A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve Very

Low Total Nitrogen Concentrations

Terry L. Johnson1*, Andrew Shaw1 , Heather Phillips1, Nancy Choi1, Thomas Lauro2, Ralph Butler3,
Leah Radko3
1
Black & Veatch Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri 64114.
2
Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities.
3
Westchester County Department of Public Works.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed: johnsontl@bv.com.

ABSTRACT
In northern Europe, the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) process, which uses equipment almost
identical to that used for the Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS) process but has only an
attached-growth biomass, has proven to be a good nutrient removal choice for facilities that treat low-
strength waste and operate at low temperatures. Pilot testing of both processes was carried out at the
Mamaroneck wastewater treatment plant in Westchester County, New York, where conditions are similar
to those encountered in northern Europe. The program was intended to test the ability of both MBBR and
IFAS to meet a future total nitrogen effluent limit of approximately 4 mg/L. The loading to the pilot unit
was pushed to its maximum during the lowest winter temperature, enabling the two processes to be
assessed under maximum stress conditions. Results from the pilot testing confirmed that either process
would be capable of achieving the target total nitrogen concentration.

KEYWORDS: IFAS, MBBR, low nitrogen effluent plant, limits of technology.

INTRODUCTION
Process description. Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS) technology is gaining increasing
acceptance in many facilities in North America as an option for upgrading activated sludge plants to
advanced nutrient control (Johnson et al., 2006). The IFAS process combines fixed-film and suspended
activated sludge processes in the same basin by adding media to the aeration basins of an activated sludge
process. This combination makes it possible to attain nitrifying sludge ages in a considerably smaller basin
than required for a comparable activated sludge nitrification process. The media provides surface area for
growth of microbes and, in combination with the MLSS, gives the process a biomass sufficient for the
desired nitrification. The result is an equivalent MLSS concentration of more than 6,000 mg/L. The
attached growth, however, does not impose excessive solids loadings on the final clarifiers because the
growth remains in the aeration basin. The main features of a typical IFAS system are the media (Figure 1);
means of retaining the media in the basins, such as cylindrical sieves (Figure 2); and modifications to the
aeration system to provide effective mixing of media, control of biomass growth, and oxygen for treatment.

In northern Europe, the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) process has proven to be a good method of
nutrient removal for low-strength wastewaters at low operating temperatures. For example, the
Lillehammer treatment plant in Norway uses primary treatment followed by MBBR to successfully treat
wastewater with an influent strength of just 210 mg/L COD, 100 mg/L TSS, and 26 mg/L TKN at
temperatures as low as 3ºC (Rusten et al., 1995). The equipment used for MBBR and IFAS is nearly
identical. Both incorporate media on which biomass can grow; however, the MBBR process has no return
sludge line and therefore no significant suspended-growth biomass population. Consequently, it relies
solely on the attached-growth biomass to provide treatment.

Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

Figure 1. Example IFAS Media from Pilot Testing.

Figure 2. Cylindrical Sieve.

Mamaroneck WWTP
The Mamaroneck, New York, wastewater treatment plant is one of four facilities owned by Westchester
County. Located in the downtown section of the Village of Mamaroneck, it serves the Mamaroneck Sewer
District. Its original facilities, including the administration building that is now an historic landmark, were
constructed in the 1930s.

Since then the plant has undergone several expansions. The most recent expansion, which added secondary
treatment, was completed in the 1980s and brought the 2-acre site to “build-out,” leaving no room for
additional facilities. The plant site is bordered on the north and west by Boston Post Road, on the east by
the Oriental Yacht Club, and on the south by Harbor Island Park. Treatment currently consists of screening,
grit removal, primary sedimentation, the activated sludge process, and disinfection with sodium
hypochlorite.

Through its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has imposed Waste Load Allocation (WLA) limits for nitrogen on
the four Westchester County wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the Long Island Sound. The
increasingly stringent WLA limits for nitrogen will be phased in over the 10-year period from 2004 to 2014,
and the Mamaroneck plant is facing an ultimate total nitrogen limit of approximately 4 mg/L calculated on
a 12-month rolling average basis, a uniquely low limit for this climate in the United States. The very weak
wastewater (primary effluent COD 124 mg/L, TSS 44 mg/L, and TKN 18 mg/L) means that in order to
meet the low nitrogen limits, carbon will have to be added to the process to support biological
denitrification. A number of upgrade options are being considered to enable the plant to meet its new

2
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve…

permit requirements. An initial evaluation indicated that nitrification and denitrification could be achieved
using the IFAS process. The low strength of the influent wastewater suggests that MBBR may also be a
viable option for nitrification if followed by a denitrifying stage to achieve the targeted total nitrogen
concentration in the plant effluent. It was therefore decided to test both IFAS and MBBR processes, and
Westchester County Executive Andrew J Spano, through the departments of Environmental Facilities and
Public Works, retained Black & Veatch to perform pilot testing of these processes at this facility.

METHODOLOGY
Pilot trials were carried out at the Mamaroneck WWTP over a 6-month period during the winter of 2004-
2005. A trailer equipped with two pilot plant trains was provided by AnoxKaldnes (Figure 3). Train 1 was
configured as a three-stage aerobic MBBR with 63% media fill in each reactor (AnoxKaldnes K1 media,
specific surface area 500 m2/m3) and train 2 was configured with the same K1 media as two stages of
aerobic IFAS (45% fill and 55% fill) followed by a post-anoxic stage also containing IFAS media (45% fill)
and dosed with methanol (Figure 4). A pre-denitrification stage was not used for either process, because the
primary effluent was so weak that it afforded limited opportunity to achieve higher levels of denitrification
and would not have been an effective use of the limited available tankage. Media was added to the post-
denitrification stage of the IFAS system to determine how much extra denitrification could be achieved by
fixed microbial growth over a strictly suspended-growth post-denitrification system, and supplemental
alkalinity was added to both pilot plants using a PLC-controlled dosing system.

The MBBR was tested for its ability to achieve complete nitrification in the short retention time (3 hours)
available and at low winter temperatures. If MBBR is selected for full-scale implementation, post-
denitrification or another attached growth process such as a submerged biological filter would be used to
achieve denitrification.

Pilot testing was carried out using identical hydraulic loadings on the two pilot trains to simulate the
hydraulic retention time available in the plant’s aeration basins. For the initial 10-week period (Period 1),
the trains were operated at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 3.5 hours followed by another 10 weeks at
the ultimate HRT of 3 hours (Period 2). Figure 5 shows the volumetric TKN loadings for the two periods
and the equivalent loading on the full-scale plant.

Figure 3. AnoxKaldnes Pilot Trailer on Site at Mamaroneck.

3
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

Train 1: MBBR (Nominal 60% Fill)

Primary R1 R2 R3
Effluent DAF
(AER) (AER) (AER)

Train 2: IFAS with Post-DN (Nominal 50 % Fill)

Primary R4 R5 R6 Post Clarifier

Effluent (AER) (AER) (AN) Air

Methanol

Figure 4. Process Schematics for the Parallel Trains.

6000

350
Period 1 Period 2 Final Weeks

5000
300
Volumetric Loading Rate (g/m /day)

Simulated Nitrogen Loading (ppd)

3

250 M axim u m M on th 3,200 p p d 4000

200
3000

150
Average 2,460 p pd
2000

100

1000
50

0 0
10/20/04 11/9/04 11/29/04 12/19/04 1/8/05 1/28/05 2/17/05 3/9/05 3/29/05 4/18/05 5/8/05

Figure 5. Volumetric TKN Loading on Pilot Plant (left scale) and Equivalent Simulated Plant
Loading (right scale).

On the same graph, horizontal lines indicate the targeted design loadings for annual average (average) and
maximum month conditions. During the period identified as “Final Weeks” on the graph, train 2 was no
longer used for the IFAS process; instead, the tanks were used to provide volume for denitrification as the
final stage of the train 1 MBBR process.

As indicated in Figure 6, the temperature in the MBBR process was around 12°C during the majority of
Period 2, but it occasionally dropped to the design minimum temperature of 11°C. This means that the pilot
testing proceeded at the maximum hydraulic loading, above the targeted maximum month TKN loading
and near the minimum design temperature. Both processes were pushed to their limits to achieve
nitrification with a high load, short HRT, and low temperature; thus the results are truly indicative of the
performance limits for the two technologies at this plant.

4
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve…

RESULTS
Nitrogen control. Figure 7 shows the daily average volumetric loadings and removal rates for the IFAS
pilot plant during the two test periods. IFAS achieved an average ammonia removal of 90% and good
nitrification throughout the testing except for a few points shown on the graph, which occurred at the
lowest temperatures at very high loadings. As indicated in Figure 8, the total nitrogen removal for the
IFAS pilot system during the same two test periods averaged just under 90%.

Table 1 is a summary of the effluent nitrogen concentrations for the IFAS pilot plant. It shows that the
average effluent total nitrogen during both test periods was below the target of 4.0 mg/L.
The composition of the nitrogen in the IFAS pilot train effluent is shown in Figure 9. The median of the
daily average total nitrogen concentrations for both test periods was 2.4 mg/L: 0.9 mg/L ammonia, 0.7
mg/L soluble organic nitrogen, 0.5 mg/L particulate organic nitrogen, and 0.3 mg/L nitrate. Figure 9 also
shows the average concentrations for the IFAS effluent samples above and below the median values.

20
19 Period 2 Final Weeks
Period 1
18
Historic Average Temperature, 16 C
17
16
15
Temperature (C)

14
13
12
11
10
Targeted Sustained Low Temparture, 11 C
9
8
7
6
5
10/20/04 11/9/04 11/29/04 12/19/04 1/8/05 1/28/05 2/17/05 3/9/05 3/29/05 4/18/05 5/8/05

Reactor R1 Reactor R2 Reactor R3

Figure 6. Process Temperature for MBBR Pilot.

5
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

100%
250

90%
225

80%
200
Volumetric Ammonia Removal Rate

175

150
(g/m3/d)

125

100

75

50

25

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Volumetric Ammonia Loading Rate
(g/m3/d)

First 10-Week Period Second 10-Week Period

Figure 7. Ammonia Removal by IFAS Process.

250 100%

225 90%
Volumetric Total Nitrogen Removal Rate

200 80%

175

150
(g/m /d)
3

125

100

75

50

25

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
V o lu m e tric N itro g e n (T K N ) L o a d in g R a te
3
(g /m /d )

F irs t 1 0 -W e e k P e rio d S e c o n d 1 0 -W e e k P e rio d

Figure 8. Total Nitrogen Removal by IFAS Process.

6
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve…

6 .0

5 .5

5 .0

4 .5
Concentration (mg-N/L)

4 .0 0 .5

3 .5
0 .6

3 .0
0 .7
2 .5
0 .3
2 .0
0 .3 0 .5

1 .5
0 .4
0 .7 2 .3
1 .0
0 .7

0 .5 0 .9
0 .5
0 .0
< 2 .4 m g -N /L M e d ia n (2 .4 m g -N /L ) > 2 .4 m g - N /L

A m m o n ia S o lu b le O r g a n ic N P a r tic u la te O r g a n ic N N itr a te s

Figure 9. IFAS Low, Median, and High Effluent Nitrogen Composition.

Table 1. IFAS Effluent Monitoring.

Effluent Nitrogen Monitoring (mg-N/L)

Value Overall Period 1 Period 2

Total Nitrogen
Average 3.4 3.8 3.1
Median 2.6 3.6 2.4
Minimum 1.1 1.1 1.4
Maximum 10.5 10.5 8.9
Ammonia
Average 1.1 0.6 1.6
Median 0.5 0.2 0.9
Minimum 0.1 0.1 0.1
Maximum 7.5 3.4 7.5
TKN
Average 2.3 1.7 2.7
Median 1.7 1.3 1.9
Minimum 0.7 0.7 1.1
Maximum 8.5 4.6 8.5
(1)
Nitrates
Average 1.3 2.4 0.4
Median 0.5 2.4 0.3
Minimum 0.1 0.1 0.1
Maximum 6.9 6.9 2.1
(1)
Sum of nitrite plus nitrates.

7
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

The results of pilot testing showed that the IFAS process could indeed meet the effluent total nitrogen
limits for the plant. The test results also confirmed that the MBBR process was capable of achieving almost
complete nitrification (Figure 10). The average effluent ammonia concentration during the entire testing
period was 0.6 mg/L, as shown in Table 2. Coupling this nitrification performance with the post-
denitrification results during the final weeks of pilot testing demonstrated a likely 3.6 mg/L effluent total
nitrogen concentration, which is below the target of 4.0 mg/L. The average effluent nitrate concentration
during the final weeks, when denitrification was employed, was 1 mg/L. As shown in Table 2, the overall
effluent TKN concentration was 2.5 mg/L.

Ammonia profiles. Figures 11 and 12 show the ammonia profile through the IFAS and MBBR pilot trains,
respectively, based on grab samples taken during the two testing periods. The IFAS profile indicates
significant ammonia removal in both aerobic reactors, whereas the MBBR profile indicates less
nitrification in the first reactor, with the majority taking place in the second reactor.

100%
250

90%
225
Volumetric Ammonia Removal Rate

200

175

150
(g/m /d)
3

125

100

75

50

25

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Volumetric Ammonia Loading Rate
3
(g/m /d)

First 10-Week Period Second 10-Week Period Final Weeks

Figure 10. MBBR Ammonia Removal.

8
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve…

Table 2. MBBR Effluent Monitoring.

Effluent Nitrogen Monitoring (mg-N/L)
Period Period Final
Value Overall 1 2 Weeks
Ammonia
Average 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.2
Median 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4
Minimum 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Maximum 5.2 1.7 1.3 5.2
TKN
Average 2.5 1.9 2.5 3.5
Median 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.5
Minimum 0.6 0.6 1.3 1.0
Maximum 11 4.4 4.4 11
Nitrates(1)
Average - 13 11 1
Median - 13 11 0.3
Minimum - 9 6 <0.1
Maximum - 17 13 7
(1)
Sum of nitrite plus nitrate.

16.0

14.0

12.0
Concentration (mg-N/L)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Primary Effluent R-4 Effluent R-5 Effluent Effluent

Period 1 Period 2
Figure 11. Ammonia Profile through the IFAS Process.

9
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

16.0

14.0

12.0
Concentration (mg-N/L)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Primary Effluent R-1 Effluent R-2 Effluent R-3 Effluent Effluent

Period 1 Period 2 Final Weeks

Figure 12. Ammonia Profile through the MBBR Process.

Rate tests
Nitrification rate tests were periodically carried out on both pilot test trains. Table 3 shows the volumetric
nitrification rate measured for the microbes attached to the media taken from aerobic reactors R-4 and R-5
and from the mixed liquor of the IFAS train. These tests were conducted by placing 150 pieces of media
into 315 mL, resulting in a test apparatus fill ratio of 46 percent. The results indicate that significant
nitrification occurred in both reactors, with the highest rate in the second reactor (R-5). The test on January
26, 2005, which was conducted during very high loadings and low temperatures, resulted in a very low
nitrification rate for the mixed liquor (1 mg/L•hr) and a rate that was an order of magnitude higher (12
mg/L•hr) for the attached-growth microbes in R-5. During this period, nitrification occurred primarily in
the attached growth biomass, with very little occurring in the suspended-growth biomass.

Table 3. IFAS Process Nitrification Rate Test Results.

IFAS Process – Nitrification Rate Test Results (1), (2) (mg NH3-N/L•hr)
Test Date R-4 Media R-5 Media Mixed Liquor
01/26/05 2.2 (0.22) 12 (1.25) 1
03/08/05 7.25 (0.753) 8.82 (0.916) 4
03/21/05 6.6 (0.685) 8.8 (0.917) 2.2
(1)
Rates are corrected to 20°C (68°F) using 1.072 Arrhenius constant.
(2)
Values shown in parentheses are the rate results in terms of g/m2•day.
IFAS Process – Nitrification Rate Test Temperatures (°C)
01/26/05 15.9 15.8 15.5
03/08/05 15.4 15.5 15.3
03/21/05 18.1 18.0 17.0

The results of nitrification rate testing for the MBBR pilot train, expressed as a removal rate per available
specific surface area on the media, are presented in Table 4. The rate for the first reactor (R-1) is much

10
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve…

lower than for the two other reactors, indicating that most of the nitrification occurs in the second two
reactors (R-2 and R-3).

Table 4. MBBR Process Nitrification Rate Test Results.

MBBR Process – Nitrification Rate Test Results(1) (g/m2•day)
Test Date R-1 Media R-2 Media R-3 Media
01/27/05 0.3 0.77 0.77
03/07/05 0.3 0.85 0.91
(1)
Rates are corrected to 20°C (68°F) using 1.072 Arrhenius constant.

MBBR Process – Nitrification Rate Test Temperatures (°C)

01/27/05 14.6 14.6 14.3
03/07/05 17.6 18.3 18.4

The IFAS process must achieve complete nitrification and denitrification during the same 3-hour retention
period during which the MBBR process would achieve nitrification only. To provide adequate
denitrification in the limited volume, IFAS media was added to the post-denitrification stage with the
expectation that it would promote growth of slower-growing methanolotrophic bacteria on the media –
enhancing denitrification, and preventing washout of these bacteria. This approach proved successful, as
shown by the denitrification rate test results for the media mixed with suspended growth compared to the
rate results for the media alone (Figure 13). Adding media to the post-anoxic zone effectively doubles the
denitrification rate from 14 mg/L•hr to 28 mg/L•hr. The preceding rates have been adjusted from the raw
data in Figure 13 to 20°C rates, and the full denitrification rate testing results are shown in Tables 5 and 6.

30
Denitrification Rate
Reactor 6 (Post-DN IFAS)
Nitrate-N Concentration (mg/L)

20

Mixed Liquor
Only

10

y = -0.1756x + 17.544
Mixed Liquor R2 = 0.9947
+ Media
y = -0.3531x + 17.762
R2 = 0.9954
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)

Figure 13. Influence of Media on IFAS Post-Denitrification.

11
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

Media biomass. In addition to testing nitrification and denitrification rates, the mass of solids on the media
in each pilot reactor was measured during each testing period. The results of this analysis are listed in Table
7 for the IFAS process and in Table 8 for the MBBR process. The values for each reactor are expressed in
terms of an equivalent MLSS concentration.

As expected, the media in the MBBR reactors held a higher biomass concentration than the IFAS media.
The biomass on the IFAS media shares its workload with the suspended-growth biomass, which can
remove most of the carbon substrate, whereas the MBBR media has to achieve both nitrification and
carbonaceous substrate removal solely by the attached growth. Observance of the highest biomass
concentration in the MBBR in the second reactor is attributable to lower dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the first reactor. However, the operating DO values were in excess of 3 mg/L for the first reactor.
Complete operating DO data for each pilot train are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 5. IFAS Process Denitrification Rate Test Results.

IFAS Process – Denitrification Rate Test Results (1) (mg/L/hr)

Test Date Media Plus Mixed Liquor(2) Mixed Liquor Only
01/26/05 28.7 14.1
03/08/05 28 16.8
03/22/05 26.7 11.7
Corrected to 20°C (68°F) using 1.072 Arrhenius constant.
45% media fill ratio.
IFAS Process – Denitrification Rate Test Temperatures (°C)
01/26/05 15.7 15.8
03/08/05 14.3 14.0
03/22/05 14.3 14.0

Table 6. MBBR Process Denitrification Rate Test Results.

MBBR Process – Denitrification Rate Test Results(1) (g/m2/day)
Test Date R-6 Media(2,3)
4/20/05 2.0 (14.5)
Rate corrected to 20°C (68°F) from 21.7oC using 1.072 Arrhenius constant.
Parenthetical value in units of mg/L/hr.
45% media fill ratio.

Table 7. IFAS Pilot Plant Suspended- and Attached-Growth Biomass Measurements.

Suspended- and Attached-Growth Biomass (expressed as equivalent MLSS, mg/L)

Reactor Overall Period 1 Period 2

R-4 Attached 1,900 (6 g/m2) 1,000 2,200
Growth (45%
fill)
R-5 Attached 2,000 (6 g/m2) 1,300 2,300
Growth (55%
fill)
R-6 (Denite) 250 (1 g/m2) 100 400
Attached

12
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
A Pilot-Scale Comparison of IFAS and MBBR to Achieve…

Growth (45%
fill)
Suspended 2,350 2,400 2,300

Table 8. MBBR Pilot Plant Attached-Growth Biomass Measurements.

MBBR – Attached Growth Biomass (expressed as equivalent MLSS, mg/L)

Final
Reactor Overall Period 1 Period 2 Weeks
R-1 (63% Fill) 2,550 (8 g/m2) 1,750 2,200 3,700
R-2 (63% Fill) 5,400 2,000 5,400 5,500
(17 g/m2)
R-3 (63% Fill) 2,600 (8 g/m2) 700 2,900 1,700
2
R-6 (Denite, 45% 400 (4 g/m ) -- -- 400
Fill)

Table 9. IFAS Operating Concentrations for Dissolved Oxygen.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Reactor Overall Period 1 Period 2

R-4 3.5 3.9 3.1
R-5 5.5 5.2 5.8
R-6 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Table 10. MBBR Operating Levels for Dissolved Oxygen.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Final
Reactor Overall Period 1 Period 2 Weeks
R-1 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.6
R-2 8.6 8.7 9.0 7.3
R-3 8.9 9.0 9.0 6.9

Also of note is that the amount of attached growth biomass in the denitrification stages of both
configurations was extremely low. In fact, the amount of biomass on the media was so small that it was
difficult to obtain a representative sample owing to the very low methanolotrophic biomass yield. Little
growth was observed on the exterior faces of the media in any of the reactor zones other than at the base of
the exterior ridges. Biomass thickness was not assessed because the attached biomass is not configured as a
uniform layer of growth, but rather it is a multi-fingered mass. Measuring thickness would be difficult and
largely meaningless.

DISCUSSION
Both the IFAS and MBBR processes proved to be viable options for the Mamaroneck plant. While
ammonia removal through the IFAS pilot train was not as consistently good as ammonia removal through

13
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937
 Johnson et al.

the MBBR train, particularly when the loads exceeded the design values at low temperatures, the overall
nitrogen removal with the IFAS process was good.

Converting the plant to the IFAS process for nitrogen removal would cost less than converting to use of the
MBBR process. Incorporating the MMBR process would entail costly structural modifications to provide
extra volume for denitrification, either by adding tankage or by converting the existing secondary clarifiers
to high-rate lamella settlers and utilizing some of the clarifier volume for post-denitrification MBBR
reactors.

The recommended plan for Mamaroneck is to convert the existing aeration basins into an IFAS system. If
the process successfully and consistently meets the targeted effluent nitrogen limit, no further modifications
will be required. However, if the plant is unable to meet the nitrogen limits as influent loads increase and
the waste load allocation decreases, the IFAS system could be converted to an MBBR system and the
secondary clarifiers could be modified so as to use some of their volume for denitrification. This would be
a cost-effective approach to staging the plant improvements, because the MBBR process uses the same
media, sieves, and aeration equipment as the IFAS process. Actual costs are yet to be determined, but
moving to MBBR is obviously more costly because that would require the same modifications to the
existing reactors as the IFAS option as well as additional costs for the final clarifier modifications.

CONCLUSIONS
The work performed allows conclusions to be reached on several issues. The most significant conclusions
are:

• The Mamaroneck SPDES WLA limits in the future will be 4 mg/L total nitrogen based on a 12-
month rolling average.
• IFAS and MBBR were considered viable options for the Mamaroneck plant upgrade where space
constraints are acute, but pilot plant studies were needed to verify design criteria.
• .IFAS and MBBR pilot units were operated at 3.0 and 3.5 hour HRT to simulate full-scale
conditions in the existing treatment facilities.
• Total nitrogen removal by the IFAS pilot averaged approximately 90 percent over the study period.
• With post-denitrification, the MBBR pilot system attained 3.6 mg/L effluent total nitrogen
concentration
• Significant nitrification was observed within both aerobic stages of the IFAS pilot, whereas most
of the nitrification in the MBBR pilot occurred in the second aerobic cell.
• At high organic and nitrogen loading, nitrification population shifted largely to the second oxic
zone attached growth in the IFAS pilot.
• Most of the nitrification in the MBBR pilot was observed in the second and third aerobic cells,
indicating low nitrifier growth in the first aerobic cell where the faster growing carbonaceous
microbes effectively out-competed the nitrifiers. Nitrification rate tests confirmed this observation.
• As demonstrated by the rate results shown on Figure 13, adding media to the IFAS post-
denitrification zone approximately doubled the overall denitrification rate in that zone due to
effective retention of the slower growing methanolotrophs as compared to a purely suspended
system which was more prone to washing out these microbes.
• Biomass growth on the media in both the IFAS and MBBR pilots was very low and indicative of
the low growth rate for methanolotrophs.

REFERENCES
Johnson, T.L.; Steichen, M.; Shaw, A.; McQuarrie, J.; Hunter, G. (2006). When is IFAS the Right Choice?
Water Environment Federation 79th Annual Conference, Dallas, TX, October 2006.

Rusten, B.; Hem, L.; Ødegaard, H. (1995). Nitrogen Removal from Dilute Wastewater in Cold Climate
Using Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors. Water Environment Research, 67 (1), pp 65-74.

14
Water Practice™ • Vol. 1 • No. 5 © 2007 Water Environment Federation • doi: 10.2175/193317707X256937