Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 2: 213–224, 2003.

213

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Moving-medium biofilm reactors

M. Rodgers* & X.-M. Zhan

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland (*author for correspon-
dence: e-mail: Michael.rodgers@nuigalway.ie)

Key words: biofilm, rotating biological contactor, moving bed biofilm reactor, vertically moving biofilm
reactor, fluidized-bed reactor

Abstract
Four moving-medium biofilm reactors treating wastewater were reviewed in this paper: the rotating bio-
logical contactor (RBC), the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), the vertically moving biofilm reactor
(VMBR) and the fluidized-bed reactor (FBR). The RBC process has been applied widely. MBBR is a good
process for upgrading current wastewater treatment systems. VMBR is suitable for treating small waste-
water flows. FBR can maximize pollutant removals and minimize sludge production.

1. Introduction moving biofilm reactors and fluidized bed biofilm

The application of biofilm technology in waste-
water treatment originated from the first full-scale
operation of tricking filters in the early 1880s in
Wales (Lazarova & Manem 2000). However, its
application was limited until the middle of the
twentieth century, with the development of new
biofilm media and biofilm reactor configurations.
In comparison with the suspended-growth waste-
water treatment systems, the advantages of the
attached growth biofilm systems are: (1) less en-
ergy required; (2) simple operation and less
equipment maintenance; (3) no problems of sludge
bulking and better sludge thickening properties;
(4) compactness due to the availability of the
biofilm media with high specific surface area; (5)
co-existence of aerobic and anoxic microorganisms
within the same ecosystem; and (6) lower sensi-
tivity and better recovery from shock loadings.
Biofilm processes can be divided into two cat-
egories: fixed-medium systems and moving-med-
ium systems. In the fixed-medium systems, biofilm
media are static in the reactors and the biological
reactions take place in the biofilm developed on
the static media. The systems include trickling
filters and biological aerated filters. The moving-
medium systems include rotating biological cont-
actors, moving-bed biofilm reactors, vertically
reactors, where biofilm media are kept continu-
ously moving by means of mechanical, hydraulic
or air forces. There are two major advantages of
the moving-medium systems over the fixed-med-
ium biofilters. The first one is that clogging, which
occurs in the biofilters, can be well controlled in
the moving-medium bioreactors due to hydraulic
shear forces. Trulear & Characklis (1982) found
that the biofilm detachment rate occurring on an
annular reactor increased with rotational speed.
Cheng et al. (1997) observed that in a three phase
draft-tube fluidized bed using granular activated
carbon (GAC), when the mean liquid velocity in-
creased from 0.12 to 0.16 m/s, the biomass at-
tached onto the GAC decreased from 30.4 to
15.6 mg VSS/g GAC. The other advantage is that
the movement of the media facilitates hydraulic
film diffusion, transporting the substrates from the
bulk fluid to the surface of the biofilm, and also
benefits the internal mass transport in the biofilm.
de Beer et al. (1996) showed that the thickness of
the mass transfer boundary layer above the pores
and the cell clusters in the heterogeneous biofilms
decreased exponentially with increasing flow
velocity. Zhu & Chen (2001) observed that the
performance of a nitrification biofilm could be
significantly improved by increasing the Reynolds
number of the flow over the biofilm surface.
214

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of RBC units (USEPA 1993).

2. Rotating biological contactors
The original patent of a rotating biological cont-
actor (RBC) was filed by A.T. Maltby in 1928
(Winkler 1981) but the first full-scale RBC was
installed in Germany in 1958 with the appearance
of polystyrene as an economic construction
material. There are many thousands of RBC units
operating world wide (Mba et al. 1999). The
advantages of this process are their low costs of
operation and maintenance, and simplicity of
operation. The power to rotate a shaft is 2–4 kW
per shaft, or 32 kW/1000 m2 of media surface. It is
estimated that RBC systems would require 1/3–1/2
of the energy of an activated sludge system (Droste
1997).
2.1. Structure of rotating biological contactors
An RBC unit consists of closely spaced circular
discs that are mounted on a horizontal shaft and
are partially or completely submerged in waste-
water (Figure 1). Specially fabricated cylindrical
cellular media can also be used in place of the
discs. The shaft is rotated by a mechanical or
compressed air drive. In practice, a primary clari-
fier and a secondary clarifier are put before and
after the RBC unit. In order to prevent algal
growth, decrease heat loss, and protect the plastic
discs from the effects of ultraviolet exposure and
weather, RBC units are always covered. Typically,
RBC units, used in secondary treatment of muni-
cipal wastewater, are partially submerged (about
40%) in wastewater. Submergence to 70–90% may
be an alternative design, providing the advantages
of less loading on the shafts and bearings, larger
media volume available and fewer RBC units re-
quired (WEF & ASCE 1998; Tchobanoglous et al.
2003). However, if the deeper submerged RBC is
used to treat wastewater aerobically, dissolved
oxygen in the liquid will be lower and as a conse-
quence, additional air-drive units will be used to
provide oxygen and rotation. On the other hand,
the deeper submerged RBC units, especially com-
pletely submerged RBCs, can be used as anaerobic
rotating biological contactors (Lu et al. 1997) or
used for denitrification (Teixeira & Oliveira 2001).
Generally, RBC units are designed and oper-
ated in a series of three or four stages (Figure 2).
Stages are accomplished by using baffles in a tank
or using a series of tanks. The first stage always has
the highest organic loading and organic removal

(a) One flow, four stages

(b) Two parallel flows, four stages each

(c) Step feed flow, four stages

(d) Tapered feed flow, four stages

Figure 2. Typical staging arrangement of RBC units.


Figure 3. KLa values measured versus rotational speed of discs
(Boumansour & Vasel 1998).
efficiency. Beyond the fourth stage, the improve-
ment of organic removal is insignificant. The latter
stages are used for nitrification. Low-density media
are used in the first and second stages and medium-
and high-density media are used in latter stages.
The RBC biofilm substrata materials include
Styrofoam, high-density plastic or lightweight
media. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) has been
the standard for plastic media since the early 1970s
(WEF & ASCE 1998) and is most commonly used.
2.2. Aeration mechanism
The frequent rotation of the media by the shaft
supplies oxygen to the microorganisms both in the
biofilm and in the bulk fluid. Oxygen transfers
from the air to the RBC unit in three ways: oxygen
absorption at the liquid film over the biofilm’s
surface when the biofilm is in the air; direct oxygen
transfer happening at the air–water interface
caused by the turbulence created by the rotatory
movement; and direct oxygen absorption by the
microorganisms during the air exposure (Grady &
Lim 1980). The oxygen transfer capacity of an
RBC, in terms of the physical transfer coefficient,
KLa, increases with rotational speed (Figure 3).
The biological discs benefit from a greater oxygen
transfer when they are covered by biomass (Bou-
mansour & Vasel 1998).
Aeration is the most important design factor
for aerobic RBCs. If sufficient oxygen is not sup-
plied by the rotating motion, a supplemental aer-
ation system should be installed.
215
2.3. Application in wastewater treatment
The factors affecting the operation and perfor-
mance of RBC systems include influent wastewater
characteristics, organic and hydraulic loading
rates, temperature, biofilm control, dissolved
oxygen, rotation speed and number of stages.
2.3.1. Carbonaceous oxidation
It is very difficult to model the RBC process be-
cause this system is very complicated and includes
aeration, nutrient and oxygen mass transfer, bio-
film growth and detachment, and the participation
of suspended biomass. Hence, empirical models are
used to simulate the system. A second-order model
(Tchobanoglous et al. 2003) can be used to design
the RBC process, for carbonaceous oxidation:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sn ¼
1 þ 1 þ ð4Þð0:00974ÞðAs =QÞSn
1
ð2Þð0:00974ÞðAs =QÞ
where, Sn)1and Sn are the soluble BOD (SBOD)
concentrations in Stage n)1 and Stage n, respec-
tively, mg/l; As, disc surface area on Stage n, m2;
Q, flow rate, m3/day.
2.3.2. Nitrification
Due to the competition between the nitrifiers and
the heterotrophs, the maximum nitrification rate
occurs when soluble BOD drops to 10 mg/l (WEF
& ASCE 1998). Therefore, nitrification always
takes place in the third and fourth stages. The
maximum nitrification rate strongly depends on
dissolved oxygen in the bulk fluid, provided that
the ammonium concentration exceeds 3–5 mg/l.
2.3.3. Denitrification
RBC systems for denitrification have not been
widely used. The laboratory scale RBC studied by
Teixeira & Oliveira (2001) at 26 C, 50 mg/l influ-
ent NO3-N and rotational speed at 2 rpm shows
that the maximum denitrification rate was 15.2 g
NO3-N/m2 day. The design criteria for post-deni-
trification rates are 0.40 and 3.25 g NO3-N/m2 day
at effluent NO3-N concentrations of 1.0 and
6.0 mg/l, respectively (Tchobanoglous et al. 2003).
Typical design information for rotating bio-
logical contactors when the wastewater tempera-
ture was above 13 C is listed in Table 1.
Much attention should be given to the first
stage in design and operation, where organic
216
Table 1. The organic and hydraulic loadings required in designing RBC units (Tchobanoglous et al. 2003)
Parameter Unit
BOD removal
Hydraulic loading m3/m2 day 0.08–0.16
Organic loading g SBOD/m2 day 4–10
g BOD/ m2 day 8–20
Maximum 1st-stage g SBOD/m2 day 12a
organic loading
g BOD/m2 day 24–30
NH4–N loading g N/m2 day
Hydraulic retention time h 0.7–1.5
a
WEF & ASCE (1998).
loading should not exceed 30 g BOD/m2 day or
12 g SBOD/m2 day. When the liquid temperature
is below 13 C, temperature correction factors
should be considered and can be obtained from the
equipment manufacturers or from a pilot study.
Normally, when the temperature drops from 13 to
5 C, approximately 2–2.5 times more media sur-
face area should be used, providing that the same
performance is required.
2.4. Biofilm control
The biofilms on RBC units are structurally heter-
ogeneous, consisting of cell clusters and voids with
spatial microbial distribution of nitrifiers and
heterotrophs. Investigation on the full-scale RBC
with confocal and light microscopes shows that the
outer biofilm layer is very heterogeneous and
complex, mainly composed of filamentous bacte-
ria, protozoa, green eukaryotic algae and small
metazoans. The inner layer is more uniform and
compact (Martin-Cereceda et al. 2001). In the
RBC units for carbonaceous oxidation, hetero-
trophs compete with the nitrifiers in the outermost
biofilm layer for oxygen and space. The microbial
density is reduced in the innermost biofilm layer,
which has a larger percentage of non viable bac-
teria than the outer layer. The metabolically active
cell fraction decreased from 35 ± 13% in the
outermost biofilm to 15 ± 4% in the innermost
biofilm (Okabe et al. 1996). The filamentous
microorganisms are an integral component of the
biofilms in full-scale RBCs. The filaments fre-
quently present in the biofilm are Beggiatoa ssp.
and Sphaerotilus natans (Galvan et al. 2000). The
Treatment
BOD removal and Separate nitrification
nitrification
0.03–0.08 0.04–0.10
2.5–8 0.5–1.0
5–16 1–2
12a
24–30
0.75–1.5
1.5–4 1.2–3
development of Beggiatoa, a reduced-sulphur ox-
idising bacteria, is always taken as a warning for
the performance of RBC units because its bloom-
ing prevents the sloughing of thick biofilm from
the discs, which can lead to overload on the disc
supports (Surampalli & Baumann 1997). The
biofilm thickness can be controlled by increasing
rotational speed, periodically reversing the direc-
tion of RBC rotation to promote biofilm stripping,
supplemental aeration to control the growth of
Beggiatoa, step feeding, decreasing organic load-
ing to a single stage, and chemically stripping with
caustic, chlorine and other chemicals.
2.5. Mechanical failure
Many earlier RBC units experienced mechanical
failures. Mba et al. (1999) found that after inves-
tigating over 260 RBC units the mechanical defi-
ciencies associated with the RBC were mainly: (i)
shaft failures, resulting in complete collapse of the
unit; (ii) bearing failures and (iii) media support
structure failures. The causes are low frequency
corrosion fatigue, microbiologically influenced
corrosion (MIC), incorrect grease utilization and
inadequate locking of nuts and bolts. More recent
designs have eliminated most of these problems
(Griffin & Findlay 2000).
3. Moving bed biofilm reactor
Moving bed biofilm reactor processes (MBBR) were
developed in Scandinavia in the late 1980s by Kald-
nes Miljiteknologi (KMT) in cooperation with a
Norwegian research institute, SINTEF, and this

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of MBBR systems (Ødegaard et al. 1994).
technology has been patented. There are more than
300 installations using this process worldwide. In a
MBBR system, biofilm is grown on small carrier
elements that are moving freely along with the liquid
in the reactor (Figure 4; Ødegaard et al. 1994). In the
aerobic MBBR, the biofilm carriers are kept moving
by compressed air or oxygen aeration. In anoxic and
anaerobic processes, mechanical mixers keep the
carriers in motion. In order to ensure good mixing
and prevent sludge settling in the anoxic and anaer-
obic tanks, time-controlled coarse bubble diffusers
can be installed to mix the bulk fluid by blowing air
for a few seconds a few times a day. The carriers are
kept in the reactors by placing a screen at the outlet.
Agitation continuously moves the carriers over the
surface of the screen and the scrubbing action pre-
vents clogging. The advantages of the MBBR pro-
cesses include: the reactor can be very compact by
using biofilm carriers with high specific surface area;
the system is non-cloggable and does not need peri-
odic backwashing, which makes the operation con-
tinuous; and the system is easy to retrofit/upgrade in
existing wastewater treatment plants (Ødegaard
et al. 1994; Pastorelli et al. 1997; Harvey 2002).
Sludge that is sloughed off the carriers is removed
downstream in settlement or flocculation stages.
Table 2. Properties of biofilm carrier elements
Carrier Kaldnes 1a Kaldnes 2a
Length (mm) 7 15
Diameter (mm) 9 15
Protected area (m2/m3) 500 350
a
Data are from the website: http://wwwny.anox.se/eng/b2_2_barare.htm.
b
Data are from the reference (Andreottola et al. 2000a).
217
3.1. Biofilm carriers
The biofilm carriers, made from high-density
polyethylene or polypropylene, have a large surface
area and a density slightly less or heavier than
1.0 · 103 kg/m3. Table 2 lists the biofilm carrier
elements used in full- or pilot-scale plants. Large
carriers are used in high organic loading applica-
tions while the smaller carriers are applied to low
loadings. There is no significant difference between
the removal rates of the Kaldness 1 carriers as
compared to the Kaldnes 2 carriers as long as they
are compared on the basis of surface area removal
rates (Ødegaard 2000). The filling ratio and the
specific surface area of the biofilm carriers are the
two main design parameters. The filling ratio ranges
from 30–70% of the total reactor volume. It is rec-
ommended that the filling fractions should be below
70% so as to be able to move the carriers freely
(Odegaard 2000). Rusten et al. (1992) recom-
mended that the surface area of the biofilm carriers
should be calculated based on the internal (pro-
tected) surface because microscopy has shown no
sign of biofilm growth on the outside of the smooth
plastic elements due to the erosion of biofilm caused
by the frequent collision between the particles.
Natrix Maxia Natrix Optimaa FLOCOR-RMPb
50 50 20-30
52–64 60 15–20
200 300 160
218
3.2. Application
MBBR can be used in aerobic, anoxic and anaer-
obic conditions, depending on the method used for
mixing the suspended carriers. Therefore, it can be
used in carbonaceous oxidation, nitrification and
denitrification processes. Table 3 summarizes the
application of the MBBR technology in wastewa-
ter treatment, including municipal wastewater and
industrial wastewater.
3.2.1. Carbonaceous oxidation
For carbonaceous oxidation, the maximum re-
moval rate in a dilute municipal wastewater was
around 30 g soluble COD (SCOD)/m2 day at a
loading of 60 g SCOD/m2 day. The process can be
designed at a loading rate of 15 g BOD7/m2 day
(Ødegaard 2000).
Andreottola et al. (2000a) observed that a low
temperature (4.8–8.2 C) did not significantly
influence the COD removal efficiency. They found
hydraulic retention time (HRT) affected the COD
removal in MBBR processes and suggested that
the HRT should be higher than 5 h.
3.2.2. Nitrification
Temperature, concentrations of ammonium and
dissolved oxygen in the bulk fluid, and the loading
of easily biodegradable organic matters influence
nitrification. The nitrification rate increases with
increasing temperature (Rusten et al. 2000). When
the effluent ammonium concentration was above
4.0 mg/l, the nitrification rate was nearly first or-
der with respect to dissolved oxygen, implying that
liquid diffusion is the limiting step of the process
(Pastorelli et al. 1997). The critical DO is above
2–3 mg/l when nitrification happens (Ødegaard
et al. 1994) and the nitrification efficiency increased
by 70% when DO concentration increased from 5 to
8 mg/l (Rusten et al. 2000).
Nitrification is retarded by the organic carbon
loading. When the organic loading was more than
4.5 g COD/m2 day, more dissolved oxygen was
needed for the nitrification.
3.2.3. Denitrification
The influence of DO on denitrification at the
average wastewater temperature of 7.2 C was
expressed as (Rusten et al. 2000):
rDN ¼ rDN;Max ð1
0:66ðDOÞ0:5 Þ
where, rDN is the denitrification rate and rDN,Max is
the maximum denitrification rate.
The denitrification rates can be in the wide
range of 10–220 g NOx-N removed/m3 day,
depending on the available carbon source (biode-
gradable SCOD: 10–50 mg/l) and water tempera-
ture (5–15 C) (Rusten et al. 2000).
4. Vertically moving biofilm reactor
The vertically moving biofilm reactor (VMBR)
was invented at the Civil Engineering Department,
National University of Ireland, Galway and lab-
oratory- and pilot-scale studies have been con-
ducted. This process is based on the use of a plastic
media module, vertically moving into and out of
the reactor water in aerobic systems, and under the
water in anoxic and anaerobic systems, while the
activated biomass grows as a biofilm on the media
surface. The media module is supported in a
stainless steel frame and connected to a stainless
steel shaft that is attached to a device that lifts and
lowers the biofilm module. The movement is con-
trolled by limit switches and is powered with a
compressed air system or a mechanical motor
(Figure 5). Primary and secondary clarifiers are
needed before and after the VMBR, respectively.
This process evolved from the principle of rotating
biological contactors but it has several advantages
in comparison with the RBC process. The VMBR
can be more readily assembled than the RBC
system. Complete mixing is easily achieved in the
VMBR process, while there is no common agree-
ment on whether an RBC behaves as a plug-flow
or a completely mixed reactor (Banerjee 1997).
The movement of the VMBR is very flexible while
the RBC has a peripheral speed limitation. The
fluid velocity past the biofilm in the VMBR sys-
tems is uniform, in contrast with RBC systems
where biofilm speeds vary from zero at the center
of the shaft to a maximum at the perimeter.
The biofilm cuboid is constructed from high-
specific surface area polyvinyl chloride or poly-
ethylene sheets, which can be crossflow corrugated
with the corrugation angle of 30, 45 or 60 to the
horizontal, or honeycombed with hexagonal ver-
tical columns. The latter cuboid is used in high
loading conditions since biofilm clogging is easily
controlled.
Table 3. Summary of MBBR results

No. Wastewater Scale Configuration Carrier area Filling Performance Reference

(m2/m3) ratio(%)

1 Municipal Full A-O-O 150, 250, 200 – DN rate: 1.25 g NO3-N/m2 day Odegaard et al. (1993)
OLR: 20.0 g SCOD/m2 day
2 Municipal Upgrading – 85 53 73% and 72% for carbon and nitrogen Andreottola et al. (2000a)
removal at temperature lower than 8 C
3 Municipal Pilot O-O-O; 350 – OLR: 8 g SCOD/m2 day Pastorelli et al. (1997)
SBR-O DN rate: 0.3 g NO3-N/m2 day
4 Municipal Pilot O-SCR 333, 238 67, 48 OLR: 7-50 g SBOD5/m2 day Rusten et al. (1998)
5 Municipal Pilot O-O 112 70 76%, 71% and 92% for TCOD, Andreottola et al. (2000b)
SCOD and ammonium removal
6 Municipal Pilot A-A-O-O-A(O)- 330 66 – Rusten et al. (2000)
(A)
7 Pulping Pilot O-O 347 70 70, 96 and 98% for COD, Broch-Due et al. (1994)
BOD7 and toxicity removal;
OLR: 25 kg COD/m3 day
8 Newsprint mill Pilot O-O 350 70 65–75% and 85–95% for COD and Broch-Due et al. (1997)
BOD removal at HRT of 4–5 h
9 Pulping Lab. O 350 58 60–65% for SCOD removal; Jahren et al. (2002)
OLR: 2.5–3.5 kg SCOD/m3 day
10 Dairy Pilot O-O – – 60–85% for COD removal; Rusten et al. (1992)
OLR: 500–900 g COD/m3 h
11 Cheese Upgrading O-O 335 – 87–97% for TCOD removal; Rusten et al. (1996)
OLR: 2–4 kg TCOD/m3 day
12 Chemical industry Pilot O-AS 285 57, 61 95% for BOD5 removal; Rusten et al. (1999)
OLR: 10–20 g BOD5/m2 day
13 Synthetic Lab. SBR – – – Helness & Odegaard (1999)

Note: O: aerobic MBBR; A: anaerobic MBBR; AS: activated sludge reactor; SCR: solid contact reaeration; SBR: sequencing batch reactor; DN: denitrification; OLR: organic
loading rate; Upgrading: upgrading of wastewater treatment plants by using MBBR.
219
220

Power unit vertically moving 0.003

the biofilm module
0.0025

Outlet
0.002

KLa (s-1)
Biofilm media module
0.0015
Inlet
Reactor 0.001

Figure 5. Structure of the VMBR process.

0.0005

4.1. Aeration efficiency 0

The aeration efficiency is a critical parameter
influencing the performance of the VMBR process
when it is used to treat wastewater aerobically. The
aeration is fulfilled by means of the movement of
the module up into the air and down into the bulk
fluid, based on the same mechanisms as those of
the RBC. KLa values notably increased with
increasing movement frequencies (n) and
KLa ¼ 4 · 10)5 n1.67 (Figure 6, Rodgers et al.
2004). KLa values are within the range of 0.0001 –
0.0027 s)1, close to RBC KLa values measured at
similar rotating speeds by Sant’Anna (1980),
Wuidar (1994) and Boumansour & Vasel (1998)
cited by Boumansour & Vasel (1998).
4.2. Application of VMBR in wastewater treatment
The process can be used in carbonaceous oxida-
tion, nitrification, denitrification and anaerobic
digestion of strong wastewater. In the anoxic and
anaerobic conditions, the biofilm module is sub-
merged in the wastewater and kept moving under
the water surface. Typical arrangements of the
VMBR system are shown in Figure 7.
0 3 6 9 12 15
n (cycles per min)
Figure 6. The dependence of KLa on n (Rodgers et al. 2004).
30 mg/l. The nitrification kinetics is zero order
with respect to the concentration of NH4-N when
it is above 1 mg/l. Nitrification rate was directly
proportional to the square root of the wet biofilm
mass (M) when DO in the bulk fluid was above
6 mg/l (Rodgers et al. 2003b):
dðNH4
NÞ
¼
KM 0:5
dt
Where, K is a constant, g0.5/l s.
The nitrification rate for the VMBR was in the
range of 1.3–1.94 g NH4-N/m2 day.
4.2.3. Denitrification
Dienitrification efficiency of 94–98% was obtained
at denitrification loadings from 2.9 to 3.8 g NO3-
N/m2 day at 11 C.

4.2.1. Carbonaceous oxidation

One laboratory-scale experiment with synthetic (a) Carbonaceous oxidation and nitrification
wastewater showed that the removal rate was up
to 43 g SCOD/m2 day or 7.6 kg SCOD/m3 day
(Rodgers 1999; Rodgers & Burke 2001). In a pilot
plant treating municipal wastewater, the removal
rate was up to 35 g SCOD/m2 day or 2.62 kg
COD/m3 day (Rodgers et al. 2003a). Recirculation

(b) Nitrogen removal by pre-denitrification

4.2.2. Nitrification
The maximum nitrification rate occurs when the Figure 7. Typical arrangement of VMBR in wastewater treat-
soluble COD in the bulk fluid is not more than ment (Rodgers & Burke 2002).

The nitrogen removal by using a pre-denitrifi-
cation system with two anoxic VMBR reactors
and four aerobic VMBR reactors showed that
total nitrogen removal efficiency was in the range
of 78–82% at the recirculation ratios of 1.5–2.5.
5. Fluidized-bed reactor
The application of the fluidized-bed reactor pro-
cess (FBR) in wastewater treatment can be traced
back to the 1940s in England, but the media based
FBR systems were not developed until the early
1970s (USEPA 1993). Presently, there are more
than 80 two-phase FBRs in the USA and in Eur-
ope (Lazarova & Manem 2000).
In an FBR system, the media coated with bio-
film are suspended and fluidized in the reactor by
the upward liquid velocity created by the feed and
the recirculation flow. Figure 8 shows the principle
of the aerobic and anaerobic FBR.
In order to maintain the fluidization, the liquid
velocity is up to 10–40 m/h and the effluent is re-
circulated at a ratio of 10:1–20:1 for strong
wastewater treatment and 2:1–5:1 for municipal
wastewater treatment. The empty bed contact time
is 5–20 min.
5.1. Structural components
The important structural components of FBR in-
clude biofilm carriers, the influent distribution
system, the oxygenation system and the biomass
control system.
Biofilm carriers: The biofilm carriers are small
size particles, such as granular activated carbon,
sand, anion and cation exchange resins. These media
can supply a vast area for biofim growth and the
specific surface area to the reactor volume is in the
range of 1000–3000 m2/m3. Due to its high adsorp-
tion capacity, the granular activated carbon (GAC)
has additional advantages over sand as the biofilm
carrier. The GAC-FBR can efficiently remove or-
ganic pollutants through a combination of physical
adsorption and biological transformation. Though
biodegradation is the main mechanism, the adsorp-
tion can cut-off peaks of toxic and shock loadings.
Therefore, GAC-FBR shows a strong potential to
treat toxic organic contaminants, such as soil wash
fluids containing pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Koran
221
et al. 2001), pink wastewater containing trinitrotol-
uene (TNT) (Moteleb et al. 2001) and biodegrada-
tion of dichloromethane (Flanagan 1998).
The heavy biofilm carriers with specific gravity
more than one are used in the up-flow FBR, while,
in the inverse (down-flow) FBR, floating media are
employed.
Influent distribution system: In practice, it is
very difficult to maintain the liquid velocity uni-
form over the cross-sectional area of the reactor,
particularly in the influent regions. In improper
design and operation, the particles sink in the low-
velocity regions and are carried up in the high-
velocity regions. A number of methods are used to
create the uniform inflow, such as a fixed bed of
coarse solid medium, perforated distributor plates,
and tapered and conical entry sections. Further-
more, care should be given to the possible clogging
of the influent distribution system by the biofilm
carrier particles.
Oxygenation system: The oxygenation system is
particularly critical in aerobic FBR systems. In two-
phase FBRs, the oxygenation is always fulfilled by
dissolving high-purity oxygen into the influent
liquid stream outside the reactor. The high-purity
oxygen is used so that the oxygen transfer can be
achieved in a short hydraulic retention time. In
three-phase FBRs, the direct aeration systems are
set up inside the reactors where large biofilm carri-
ers are used. The large biofilm carriers are entrained
by the gas bubbles and a three-phase pseudo-fluid-
ized regime is maintained in the reactor.
Biomass control system: After the biofilm
development on the biofilm carriers, a bed segre-
gation occurs (Hidalgo & Garcia-Encina 2002) and
the biofilm carriers with thicker biofilm get lighter
and are carried up by the flow liquid. In three-phase
FBRs, the biofilm thickness can be controlled by
the shear stress, while in two-phase FBRs, special
devices are used to control the biofilm thickness.
The light carriers with thick biofilm overflow to a
device where the biomass is separated from the
particles and then the cleaned particles are recycled
into the reactor. Using the latter method, the sludge
from the FBR contains about 10% solids, much
higher than the sludge from activated sludge sys-
tems with 1–2% solids. This makes the FBR a
process with good economic potential since about
one third of the operational cost in conventional
activated sludge wastewater treatment plants is
spent on sludge disposal. If biomass control devices
222
Figure 8. Principle of the aerobic FBR (a; Winkler 1981) and anaerobic FBR (b; Maloney et al. 2002).
are designed and operated well, FBR systems can
be constructed without effluent clarification and the
resulting concentrations of total suspended solids
can be in the range of 15–20 mg/l (Tchobanoglous
et al. 2003).
5.2. Application of FBR
The FBR process is the most volumetric efficient
biological reactor available (Harremoës & Henze
2002) because of the high biomass concentration,
20–40 g/l. The advantages of FBRs are: mobility
and small footprints; and the ability to handle
shock loads due to mixing and dilution with
effluent recycle. However, due to some drawbacks
including the complicated inlet and outlet design,
the high pumping power required and the difficulty
to control the biofilm thickness, FBRs are not used
widely. At present, utilization is mainly in indus-
trial wastewater treatment, post-denitrification of
drinking water and municipal wastewater.
5.2.3. Carbon removal
A full-scale application on a by-product coke plant
shows that the COD loading rate can be up to
10.5 kg COD/m3 day, and can achieve more than
99% phenolic reduction (Sutton et al. 1999). A
prototype-scale 3-phase fluidized bed had volu-
metric loading rates of 12–35 kg COD/m3 day
(Lazarova & Manem 2000). FBRs are also used in
anaerobic wastewater treatment. The Anaflux
process, an upflow anaerobic FBR using a biolite

biofilm support, has been employed industrially
for 10 years treating a variety of food-processing
and paper industry wastewater (Holst et al. 1997).
The volumetric loading rate of a full-scale appli-
cation in a starch factory was up to 60 kg COD/
m3 day and a semi-industrial pilot study treating
wine distillation wastewater demonstrated a volu-
metric loading rate of 70 kg COD/m3 day.
5.2.4. Nitrification
The full-scale municipal wastewater treatment for
nitrification with sand and GAC as the biofilm
carriers has achieved a volumetric loading rate up
to 0.6–1.3 kg NH4-N/m3 day (Lazarova & Manem
2000). The lab-scale studies show that nitrification
rates of 2.5–2.7 kg NH4-N/m3 day can be ob-
tained with chalk as the biofilm carrier (Green
et al. 2002a, b) and 6 kg NH4-N/m3 day with
chabazite as the biofilm carrier (Green et al. 1996).
5.2.5. Denitrification
The post-denitrification rates of four full-scale
FBRs are 2.0–6.4 kg NOx-N/m3 day at tempera-
tures from 13 to 25 C (USEPA 1993). With
methanol as the external carbon source, the average
nitrate-nitrogen reduction rate of 90% with 1.9 mg
NO3-N in the effluent was achieved and the cost for
total nitrogen reduction was 2.25 US$/kg N (Bo-
sander & Westlund 2000). The methanol to NO3-N
ratios range from 3.0 to 3.5 with a typical value of
3.2 (Tchobanoglous et al. 2003). In the laboratory
studies, a high volumetric loading rate of NO3-N
was achieved at 30 kg N/m3 day (Chen et al. 1996).
6. Conclusion
In this paper, four biofilm reactors employing
moving biofilm media to treat wastewater were
reviewed: the rotating biological contactor (RBC),
the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), the ver-
tically moving biofilm reactor (VMBR) and the
fluidized-bed reactor (FBR).
The RBC process has been applied widely and
a design manual has been produced by WEF and
ASCE (WEF & ASCE, 1998). MBBR is a good
process for upgrading current wastewater treat-
ment systems. VMBR is very suitable for treating
wastewater from small sources. FBR is a treatment
process that can maximize pollutant removals and
minimize sludge production.
223
The mechanisms of the moving-medium bio-
film reactors are not fully understood and further
studies on hydrodynamics, biochemical kinetics
and the biofilm properties should be carried out.
References
Andreottola G, Foladori P & Ragazzi M (2000a) Upgrading of
a small wastewater treatment plant in a cold climate region
using a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. Water
Sci.Technol. 41(1): 177–185
Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M & Tatano F (2000b)
Experimental comparison between MBBR and activated
sludge system for the treatment of municipal wastewater.
Water Sci.Technol. 41(4–5): 375–382
Banerjee G (1997) Hydraulics of bench-scale rotating biological
contactor. Water Res. 31: 2500–2510
Bosander J & Westlund AD (2000) Operation of full-scale
fluidized-bed for denitrification. Water Sci. Technol. 41(9):
115–121
Boumansour BE & Vasel JL (1998) A new tracer gas method to
measure oxygen transfer and enhancement factor on RBC.
Water Res. 32: 1049–1058
Broch-Due A, Andersen R & Kristoffersen O (1994) Pilot plant
experience with an aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor for
treatment of NSSC wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 29(5–6):
283–294
Broch-Due A, Andersen R & Opheim B (1997) Treatment of
integrated newsprint mill wastewater in moving bed biofilm
reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 35(2–3): 173–180
Chen S-D, Chen C-Y, Shen Y-C, Chiu C-M & Cheng H-J
(1996) Treatment of high-strength nitrate wastewater by
biological methods-operational characteristics study. Water
Sci. Technol. 34(1–2): 269–276
Cheng S-S, Chen W-C & Hwang H-H (1997) Biofilm forma-
tion: the effects of hydrodynamic and substrate feeding
patterns in three phase draft-tube fluidized bed for nitrifica-
tion process. Water Sci. Technol. 36(12): 83–90
de Beer D, Stoodley P & Lewandowski Z (1996) Liquid flow
and mass transport in heterogeneous biofilms. Water Res. 30:
2761–2765
Droste RL (1997) Theory and Practice of Water and Waste-
water Treatment, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Flanagan WP (1998) Biodegradation of dichloromethane in a
granular activated carbon fluidized-bed reactor. Water
Environ. Res. 70: 60–66
Galvan A, Urbina P & de Castro F (2000) Characterization of
filamentous microorganisms in rotating biological contactor
biofilms of wastewater treatment plants. Bioprocess Eng. 22:
257–260
Grady CPL, Jr & Lim HC (1980) Biological Wastewater Treat-
ment: Theory and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York
Green M, Mels A, Lahav O & Tarre S (1996) Biological-ion
exchange process for ammonium removal from secondary
effluent. Water Sci. Technol. 34(1–2): 449–458
Green M, Ruskol Y, Tarre S & Loewenthal RE (2002a)
Nitrification utilizing CaCO3 as the buffering agent. Environ.
Technol. 23: 303–308
Green M, Ruskol Y, Shaviv A & Tarre S (2002b) The effect of
CO2 concentration on a nitrifying chalk reactor. Water Res.
36: 2147–2151
224
Griffin P & Findlay GE (2000) Process and engineering
improvements to rotating biological contactor design. Water
Sci. Technol. 41(1): 137–144
Harremoës P & Henze M (2002) Biofilters. In: Henze M,
Harremoës P, la C. Jansen J & Arvin E (Eds) Wastewater
Treatment: Biological and Chemical Processes, (pp 157–207).
Springer, Heidelberg
Harvey P (2002) Moving bed biofilm reactors: a robust solution
for wastewater treatment. Chem. Eng. (London) 729: 33
Helness H & Ødegaard H (1999) Biological phosphorus
removal in a sequencing batch moving bed biofilm reactor.
Water Sci. Technol. 40(4–5): 161–168
Hidalgo MD & Garcia-Encina PA (2002) Biofilm development
and bed segregation in a methanogenic fluidized bed reactor.
Water Res. 36: 3083–3091
Holst TC, Truc A & Pujol R (1997) Anaerobic fluidized beds:
ten years of industrial experience. Water Sci. Technol. 36(6–
7): 415–422
http://wwwny.anox.se/eng/b2 2 barare.htm
Jahren SJ, Rintala JA & Ødegaard H (2002) Aerobic moving bed
biofilm reactor treating thermomechanical pulping white-water
under thermophilic conditions. Water Res. 36: 1067–1075
Koran KM, Suidan, MT, Khodadoust AP, Sorial GA &
Brenner RC (2001) Effectiveness of an anaerobic granular
activated carbon fluidized-bed bioreactor to treat soil wash
fluids: a proposed strategy for remediating PCP/PAH con-
taminated soils. Water Res. 35: 2363–2370
Lazarova V & Manem J (2000) Innovative biofilm treatment
technologies for water and wastewater treatment. In: Bryers
JD (Ed) Biofilms II: Process Analysis and Applications (pp
159–206). Wiley-Liss, New York
Lu C, Li H-C, Lee LY & Lin M-R (1997) Effects of disc
rotational speed and submergence on the performance of an
anaerobic rotating biological contactor. Environ. Int. 23:
253–263
Maloney SW, Adrian NR, Hickey RF & Heine RL (2002)
Anaerobic treatment of pinkwater in a fluidized bed reactor
containing GAC. J. Hazard. Mater. 92: 77–88
Martin-Cereceda M, Alvarez AM, Serrano S & Guinea A
(2001) Confocal and light microscope examination of proto-
zoa and other microorganisms in the biofilms from a rotating
biological contactor wastewater treatment plant. Acta Pro-
tozool. 40: 263–272
Mba D, Bannister RH & Findlay GE (1999) Mechanical
redesign of the rotating biological contactor. Water Res. 33:
3679–3688
Moteleb MA, Suidan MT, Kim J, Davel JL & Adrian NR
(2001) Anaerobic degradation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene in
granular activated carbon fluidized bed and batch reactors.
Water Sci. Technol. 43(1): 67–75
Ødegaard H (2000) Advanced compact wastewater treatment
based on coagulation and moving bed biofilm processes.
Water Sci. Technol. 42(12): 33–48
Ødegaard H, Rusten B & Badin H (1993) Small wastewater
treatment plants based on moving bed biofilm reactors.
Water Sci. Technol. 28(10): 351–359
Ødegaard H, Rusten B & Westrum T (1994) A new moving bed
biofilm reactor-applications and results. Water Sci. Technol.
29(10–11): 157–165
Okabe S, Hiratia K, Ozawa Y & Watanabe Y (1996) Spatial
microbial distributions of nitrifiers and heterotrophs in
mixed-population biofilms. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 50: 24–35
Pastorelli G, Andreottola,G, Canziani R, de Fraja E, de
Pascalis F, Gurrieri G & Rozzi A (1997) Pilot-plant exper-
iments with moving-bed biofilm reactors. Water Sci.Technol.
36(1): 43–50
Rodgers M (1999) Organic carbon removal using a new biofilm
reactor. Water Res. 33: 1495–1499
Rodgers M & Burke D (2001) Carbonaceous oxidation using a
new vertically moving biofilm system. Environ. Technol. 22:
673–678
Rodgers M & Burke D (2002) Nitrogen removal using a
vertically moving biofilm system. Water Sci. Technol. 47(1):
71–76
Rodgers M, Zhan X-M & Gallagher B (2003a) A pilot
plant study using a vertically moving biofilm process to
treat municipal wastewater. Biore. Technol. 89: 139–
143
Rodgers M, Zhan X-M & Casey A (2003b) Ammonium
removal using a vertically moving biofilm system. J Environ.
Sci. Health Part A 38: 2483–2494
Rodgers M, Zhan X-M & Casey A (2004) Oxygen transfer and
industrial wastewater treatment efficiency of a vertically
moving biofilm system. Water Air Soil Pollut 151: 165–178
Rusten B, Ødegaard H & Lundar A (1992) Treatment of dairy
wastewater in a novel moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Sci.
Technol. 26(3–4): 703–711
Rusten B, Siljudalen JG & Strand H (1996) Upgrading of a
biological-chemical treatment plant for cheese factory waste-
water. Water Sci. Technol. 34(11): 41–49
Rusten B, McCoy M, Proctor R & Siljudalen JG (1998) The
innovative moving bed biofilm reactor/solids contact reaer-
ation process for secondary treatment of municipal waste-
water. Water Environ. Res. 70: 1083–1089
Rusten B, Johnson CH, Devall S, Davoren D & Cashion BS
(1999) Biological pretreatment of a chemical plant wastewa-
ter in high-rate moving bed biofilm reactors. Water Sci.Tech-
nol. 39(10–11): 257–264
Rusten B, Hellstrom BG, Hellstrom F, Sehested O, Skjelfoss E
& Svendsen B (2000) Pilot testing and preliminary design of
moving bed biofilm reactors for nitrogen removal at the
FREVAR wastewater treatment plant. Water Sci. Technol.
41(4): 13–20
Surampalli RY & Baumann ER (1997) Role of supplemental
aeration in improving overloaded first-stage RBC perfor-
mance. Water Air Soil Pollut. 98: 1–15
Sutton PM, Hurvid J & Hoeksema M (1999) Biological
fluidized-bed treatment of wastewater from byproduct coking
operations: full-scale case history. Water Environ. Res. 71:
5–9
Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL & Stensel MD (2003) Wastewa-
ter Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy, New
York
Teixeira P & Oliveira R (2001) Denitrification in a closed
rotating biological contactor: effect of disk submergence.
Process Biochem. 37: 345–349
Trulear MG & Characklis WG (1982) Dynamics of biofilm
processes. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 54: 1288–1301
USEPA (1993) Nitrogen Removal, Technomic Publishing
Company, Pennsylvania, USA
WEF (Water Environment Federation) & ASCE (American
Society of Civil Engineers) (1998) Design of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants, WEF and ASCE, Alexandria
and Reston, USA
Winkler MA (1981) Biological Treatment of Wastewater, John
Wiley & Sons, New York
Zhu S & Chen S (2001) Impacts of Reynolds number on
nitrification biofilm kinetics. Aquacult. Eng. 24: 213–229