The Modified Bardenpho Process

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/326710211
The Modified Bardenpho Process
Chapter · January 2018
CITATION READS
1 3,348
4 authors, including:
Ehsan Banayan Esfahani Alireza Bazargan

University of British Columbia - Vancouver 28 PUBLICATIONS 323 CITATIONS
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Gordon Mckay
Hamad bin Khalifa University
458 PUBLICATIONS 23,370 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Book: Adsorption Processes for Water Treatment and Purification View project
Characterization of PPCPs and EDCs in TSE, before and after AOP and other treatment processes. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Alireza Bazargan on 31 July 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Modified Bardenpho Process
Ehsan Banayan Esfahani, Fatemeh Asadi Zeidabadi,

Alireza Bazargan, and Gordon McKay
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Importance of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Types of Biological Nutrient Removal Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Advantages of Biological Nutrient Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The History of the Modified Bardenpho Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Biological Phosphorus Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chemical Removal of Phosphorus, Advantages-Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Biological Phosphorus Removal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Biological Nitrogen Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chemical Removal of Nitrogen, Advantages-Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Biological Nitrogen Removal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Types of Biological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Suspended Growth Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Attached Growth Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Performance of the Modified Bardenpho Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Reactors in the Modified Bardenpho Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Comparison of the Modified Bardenpho Process with Other BNR Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Modified Bardenpho Process Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Nutrient Removal Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
COD and Nutrient Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Sludge Retention Time (SRT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
E. Banayan Esfahani · F. Asadi Zeidabadi

Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
A. Bazargan (*)
Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: alirezabazargan@kntu.ac.ir
G. McKay (*)
Division of Sustainability, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University,
Doha, Qatar
e-mail: gmckay@hbku.edu.qa
# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

C. M. Hussain (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Materials Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_87-1
2 E. Banayan Esfahani et al.
Recycling Ratio (R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Temperature, pH, and Bubble Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Modified Bardenpho Process Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
COD, BOD, TSS, Nutrient and Heavy Metal Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Viruses Removal in Modified Bardenpho Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Estimation of Greenhous Gas Emissions of Modified Bardenpho Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Abstract
Excess presence of nitrogen and phosphorous, two fundamental prerequisites for
plant photosynthesis, in water can cause noteworthy problems such as eutrophi-
cation and health issues for humans. Hence, efforts have been made to find
solutions decreasing their concentrations. In addition to methods such as ion
exchange, air stripping and breakpoint chlorination for nitrogen removal, and
coagulantion-flocculation for phosphorous removal, biological methods for nutri-
ent removal have also been used. In this chapter the following three categories will
be discussed: nitrogen removal processes, phosphorous removal processes, and
combined nitrogen/phosphorous removal processes. The basic concept of biolog-
ical nitrogen removal processes relies on nitrification and denitrification which are
two major steps in the nitrogen cycle. A biological nitrogen removal process should
normally consist of at least one aerobic and one anoxic reactor. The Modified
Ludzack and Ettinger (MLE) process and the Bardenpho process are two biological
nitrogen removal processes. Biological phosphorus removal (BPR) depends on the
incorporation of phosphorus into cell biomass and subsequent phosphorus removal
by sludge wasting. BPR processes generally consist of an anaerobic reactor
followed by anoxic or aerobic reactors such as the A/O (anaerobic/aerobic) and
PhoStrip processes. Biological combined nitrogen/phosphorous removal processes
contain all the three main biological conditions (aerobic, anaerobic and anoxic
conditions). The A2/O (anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic) and the modified Bardenpho
processes remove both nitrogen and phosphorous simultaneously.
The modified Bardenpho process is a biological process which provides
special conditions for both nitrogen and phosphorous removal. This system
consists of five distinct reactors which are respectively: anaerobic reactor, first
anoxic reactor, first aerobic reactor, second anoxic reactor, and second aerobic
reactor. Each reactor provides appropriate conditions to play its special role in the
removal of wastewater impurities. Also, each reactor has specific conditions such
as pH and temperature. The modified Bardenpho process’s performance in the
removal of nitrogen and phosphorous is respectively excellent and good.
Since the modified Bardenpho process has five distinct bioreactors and every
reactor has specific functions and required conditions, there are some critical
parameters in designing the process. These parameters are nutrient removal
establishment, chemical oxygen demand and nutrient ratio, hydraulic retention
time, sludge retention time, recycling ratio, temperature, pH and bubble size.
These parameters play specific roles in the modified Bardenpho process’s effi-
ciency in removing wastewater impurities and should be optimized.
The Modified Bardenpho Process 3
Due to the utilization of five biological stages in the modified Bardenpho

process, not only does the modified Bardenpho process remove nitrogen and
phosphorus efficiently as its main function, but it also has other benefits such as
reducing chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand, total suspended
solids, heavy metals and viruses.
Introduction
The Importance of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
Nitrogen, as the 7th element of the periodic table, and phosphorus, as the 15th
element, are considered as nutrients since they are two fundamental prerequisites for
microorganism growth and plant photosynthesis. However, the excess presence of
these elements in water can cause serious problems; hence, nitrogen and phosphorus
concentration in water are measured and should be limited. In the initial section of
this chapter, some of the most noteworthy problems due to the presence of excess
nutrients in water, namely eutrophication, health issues for humans, and the increase
of the chemical oxygen demand of the water, will be discussed.
Eutrophication
When the amount of nutrients in the water increases, this is will result by an
overgrowth of plants and algae. Such events are sometimes referred to as algal
blooms. Algal blooms block sunlight from reaching the bottom of the lake or river;
and hence, plants which live in the depths will die due to a lack of energy via
sunlight. The bacterial decomposition of these biomasses will subsequently consume
the oxygen in the water. A decline in the oxygen concentration of the water will
cause hypoxia which impairs the survival of other marine organisms and decreases
water quality (Chislock et al. 2013).
Eutrophication might naturally occur in lakes and rivers through centuries, but
human activities dramatically accelerate the rate of this phenomena. Human activity,
chiefly pollutants from agriculture, industry and sewage disposal containing high
amounts of nutrients are the main culprits (Chislock et al. 2013). Eutrophication can
cause serious problems such as damaging drinking water resources, destroying
recreation and aesthetic advantages of lakes and rivers, and causing taste and odor
issues (Dodds et al. 2008). Such problems, in addition to harming the environment,
result in economic losses. Hence the release of nutrients into bodies of water should
be limited by policies and relevant standards. The total costs, including recreational
water usage, waterfront real state, recovery of endangered species and drinking
water, have been estimated at approximately $2.2 billion annually as a result of
eutrophication in US freshwaters (Dodds et al. 2008).
The combination of phosphate, nitrogen, and carbon resources causes eutrophi-
cation, but each has a different impact. A series of experiments which started in 1973
in a small lake (Lake 226 of the Experimental Lakes Area of Northwestern Ontario)
have yielded interesting results. The body of water was separated into two sections
Fig. 1 The north (far) basin

has excess amounts of
phosphorus leading to
eutrophication which is
evident when compared to the
south (near) basin (Schindler
1974)
using a sea curtain (Fig. 1) (Schindler 1974). Both of these two areas contained the
same amounts of nitrogen and carbon, but phosphorus was added just to the
northeast basin of the lake. The investigations illustrated that the main limiting
factor for eutrophication is phosphate since the basin with phosphorus was covered
with microorganisms within 2 months while the south basin did not show signs of
eutrophication (Schindler 1974). In another experiment in Lake 227, it was demon-
strated that a shortage of carbon did not prevent eutrophication (Schindler 1974).
Due to the catastrophic consequences of eutrophication, various actions have
been taken to combat this phenomenon all around the world. In China, there are over
110,000 lakes, and through the 1990s, most of these lakes faced drastic eutrophica-
tion problems (Liu and Qiu 2007). The main causes of this mishap are rapid
population increase and the disposal of industrial and domestic wastewater into
lakes which cause a dramatic degradation of water quality (Liu and Qiu 2007).
Prevention strategies for confronting eutrophication are divided into two categories:
external and internal nutrient loading control. External methods control point and
nonpoint sources of pollution such as improving sewage treatment systems prior to
discharge into bodies of water, or the inhibition of phosphorus detergents and
controlling the amount of pesticides used in agriculture (Liu and Qiu 2007). Internal
methods consist of sediment dredging, water flushing, and aeration technology to
regulate internal sources of pollution (Liu and Qiu 2007). In addition, planting
aquatic macrophytes such as hyacinth, bulrush, cat’s-tail, and canna is a feasible
method to refine eutrophic lakes. The roots of these plants provide aerobic and
anaerobic conditions for bacterial growth and consequently remove nutrients by
degrading nitrogen and phosphorus compounds (Liu and Qiu 2007). Laws can play a
prominent role in control of water quality and decreasing eutrophication such as the
“Law Concerning Special Measures for Conservation of the Environment of the Seto
Inland Sea” of Japan which has substantially decreased red tides in this country since
the mid-1970s (Imai et al. 2006).
Health Issues for Humans

Nitrogen is a basic element of amino acids and protein and its use in fertilizers has
led to the much needed increase of global food supplies (Wolfe and Patz 2002).
However, if its concentration passes safe thresholds, it will adversely affect terres-
trial, aquatic, and atmospheric domains (Wolfe and Patz 2002; Galloway et al. 2008).
Particularly, nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO2) and nitrate (NO3) in water can
pose several hazards to human health.
Methemoglobinemia
Methemoglobinemia or blue baby syndrome which is a fatal blood disorder, espe-
cially in infants younger than 6 months, is mainly attributed to high concentrations of
nitrite. Nitrates can also be reduced to nitrites. Nitrite ions oxidize soluble Fe2+ to
insoluble Fe3+ as well as normal hemoglobin to methemoglobin in human blood
(Wolfe and Patz 2002; World Health Organization 2011; Environmental Protection
Agency 2011). Methemoglobin’s ability to carry oxygen molecules to the tissues is
fundamentally lower than hemoglobin. According to the severity of a baby’s condi-
tion, the infant may develop blue-gray skin or become lethargic. In extreme cases,
methemoglobin concentrations higher than 50% can cause coma and death (Wolfe
and Patz 2002). The normal methemoglobin level in humans is less than 2%, and in
infants under 3 months of age, it is less than 3% (World Health Organization 2011).
Carcinogenicity
N-nitroso compounds are mostly carcinogenic compounds which are a result of
nitrite and nitrosatable compounds reacting in the human or animal body (World
Health Organization 2011). Several investigations about the correlation of nitrate
or/and nitrite and nitrosatable compounds intake and cancer risk have been published
which have concluded that high nitrate concentrations in water have a positive
correlation with increasing gastric and/or esophageal cancer. However, a number of
case-controlled studies have found other conceivable causes for the cancer (Wolfe
and Patz 2002; World Health Organization 2011). Weyer et al. (2001) analyzed
cancer incidence from 1955 through 1988 in a group of 21,977 Iowa women who
were between 55 and 69 years old. Among 3150 cancer incidences, there was
no correlation between nitrate concentrations in drinking water and cancers of the
colon, breast, lung, pancreas, or kidney, while there were positive associations for
bladder and ovarian cancers and negative relations for uterine and rectal cancers
(Weyer et al. 2001).
Finally, yet importantly, nitrate like similar anions prohibits iodine uptake and as
a result causes antithyroid effects on the human body (World Health Organization
2011). Studies in Slovakia, Bulgaria, Germany, and USA have found a relation
between nitrate intake and thyroid function; on the other hand, a clinical study in the
Netherlands did not find a correlation between nitrate intake and thyroid structure or
concentration (World Health Organization 2011).
Due to the abovementioned hazards of nitrate and nitrite, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has set the Maximum Contaminated
Level Goal (MCLG) for total nitrate/nitrite at 10 mg/l and for nitrite at 1.0 mg/l
(Water Quality Association 2013; Environmental Protection Agency 2011).
Similarly, too much phosphorus concentration can cause health problems such as
kidney damage and osteoporosis. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) has set a phosphorus limit for point sources at 1.0 mg/l (NR 217).
Chemical Oxygen Demand Increase

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is an indicator of water quality which measures
the amount of oxygen required for the oxidation of all organic substances in water.
The COD of raw municipal wastewater in the United States is about 400 mg/l (can
vary tremendously), phosphorus concentration is 6–10 mg/l, and nitrogen concen-
tration is about 30–40 mg/l. According to Randall et al. (1998) which takes into
account the growth of new biomass due to photosynthesis, releasing 1 kg of phos-
phorus into nature results in 111 kg of biomass with a COD of 138 kg; hence, 6 mg/l
phosphorus produces 828 mg/l COD, more than double the COD of sewage. Also,
1 kg of nitrogen generates 16 kg of biomass with a COD of 20 kg; so, 30 mg/l of
nitrogen in the untreated sewage is equivalent of 600 mg/l COD, more than the COD
of the organic compound of raw sewage (Randall et al. 1998).
Types of Biological Nutrient Removal Systems
Considering the adverse hazards of nitrogen and phosphorus in water as discussed in

the previous section, efforts have been made to find the best practical, environmental
friendly, and economical solutions to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus concentration,
at least to the levels required by standards. Due to the characteristics of nitrogen and
phosphorus, various chemical and physical methods have been proposed to remove
these nutrients from water. Alternatively, biological methods for nutrient removal
have also been investigated.
There are three major chemical and physical processes for nitrogen removal,
namely ion exchange, air stripping, and breakpoint chlorination. In the first method,
wastewater flows over an ion exchanger which is very selective to nitrogen ions
(such as ammonium) in the presence of other ions like sodium, magnesium, and
calcium. In this method, either synthetic or natural resins are utilized as ion
exchangers. While natural zeolite clinoptilolite as a microporous structure of silica
and alumina is a natural resin for nitrogen removal from water, modern ion
exchangers are polymer based. In the air stripping method, the pH of the water is
increased, with for example lime to pH 10.5 to 11.5, then through an air-stripping
tower ammonium is removed from the water and desorbed into the air by providing
enough air and water contact. In the breakpoint chlorination approach, sufficient
amount of free chlorine (via chlorine gas or hypochlorites) is added to the wastewa-
ter in order to remove nitrogen-ammonium from wastewater by oxidizing it to
nitrogen gas. Equation 1 shows the overall equation of this process.
NHþ þ
4 þ 1:5 HOCL ! 0:5 N2 þ 1:5 H2 O þ 2:5 H þ 1:5 Cl

(1)
Chemical and physical removal of phosphorus is fundamentally based on bringing

phosphorus out from soluble state, and creating particles by adding coagulants and
flocculants, followed by using solid-liquid separation processes like sedimentation or
filtration for their removal (Miles and Ellis 2001). Aluminum and iron compounds are
typical coagulants for the precipitation of phosphorus from wastewater. In this
process, aluminum and iron compounds react with phosphate in the wastewater and
generate FePO4 and AlPO4 which are highly inclined to sedimentation.
On the other hand, biological processes have major advantages when compared
to physical and chemical methods. Therefore, they will be focused on for the
remainder of the chapter. These processes are divided into three main categories:
nitrogen removal processes, phosphorus removal processes, and combined
nitrogen/phosphorus removal processes.
Biological Nitrogen Removal Processes

The basic concept of biological nitrogen removal processes relies on nitrification and
denitrification which are two major steps in the nitrogen cycle. Ammonium is
biologically oxidized to nitrite, and nitrite is oxidized to nitrate in the nitrification
process which is accomplished in aerobic reactors, in which oxygen is the electron
acceptor. In the denitrification process, nitrate is reduced as an electron acceptor in
anoxic reactors to nitrogen gas. Hence, a biological nitrogen removal system should
consist of at least one aerobic and one anoxic reactor. Among the biological nutrient
removal systems, the Ludzack and Ettinger process, the Modified Ludzack and
Ettinger (MLE) process, and the Bardenpho process remove only nitrogen from
wastewater. An oxidation ditch and batch reactor can remove nitrogen, if the amount
of air transferred and the time of different phases are controlled.
Biological Phosphorus Removal Processes

Biological phosphorus removal (BPR) is basically derived from interpolation of
phosphorus into cell biomass and subsequent phosphorus removal by sludge
wasting. Phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs) are responsible for phospho-
rus consumption; so, reactors configuration in BPR systems should provide condi-
tions for PAOs’ growth. Anaerobic conditions in the absence of nitrate and oxygen is
a mandatory first step in BPR systems in which PAOs take in volatile fatty acids
(VFAs) and acetate and produce storage products such as poly-β-hydroxyal-kanoates
(PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB). Concurrently, orthophosphates are released
from polyphosphate, and as a result the amount of phosphorus in the anaerobic
condition is increased. The anaerobic condition is followed by an anoxic or aerobic
zone in which storage products are oxidized and produce energy which is required
for new microorganisms to grow. Meanwhile the dissolved orthophosphate is
removed from wastewater and stored in biomass as polyphosphate. Finally, sludge

wasting reduces the phosphorus concentration in the sewage.
So generally, biological phosphorus removal process consists of an anaerobic
reactor followed by anoxic or aerobic reactors. A/O (anaerobic/aerobic) and
PhoStrip processes are two such systems.
Biological Combined Nitrogen/Phosphorus Removal Processes

Biological combined nitrogen/phosphorus removal processes contain all the
three main biological conditions, anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic conditions. A2/O
(anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic), the modified Bardenpho, and the University of Cape
Town (UCT) processes remove both nitrogen and phosphorus simultaneously.
Although this chapter will provide a general review of all these processes, it will
specifically focus on the modified Bardenpho process.
Advantages of Biological Nutrient Removal
Many chemical and physical methods have been used for nutrient removal in the
past, but biological processes developed simple and practical alternatives for nitro-
gen and phosphorus removal. Each of these methods has its special merits and
demerits. For instance, chemical and physical methods need a high amount of
chemical compounds for nitrogen and phosphorus precipitation; on the other hand,
biological processes require aeration and have a larger land footprint for the various
anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic reactors. Therefore, after considering the budget, the
desired quality of effluent, the amount of available area for plant construction, and
other aspects, the best and most practical approach should be selected. Nonetheless,
biological processes have found relative popularity in recent years.
During biological nutrient removal processes, nitrogen and phosphorus are
removed from wastewater by utilizing microorganisms in various environmental
conditions; in these processes, the amount of consumable chemical compounds
critically decreases in comparison to chemical and physical methods. For instance,
a small amount of acetate is required during biological phosphorus removal to
improve biomass growth; on the contrary, a lot of aluminum or ferrous salts are
needed for chemical and physical phosphorus removal. The biological nutrient
removal, hence, is a more economical approach. Reduction in the amount of con-
sumable chemical compound causes substantial decline in excess sludge volumes;
hence, biological approaches have both economical and operational benefits. Fur-
thermore, in most BNR methods anaerobic and/or anoxic reactors are placed ahead of
aerobic reactors which causes significant reduction in energy consumption in bio-
logical processes in comparison to not only chemical and physical approaches, but
also other conventional biological methods like activated sludge. The presence of an
anaerobic zone decreases the amount of required aeration in the aerobic zone since
aerobic influent has negligible dissolved oxygen, and according to mass transfer
equations the oxygen transfer driving force is greater. Also, nitrate as an electron
acceptor in anoxic zones causes COD stabilization.
Biological phosphorus removal systems are the most economical choice for
an effluent standard of 1 mg/l. Barth et al. (1968) demonstrated that a complex
biological treatment system combined with appropriate chemical additives can
accomplish efficient treatment of wastewater. According to a six month operation,
the combined chemical-biological system is a manageable system for phosphorous
and nitrogen removal. Not only did aluminum addition increase nutrient removal
efficiency, but also improve the stability of the unit.
Finally, anaerobic and anoxic zones in biological nutrient removal systems
improve the Sludge Volume Index (SVI), a measure of sludge settling properties,
defined as the volume of 1 g of sludge after settling the aerated liquor for 30 min.
The History of the Modified Bardenpho Process
Nitrification processes were firstly studied in the nineteenth century but were altered
after the invention of the activated sludge method by Arden and Lockett (1914).
Sawyer and Bradney (1945) investigated excess sludge production during their work
on nitrification and denitrification. Biological nutrient removal (BNR) from waste-
water developed in the 1960s. Ludzack and Ettinger (1962) and Wuhrman (1964)
evolved biological nitrogen removal systems. Ludzack and Ettinger’s process uti-
lized biodegradable organic compounds in the influent as a carbon source for
denitrification. Their system consisted of a series of anoxic and aerobic reactors
which were not completely separated; hence, it caused lower control on wastewater
flow between two reactors and also caused different performances in nitrogen
removal. Levin and Shapiro (1965) examined biological phosphorus removal pro-
cesses and developed the PhoStrip system. They illustrated that adding an anaerobic
reactor in the wastewater treatment plant increases polyphosphate storage in micro-
organisms; so, they utilized an anaerobic tank in order to release phosphorus. They
did not realize the role of carbon source and orthophosphates, but by adding an
anaerobic reactor, they released phosphorus and used chemical methods and precip-
itation to remove the phosphorous (Fig. 2).
Simultaneous biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal progresses were
developed in the 1970s predominantly through the work of James Barnard in
South Africa. Barnard (1973) proposed a modification for the Ludzack-Ettinger
system in which he completely separated the anoxic and aerobic zones, and returned
a proportion of the wastewater from the aerobic reactor to the anoxic one. With this,
he successfully removed nitrogen. Figure 3 illustrates the Modified Ludzack-
Ettinger process (MLE).
The importance of the anaerobic reactor was firstly realized by Barnard (1974,
1975) who studied previous investigations about biological phosphorus removal
with activated sludge. Subsequently, he used an anaerobic reactor before an aerobic
reactor and designed the Phoredox system which is illustrated in Fig. 4. Fuhs and
Chen (1975) proved that this mechanism is biological and not chemical.
Barnard developed several biological processes in order to remove nitrogen and
phosphorus separately or together. He devised the four-stage Bardenpho process in
Aeration Tank
Clarifier
Influent
Effluent
Returned Activated
Sludge
Excess
Sludge
Stripper
Tank
Chemical
Sludge Lime Feed
Fig. 2 The PhoStrip process
Recycle flow
Aerobic Tank
Clarifier
Influent
Effluent
Aeration
Anoxic Tank
Returned Excess
Activated Sludge Sludge
Fig. 3 The MLE process
1978 for biological nitrogen removal which is illustrated in Fig. 5. After that,
Barnard added an anaerobic zone before the four-stage Bardenpho to remove
phosphorus from wastewater, and as a result, he invented the modified Bardenpho.
The five-stage advanced (modified) Bardenpho is shown in Fig. 6.
Marshal Spector (1979) realized that the anaerobic/aerobic configuration of
activated sludge can remove phosphorus and invented the A/O (Anaerobic/Oxic)
system which was similar to the Phoredox system. Also, he added an anoxic zone to
the A/O process in order to remove nitrogen from wastewater. This system is known
Aerobic Tank
Anaerobic Tank Clarifier

Influent
Effluent
Aeration
Returned Excess
Fig. 4 The Phoredox process
Recycle flow
st
1 Aerobic Tank
nd
2 Anoxic Tank nd
Influent 2 Aerobic Tank Clarified
Effluent
st Aeration Aeration
1 Anoxic Tank
Returned Excess
Fig. 5 The four-stage Bardenpho process
Recycle flow
st
1 Aerobic Tank
Anaerobic
nd
Tank 2 Anoxic Tank nd
Influen 2 Aerobic Tank Clarified
Effluent
st Aeration Aeration
1 Anoxic Tank
Returned Excess
Fig. 6 The modified Bardenpho process
as the A2/O (Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic) process, and it was identical to a system

configured by Barnard (Fig. 7).
Table 1 briefly categorizes the historical development of biological nutrient
removal systems.
Recycle flow
Anaerobic Tank Clarifier

Aerobic Tank
Influent
Effluent
Anoxic Tank Aeration
Returned Excess
Fig. 7 The A2/O process
Table 1 Historical review of biological nutrient removal (BNR)

No. Year Author(s) Description
1 1914 Arden- Changes in the nitrification process with the invention of activated
Lockett sludge
2 1945 Sawyer- Investigation of problems of increasing sludge in nitrification and
Bradney denitrification
3 1962 Ludzack- Using organic biodegradable materials in the inlet flow as
Ettinger denitrification source (Ludzack-Ettinger process)
4 1964 Wuhrmann Proposing a denitrification step after nitrification, in sludge
systems for nitrification of high-load processes
5 1965 Levin- Developing a biological phosphorus removal system known as
Shapiro PhoStrip by adding an anaerobic reactor in the wastewater
treatment plant
6 1973 Barnard Proposing a modification for the Ludzack-Ettinger system by
separating anoxic and aerobic zones completely and using an
internal recycle (Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE))
7 1974 Barnard Designing the Phoredox system by using an anaerobic reactor
before an aerobic reactor
8 1975 Fuhs-Chen Proving that the Phoredox system is biological and not chemical
9 1978 Barnard Developing a four-stage Bardenpho process for nitrogen removal
10 1978 Barnard Designing a five-stage Bardenpho process (modified Bardenpho)
by adding an anaerobic zone as a first stage ahead of the four-stage
Bardenpho process
11 1979 Marshall Designing a process known as the Anaerobic-Oxic (A/O) process,
Spector which was identical to the Phoredox system for BPR
12 1979 Marshall Combining the A/O process with an anoxic zone in order to
Spector remove nitrogen (Anaerobic-Anoxic-Oxic (A2/O) process)
Biological Phosphorus Removal
Phosphorus is highly reactive and typically found in the form of PO4 or PO3 in
nature. Phosphorus is a necessary element in the human body since it plays a role in
energy distribution throughout the body as well as in the DNA molecule structure.
Total phosphorus (TP) represents all forms of phosphorus, either dissolved or
particulate. Orthophosphate (e.g., phosphate ion and phosphoric acid) and poly-
phosphates (e.g., pyrophosphate and trimetaphosphate) are soluble in water.
The main difference between these two forms of phosphorus is that polyphosphate
cannot be removed by precipitation with metal salts, and it must first be changed to
orthophosphates with biological activity (Moore 2010). The third form of phospho-
rus is organic phosphorus which is either dissolved or suspended in water. Particulate
organic phosphorus can be removed by precipitation. Dissolved organic phosphorus
is divided into biodegradable and nonbiodegradable, and the biodegradable portion
can be converted to organophosphate with biological processes (Moore 2010).
Unlike nitrogen or other compounds, the phosphorus cycle is limited in terrestrial
and aquatic environments. Phosphorus is not naturally found in the gaseous state.
Hence, phosphorus slowly cycles between the water, soil, and sediments. Phospho-
rus is typically in the form of phosphate salts in the soil or marine sediments, and it is
a limiting factor for plant growth. Phosphorus is taken up from sediments by plants,
then moves to animals’ bodies through eating, and finally, when plants or animals die
or urinate/defecate, the phosphorus moves to the soil or marine sediments again.
Human activities like utilizing fertilizers can disturb this cycle.
Source of Phosphorus in Wastewater

Industrial and municipal wastewater are point sources of phosphorus. Protein-rich
foods such as meat, nuts, beans, milk, and soya have high amounts of phosphorus,
and consequently wastewaters from these industries have high concentrations of
phosphorus. Moreover, like other pollutants, phosphorous has some nonpoint
sources which cause approximately two-thirds of the phosphorus concentration in
bodies of water (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2007). Agricultural and urban
activities are the main nonpoint sources of phosphorous. Runoffs from agriculture
land have excess amounts of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides which increase
nutrient amount of these runoffs. Urban runoffs, stream bank erosion, runoff from
pasture and range, septic tank leachate, atmospheric deposition, detergent or other
toxic chemicals in runoff from urban areas are some significant non-point sources of
phosphorus (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2007; Carpenter et al. 1998).
Importance of Phosphorus Removal

Any added phosphate is almost immediately uptaken by plants, and only small
amounts can cause exponential growth in plants. Phosphorus concentration in
water is more critical since cyanobacteria (blooms of cyanobacteria and eukaryotic
algae cause eutrophication) are capable of absorbing their required nitrogen from
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) (Seviour et al. 2003); so, as mentioned in

section “The Importance of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal,” phosphorus is the
main cause of algal blooms in the aquatic environment.
Chemical Removal of Phosphorus, Advantages-Disadvantages
Chemical and physical processes in wastewater treatment rely on chemical and

physical properties of elements such as reactivity, density, and mass transfer. Chem-
ical processes for phosphorus removal are based on phosphorus reactions with for
instance lime or metal salts (e.g., aluminum or iron). Aluminum salts, ferric salts, and
lime react with the phosphate and form AlPO4, FePO4, and Ca5OH(PO4)3 which
precipitate in water and consequently remove the phosphate from water. Aluminum
sulfate (Al2(SO4)3) and ferric chloride (FeCl3) are widely used in comparison to
other aluminum and iron salts.
Chemical removal of phosphorus is a common undertaking in wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTP) which is implemented either alone or with biological processes
to reduce costs and sludge production. Chemical methods provide higher phospho-
rus removal efficiency by consuming more chemical compounds. Also, chemical
phosphorus removal has a lower sensitivity to environmental conditions such as
temperature and wastewater influent composition in comparison to biological pro-
cesses. These methods, however, are costly and produce more sludge, and they
increase water salinity with unwanted by-product salts.
Biological Phosphorus Removal Process
Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) systems remove phosphorus

economically, microbiologically, and in an environmentally friendly manner. Such
systems are historically designed by putting an anaerobic zone ahead of anoxic and
aerobic zones. For example, if an anaerobic zone is placed upstream of the MLE and
Bardenpho processes which only remove nitrogen biologically, the resulting three-
stage Phoredox and modified Bardenpho processes remove phosphorus as well
(Seviour et al. 2003). It is generally believed that in the anaerobic zone, PAOs
assimilate VFAs and convert it to PHA and also synthesize acetate to PHB which
are stored in PAOs structure as an energy and carbon source for the subsequent steps.
Meanwhile, polyphosphates are hydrolyzed to orthophosphates, and phosphorus
concentration in the anaerobic zone is substantially increased. Figure 8 schematically
shows this process in the anaerobic reactors.
In the following aerobic (or anoxic) reactor, as shown in Fig. 9, PAOs utilize PHA
and PHB to convert orthophosphates to polyphosphates and stored them in their
structure. Through sludge removal, the phosphorus concentration in the wastewater
is decreased to the desired level.
Oxygen and nitrate are respectively electron acceptors in the aerobic and anoxic
zones, but in the anaerobic zone, PHA synthesis needs a source of reducing power
Fig. 8 Biological phosphorus

removal microbiology –
anaerobic zone (Seviour et al.
2003)
Fig. 9 Biological phosphorus

removal microbiology –
aerobic zone (Seviour et al.
2003)
(Seviour et al. 2003). There are various suggestions about derivation of the required
electrons in anaerobic reactors. Comeau et al. suggested the tricarboxylic acid (TCA)
cycle which is shown in Fig. 10 (Comeau et al. 1986). Bacteria use three main
procedures to maintain the proton motive force (pmf) (Comeau et al. 1986): (1) The
first method drives out the H+ from the cell when a carbon substrate and an electron
acceptor (oxygen in aerobic zone and nitrate in anoxic zone) are present. In this
process, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) plays the electron donor role
and is produced via glycolysis and/or TCA cycle. (2) In the absence of electron
acceptors, ATP breakdown at the ATP-ase site takes place to displace protons.
sugar Bacteria
ATP NADH
glycolysis
AcCoA
TCA
cycle NADH NADH E.T.C.
H+ H+
H+
CO2
DNP
H+ (NOx) O2 H+
NADH H+ (e.g.:N2) H2O

H+
ATP
– +
ADP + Pi –
– +
NADH – OH- +
transhydrogenase OH- charge gradient
+ H+
H
H+ pH gradient
ATP - ase pmf
(reversible)
Fig. 10 Bacterial strategies to maintain proton motive force (Comeau et al. 1986)
(3) The enzyme NADH-transhydrogenase breaks down NADH to NAD+ to transfer

protons.
Mino et al. suggested that glycogen degrades anaerobically to generate electrons
for PHA synthesis (Mino et al. 1998). This process is illustrated schematically in
Fig. 11.
Stanier et al. adapted the PHB metabolic pathway consisting of degradation, in
the aerobic zone, and synthesis, in the anaerobic zone, which is illustrated in Fig. 12
(Comeau et al. 1986).
Acinetobacter bacteria, Aeromonas and Pseudomonas are kinds of bacteria which
can store polyphosphates and carbon in the form of PHB; hence, these bacteria are
responsible for biological phosphorous removal (Comeau et al. 1986). Sidat et al.
have prepared a table containing different organisms and their phosphorus uptake,
from which Table 2 has been adapted.
Effects of Environmental Conditions on Phosphorus Removal

Mamais and Jenkins (1992) examined the effects of temperature and solid retention
time (SRT) on EBPR. Tests were performed as batch experiments at 10–37 C. The
optimum temperature for aerobic phosphorus removal was between 28 C and 33 C.
Fig. 11 Biochemical model for the anaerobic uptake of organic substrates and their conversion to
PHA by PAOs (Mino et al. 1998)
O
CH3 C SCoA
acetyl CoA
CH3 O
O C CH3 C SCoA
acetoacetyl CoA
HSCoA
NADH
CH3 O CH3 O
HO CH CH2 C SCoA O C CH2 C OH
synthesis
β -hydroxybutyryl CoA acetoacetate
NAD+
CH3 O
HSCoA HO CH CH2 C OH
b -hydroxybutyrate degradation
H2O
CH3 CH3 CH3
O O O
HO CH CH2 C O CH CH2 C O CH CH2 C O
poly-b -hydroxybutyrate
Fig. 12 PHB metabolic pathway (Comeau et al. 1986)
SRT values were in the range of 2–4 days, and EBPR efficiency was independent of
SRT values until the SRT values were regulated above 2.9 days (Sidat et al. 1999).
Smolders et al. (1994) investigated pH effects on phosphorous release, which
Table 2 Phosphorous uptake of some bio-P bacteria (Sidat et al. 1999)

Organism Phosphorous uptake (mg/l)
Pseudomonas fluorescens 20.6
Pseudomonas mendocina 19.6
Acinetobacter calcoaceticus var. lwoffii 18.4
ATCC 17.6
Moraxella spp. 15.8
illustrated that P-release in the anaerobic zone is critically affected by the pH (varied
between 5.5 and 8.5) resulting in a variation of 0.25–0.75 p-mol/C-mol. Also,
phosphorus release in the anaerobic zone is increased as the pH is increased
(Mulkerrins et al. 2004). Dissolved oxygen (DO) in the anaerobic zone must be
negligible (0.0–0.2 mg/l oxygen), and it is highly recommended that DO in the
aerobic condition be in the range of 3.0–4.0 mg/l. DO values which are above of
4.0 mg/l are wasteful since it cannot induce biological phosphorus removal (therefore
the energy used to increase the DO above 4.0 mg/l is wasted). The ratio of phospho-
rus to total organic carbon (TOC) is another important parameter. When low P/TOC
in the influent is utilized, PAOs growth is suppressed, and obviously high P/TOC
increases the growth of PAOs over glycogen accumulating organisms (GAOs)
(Mulkerrins et al. 2004).
Importance of Acetate in Biological Phosphorus Removal

In a biological phosphorus removal plant, the concentration of phosphorus, oxidized
nitrogen, and PHB of three samples are evaluated during 8 h of experiment in three
agitated but not aerated containers. Initially, three solutions of sodium acetate (0, 30,
and 60 mg/l acetate as HAc) were added to the containers. Subsequently, a solution
of sodium nitrate (10 mg/l nitrate as N) was added after 4 h. Figure 13 illustrates the
changes of these variables according to time. Regarding these curves, acetate
presence and increase in its concentration causes enhancement in PHB production,
polyphosphates highly convert to orthophosphates, and also increase reduction of
nitrate to nitrite or gaseous nitrogen. While, nitrate addition has opposite effects
since phosphate and PHB are uptaken by biomass, and also denitrification and
biological phosphorus removal (bio-P), bacteria enter the competition for available
substrates.
Biological Nitrogen Removal
Nitrogen is a nutritious element for humans, animals, and plants, which occupies
approximately 80% of the atmosphere. The main source of nitrogen in wastewater is
from human activities such as cooking, bathing, and waste disposal. Nitrogen exists
in the environment in the forms of organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen which
consists of ammonium (NH4+), nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), nitrous oxide (N2O),
nitric oxide (NO), and gaseous nitrogen (N2). The various processes of the nitrogen
a 40 Nitrate
Acetate
35
Soluble phosphorus
30
(mg l–1as P)
25
20
15
10
5
0
b 12
10 Legend
Oxidized nitrogen
0 mg l–1 Ac
(mg l–1as N)
8
30 mg l–1 Ac
–1
6 60 mg l Ac
0
c 20
16
(mg l–1as HB)
12
PHB
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (h)
Fig. 13 Effects of acetate and nitrate addition on phosphorous, oxidized nitrogen, and PHB
concentrations with time (Comeau et al. 1986)
cycle are fixation, ammonification, nitrification, and denitrification which allow for
the circulation of nitrogen in the entire ecosystem. Figure 14 shows the nitrogen
cycle in nature.
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (KNT) is the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonium which
was developed by Johan Kjeldahl in 1883. Nitrogen mostly enters wastewater in the
form of organic nitrogen and ammonium. Ammonium is derived from breaking
down of urea. Total Nitrogen (TN) is the sum of KTN, nitrate and nitrite.
N2
N2 fixation
(NO2)
nitrification
Plant-N
Animal-N feeding
Bacterial-N
(NO–2)
Detritus-N Assimilation (growth)
mineralization
nitrification (NO–3)
excretion (NH+4) (NO2) (NO–2)
Fig. 14 The nitrogen cycle in nature
Source of Nitrogen in Wastewater

Municipal, petrochemical, agricultural, food industry, paper making, leather making,
artillery making, and slaughterhouse wastewaters and leachate of solid wastes have
various specific amounts of nitrogen. Fertilizers have great amounts of nitrogen in
their structures which can pollute runoffs or ground waters.
Importance of Nitrogen Removal

As mentioned in section “The Importance of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal,”
nitrogen causes some irreparable problems in the water such as eutrophication which
increases water turbidity, decreases dissolved oxygen, and degrades water quality
leading to human health hazards, especially for the cardiovascular system.
Chemical Removal of Nitrogen, Advantages-Disadvantages
As explained in section “Types of Biological Nutrient Removal Systems,” there are

several chemical and physical methods for nitrogen removal. In the following, the
advantages and disadvantages of these methods are summarized.
The advantages of the ion exchange method are: relative insensitivity to temper-
ature, removing ammonium to the levels required by standards, operating even with
susbtantial total dissolved solids (TDS), and not forming harmful compounds; on the
other hand, this method’s disadvantages are that it requires regeneration, has reduced
efficiency in the presence of dissolved solids, is sensitive to organic compounds and

particles, and has high cost of construction and operation. Alternatively, the air
stripping process removes ammonium and phosphorus up to the required standards
and is not hindered by toxic materials, but requires huge amounts of aeration and
chemical compounds for pH regulation. Also, this process is sensitive to low
temperatures. Breakpoint chlorination’s advantages are high removal of ammonium,
demanding a small space, insensitivity to high temperatures and toxic materials and
disinfection of the effluent. On the other hand, considering chlorine consumption,
this process is costly and produces trihalomethanes.
Biological Nitrogen Removal Process
Biological nitrogen removal from wastewater follows two mechanisms: (1) biomass
synthesis and (2) nitrification – denitrification.
Nitrification-Denitrification
Nitrification
The main source of nitrogen in sewage is ammonium. Nitrification is a biological
process oxidizing ammonium to nitrite and then nitrite to nitrate. Bacteria responsi-
ble for the nitrification process are mostly autotrophs, while there are some hetero-
trophs as well. Autotroph bacteria utilize carbon dioxide as carbon source and gain
their required energy from inorganic compounds, while heterotrophs gain their
energy and carbon from organic compounds. The nitrification process consists of
two steps. Firstly, ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) oxidize ammonium to nitrite.
These kinds of bacteria are nitroso organisms which include nitrosomonas,
nitrosospiras, and nitrosococcus. The following equation shows the nitrification
process.
2NH4 þ 3O2 ! 2NO þ

2 þ 2H2 O þ 4H þ New cells (2)
Secondly, nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) oxidize nitrite to nitrate. These kinds

of bacteria are nitro-organisms which include nitrobacter, nitrospira, nitrococcus,
and nitrospina. The following equation shows the process:
2NO
2 þ O2 ! 2NO3 þ New cells (3)
Koops and Pommerening-Röser (2001) investigated the distribution and eco-

physiology of ammonia-oxidizing and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Ecophysiological
parameters and preferred habitats of ammonia-oxidizing and nitrite-oxidizing
bacteria are respectively illustrated in Figs. 15 and 16 (Koops and Pommerening-
Röser 2001).
22
species ecophysiological parameters preferred habitat

urease substrate (NH3)
salt requirement
activity affinity (Ka)
Nitrosomonas europaea
Nitrosomonas eutropha sewage disposal plants
halotolerant or
- 30-61μM eutrophic freshwater and
Nitrosomonas halophila moderately halophilic
brackish water
Nitrosococcus mobilis
Nitrosomonas communis
Nitrosomonas sp.Ι no salt requirement - 14-43 μM soils (not acid)
Nitrosomonas sp.ΙΙ
Nitrosomonas nitrosa no salt requirement + 19-46 μM eutrophic freshwater
Nitrosomonas ureae oligotrophic freshwater
no salt requirement + 1.9-4.2 μM
Nitrosomonas oligotropha natural soils
Nitrosomonas marina
obligately halophilic
Nitrosomonas sp.ΙΙΙ + 50-52μM
marine environments
b-Proteobacteria Nitrosomonas aestuarii
Nitrosomonas cryotolerans obligately halophilic + 42-59 μM
Nitrosolobus multiformis soils (not acid)
Nitrosovibrio tenuis +/-
no salt requirement
soils, rocks and freshwater
Nitrosospira sp.Ι
g-Proteobacteria Nitrosococcus oceani +
obligately halophilic marine environments
Nitrosococcus halophilus -
Fig. 15 Dendrogram based on 16S rDNA sequences of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (Koops and Pommerening-Röser 2001)
E. Banayan Esfahani et al.
species ecophysiological preferred habitat

parameters
Nitrobacter alkalicus alkali- and halotolerant soda lakes
α-Proteobacteria Nitrobacter Winogradskyi
freshwater, soils and
Nitrobacter vulgaris no salt requirement
rocks
Nitrobacter hamburgensis
γ-Proteobacteria
Nitrococcus mobilis obligately halophilic
δ-Proteobacteria
Nitrospina gracilis obligately halophilic marine environments
Nitrospira marina obligately halophilic
Nitrospina moscoviensis no salt requirement freshwater
Fig. 16 Dendrogram based on 16S rDNA sequences of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (Koops and
Pommerening-Röser 2001)
Effects of Environmental Conditions on Nitrification Process

Nitrification is sensitive to pH and the rate of nitrification declines when pH values
decrease, with nitrification practically ceasing under pH 6.0. The optimum pH is
between 7.5 and 9.0 (Mulkerrins et al. 2004). Long aeration times and SRT induce
complete nitrification. DO in the nitrification zone (aerobic condition) should be
between 2 and 4 mg/l. Also, since the growth rate of nitrifiers is lower than
heterotrophs, long SRT is mandatory for the nitrification process. Similar to phos-
phorus removal, the recommended mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS) should be
between 1500 and 1700 mg/l (Mulkerrins et al. 2004). Increase in temperature
causes enhancement in the nitrification rate up to the optimum temperature of
30–35 C (Jeyanayagam 2005). Temperature affects microbial growth mechanism
and mass transfer of oxygen. Nitrifiers are highly sensitive to environmental inhib-
itors such as heavy metals and some organic compounds (Tomlinson et al. 1966).
Denitrification
Nitrification is followed by denitrification in order to remove nitrogen from waste-
water. In the denitrification process, nitrate is reduced to gaseous nitrogen (N2), and
consequently N2 is released to the atmosphere. Denitrification process requires
anoxic conditions. The following equation illustrates the overall denitrification
process in which various reductions take place: nitrate to nitrite, nitrite to nitric
oxide, nitric oxide to nitrous oxide, and nitrous oxide to gaseous nitrogen.
NO
3 ! NO2 ! NO ! N2 O ! N2 (4)
Bacteria responsible in the denitrification process are heterotrophs which include

thiobacillus, micrococcus, serratia, and pseudomonas-reducing nitrate and/or nitrite
in the absence of dissolved oxygen. Pseudomonas are the most common denitrifiers
which can utilize various energy sources.
In the denitrification process, wastewater alkalinity increases and carbon dioxide
decreases. Carbon dioxide reduction causes pH increase which is the opposite of the
nitrification process; so, one of the most significant advantages of the denitrification
process is pH regulation which inhibits corrosion of treatment plant facilities like

piping and pumps.
Effects of Environmental Conditions on the Denitrification Process

Optimum pH for the denitrification process is between 7.0 and 8.0 (Mulkerrins et al.
2004). Increasing wastewater temperatures induces microbial activity and as a result the
rate of denitrification is enhanced. For instance, reduction in wastewater temperature
from 20 C to 10 C reduces the denitrification rate by up to 75% (Jeyanayagam 2005).
Due to the heterotrophic nature of denitrifiers, one of the most effective parameters on
denitrifiers’ performance is the ratio of BOD or COD to TKN, with higher ratios of
BOD to TKN causing higher denitrification (Jeyanayagam 2005).
Types of Biological Processes
Different wastewater unit operations exist that utilize biological processes to remove
pollutants from wastewater such as: trickling filters (TF), rotating biological
contactors (RBC), moving bed bioreactors (MBBR), activated sludge process
(ASP), and aerobic and anaerobic fluid beds. According to the growth condition of
microorganisms, these systems are divided into two general categories which are
suspended growth and attached growth. In suspended growth processes, microor-
ganisms are suspended in the wastewater during biological operation, and recycling
of deposited biomass is mandatory. In attached growth, microorganisms are attached
to a media such as polymeric, ceramic, or rocky bed to grow on their surface, and
microorganism recycling is not necessary. Microorganisms form a microbial layer on
the surface of the media and treat wastewater by this biofilm.
Setup, control, and managing biofilm systems are easier. Since microorganisms
are attached to media, fluid flow cannot wash the biomass out of the wastewater
treatment plant, and microorganism recycling is not required. Also, the effluent of
the attached growth system has a better quality than suspended growth in terms of
microbial contamination. Biofilm processes have an operational benefit that excess
sludge production is lower in this process when compared to suspended growth
processes. But, regarding to utilized media, costs of biofilm processes are usually
more than suspended growth systems.
Suspended Growth Processes
Microorganisms in suspended growth processes such as the activated sludge process

(ASP) are suspended in the unit in order to hydrolyze and consequently remove
pollution such as organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Microorganisms are
mixed in the tank with aeration in aerobic zones, or with agitators in the anaerobic or
anoxic zones. As wastewater flows through the suspended growth tank, food (COD
or organic compounds) decreases due to microbial activity and cell mass is
increased. For instance, in the ASP, biomass oxidize organic material to grow and
Activated Sludge
Process
Clarifier
Influent Effluent
Aeration
Returned Activated Excess

Sludge Sludge
Fig. 17 Activated sludge process
form flocs of biofilms (Dabi 2015). The aeration not only provides oxygen as an
electron acceptor but also mixes the suspended microorganisms. Subsequently, the
mixture of treated wastewater and biomass flocs pass to the clarifier unit in which
microorganism and wastewater flow are separated. The sludge is either returned to
the aeration tank to increase the biomass concentration (MLSS) to the required level,
or discarded when the biomass concentration in the tank is adequate. Figure 17
illustrates an activated sludge schematic.
Attached Growth Processes
Biomass attach and grow on the surface of different media in attached growth processes.
These media have different shapes and are made of different materials; all having high
surface to volume ratios to support microorganism growth. Unlike suspended growth
processes, the substrate and oxygen must transfer from the wastewater to the media and
diffuse through the biofilm layers to be available for all microorganisms. Subsequently,
products of microbial activity follow diverse routes from the biofilm to the wastewater
(Jenkins and Sanders 2012). Kumar et al. (2009) investigated bacterial dynamics of
living cells and dead cells in a biofilm membrane bioreactor by confocal laser scanning
microscopy (CLSM) counts and considered five stages for microorganism growth and
detachment during biofilm developments. These steps are shown in Fig. 18 in which
nucleic acid is utilized. Burkholderia vietnamiensis G4 bacteria (BVG4) is utilized to
biodegrade the toluene as an impurity and also energy source in the wastewater. The
investigations proved that living and dead cells have a direct relation with the efficiency
of toluene removal (Kumar et al. 2009).
Worden and Donaldson (1987) developed governing equations for the biofilm
phase, wastewater phase, and biomass growth in a well-mixed reactor for phenol
oxidation. In this research, the biofilm grew on coal particles (Worden and
Fig. 18 Biofilm development (a cell attachment, b pollutant limitation, c biofilm stabilization and
colonization, d colonized biofilm, e biofilm erosion)
Donaldson 1987). Horn et al. (2003) analyzed biofilm growth stages in homogenous
growth, quasi-steady state, and washout experiments.
A trickling filter is a kind of attached growth processes in which wastewater is
sprinkled on the top of the filter media and flows downward through the media due to
gravitational force. The trickling filter provides an appropriate surface for microor-
ganisms’ growth, and wastewater flow provides oxygen and energy sources for this
purpose. Limitation in oxygen and energy source transfer, low pace of biofilm
growth, and clogging of the filters are some of trickling filters’ problems (Fig. 19).
Due to the above-mentioned problems associated with trickling filters, rotating
biological contactors (RBCs) which consist of many disks rotating on one axis to
provide the required surface for microorganism growth emerged in the 1960s and
1970s (Jenkins and Sanders 2012). In this system, due to the rotation of half-
submerged disks around a shaft, microorganisms obtain their necessary carbon
source from the wastewater and required oxygen from the air (Fig. 20).
Up-flow anaerobic fixed bed (UAFB) is another attached growth process in which
wastewater flows upward through the bed under anaerobic conditions. Chelliapan
and Sallis (2010) used UAFB as a pretreatment for pharmaceutical wastewaters.
They concluded that longer hydraulic retention times (HRT) lead to better COD
removal (Chelliapan and Sallis 2010) (Fig. 21).
A moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) is another attached growth system in
which microorganisms grow on media as the wastewater smoothly moves through
them, since their density is near water density (Fig. 22). Unlike the trickling filter in
which fixed media are utilized, in the MBBR system biomass grow on free-floating
media such as small plastic carriers. These media are moved around the aerobic tanks
Influent Application (Dosing)

system
Recirculation
(Optional) Media
bed
Containment
structure
Air
ventilation Effluent
Underdrain
system (To further
treatment
or discharge)
Fig. 19 A trickling filter (Grady et al. 2011)
Cover
RBC
Shaft
Oxygen Interstage
baffle
Influent
Degradation
products
Food Effluent
Sludge
Nutrient
Fig. 20 A rotating biological contactor (Grady et al. 2011)
by aeration and around the anoxic and anaerobic tanks by mixers. This system was
first developed in Norway (Seviour et al. 2003) and the media utilized in them were
marketed as Kaldnes media which is shown in Fig. 23. MBBRs are very flexible
systems which can be utilized for various purposes such as organic compound
oxidation, nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorous removal. High microbial
activity, relatively small reactors, low energy consumption, and low sludge
Inlet
Feed Pump Bubble

Counter
Solid
Recycle Outlet
Pump
Filter
packing
Feed Tank Effluent
Fig. 21 An up-flow anaerobic fixed bed (Chelliapan and Sallis 2010)
Effluent
screen
Influent Effluent
Free
floating
media
Aeration
Waste
sludge
Fig. 22 A moving bed biofilm reactor (Grady et al. 2011)
production are some important merits of moving bed biofilm reactors, while the cost
of media might be a hindrance, and setup and control of these systems take time and
need specific skills.
An integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) system is a combination of
suspended and attached growth systems. This system provides excess biomass for
an activated sludge process to enhance system capacity. This approach is mainly
used for aerobic zones and can be used for upgrading systems to increase biological
oxygen demand (BOD) removal and nitrification (Jenkins and Sanders 2012).
Activated sludge is returned in this system to enhance biomass concentration in
the tank, and microorganisms’ carriers are either fixed or free-floating media.
Figure 24 illustrates an integrated fixed-film activated sludge.
Fig. 23 Kaldnes media
Performance of the Modified Bardenpho Process
The modified Bardenpho process is a biological approach combining both nitrogen

and phosphorus removal process configurations together. This system consists of
five distinct reactors in each of which special environmental conditions are provided
for biomass growth and removal of wastewater impurities, especially nitrogen and
phosphorus, with high efficiency. The modified Bardenpho zones are respectively:
anaerobic reactor, first anoxic reactor, first aerobic reactor, second anoxic reactor,
and second aerobic reactor.
As it was mentioned in previous sections, phosphorus biological removal is
highly dependent on PAOs’ function in absorbing energy and carbon sources and
hydrolyzing polyphosphates to organophosphates in the anaerobic zone and using
energy and carbon sources and uptaking polyphosphates in the aerobic zone; so,
biological phosphorus removal units should include anaerobic and aerobic reactors.
While, for the biological nitrogen removal process, providing appropriate conditions
for nitrification and denitrification is a mandatory requirement. As nitrification and
denitrification processes respectively take place in aerobic and anoxic zones, these
two conditions are required, too. Therefore, all three biological conditions, anaero-
bic, anoxic, and aerobic conditions, are necessary in simultaneous removal of
nitrogen and phosphorus, but what was the reason of this sequence in the modified
Bardenpho process?
The Modified Ludzak-Ettinger (MLE) process is a biological process to remove
nitrogen with nitrification and denitrification processes. In this process, an aerobic
tank is placed after the anoxic zone since if the aerobic zone is the first step, the
oxygen concentration in sewage increases and disrupts the denitrification process.
Effluent to
Airlift pump clarifier
for pad
Effluent
recirculation
P screen
Free floating
media
Free floating
Pad recirculation media
line
A A
Process
air Section A-A
RAS
Influent
Plan view
Fig. 24 An integrated fixed-film activated sludge process (Grady et al. 2011)
Also, in order to complete the nitrification-denitrification cycle, a recycle flow from

aerobic zone to the anoxic zone is mandatory. Considering the MLE, Barnard
devised a four-stage Bardenpho by adding an anoxic and an aerobic reactor to the
MLE process in order to enhance biological nitrogen removal so excess nitrate in the
first aeration zone could be reduced to gaseous nitrogen. Subsequently, Barnard
realized the importance of the presence of an anaerobic reactor in phosphorus
removal; so, he decided to put an anaerobic zone ahead of the four-stage Bardenpho
to increase the efficacy.
Wastewater flow through the modified Bardenpho process can be provided
by gravitational force, while an important recycle flow from the first aerobic zone
to first anoxic zone should be considered which is usually provided by pumping.
Figure 25 illustrates the modified Bardenpho process and wastewater flow through
all reactors. In the following, all five stages of the modified Bardenpho process are
discussed in detail.
Reactors in the Modified Bardenpho Process
Anaerobic Reactor
The first reactor in the modified Bardenpho process is an anaerobic reactor (depleted
of oxygen or oxidized nitrogen). In this reactor, mixers circulate wastewater in a tank
in order to deliver carbon and energy sources to all the biomass.
Pump
Recycle flow
Anaerobic Tank
Influent
1st Aerobic Tank

2nd Anoxic Tank

1st Anoxic Tank
2nd Aerobic Tank Clarifier
Effluent
Aeration
Aeration
Returned Excess
Fig. 25 The modified Bardenpho process

31
• Function: Anaerobic zones provide appropriate conditions for phosphorus accu-

mulating organism (PAOs) growth and uptake of volatile fatty acids or other
carbon sources such as acetate to produce storable compounds such as PHA and
PHB. Also, polyphosphates are hydrolyzed to orthophosphates. The main pur-
pose of this step in the modified Bardenpho process is increasing phosphorus
removal efficiency. An important role of the anaerobic tank before the aerobic
tank is that oxygen concentration in the sewage is very low, and it can increase
motive force of oxygen transfer in the aerobic tank.
• Environmental Conditions: Phosphorus release in the anaerobic zone increases
as the pH increases. Also, ratio of the phosphorus concentration to the total
organic carbon concentration has a direct relation with PAOs growth and phos-
phorus removal.
• Contaminant Concentration: Phosphate concentration in the anaerobic reactor
is significantly increased since it is released from polyphosphates. BOD and COD
amounts decrease since they are consumed as carbon sources. Nitrate, nitrite, and
DO concentrations are very low in the anaerobic zone. Ammonia concentration in
the anaerobic reactor is lower than the feed concentration, but is higher than other
subsequent reactors.
First Anoxic Reactor

The second reactor in the modified Bardenpho process is the first anoxic reactor.
Effluent of the anaerobic reactor and recycle flow from the fist aerobic reactor enter
this tank, and effluent of the first anoxic reactor flows to the first aerobic reactor. In
this reactor, dissolved oxygen should be low in order for the biomass to utilize
bonded oxygen in nitrate. If dissolved oxygen exists in the anoxic zone, biomass will
reduce oxygen as an electron acceptor and after depletion of oxygen, reduce nitrate;
hence, denitrification efficiency is declined. Mixers provide homogenous conditions
in all parts of the anoxic reactor.
• Function: The anoxic zone provides appropriate conditions for growth of deni-
trifiers. A group of heterotrophs such as pseudomonas reduce the nitrate and/or
nitrite in the absence of dissolved oxygen. The anoxic zone provides conditions
for the denitrification process to complete the nitrogen cycle and remove nitrogen
as a gas (N2). As a result, the recycle flow from the first aerobic zone to this
reactor is full of nitrate, and denitrifiers reduce them in the denitrification process.
• Environmental Conditions: Temperature has a direct relation with denitrifiers’
performance. It goes without saying that increasing the temperature increases
denitrifiers’ activity and denitrification. Optimum pH for the denitrification pro-
cess is a rather neutral pH between 7.0 and 8.0. Also, a high ratio of COD to TKN
stimulates denitrification.
• Contaminant Concentration: COD and BOD amounts in this reactor are sub-
stantially reduced since denitrifiers utilize BOD and COD in the influent to reduce
nitrate to gaseous nitrogen. Nitrate and nitrite concentrations are very low in this
zone as well. Ammonia and phosphorus concentrations are lower than the
anaerobic reactor, but their concentrations are still high.
First Aerobic Reactor

The third reactor in the modified Bardenpho process is the aeration or aerobic tank
which is aerated with air compressors. Aeration provides dissolved oxygen as an
electron acceptor in the biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal processes and
also provides mixing in the tank. This reactor, as the heart of the modified Bardenpho
process, plays the most important role in the performance of the unit. One reason is
that the first aerobic reactor provides appropriate conditions for PAOs to use carbon
sources such as PHA and PHB in order to absorb polyphosphates; so, phosphorus
concentration is significantly reduced in this section. Also, ammonia is oxidized to
nitrate through two reactions in which oxygen is as electron acceptor. In this way, the
aerobic tank provides conditions for the nitrification process. Finally, a proportion of
the effluent is sent to the first anoxic tank in order to reduce nitrate to gaseous nitrogen.
• Function: The first aerobic reactor has two functions in the modified Bardenpho
process. Firstly, this reactor completes biological phosphorus removal since
orthophosphate in the sewage is absorbed and stored in biomass as poly-
phosphates. Secondly, this reactor helps the nitrification process in which nitroso
organisms such as nitrosomonas cause ammonia to oxidize into nitrite and nitro-
organisms such as nitrobacters cause nitrite oxidation to nitrate. In both these
reactions, oxygen performs as an electron acceptor and its existence is mandatory.
• Environmental Conditions: Optimum pH for the nitrification process is near
neutral conditions between 7.5 and 9.0, and a reduction in pH reduces the
nitrification process. Dissolved oxygen concentration in the aerobic reactor should
be between 2 and 4 mg/l. Optimum temperature is between 30 C and 35 C.
• Contaminant Concentration: BOD and COD amounts in the first aerobic zone
are significantly reduced since PAOs, nitroso, and nitrobacter organisms need
carbon sources for their growth and activity. Also, phosphorus concentration is
substantially reduced to the desired standards. Ammonia concentration is greatly
diminished since it is oxidized during the nitrification process, but nitrate con-
centration increases to its highest amount in the modified Bardenpho process.
Nitrite concentration is increased a little, too.
Second Anoxic Reactor

Actually, the main difference between the modified Bardenpho process and the A2/O
or three-stage Phoredox system, which consists of anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic
reactors, is the 4th and 5th steps of the modified Bardenpho process which are the
second anoxic and second aerobic reactors. The fourth reactor in the modified
Bardenpho process is the second anoxic reactor which provides another anoxic
tank for unreduced nitrate which has not been recycled to the first anoxic reactor
and has flown directly out from the first aerobic reactor; hence, it can improve
biological nitrogen removal in the modified Bardenpho process in comparison to
A2/O or three-stage Phoredox reactors.
• Function: The second anoxic zone truly enhances biological nitrogen removal in
the modified Bardenpho process since unrecycled nitrate is reduced.
• Environmental Condition: The required environmental conditions in the second

anoxic tank are similar to the first anoxic reactor.
• Contaminant Concentration: BOD and COD amounts in the influent of the
second anoxic reactor are very low, but their amounts are reduced further in this
step. If anaerobic conditions are created in some parts of the anoxic reactor,
orthophosphate may release and phosphorus concentration may increase a little in
this section, while in the following second aerobic tank released phosphorus is
absorbed as polyphosphates and removed.
Second Aerobic Reactor

The final stage in the modified Bardenpho process is an aerobic reactor which aerates
wastewater in order to increase oxygen concentration and enhance wastewater quality.
Also, the presence of oxygen can decrease phosphorus concentration, if any phos-
phorus is generated during the second anoxic tank or at the septic or clarifier tanks.
• Function: As mentioned above, the second aerobic tank increases oxygen con-
centration in the wastewater to improve wastewater quality as the final stage and
also inhibit phosphorus release in the next steps of the WWTP. In biological
phosphorus removal, it is mandatory to waste sludge in the aerobic zone because
sludge contains the maximum amount of the phosphorus (Mulkerrins et al. 2004).
• Environmental Conditions: The required environmental conditions in the sec-
ond aerobic tank are similar to the first aerobic reactor.
• Contaminant Concentration: Similar to previous stages, microorganisms use
up BOD and COD as a carbon source for their growth. Also, the phosphorus
amount reaches its lowest value. Total nitrogen concentration in the influent and
also the effluent of the second aerobic reactor is very low, and in effect all
contaminations’ concentrations have reached their desired levels.
In addition to the reactors discussed above, there are some other required facilities
such as at least two pumps for wastewater circulation from the first aerobic reactor to the
first anoxic reactor and from the precipitated sludge in the clarifier to the anaerobic tank
to return sludge. Also, the two aerobic tanks need air compressors and diffusers, while
the anaerobic and anoxic tanks require mixers. Wastewater recycle flow from first the
aerobic to the first anoxic tank needs an adjustable reservoir tank since wastewater flow
from the aerobic tank is saturated with dissolved oxygen, and DO should be minimized
before entering the anoxic tank. Furthermore, similar to all wastewater treatment units,
the modified Bardenpho process needs appropriate piping, heaters, or coolers to adjust
temperature and chemical compounds and tanks for adjusting pH.
Comparison of the Modified Bardenpho Process with Other BNR

Systems
Biological nutrient removal (BNR) systems are divided into three categories. Some
BNR processes include aerobic and anoxic tanks and remove only nitrogen, some of
Table 3 Biological nutrient removal performance of different BNR systems (Jeyanayagam 2005)
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Process removal removal Other features
MLE Good None Moderate basin volume
A2/O Good Good Moderate basin volume
Sensitive to RAS nitrate and DO recycle
Step feed Moderate None No IMLR
Smaller final clarifiers
Potential for preventing solids washout
Four-stage Excellent None Larger basin volume
Bardenpho Potential for adding methanol
Five-stage Excellent Good Larger reactor volume
Bardenpho Potential for adding methanol
SBR Moderate Inconsistent No IMLR
No final clarifier
May require effluent flow equalization
Modified Good Excellent Separate anoxic zone for RAS denitrification –
UCT protects anaerobic zone
Larger anaerobic volume
Two internal recycles
Increased process complexity
Oxidation Excellent Good No IMLR
ditch Long HRT (larger tank volume)
Tight DO control essential
them consist of anaerobic and aerobic tanks and remove only phosphorus, while
some of the BNR systems like the modified Bardenpho include anaerobic, anoxic,
and aerobic tanks and remove both nitrogen and phosphorus. Table 3 summarizes the
biological nutrient removal performance of different BNR systems. Table 4 illus-
trates average effluent concentrations of various treatment plants which utilize BNR
systems. Finally, Table 5 tabulates total capital cost of different BNR systems in
different wastewater treatment plants.
Modified Bardenpho Process Design
The modified Bardenpho process as a biological system has various complications in

design since it has five distinct bioreactors, and every reactor has especial functions
and required conditions. For instance, even the two aerobic reactors or two anoxic
reactors have different applications and responsibilities in the modified Bardenpho
process, and as a result their specifications are different. Also, beside wastewater
flow, there is a significant recycle flow from the first aerobic reactor to the first anoxic
reactor which plays a prominent role in nitrogen removal. There are some imperative
parameters in designing modified Bardenpho process as discussed below.
Table 4 Biological nutrient removal systems’ performance in different treatment plants (Gannett
Fleming n.d.)
Average
effluent
concentration
(mg/L)
Treatment plant (states) Treatment process Flow (M. gallons per day) TN TP
Annapolis (MD) Bardenpho four-stage 13 7.1 0.66
Back River (MD) MLE 180 7.6 0.19
Bowie (MD) Oxidation ditch 3.3 6.6 0.20
Cambridge (MD) MLE 8.1 3.2 0.34
Cape Coral (FL) Modified Bardenpho 8.5 1.0 0.2
Cox Creek (MD) MLE 15 9.7 0.89
Cumberland (MD) Step feed 15 7.0 1.0
Frederick (MD) A2/O 7 7.2 1.0
Freedom District (MD) MLE 3.5 7.8 0.51
Largo (FL) A2/O 15 2.3 ND
Medford Lakes (NJ) Bardenpho five-stage 0.37 2.6 0.09
Palmetto (FL) Bardenpho four-stage 1.4 3.2 0.82
Piscataway (MD) Step feed 30 2.7 0.09
Seneca (MD) MLE 20 6.4 0.08
Sod Run (MD) Modified A2/O 20 9.2 0.86
Westminster (MD) MLE – A2/O 5 5.3 0.79
Nutrient Removal Establishment
Start-up of every wastewater treatment unit, especially biological plants, takes time in
order to habituate microorganisms with environmental conditions such as the
COD/N/P ratio of the wastewater influent and the kinds of contaminations. Oldham
and Stevens (1984) studied commissioning a new wastewater treatment plant with
the modified Bardenpho process in Kelowna, British Colombia. They illustrated
that the biological nitrogen removal process (nitrification and denitrification) was
established within 1 month of plant start-up, and nitrogen concentration in the
effluent was lower than 5 mg/l with an influent of 30 mg/l. Also, 2 months of
operating time was needed to steady out the phosphorus removal process, and
phosphorus concentration declined from 6 mg/l in the influent to less than 0.5 mg/l
in the effluent. Figures 26 and 27 illustrate nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
during the initial 6 months of plant operation (Oldham and Stevens 1984). Due to the
complexity of the modified Bardenpho process, a small physical problem can
decrease nutrient removal of the plant and cause irregular results in some points.
For instance, when air supply is out of service in first the aerobic tank, it can reduce
both nitrogen and phosphorus removal efficiencies.
Table 5 Biological nutrient removal systems’ costs in different treatment plants (Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) 2006)
Facilities with Total capital
BNR (as of 10/30/ Design capacity Treatment Completion BNR cost
06) (M. gallon per day) process date (2006$)
Aberdeen 2.8 MLE Dec-1998 $ 3,177,679
Annapolis 10 Ringlace Nov-2000 $ 14,687,326
Back River 180 MLE June-1998 $ 138,305,987
Ballenger 2.0 Modified Aug-1995 $ 2,891,906
Bardenpho
Broadneck 6.0 Oxidation 1994 $ 3,165,193
ditch
Broadwater 2.0 MLE May-2000 $ 6,892,150
Cambridge 8.1 Activated Apr-2003 $ 11,740,209
sludge
Celanese 1.25 Sequential June-2005 $ 7,424,068
step feed
Centreville 0.375 SBR/land Apr-2005 $ 7,36,020
application
Chesapeake Beach 0.75 Oxidation 1992 $ 2,158,215
ditch
Conococheague 2.5 Carrousel Nov-2001 $ 6,620,888
Cox Creek 15.0 MLE May-2002 $ 11,466,657
Cumberland 15.0 MLE Aug-2001 $ 12,929,990
Denton 0.45 Biolac Dec-2000 $ 4,203,767
Dorsey Run 2.0 Methanol 1992 $ 3,967,307
Emmitsburg 0.75 Overland 1996 $ 2,582,722
Frederick 8.0 MLE Sept-2002 $ 11,916,504
Freedom District 3.5 Activated 1994 $ 1,462,798
sludge
Fruitland 0.50 SBR July-2003 $ 7,546,764
Hagerstown 8.0 Johannesburg Dec-2000 $ 11,190,344
process
Havre DeGrace 1.89 MLE Nov-2002 $ 7,596,882
Hurlock 2.0 Bardenpho Aug-2006 $ 5,200,000
Joppatowne 0.95 MLE July-1996 $2,433,205
La Plata 1 MLE June-2002 $ 4,952,150
Leonardtown 0.65 Biolac Oct-2003 $ 2,811,448
Little Patuxent 18 A2/O 1994 $ 7,263,879
Martay Taylor 4.5 Schreiber June-1998 $ 4,968,641
(Prine Hill Run)
Maryland city 2.5 Schreiber 1990 $ 1,375,866
Maryland 1.23 Bardenpho 1995 $ 2,703,932
Correctional
Institute
Mt. Airy 0.60 Activated July-1999 $ 5,235,575
sludge
(continued)
Table 5 (continued)
Facilities with Total capital
BNR (as of 10/30/ Design capacity Treatment Completion BNR cost
06) (M. gallon per day) process date (2006$)
Northeast 2.0 Activated Oct-2004 $ 4,225,029
sludge
Parkway 7.5 Methanol 1992 $ 15,869,228
Patuxent 6.0 Oxidation 1990 $ 2,106,763
ditch
Piscataway 30 MLE July-2000 $ 24,778,239
Pocomoke City 1.4 Biolac Sept-2004 $ 3,924,240
Poolestive 0.625 SBR Jan-2005 $ 1,593,640
Princess Anne 1.26 Activated 2002 $ 4,311,742
sludge
Seneca 5.0 MLE Dec-2003 $ 34,886,034
Sod Run 12 MLE 2000 $ 21,999,198
Taneytown 0.70 SBR Apr-2000 $ 3,808,298
Thurmont 1.0 MLE Dec-1996 $ 3,122,264
Western Branch 30 Methanol July-1995 $ 47,132,782
Westminster 5.0 Activated Jan-2001 $ 5,274,444
sludge
COD and Nutrient Ratio
Shortage of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus causes a wide range of problems, and
each tank optimally functions at a specific C:N:P ratio. For instance, the ratio of
COD:N:P in the aerobic treatment zones of wastewater treatment plants should be
approximately 100:5:1 and in the anaerobic treatment zones should be 250:5:1.
Since anaerobic treatment produces only 20% sludge compared to aerobic treatment,
the required nitrogen and phosphorous concentration for anaerobic treatment is
lower than the case for aerobic treatment. Ammary (2004) illustrated that the
COD:N:P ratio for aerobic and anaerobic zones of industrial wastewater treatment
should be calculated from a formula (41/EY:5:1) in which E is the removal efficiency
and Y is the observed yield. Sewage of the modified Bardenpho plant of Oldham and
Stevens (1984) had a COD:NH3-N ratio of 9:1. Also, for efficient biological
phosphorus removal (phosphorus concentration in the effluent is lower than
1.0 mg/l), the COD:P ratio should be higher than 40:1 (Mulkerrins et al. 2004).
Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)
HRT is a paramount and influential parameter in designing wastewater treatment plants

since it designates the time that the wastewater remains in a reactor. HRT can determine a
reactors’ volume and consequently required constriction space and costs. There is a
common tendency to reduce reactors’ HRT, but hydraulic retention time should be
sufficient for the removal of the targeted impurities; so, one of the most important design
30 30
20 20
Plant stort-up date-April 29 Plant stort-up date-April 29
NH3- N (mg/L)
NO3- N (mg/L)
10 10
0 0
1 11 21 31 10 20 30 10 20 30 9 19 29 8 18 28 8 18 28 7 15 1 11 21 31 10 20 30 10 20 30 9 19 29 8 18 28 8 18 28 7 15
May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Fig. 26 Ammonia (left) and nitrate (right) concentration during 6 months of commissioning a modified Bardenpho process (Oldham and Stevens 1984)
39
6
ortho- p (mg/L)
5
Plant start-up date-April 29
0
1 11 21 31 10 20 30 10 20 30 9 19 29 8 18 28 8 18 28 7 15
May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Fig. 27 Phosphorus concentration during 6 months of commissioning a modified Bardenpho

process (Oldham and Stevens 1984)
parameters that should be carefully evaluated is the HRT. Sakuma (2005) studied
hydraulic retention time effects of seven different A2/O systems on phosphorus and
nitrogen removal efficiency. The results are illustrated in Table 6 (Sakuma 2005).
HRT has critical influence on the BNR performance. Firstly, anaerobic reactor
retention times should be optimized since if HRT of the anaerobic tank is very low,
PAOs cannot produce storable carbon sources (PHA and PHB), and if the HRT of
anaerobic tanks is very high, PAOs substantially utilize COD of wastewater which
adversely affects the denitrification process. Also, long HRT is one of the main causes
of secondary P-release which occurs in the absence of VFA and adversely affects the
BPR process (Mulkerrins et al. 2004). Secondly, similar to the anaerobic reactor, the
anoxic reactor retention time should be optimized, since short HRT of the anoxic tank
causes improper denitrification and long HRT of anoxic tank harmfully affects
phosphorus removal; denitrifying PAOs (DPAOs) are 40% less efficient in producing
energy and also 20–30% lower cell yield in comparison to PAOs (Patel et al. 2005).
Sludge Retention Time (SRT)
SRT is the average time in which biomass stays in the system and is another
important parameter in designing biological nutrient removal systems. There are
Table 6 WWTPs performance with different HRTs (Sakuma 2005)
Actual flow Anaerobic Anoxic Oxic Total Internal Phosphorus removal Nitrogen removal
WWTP (m3/d) HRT (h) HRT (h) HRT (h) HRT (h) recycle ratio efficiency (%) efficiency (%)
North 21,000 2 1.5 6.1 9.4 17.0 0.8 79.3 75.4
Tama I
South 20,400 2 3.3 1.7 9.9 14.9 0.5 90.7 67.7
Tama
North 16,400 1.8 2.2 9.8 13.8 0.5 90.9 63.6
Tama II
Asakawa 14,600 1.5 4.9 9.3 15.7 1.0 89.3 69.2
Upstream 48,900 1.4 4.8 7.7 13.9 0.7 91.4 70.2
Tama
Hachioji 14,400 1.8 3.5 8.1 13.4 1.0 66.6 70.7
Kiyose 34,700 2.3 3.8 9.2 15.3 0.8 85.2 69.3
41
various studies investigating SRT’s impact on BNR performances. Studies have

illustrated that SRT has two opposite influences: longer SRT causes better effluent
quality, while if the SRT is too long, it will cause high nitrification rates and a
reduction in the poly-P microbial fraction of the mixed culture. There are many
investigations about optimized SRT which have analyzed SRTs between 5 and
20 days, and have suggested that in BPR systems the optimized SRT is approxi-
mately 10 days (Mulkerrins et al. 2004).
Recycling Ratio (R)
The recycling flow is an effective wastewater flow from the first aerobic reactor to
the first anoxic reactor which completes the nitrification-denitrification process. This
is because the generated nitrate in the aerobic tank is reduced in the anoxic tank to
gaseous nitrogen and removed from the wastewater. The Recycling ratio (R) should
be optimized according to influent properties (Patel et al. 2005). Nitrogen removal
efficiency decreases with the increase of R at low COD/N ratios. At medium COD/N
ratios there is a peak as the removal efficiency first increases and then decreases with
the increase of R past the optimal point. At high COD/N ratios an increase in R also
increases the removal efficiency (Fig. 28). Phosphorus removal efficiency generally
increases with increase of R (Fig. 29).
Temperature, pH, and Bubble Size
Temperature and pH are two important parameters which should be measured during
wastewater treatment and set to the optimized values at which microorganisms have
their highest performance. Optimum temperature and pH for the anaerobic, anoxic,
and aerobic reactors have been discussed in section “Reactors in the Modified
Bardenpho Process.” Also, the modified Bardenpho process consists of two aerobic
reactors which require aeration. One point regarding aeration needs particular
attention: the bubble size. This is because small bubbles have more efficient mass
(oxygen) transfer to wastewater, while large bubbles circulate wastewater or attached
growth media better; so, bubble size should not be very large or very small and
should also be optimized.
Modified Bardenpho Process Applications
The main application and purpose of the modified Bardenpho process is nutrient
removal. Meanwhile, due to the utilization of five biological stages, removing other
impurities such as chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand
(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), heavy metals, and viruses can be considered
as added benefits of the modified Bardenpho process. In the following sections,
different applications of the modified Bardenpho process will be touched upon.
Fig. 28 Total nitrogen

removal efficiency in various 90
C/ N= 5. 5
C/N ratios and Rs (Patel
et al. 2005)
TN removal efficiency (%)

80
C/ N= 4. 0
70
C/ N= 3. 0
60
5. 5
100 % 5. 0
200 % 4. 5
4. 0
400 %
io
t
ra
R 500 % 3. 5
/N
C
600 % 3. 0
100
ncy (%)
90
moval efficie
80
C/ N=3.0
70
re
C/ N=4.0
Phosphorus
C/ N=5.5
60
5.5
50 5.0
100% 4.5
200% 4.0
400% N
R 500%
3.5 C/
600% 3.0
Fig. 29 Total phosphorus removal efficiency in various C/N ratios and Rs (Patel et al. 2005)
COD, BOD, TSS, Nutrient and Heavy Metal Removal
Emara et al. (2014) investigated the Fisha Selim wastewater treatment plant which
utilized rotating biological contactors (RBC) during 2013, but the effluent quality
was not pleasing. Average removal efficiencies of chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solid (TSS), total nitrogen
(TN), and total phosphorus (TP) in this system were 82%, 86%, 63%, 54%, and
50%, respectively. In order to improve the effluent quality a four-stage Bardenpho
and a modified Bardenpho processes were designed. In this study, biological
In WWTP
450 Out WWTP
4-Stage Bardenpho Process
400 5-Stage Bardenpho Process
350
300
TSS (mg/L)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Months
Fig. 30 TSS concentration with time. The WWTP is originally an RBC system. The modified
Bardenpho is also called the five-stage Bardenpho (Emara et al. 2014)
processes were suspended growth such as the activated sludge process. COD, BOD,
TSS, TN, and TP removal efficiencies in the four-stage Bardenpho process increased
to 97%, 98%, 97%, 97%, and 50%, respectively, while these efficiencies in the
modified Bardenpho process dramatically increased to 99%, 99%, 99%, 99%, and
90% (Emara et al. 2014). Figures 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 respectively show TSS,
BOD, COD, TN, and TP concentrations in wastewater influent and wastewater
effluent from an RBC system, a four-stage Bardenpho and a modified Bardenpho
processes. Considering these figures, the modified Bardenpho process efficiency is
on all accounts higher, particularly for phosphorus removal.
Emara et al. (2014) also investigated nickel and iron contents in the wastewater
influent and effluent from various systems. They observed that the removal effi-
ciency of heavy metals from the Fisha Selim wastewater ranged between 10% and
30% in the RBC system (after 12 h), while the four-stage Bardenpho and five-stage
Bardenpho respectively removed these heavy metals by 70% and 90–100% after
14 h. Figures 35 and 36 respectively illustrate nickel and iron concentration in the
wastewater influent and effluent (RBC), the four-stage Bardenpho process, and the
modified Bardenpho process (Emara et al. 2014).
Viruses Removal in Modified Bardenpho Process
The initial focus and purpose of the modified Bardenpho process is biological
nutrient removal, although a limited number of studies have pertained to virus
removal as a valuable side effect of this process.
A particular study compared virus removal via the modified Bardenpho process
as a secondary wastewater treatment approach to other conventional aeration basin
In WWTP
Out WWTP
400
BOD (mg/L)
300
200
100

Months
Fig. 31 BOD concentration with time. The WWTP is originally an RBC system. The modified
Bardenpho is also called the five-stage Bardenpho (Emara et al. 2014)
Fig. 32 COD concentration 800

with time. The WWTP is
originally an RBC system. 700
The modified Bardenpho is
also called the five-stage 600
Bardenpho (Emara et al.
COD (mg/L)
2014) 500
400 In WWTP
Out WWTP
300
100

Months
and trickling filter processes (Schmitz 2016). According to this study, the five-stage
Bardenpho process is more effective at reducing viruses in wastewater than other
conventional processes.
Fig. 33 TN concentration In WWTP

with time. The WWTP is Out WWTP
originally an RBC system. 4-Stage Bardenpho Process
The modified Bardenpho is 50 5-Stage Bardenpho Process
also called the five-stage 45
2014) 40
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Months
Fig. 34 TP concentration In WW TP
with time. The WWTP is Out WW TP
originally an RBC system. 6 4-Stage Bardenpho Process
The modified Bardenpho is 5-Stage Bardenpho Process
also called the five-stage
5
Phosphate (mg/L)
2014)
4
0
Months
Before 2014, two conventional biological processes, the trickling filter and
activated sludge aeration basin, were utilized for secondary wastewater treatment
in Tucson, Arizona. In recent years however, Tucson WWTPs have started to
utilized the modified Bardenpho process. In this way, a great opportunity for
comparing pathogen removal efficiency of the modified Bardenpho process with
other conventional biological processes came about (Schmitz 2016).
In the mentioned study, the removal of 11 different virus types (pepper mild mottle
virus, aichi virus, genogroup I, II, and IV noroviruses, enterovirus, sapovirus, group-A
Fig. 35 Nickel concentration In WW TP

with time. The WWTP is 0.7 OutWW TP
0.6 5-Stage Bardenpho Process
The modified Bardenpho is
also called the five-stage
Nickel (mg/L)
0.5
2014) 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Months
Fig. 36 Iron concentration In WW TP

with time. The WWTP is Out WW TP
The modified Bardenpho is 1.5
also called the five-stage 1.4
Bardenpho (Emara et al. 1.3
2014) 1.2
1.1
1.0
Iron (mg/L)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Months
rotavirus, denovirus, and JC and BK polyomaviruses) were analyzed in a 12-month

period in southern Arizona. The results indicated that the modified Bardenpho process
had a higher efficiency in pathogenic virus removal than conventional biological pro-
cesses. In addition, the pepper mild mottle virus seemed to be a useful process indicator in
the investigation of virus removal during wastewater treatment (Schmitz 2016).
According to this study, the five-stage Bardenpho process removes viruses by
adsorption onto the biomass flocs in various anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones.
Actually, the modified Bardenpho provides more opportunity for virus adsorption to
suspended particles; so, viruses are not killed, but rather concentrated in the solid
phase and transformed to the sludge waste.
Results illustrated that average virus removal efficiency in the modified Bardenpho
process with sedimentation as preliminary treatment was 71.2% compared to 44.9%
and 47.9% for other conventional setups. Combing the modified Bardenpho with a
DAF system did not improve virus removal efficiency (Schmitz 2016).
Table 7 On-site greenhouse emissions in a WWTP consisting of a clarifier, a modified Bardenpho

process, second clarifier, filter bed, and an ultraviolet disinfection system (Kyung et al. 2015)
CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Total
Unit process (kgCO2/day) (kgCO2/day) (kgCO2/day) (kgCO2/day)
Primary clarifier 7.7 0.7 287 27 71.2 7.9 366 36
Anaerobic 1.3 0.1 497 35 11.4 0.8 510 36
1st anoxic 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 14.6 0.9 16.8 1.2
1st aerobic 3673 265 776 58 2646 247 7095 570
2nd anoxic 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 12.9 2.8 15.1 3.1
2nd aerobic 2.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 6.5 0.7 9.4 1.1
Secondary clarifier 13.2 2.0 1.1 0.2 238 29 252 31
Total 3701 269 1562 120 3001 289 8264 678
Estimation of Greenhous Gas Emissions of Modified Bardenpho

Process
Recently, global warming has become one of the top concerns of all societies, and
greenhouse gas emissions are hypothesized to play a prominent role in this phenom-
enon. Wastewater treatment plants are a source of greenhouse gas emissions since
during wastewater treatment, some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are produced. Sources of greenhouse gases
are on-site and off-site in WWTPs. CO2, CH4, and N2O are by-products of biological
activities, while greenhouse gases can be generated from off-site sources such as
electrical and chemical operations that support the WWTPs (Kyung et al. 2015).
Kyung et al. (2015) developed a model to assess greenhouse gas emissions from
WWTPs. In this model, greenhouse gas emissions from a treatment plant consisting of a
clarifier, a modified Bardenpho process, second clarifier, filter bed, and an ultraviolet
disinfection system were determined. The aim of this WWTP was to remove carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorus from 5500 m3/day wastewater with 200 mg/l BOD. Each
greenhouse gas emission is evaluated in every step of the modified Bardenpho process
and on-site greenhouse gas emissions occur only in the primary clarifier, modified
Bardenpho process, and secondary clarifier. But due to indirect emissions (chemical
and electricity production, building materials, transport, etc.) all parts of the WWTP
release off-site greenhouse gases. Table 7 illustrates greenhouse gas emissions from
primary on-site resources. Based on this table, the first aerobic reactor is the main source
of greenhouse gases, especially CO2 since in this step, nitrification, BOD oxidation, and
microorganism respiration are occurring. The anaerobic reactor generates CH4 more than
other gases, while anoxic reactors produce higher amounts of N2O (Kyung et al. 2015).
References
Ammary BY (2004). Nutrients requirements in biological industrial wastewater treatment. African J
Biotechnol 3(4):236–238
Ardern E, Lockett WT (1914) Experiments on the oxidation of sewage without the aid of filters. J
Chem Technol Biotechnol 33(10):523–539
Barnard JL (1973) Biological denitrification. Wat Pollut Control 72(6):705–720

Barnard J (1974) Cut P and N without chemicals. Water Wastes Eng 11
Barnard JL (1975) Biological nutrient removal without the addition of chemicals. Water Res 9
(5–6):485–490
Barth EF, Brenner RC, Lewis RF (1968) Chemical-biological control of nitrogen and phosphorus in
wastewater effluent. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 2040–2054
Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint
pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568
Chelliapan S, Sallis PJ (2010) Performance of an up-flow anaerobic packed bed reactor system
treating pharmaceutical wastewater. In: Proceedings of international conference on biology,
environment and chemistry (ICBEC 2010)
Chislock MF et al (2013) Eutrophication: causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic ecosystems.
Nat Educ Knowl 4(4):10
Comeau Y et al (1986) Biochemical model for enhanced biological phosphorus removal. Water Res
20(12):1511–1521
Dabi N (2015) Comparison of suspended growth and attached growth wastewater treatment
process: a case study of wastewater treatment plant at MNIT, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Eur
J Adv Eng Technol 2(2):102–105
Dodds WK et al (2008) Eutrophication of US freshwaters: analysis of potential economic damages.
Environ Sci Technol 43(1):12–19
Emara MM et al (2014) Biological nutrient removal in Bardenpho process. J Am Sci 10(5s):5–8
Fuhs GW, Chen M (1975) Microbiological basis of phosphate removal in the activated sludge
process for the treatment of wastewater. Microbial Ecol 2(2):119–138
Environmental Protection Agency (2011) The impact of nitrogen and phosphorus on water quality.
EPA, Division of Surface Water, Ohio
Galloway JN et al (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and
potential solutions. Science 320(5878):889–892
Gannett Fleming (n.d.) Refinement of nitrogen removal from municipal wastewater treatment
plants. Prepared for the Maryland Department of the Environment. Online at http://www.mde.
state.md.us/assets/document/BRF%20Gannett%20Fleming-GMB%20presentation.pdf
Grady CL Jr, Daigger GT, Love NG, Filipe CD (2011) Biological wastewater treatment. CRC Press,
United States of America
Horn H, Reiff H, Morgenroth E (2003) Simulation of growth and detachment in biofilm systems
under defined hydrodynamic conditions. Biotechnol Bioeng 81(5):607–617
Imai I, Yamaguchi M, Hori Y (2006) Eutrophication and occurrences of harmful algal blooms in the
Seto Inland Sea, Japan. Plankton Benthos Res 1(2):71–84
Jenkins BAM, Sanders D (2012) Introduction to fixed-film bio-reactors for decentralized wastewa-
ter treatment. Contech, Engineered Solutions, United States of America
Jeyanayagam S (2005) True confessions of the biological nutrient removal process. Fla Water
Resour J 1:37–46
Koops H-P, Pommerening-Röser A (2001) Distribution and ecophysiology of the nitrifying bacteria
emphasizing cultured species. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 37(1):1–9
Kumar A et al (2009) Bacterial dynamics of biofilm development during toluene degradation by
Burkholderia vietnamiensis G4 in a gas phase membrane bioreactor. J Microbiol Biotechnol
19(9):1028–1033
Kyung D et al (2015) Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from a hybrid wastewater treatment
plant. J Clean Prod 95:117–123
Levin GV, Shapiro J (1965) Metabolic uptake of phosphorus by wastewater organisms. Journal
(Water Pollution Control Federation) 800–821
Liu W, Qiu R (2007) Water eutrophication in China and the combating strategies. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 82(9):781–786
Ludzack FJ, Ettinger MB (1962) Controlling operation to minimize activated sludge effluent
nitrogen. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 920–931
Mamais D, Jenkins D (1992) The effects of MCRT and temperature on enhanced biological
phosphorus removal. Water Sci Technol 26(5–6):955–965
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) (2006) BNR costs and status BNR project costs
eligible for state funding. Provided by Elaine Dietz on October 31, 2006
Miles A, Ellis TG (2001) Struvite precipitation potential for nutrient recovery from anaerobically
treated wastes. Water Sci Technol 43(11):259–266
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2007) Phosphorus: sources, forms, impact on water quality.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Mino T, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Heijnen JJ (1998) Microbiology and biochemistry of the enhanced
biological phosphate removal process. Water Res 32(11):3193–3207
Moore GT (2010) Nutrient control design manual. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of
Research and Development, United States
Mulkerrins D, Dobson ADW, Colleran E (2004) Parameters affecting biological phosphate removal
from wastewaters. Environ Int 30(2):249–259
Oldham WK, Stevens GM (1984) Initial operating experiences of a nutrient removal process
(modified Bardenpho) at Kelowna, British Columbia. Can J Civ Eng 11(3):474–479
Patel J, Nakhla G, Margaritis A (2005) Optimization of biological nutrient removal in a membrane
bioreactor system. J Environ Eng 131(7):1021–1029
Phosphorus Fact Sheet
Randall CW, Barnard JL, Stensel HD (eds) (1998) Design and retrofit of wastewater treatment
plants for biological nutrient removal, vol 5. CRC Press, United States of America
Sakuma M (2005) A2O process introduced to 7 WWTPs in Regional Sewerage Office, Tokyo. Proc
Water Environ Fed 2005(16):604–605
Sawyer CN, Bradney L (1945) Rising of activated sludge in final settling tanks. Sewage Works J 17
(6):1191–1209
Schindler DW (1974) Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: implications for lake
management. Science 184(4139):897–899
Schmitz BW (2016) Reduction of enteric pathogens and indicator microorganisms in the environ-
ment and treatment processes. The University of Arizona, United States of America
Seviour RJ, Mino T, Onuki M (2003) The microbiology of biological phosphorus removal in
activated sludge systems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27(1):99–127
Sidat M, Bux F, Kasan HC (1999) Polyphosphate accumulation by bacteria isolated from activated
sludge. Water SA 25(2):175–179
Smolders GJF et al (1994) Model of the anaerobic metabolism of the biological phosphorus
removal process: stoichiometry and pH influence. Biotechnol Bioeng 43(6):461–470
Spector ML (1979) High nitrogen and phosphorous content biomass produced by treatment of a
BOD-containing material. US Patent 4,162,153. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washing-
ton, DC
Tanyi AO. Comparison of chemical and biological phosphorus removal in wastewater
Tomlinson TG, Boon AG, Trotman CNA (1966) Inhibition of nitrification in the activated sludge
process of sewage disposal. J Appl Microbiol 29(2):266–291
Water Quality Association (2013) Technical Nitrate/Nitrite Fact Sheet. Illinois, United States of
America
Weyer PJ et al (2001) Municipal drinking water nitrate level and cancer risk in older women: the
Iowa Women’s Health Study. Epidemiology 12(3):327–338
Winkler M (2005) Optimal nutrient ratios for wastewater treatment
Wolfe AH, Patz JA (2002) Reactive nitrogen and human health: acute and long-term implications.
AMBIO J Hum Environ 31(2):120–125
Worden RM, Donaldson TL (1987) Dynamics of a biological fixed film for phenol degradation in
a fluidized-bed bioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 30(3):398–412
World Health Organization (2011) Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. Geneva, Switzerland
Wuhrman K (1964) Nitrogen removal in sewage treatment processes. Verb Int Verein Linnol
580–596
View publication stats

The Modified Bardenpho Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Modified Bardenpho Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Modiﬁed Bardenpho Process

Chapter · January 2018

Ehsan Banayan Esfahani Alireza Bazargan

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ehsan Banayan Esfahani, Fatemeh Asadi Zeidabadi,

E. Banayan Esfahani · F. Asadi Zeidabadi

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

Recycling Ratio (R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Due to the utilization of ﬁve biological stages in the modiﬁed Bardenpho

The Importance of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal

Fig. 1 The north (far) basin

Health Issues for Humans

Chemical Oxygen Demand Increase

Types of Biological Nutrient Removal Systems

Considering the adverse hazards of nitrogen and phosphorus in water as discussed in

Chemical and physical removal of phosphorus is fundamentally based on bringing

Biological Nitrogen Removal Processes

Biological Phosphorus Removal Processes

removed from wastewater and stored in biomass as polyphosphate. Finally, sludge

Biological Combined Nitrogen/Phosphorus Removal Processes

Advantages of Biological Nutrient Removal

The History of the Modified Bardenpho Process

Fig. 2 The PhoStrip process

Fig. 3 The MLE process

Anaerobic Tank Clarifier

Fig. 4 The Phoredox process

Fig. 5 The four-stage Bardenpho process

Fig. 6 The modiﬁed Bardenpho process

as the A2/O (Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic) process, and it was identical to a system

Anaerobic Tank Clarifier

Anoxic Tank Aeration

Fig. 7 The A2/O process

Table 1 Historical review of biological nutrient removal (BNR)

Biological Phosphorus Removal

Source of Phosphorus in Wastewater

Importance of Phosphorus Removal

ﬁxation of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) (Seviour et al. 2003); so, as mentioned in

Chemical Removal of Phosphorus, Advantages-Disadvantages

Chemical and physical processes in wastewater treatment rely on chemical and

Biological Phosphorus Removal Process

Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) systems remove phosphorus

Fig. 8 Biological phosphorus

Fig. 9 Biological phosphorus

NADH H+ (e.g.:N2) H2O

(3) The enzyme NADH-transhydrogenase breaks down NADH to NAD+ to transfer

Effects of Environmental Conditions on Phosphorus Removal

Fig. 12 PHB metabolic pathway (Comeau et al. 1986)

Table 2 Phosphorous uptake of some bio-P bacteria (Sidat et al. 1999)

Importance of Acetate in Biological Phosphorus Removal

Biological Nitrogen Removal

Fig. 14 The nitrogen cycle in nature

Source of Nitrogen in Wastewater

Importance of Nitrogen Removal

Chemical Removal of Nitrogen, Advantages-Disadvantages

As explained in section “Types of Biological Nutrient Removal Systems,” there are

efﬁciency in the presence of dissolved solids, is sensitive to organic compounds and

Biological Nitrogen Removal Process

2NH4 þ 3O2 ! 2NO þ

Secondly, nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) oxidize nitrite to nitrate. These kinds

Koops and Pommerening-Röser (2001) investigated the distribution and eco-

species ecophysiological parameters preferred habitat

species ecophysiological preferred habitat

Effects of Environmental Conditions on Nitriﬁcation Process