determined by the COD removal
efficiency of the anaerobic compartment. For attaining a low OLRa which is in the
range of 0.5–1.5 g COD/L day, COD removal efficiencies of 85–95% should be achieved
in the anaerobic compartment at the end of stage 4. Hence, the start-up of aerobic
compartment would be initiated once this criterion has been fulfilled.
Before the feeding was initiated, a total of 4 L activated sludge was transferred to
the aerobic compartment. The effluent from the anaerobic compartment was then
directed toward the aerobic compartment at an initial flow rate of 3.5 L/day. It took
approximately 6 days to reach the total aerobic compartment volume of 24 L and
3 days to reach the settling compartment volume of 8 L. As a conclusion, the final
treated effluent was ready to be collected after 9 days of operation. A portion of
the biological sludge was recycled to the aerobic tank at RAS ratio, RRAS of 0.75,
which corresponded to the returned activated sludge flow rate, QRAS of 2.7 L/day to
maintain the desired MLVSS concentration of 4500 mg/L. The aeration was kept con-
stant, with dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations close to 2 mg/L. During the start-up

Table 2
Characteristics of anaerobic and aerobic sludge.

Parameter Unit Anaerobic sludge Aerobic sludge

Average Range Average Range

TSS mg/L 93,110 ± 1880 92,000–94,500 24,034 ± 580 23,600–28,901

VSS mg/L 54,004 ± 1020 53,500–58,500 18,800 ± 1080 15,600–20,200
VSS/TSS – 0.58 ± 0.02 0.55–0.62 0.75 ± 0.02 0.63–0.88
SVI – 95 ± 13 85–165 50 ± 11 34–67
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495 489

Table 3
Main parameters monitored in the present study.

No. Symbol Unit Description Equation

Qin × CODin
1 OLRan g COD/L day OLR for anaerobic process (1)
Van
Qin .CODout,an
2 OLRa g COD/L day OLR for aerobic process (2)
Va
(CODin − CODout ) × 100
3 %COD % Overall COD removal efficiency (3)
CODin
(BODin − BODout ) × 100
4 %BOD % Overall BOD removal efficiency (4)
BODin
(TSSin − TSSout ) × 100
5 %TSS % Overall TSS removal efficiency (5)
TSSin
Van
6 HRTan day HRT for anaerobic process (6)
Qin
Va
7 HRTa day HRT for aerobic process (7)
Qin
Qr
8 R – Recirculation ratio (8)
Qin
QRAS
9 RRAS – Returned activated sludge ratio (9)
Qin
OLR × Van
10 Qin L/day Influent flow rate (10)
CODin
Vi MLVSSi
11 MLVSSan mg/L Biomass concentration in the anaerobic compartment (11)
Van
QCH4
12 rCH4 L CH4 /L day Volumetric methane production rate (12)
Van
QCH4
13 YM L CH4 /g COD removed Methane yield (13)
Qin × (CODin − CODout, an)

period, the aerobic compartment of IAAB was closely monitored with respect to COD,
BOD and TSS removal efficiencies as well as MLVSS concentration until a steady state
condition was achieved. The start-up of aerobic compartment was considered com-
pleted once the effluent COD and TSS concentration reaching constant values with
at least 85% COD removal efficiency, and the MLVSS concentration was gradually
increasing.
3.6. Analytical methods
total alkalinity (TA) at pH 4.3 as CaCO3 [28]. The measurement of VFA concentra-
tions was based on the HACH Method 8196 esterification for volatile acids. Biogas
production was measured by using water displacement method with a 2 L inverted
water-filled graduated cylinder for a collection period of 1 h, four times a day and
average value for the particular day was estimated [29]. The volumetric methane
production rate, rCH4 was determined by correcting the biogas gas production to
standard temperature and pressure (STP) using the ideal gas law and converting
this with the methane content present in the biogas and the effective volume of the
anaerobic compartment (Eq. (12)).

For anaerobic process, several monitoring parameters were evaluated during

the entire operation, including COD, TSS, VSS, TA and VFA concentrations of the
effluent, as well as pH, temperature, MLSSan , and MLVSSan of the anaerobic compart-
ment together with rCH4 and methane composition. Whereas for aerobic process,
the COD, TSS, VSS concentration and pH of the treated effluent, as well as temper-
ature, DO, MLSSa , and MLVSSa of the aerobic compartment were analyzed. BOD3
was analyzed on samples incubated for 3 days at 30 ◦ C according to the EQA 1974.
COD was analyzed by using the colorimetric method with a HACH spectrophotome-
ter (DR2000, Loveland, CO). Analytical determinations of TSS, VSS, MLVSS and SVI
were carried out in accordance with the Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater [27]. TSS and MLSS was determined by filtering a sam-
ple through a glass fiber filter (Whatman grade GF/A, 1.6 ␮m, UK) and the residue
retained on the filter was dried in an oven (Memmert, Germany) at 105 ◦ C whereas
VSS and MLVSS was determined by ashing the dry sample in a 550 ◦ C muffled fur-
nace (Carbolite, UK) for 15 min. Analysis of O&G was determined according to USEPA
Method 1664, N-Hexane gravimetric method. SVI was analyzed by measuring the
volume in millimeters occupied by 1 g of a suspension after 30 min of settling. pH
and temperature were measured by using a pH meter (HACH Sension1, Loveland,
CO) with temperature probe. Dissolved oxygen was measured by using a DO meter
(YSI 5100, USA). The composition of biogas was measured using a biogas analyzer
(GFM 416 series, UK). A titration method with sulphuric acid was used to determine
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Bioreactor start-up
4.1.1. Anaerobic process
The start-up is an important step for a smooth operation pro-
cess of an anaerobic bioreactor. The purpose of the start-up of
high-rate anaerobic bioreactors is to grow, build up and retain a suf-
ficient concentration of active and well balanced biomass [30,31].
This period normally takes a long time and usually is very delicate
in fixed film high-rate systems such as anaerobic filters (upflow
and downflow) as the attached biomass develops and accumulates
quite slowly. Therefore, shortening the start-up period is a key
point to increase the economical competitiveness of the anaero-
bic process. It has been reported that rapid start up of 26 days with
85% COD removal efficiency at OLR of 23 g COD/L day was achieved

Table 4
Start-up strategy of the anaerobic and aerobic compartment of the IAAB.

Operating mode Stage Time (d) Dilution factor Influent COD Anaerobic digestion Aerobic digestion Influent flow
of POME (mg/L) rate (L/day)

Average OLR HRT Average OLR HRT

(g COD/L day) (day) (g COD/L day) (day)

Start-up of anaerobic 1 1 No feed – – – – – –

compartment 2 2–9 5.0 13,700 3 4.6 – – 5
3 10–20 2.0 35,000 5.5 6.5 – – 3.5
4 21–30 1.0 68,550 10.5 6.5 – – 3.5

Start-up of aerobic 5 31–45 1.0 68,550 10.5 6.5 0.75 6.5 3.5
compartment
490 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495

Table 5
General operating conditions of IAAB during the start-up period. a 90,000 100
I II III IV

concentration, mg/L
Process Parameter Unit Average Range 75,000

Influent COD

COD removal, %
95
(i) Anaerobic Temperature ◦
C 28 ± 1 27.0–29.0 60,000
Van L 23.0 23.0
OLR g COD/L day – 3.0–10.5 45,000 90
HRT day – 4.6–6.5
30,000
Qin L/day – 3.5–5.0 85
MLVSSan mg/L 39,150 ± 675 38,500–39,800 15,000
pH – 7.24 ± 0.15 6.71–7.45
Qr L/day 75 75 0 80

(ii) Aerobic Temperature ◦

C 28 ± 1 27.0–29.0 b 30,000 100

Va L 24.0 24.0 25,000

concentration, mg/L

TSS removal, %
OLR g COD/L day – 0.74–0.77 95

Influent TSS
HRT day – 6.5 20,000
MLVSSa mg/L – 3575–4600
15,000 90
pH – 8.46 ± 0.22 8.38–8.98
DO mg/L 2.8 ± 0.2 1.95–3.10 10,000
QRAS L/day 2.7 2.7 85
5,000

0 80
in the UASFF bioreactor treating POME [9]. The excellent perfor-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
mances were attributed to the minimum loss of sludge and good Time, day
hydraulic contact between the substrate and the sludge. I: Stage 1 II: Stage 2 III: Stage 3 IV: Stage 4
With the introduction of recirculation to the treatment of hyper-
saline composite complex chemical wastewater, Mohan et al. [32] Fig. 3. (a) Influent COD concentration and COD removal efficiency and (b) influent
observed a substantial enhancement in the substrate removal effi- TSS concentration and TSS removal efficiency during the start-up period.

ciency and biogas yield. The enhanced performance of the system

was attributed to the improvement in mass transfer between the
substrate present in the bulk liquid and the attached biofilm. The
hydrodynamic behavior due to recirculation mode of operation
reduced the concentration gradient (substrate inhibition) of sub-
strate and reaction by-products (VFA) resulting in mixed flow
conditions [32].
Nevertheless, excessive recirculation might cause a reduced
COD removal efficiency in anaerobic digestion. Zhang et al. [33]
investigated the effect of hydraulic recirculation by operating
the treatment system under various recirculation ratios of 8–28
(defined as the ratio of recirculation flow to feed flow, R). It was
observed that the increase of R from 8 to 19 did not exert any
effect on the COD removal until it further increased from 19 to
28, showing a decline in COD removal. These results suggest that
excessive hydraulic recirculation enhanced the mutual collisions
among sludge granules, resulting in fracturing of the granular
sludge. Besides, optimum R in the range of 15–18 was reported in
the treatment of sieved piggery slurries [34]. In term of treatment
efficiency, R from 15 to 18 has shown no difference and thus, R of
15 was chosen. This is attributed to the fact that high R requires
higher pumping operation that regularly leads to frequent break-
downs and system stand-stills. Besides, Najafpour et al. [9] reported
that the specific activity of bioreactor can be enhanced by increas-
ing its sludge concentration and thus, a high MLVSS concentration
of 41,500 mg/L was maintained. Hence, it is anticipated that the
start-up period of the anaerobic compartment could be acceler-
ated by maintaining a high MLVSSan concentration (38,500 mg/L)
and moderate R (15).
The start-up was carried out following the procedure modified
from Bull et al. [35], using stepped organic loading to produce most
rapid biomass development. A summary of general operating con-
ditions applied to the IAAB is presented in Table 5. In order to
evaluate the start-up performance, the IAAB was closely monitored
with respect to COD and TSS removal efficiencies, rCH4 , methane
yield, VFA concentration, TA, VFA/TA ratio and MLVSS concentra-
tion throughout the start-up period.
4.1.1.1. COD and TSS removal efficiencies. The COD and TSS profile
of the start-up operation from day 1 to day 30 is shown in Fig. 3.
During stage 2 (days 2–9), the OLR of the anaerobic compartment
was 3.0 g COD/L day with influent COD and TSS of 13,700 mg/L and
6000 mg/L, respectively, corresponding to the normal loading rate
applied to the anaerobic inoculums collected from the aforemen-
tioned palm oil mill. The effluent started to emerge from the outlet
of anaerobic compartment and being collected on day 5. After the
first four days of feeding, satisfactory COD and TSS removals of 85%
and 88% were achieved due to the good inoculum seed (MLVSS
of 54,000 mg/L) which resulted in good microbial growth. Toward
the end of stage 2, the removal of COD and TSS were improved
and reached 87.2% and 90.5%, respectively. As the COD and TSS
removal efficiency remained constant for three consecutive days
coupled with the low effluent VFA concentration (Fig. 4), the influ-
ent COD concentration was then increased stepwise to 35,000 mg/L
(OLR = 5.4 g COD/L day) in stage 3.
Given that the HRT in stage 3 was 6.5 days, the effluent COD
and TSS concentrations remained relatively constant during the
first 6 days as it was yet to be affected by the sudden increment
of OLRan . However, on day 16, the effluent COD and TSS concen-
trations increased remarkably and were as high as 5680 mg/L and
2300 mg/L, respectively, due to the effect of the increased OLR. Nev-
ertheless, the COD and TSS concentrations decreased and fluctuated
between 3900 and 4000 mg/L and 1150 and 1160 mg/L, respectively
three days after. This is attributed to the self-regulation capability
inherent in the biological system, making it possible for the micro-
bial consortium to acclimate itself to the increased OLR. At the end
of stage 3, the removal efficiencies of COD and TSS reached 88.9%
and 92.0%.
During the end of the start-up, stage 4 (days 21–30), undiluted
raw POME with COD and TSS concentration of 68,550 mg/L and
28,900 mg/L, respectively was fed to the anaerobic compartment,
corresponding to the OLRan of 10.5 g COD/L day. Similar to the stage
3, the effluent COD and TSS concentration experienced a sudden
increase and peaked at 10,050 mg/L and 3560 mg/L, respectively,
on day 26, which corresponded to the COD and TSS removal effi-
ciencies of 85.3% and 87.7%, respectively. However, the anaerobic
compartment was stabilized two days after (day 28) and capable
of achieving COD and TSS removal efficiencies of 91.8% and 95.2%,
respectively. At the end of stage 4, COD and TSS removal efficiencies
of 92.1% and 95.3 were achieved at an OLRan of 10.5 g COD/L day.
This result indicates satisfactory start-up of the bioreactor.

1,000
900
Effluent VFA,mg acetic acid/L
I II
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 0
0 2
I: Stage 1
It is worth noting that this is a marked improvement over the
studies on POME treatment using a UASB bioreactor [36] and a high
rate hybrid anaerobic bioreactor [37] wherein they achieved a COD
removal efficiency of 90% and 62% at a much lower OLRan , 1.27
and 5.2 g COD/L day, respectively. Moreover, the foaming and clog-
ging problems which are frequently faced by the UASB and fixed
film bioreactors are not encountered in this IAAB throughout the
start-up period. This indicates the newly designed hollow centered
packed bed in the anaerobic compartment potentially achieved its
objectives of minimizing the operational problems and retaining as
much active microorganisms simultaneously. Though, a long-term
evaluation on the functionality of the hollow centered packed bed
would be required to verify this finding.
High O&G concentration in the POME poses a challenge for most
palm oil mill as it tends to accumulate on the sludge surface and
thus causing foaming and scum formation, eventually lowering the
digestion efficiency [38]. However, the results show that the anaer-
obic microorganisms developed in the anaerobic compartment are
robust since they are able to biodegrade the O&G from the initial
influent concentration of 10,540 mg/L to a final value of 35 mg/L
through the process of hydrolysis [39]. This has successfully com-
plied with Malaysian discharge standard for the O&G concentration
which is 50 mg/L. This may also contribute to the reasons of minimal
foaming and scum formation problems in this IAAB.
Another observation made was the significantly higher treated
effluent COD and TSS concentrations in stage 4 as compared to
stage 2 and 3. This is attributable to the higher influent COD and
TSS concentrations being fed to the anaerobic compartment in
stage 4. Similar results have also been reported [9,40]. Though,
in terms of removal efficiency, the increase in influent COD from
13,300 to 68,550 mg/L had resulted an increment in the COD and
TSS removal efficiencies; implying that the bacteria were accli-
mated appropriately to the POME. This is mainly due to the usage
of seed sludge from the same type of waste and high MLVSS
concentration (38,500 mg/L) in the anaerobic compartment and
hence sustaining high microbial activity. Besides, hydraulic recir-
culation had enhanced the mass transfer between the substrate
and sludge; thereby allowing a rapid startup of 30 days in this
study.
4.1.1.2. VFA and TA. The stability of anaerobic compartment is val-
idated by the ratio of VFA/TA. For instance, when this value is less
than 0.3–0.4, the process is considered to operate favorably [41].
The effluent VFA and TA during the start-up period are presented
in Fig. 4. Before an increase in OLR, intensive care was taken to
ensure that effluent VFA was less than 500 mg/L as acetic acid [42],
pH was greater than 7.0 and VFA/alkalinity was less than 0.3.
Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495 491
3500
III IV 3000
Total alkalinity, mg/L
2500
Minimum TA level
2000
Maximum VFA 1500
level
1000
500
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time, day
II: Stage 2 III: Stage 3 IV: Stage 4
Fig. 4. Effluent VFA and TA during the start-up period.
During stage 3, the increase of OLR had resulted in an increase
in VFA concentration and reached a maximum level of 148 mg/L on
day 16. This implies that the acidogenic bacteria produce more VFA
that what can be utilized by the acetogenic and methanogenic bac-
teria. Besides, the increase of VFA concentration also coincided with
a decline of effluent TA to a concentration of 990 mg/L. This is due
to the fact that some portion of the alkalinity was used to neutralize
the increased VFA concentration for maintaining the pH within an
acceptable level. As evidence, the observed pH was comparatively
stable at 7.2 throughout the stage 3 despite the increase of VFA con-
centration. On day 18, a new balance was obtained and the effluent
VFA started to decrease and reached a value of 50 mg/L at the end
of stage 3, which is slightly higher than the previous steady state
value in stage 2. Similarly, an increasing trend was observed in the
effluent TA and reached 2500 mg/L at the end of stage 3.
Further increment of OLR in stage 4 has also caused a progres-
sive increase in the effluent VFA concentration, in which the peak
concentration was 320 mg/L on day 26, and eventually subsided to
60 mg/L at the end of stage 4. A sharp decrease of effluent TA to
2000 mg/L was also observed on day 26. However, when the sta-
bility was regained, the effluent TA increased again until reaching
a final value of 3020 mg/L and the resulting VFA/TA ratio was 0.02.
It can be observed that the effluent VFA concentration obtained
in the end of stage 4 (60 mg/L) was higher than the one obtained
in the end of stages 2 (40 mg/L) and 3 (50 mg/L). This is in agree-
ment with the results obtained by Buyukkamachi and Filibeli [43]
which showed that the increasing formation of VFA concentration
was greatly influenced by the source of wastewater and by the
increasing in COD concentration.
Throughout the start-up period, the effluent VFA concentration
was well below 500 mg/L. The results also show an increment in
effluent alkalinity with the increase in OLR. Toward the end of start-
up, the alkalinity level was distinctly above 2000 mg/L, which is the
lower limit for effective anaerobic digestion process (Fig. 4). In addi-
tion, the VFA/TA ratio is found to be virtually constant (0.01–0.02)
and much lower than the failure limit value [41].
It is an interesting fact that a comparison between Figs. 3 and 4
shows a parallel increase in effluent COD and VFA concentrations.
This result concurs with the results obtained by Zhang et al. [44]
and Borja and Banks [4], which revealed that approximately two-
thirds of the anaerobic effluent COD was caused by VFA. Hence, this
confirms that a positive correlation existed between the effluent
COD and VFA concentrations.
4.1.1.3. Volumetric methane production rate, methane gas composi-
tion and methane yield. The rCH4 and methane yield during the
start-up period are presented in Fig. 5. Biogas production was
492
2.5
I II III
2.0
rCH4, LCH4/L.day
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time, day
I: Stage 1 II: Stage 2 III: Stage 3
Fig. 5. Volumetric methane production rate and methane yield during the start-up
period.
detected on the 7th day with rCH4 of 0.19 L CH4 /L day and methane
content of 25%. Toward the end of stage 2, the rCH4 and methane
content were improved to 0.33 L CH4 /L day and 40% with a methane
yield of 0.13 L CH4 /g COD removed.
During stage 3 and 4, the rCH4 , methane content and methane
yield increased proportionally with the OLR, as the increasing
readily available organic matter is converted to biomass. Similar
observation was also reported by Kiely et al. [45]. At the end of
stage 4, the rCH4 reached approximately 2.35 L CH4 /L day, which
is equivalent to the methane yield of 0.24 L CH4 /gCOD removed.
The biogas was found to have 64% methane. The methane yield
achieved at this stage was close to the theoretical maximum that
can be obtained when glucose is used as carbon source (0.35 L CH4
(STP)/g COD removed) [46]. Moreover, this is higher than the yield
generally obtained by conventional digesters operating at longer
HRT [47,48]. On the other hand, the H2 S concentration was lower
than 50 mg/L throughout the start-up period, making it unneces-
sary to post-treat the biogas and permitting it to be directly burnt,
with the consequent economic advantage [49]. This result again
indicates the satisfactory start-up of the anaerobic compartment.
4.1.1.4. MLVSS concentration. The MLVSSan concentration was
determined at the beginning (day 7) and at the end of the start-
up period (day 30). Only two estimations were carried out in
order to avoid reducing the biomass in the anaerobic compart-
ment significantly. The anaerobic compartment was divided into
seven sectional volumes each served with a sampling port (Fig. 2)
and Eq. (11) (Table 3) was used [36] to estimate the total biomass
concentration in the anaerobic compartment.
Initially, the MLVSSan concentration was 38,500 mg/L and it
increased slightly to 39,800 mg/L at the end of start-up period. In
this study, the sludge was dense with low SVI of 60 and sludge
washout phenomena did not occur despite the increase of OLR.
This is mainly due to the entrapment of bacteria on the support
structure in the packing section and the development of bacte-
rial biofilm which safeguard the loss of bacterial population and
hence enabling a high MLVSS concentration (39,800 mg/L) in the
anaerobic compartment at the end of the start-up period.
4.1.1.5. Variation of sludge pH and VFA concentration along the height
of anaerobic compartment. In this study alkalinity supplementary
was unnecessary for controlling the pH of the anaerobic compart-
ment as the effluent pH remained relatively constant (7.2–7.6)
throughout the start-up period. This implies a balance in the pro-
cess of hydrolysis, acidification of the organic matter and methane
formation.
Sludge pH and VFA were measured in the different height of the
anaerobic compartment on day 28, 29 and 30 in order to observe
Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495
Methane yield, LCH4/g COD removed
0.3 their variation along the anaerobic compartment through the sam-
IV pling ports of SP1–SP7 as shown in Fig. 2. The effluent pH from the
0.25
outlet of anaerobic compartment was also measured in addition
0.2
to the seven sampling ports. Fig. 6 depicts the variation of sludge
pH and VFA along the anaerobic compartment and the values were
0.15 the averages of three days determination. As illustrated in Fig. 6,
the pH demonstrates an increasing trend throughout the anaero-
0.1
bic compartment from bottom to top and conversely, the VFA has
0.05
undergone an opposite trend to pH. The highest VFA concentra-
tion (450 mg/L) was detected at SP1, which is at the bottom of the
0 sludge bed section and the corresponding pH was at its lowest value
of 6.7. The occurrence of high VFA concentration and low pH at this
point is reasonable as SP1 is located near to the POME feeding point.
IV: Stage 4
The pH and VFA of raw POME were 4.5 and 470 mg/L respectively
(Table 1). However, it might not be the major factor leading to the
aforementioned occurrence as the effect of low pH and high VFA in
POME was counteracted by the recirculated sludge flow which has
sufficient alkalinity with pH of 7.0 from W1 (Fig. 2).
Thus, it is postulated that the first two steps of anaerobic degra-
dation, namely hydrolysis and acidogenesis prevailed in the sludge
bed section, where complex organics in POME were first hydrolyzed
by enzymes, forming sugars, amino acids and fatty acids which
were further degraded by acidogens and forming VFAs. Acidogens
were probably predominant at SP1 and SP2 as they grow relatively
faster and are less sensitive to pH variation than acetogens and
methanogens. At the sludge bed outlet (SP3), the VFA concentration
greatly reduced to 200 mg/L while the sludge pH increased to 7.0.
It appears that acetogenesis took place at SP3 and most of the VFAs
were degraded by acetogens and forming acetate, carbon dioxide
and hydrogen. The sludge VFA concentration gradually reduced to
75 mg/L in the packing section (SP4 and SP5), reaching its lowest
value (60 mg/L) at SP7 and effluent outlet. Accordingly, the sludge
pH experienced an increasing trend and reached the highest value
at the effluent outlet point, which was 7.5. This result indicates
that methanogens were more active in the upper part of the anaer-
obic compartment as most of the acetate and H2 /CO2 produced
from acetogenesis were converted to methane. Lower VFA forma-
tion in the packing section can be explained by the advantages of
immobilized microorganism culture. Immobilization provides high
cell concentrations and provides favorable micro-environmental
conditions for methanogens [50].
4.1.2. Aerobic process
Upon the steady state condition was achieved in the anaero-
bic compartment, the operation of the aerobic compartment was
immediately initiated. The general operating conditions of the
aerobic process are presented in Table 5. In order to evaluate
the start-up performance of the aerobic compartment, the COD,
BOD and TSS removal efficiencies of final treated effluent as well
as MLVSSa concentration were closely monitored throughout the
start-up period.
4.1.2.1. COD, BOD and TSS removal efficiencies. On the first day of
operation, the influent COD of the aerobic compartment was about
5200 mg/L, corresponding to an OLRa of 0.76 g COD/L day and HRT
of 6.5 days. On day 39, settled aerobically treated effluent started to
emerge at the outlet of the settling compartment and was collected
for analysis. Fig. 7 illustrates the COD, BOD and TSS removals of
the aerobic treatment system during the start up period from day
31 to 45. Similar trend can be observed in the profiles of COD, BOD
and TSS removals plotted against operation day. Satisfactory COD,
BOD and TSS removal efficiencies of 93.8%, 95.1% and 93.9% were
achieved on day 39, with effluent COD, BOD and TSS concentrations
of 320 mg/L, 90 mg/L and 75 mg/L, respectively. By day 45th, the
COD, BOD and TSS removal efficiencies were improved to 95.1%,
96.1% and 94.3% respectively. Remarkable performance of the
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495 493

500 7.6
450
7.4
400

VFA concentration
350
7.2
300

pH
250 VFA concentration 7
200 pH
6.8
150
100
6.6
50
0 6.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Anaerobic
8
compartment
Sampling Ports outlet

Fig. 6. Sludge pH and VFA variation along the anaerobic compartment. The error bars were the standard deviation.

aerobic compartment is due to the usage of acclimatized activated
sludge obtained from the laboratory scale SBR treating the same
type of wastewater. The bacteria were robust and able to adapt to
the new operating mode and bioreactor in a relatively short period
(15 days).
4.1.2.2. MLVSS concentration. As shown in Fig. 8, the initial MLVSSa
concentration on day 31 was 18,000 mg/L. As the feeding process
continued at a constant flow rate of 3.5 L/day, the resulted MLVSSa
show a decreasing trend due to the increased anaerobically
digested POME volume at a constant amount of activated sludge
in the aerobic compartment. After nine days of feeding, the final
treated effluent started to emerge from the outlet of settling
a 6,000
concentration, mg/L
compartment and the resulted MLVSSa of aerobic compartment
was 3575 mg/L. The sludge pump was then initiated in order to
recycle the biological sludge to the aerobic compartment at a
constant RAS flow of 2.7 L/day. The corresponding RRAS was 0.75,
which is within the typical ratio recommended by Metcalf and
Eddy [16]. Thereafter, the MLVSSa demonstrated a steady rise
from 3575 to 4600 mg/L as shown in Fig. 8. It should be noted that
there was neither any addition of activated sludge into the aerobic
compartment nor sludge wastage from the system after the aerobic
compartment was seeded. The increase in MLVSS concentration
reflects the active growth of bacteria which indicates the success
of start-up. Besides, the sludge exhibited good settling properties
with average SVI of 65. The operating MLVSS range was considered
sufficient at this stage due to the low OLRa applied to the aerobic
compartment and the high COD, BOD and TSS removal efficiencies
100
being achieved. Thus, the increase of MLVSS concentration by

5,800 95 increasing the RAS flow rate was not required.

Influent COD

COD removal, %

90
5,600 4.2. Overall steady-state performance of IAAB
Influent COD concentration, mg/L
85
COD removal
5,400 Stable anaerobic and aerobic processes were observed through-
80
out the start-up period, in which a consistent treated effluent
5,200 75 quality which is well below the Malaysian Department of Envi-
5,000 70 ronment (DOE) discharge limit was obtained. At the end of the
start-up period, the IAAB achieved high overall COD, BOD and TSS
b 2,600 100
removal efficiencies, which are exceeding 99% at high OLRan of
concentration, mg/L

2,200 95 10.5 g COD/L day. These results indicated that the start-up of the
BOD removal.%
Influent BOD

IAAB was accomplished successfully and had reached a steady state.

90
1,800 More significantly, the IAAB seems to be technically viable as an
85 efficient treatment system for POME based on these results. As
1,400 Influent BOD concentration compared to the conventional anaerobic–aerobic treatment such
BOD removal 80
as the open tank digester and extended aeration, the IAAB achieves
1,000 75 higher overall COD and TSS removal efficiencies (99% and 99% as
600 70 compared to 98% and 96%) at much higher OLR (10.5 as compared
c
Influent TSS concentration,

1,300 100

95 18,000
concentration, mg/L

1,250
TSS removal, %

90
14,000
mg/L

MLVSS

1,200 85
10,000
Influent TSS concentration, mg/L 80
1,150 TSS removal
75 6,000

1,100 70 2,000
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Time, day Time, day

Fig. 7. (a) COD removal, (b) BOD removal and (c) TSS removal during the start up Fig. 8. MLVSS concentration during the start up period of the aerobic compartment
period and steady state condition of aerobic compartment. of the IAAB.
494 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495
to 2.0 g COD/L day) and shorter HRT (13 days as compared to 41
days) [2,51].
It is also worth noting that the IAAB in this study was superior to
other types of high rate integrated bioreactor as reviewed by Chan
et al. [17]. Higher overall COD removal efficiency was achieved in
this IAAB as compared to that of Wang et al. [52] and Yang and
Zhou [53], which attained overall COD removals in the range of
85–95% and 88–99%, respectively, at a much lower OLRan , which is
4.5 g COD/L day.
Of the overall COD removal efficiency of 99.7%, the anaerobic
compartment contributed 92.6% while the aerobic compartment
had contributed only 7.1%. It can be inferred that the anaerobic
compartment played a major role to remove most of COD con-
centrations in POME, while the aerobic compartment acted as
COD-polishing step to meet discharge requirement.
5. Conclusion
A novel IAAB which operates as a single treatment unit for the
removal of organic matter from POME was developed in this study.
The start-up and steady state condition of IAAB was rapidly accom-
plished in 45 days. Efficient performance of the IAAB at steady
state condition up to an OLR of 10.5 g COD/L day was demonstrated,
where overall COD, BOD and TSS removals of more than 99%,
with biogas production containing 64% of methane and methane
yield of 0.24 L CH4 /g COD removed were achieved. Stable anaerobic
treatment processes were observed with total VFA concentra-
tion recorded well below 500 mg/L and the VFA/TA of less than
0.3. Besides, the effluent quality remained stable and complied
with the discharge limit. This IAAB is superior to the conventional
anaerobic–aerobic treatments methods in terms of high overall
COD and TSS removal efficiencies, higher OLR, shorter HRT as well
as minimal operational problems. The relatively high performance
of the IAAB was found to be attributed to several factors, namely (i)
appropriate start-up of the IAAB, (ii) adequate retention of MLVSS
concentration in both anaerobic and aerobic compartments, (iii)
development of good settling activated sludge and (iv) high recircu-
lation ratio adopted in the anaerobic compartment. The results also
prove that the anaerobic compartment of the IAAB with a hollow
centered packed bed potentially to be technically feasible and fur-
ther evaluation on its long-term performance is necessary. Future
works will focus on the evaluation of maximum loading capacity,
kinetic, optimization and scale up analysis of the IAAB in order to
facilitate its implementation at large scale.
References
[1] MPOC. Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Home page: http://www.mpoc.org.my;
2010 [cited].
[2] Ma AN. Current status of palm oil processing wastes management. Palm Oil
Res. Instit. Malaysia (PORIM); 1993. p. 111–136.
[3] Ma AN. Innovations in management of palm oil mill effluent. The Planter
1999;75:381–9.
[4] Borja R, Banks CJ. Comparison of an anaerobic filter and an anaerobic fluidized
bed reactor treating palm oil mill effluent. Process Biochem 1995;30:511–21.
[5] Borja R, Banks CJ, Sanchez E. Anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill effluent
in a two stage up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. J Biotechnol
1996;45:125–35.
[6] Setiadi T, Husaini Djajadiningrat A. Palm oil mill effluent treatment by anaer-
obic baffled reactors: recycle effects and biokinetic parameters. Water Sci
Technol 1996;34:59–66.
[7] Faisal M, Unno H. Kinetic analysis of palm oil mill wastewater treatment by a
modified anaerobic baffled reactor. Biochem Eng J 2001;9:25–31.
[8] Mustapha S, Ashhuby B, Rashid M, Azni I. Start-up strategy of a thermophilic
upflow anaerobic filter for treating palm oil mill effluent. Process Saf Environ
Prot 2003;81:262–6.
[9] Najafpour GD, Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohamed AR, Hasnain Isa M, Nasrollahzadeh
H. High-rate anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent in an upflow anaerobic
sludge-fixed film bioreactor. Process Biochem 2006;41:370–9.
[10] Yacob S, Hassan MA, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S. Baseline study of methane
emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill effluent treatment. Sci Total
Environ 2006;366:187–96.
[11] Abdul K, Mohamed I, Kamil AQA. Biological treatment of palm oil mill effluent
using Trichoderma viride. Biol Waste 1989;27:143–52.
[12] Oswal N, Sarma PM, Zinjarde SS, Pant A. Palm oil mill effluent treatment by a
tropical marine yeast. Bioresour Technol 2002;85:35–7.
[13] Nik Norulaini NA, Zuhairi AAI, Hakimi M, Mohd Omar AK. Treatment of palm
oil mill effluent (POME) using attached-film bioreactor: trickling filter as a case
study. J Ind Technol 2001;10:41–54.
[14] Najafpour GD, Yieng HA, Younesi H, Zinatizadeh AAL. Effect of organic loading
on performance of rotating biological contactors using palm oil mill effluents.
Process Biochem 2005;40:2879–84.
[15] Vijayaraghavan K, Ahmad D, Ezani Bin Abdul Aziz M. Aerobic treatment of palm
oil mill effluent. J Environ Manage 2007;82:24–31.
[16] Metcalf, Eddy. Wastewater engineering treatment and reuse. Fourth ed.
McGraw Hill; 2003.
[17] Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL, Hassell DG. A review on anaerobic–aerobic treat-
ment of industrial and municipal wastewater. Chem Eng J 2009;155:1–18.
[18] Cho YT, Young JC. Prediction of gas production and cod. removal of two-
stage cyclic anaerobic filters by mass transfer models. Environ Eng Res
2001;6:211–22.
[19] Sánchez E, Milán Z, Borja R, Weiland P, Rodriguez X. Piggery waste treatment by
anaerobic digestion and nutrient removal by ionic exchange. Resour Conserv
Recycl 1995;15:235–44.
[20] Lo KV, Liao PH, Gao YC. Anaerobic treatment of swine wastewater using hybrid
UASB reactors. Bioresour Technol 1994;47:153–7.
[21] Borja R, Banks CJ, Wang Z, Mancha A. Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse
wastewater using a combination sludge blanket and filter arrangement in a
single reactor. Bioresour Technol 1994;65:125–33.
[22] Foresti E. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage: established technologies
and perspectives. Water Sci Technol 2002;45:181–6.
[23] Bello-Mendoza R, Castillo-Rivera MF. Start-up of an anaerobic hybrid
(UASB/filter) reactor treating wastewater from a coffee processing plant.
Anaerobe 1998;4:219–25.
[24] Fang HHP, Chui HK. Comparison of startup performance of four anaerobic reac-
tors for the treatment of high-strength wastewater. Resour Conserv Recycl
1994;11:123–38.
[25] Lettinga G, Hulshoff Pol L. UASB—process design for various types of wastew-
aters. Water Sci Technol 1991;24:87–107.
[26] Forster C. Wastewater treatment and technology. Thomas Telford; 2003.
[27] APHA. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Wash-
ington, DC, USA; 1989.
[28] Jenkins D, Richard MG, Daigger GT. Manual on the causes and control of acti-
vated sludge bulking, foaming and other solids separation problems. IWA
Publishing; 2004.
[29] Kumar A, Yadav AK, Sreekrishnan TR, Satya S, Kaushik CP. Treatment of low
strength industrial cluster wastewater by anaerobic hybrid reactor. Bioresour
Technol 2008;99:3123–9.
[30] Rintala J. High-rate anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewaters. Water Sci
Technol 1991;24:69–74.
[31] Puñal A, Trevisan M, Rozzi A, Lema JM. Influence of C:N ratio on the start-up of
up-flow anaerobic filter reactors. Water Res 2000;34:2614–9.
[32] Mohan SV, Lalit Babu V, Vijaya Bhaskar Y, Sarma PN. Influence of recirculation
on the performance of anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor (AnS-
BBR) treating hypersaline composite chemical wastewater. Bioresour Technol
2007;98:1373–9.
[33] Zhang Y, Ma Y, Quan X, Jing Y, Dai S. Rapid startup of a hybrid UASB-AFF reactor
using bi-circulation. Chem Eng J 2009;155:266–71.
[34] Lomas JM, Urbano C, Camarero LM. Influence of recirculation flow in a pilot
scale downflow stationary fixed film anaerobic reactor treating piggery slurry.
Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18:421–30.
[35] Bull MA, Sterrit RM, Lester JN. Start up strategy for anerobic bioreactors. Water
Res 1984;18:1017–20.
[36] Borja R, Banks CJ. Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent using an up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biomass Bioenergy 1994;6:381–9.
[37] Megat JMMN, Jusoh A, GhazaIi AH. POME treatment utilizing high rate hybrid
anaerobic reactor. J Islamic Acad Sci 1989;2:13–6.
[38] Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD. Wastewater engineering: treatment
and reuse. Fourth ed. New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.; 2003.
[39] Lee CS. Biodegradation of oil and grease in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor for palm oil mill effluent treatment. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia;
2006.
[40] Ramakrishnan A, Gupta SK. Anaerobic biogranulation in a hybrid reactor treat-
ing phenolic waste. J Hazard Mater 2006;137:1488–95.
[41] Fannin KF. Start-up, operation, stability and control. In: Chynoweth DP, Isaac-
son R, editors. Anaerobic digestion of biomass. London: Elsevier; 1987.
[42] Shivayogimath CB, Ramanujam TK. Treatment of distillery spentwash by hybrid
UASB reactor. Bioprocess Eng 1999;21:255–9.
[43] Buyukkamaci N, Filibeli A. Volatile fatty acid formation in an anaerobic hybrid
reactor. Process Biochem 2004;39:1491–4.
[44] Zhang Y, Yan L, Chi L, Long X, Mei Z, Zhang Z. Startup and operation of
anaerobic EGSB reactor treating palm oil mill effluent. J Environ Sci 2008;20:
658–63.
[45] Kiely G, Tayfur G, Dolan C, Tanji K. Physical and mathematical modelling of
anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. Water Res 1997;31:534–40.
 Y.J. Chan et al. / Process Biochemistry 47 (2012) 485–495
[46] Lawrence AW, McCarty PL. Kinetics of methane fermentation in anaerobic
treatment. Water Pollut Control Fed 1969;41:1–17.
[47] Basri M, Yacob S, Hassan M, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Zakaria M, et al.
Improved biogas production from palm oil mill effluent by a scaled-
down anaerobic treatment process. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;26:
505–14.
[48] Sulaiman A, Zakaria MR, Hassan M, Shirai Y, Busu Z. Co-digestion of palm oil mill
effluent and refined glycerin wash water for chemical oxygen demand removal
and methane production. Am J Environ Sci 2009;5:639–46.
[49] Martin MA, Siles JA, Chica AF, Martín A. Biomethanation of orange peel waste.
Bioresour Technol 2010;101:8993–9.
495
[50] Shuler ML, Kargi F. Bioprocess engineering basic concepts. USA: Prentice Hall
International Series in the Physical and Chemical Engineering; 1992.
[51] Ma AN, Chow CS, John CK, Ibrahim A, Isa Z. Palm oil mill effluent treatment—a
survey. In: Proceedings of workshops on palm oil mill technology and effluent
treatment. 1980. p. 123–56.
[52] Wang RM, Wang Y, Ma GP, He YF, Zhao YQ. Efficiency of porous burnt-coke
carrier on treatment of potato starch wastewater with an anaerobic–aerobic
bioreactor. Chem Eng J 2009;148:35–40.
[53] Yang Z, Zhou S. The biological treatment of landfill leachate using a simul-
taneous aerobic and anaerobic (SAA) bio-reactor system. Chemosphere
2008;72:1751–6.