Boltzetal 2010MOP8-Chap 13BiofilmReactorTechnologyandDesign

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/313774106
Bioﬁlm Reactor Technology and Design
Chapter · January 2010
CITATIONS READS
4 14,318
8 authors, including:
Joshua Boltz Eberhard Morgenroth

Arizona State University Eawag: Das Wasserforschungs-Institut des ETH-Bereichs
78 PUBLICATIONS 962 CITATIONS 336 PUBLICATIONS 8,771 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Christine Debarbadillo Michael John Dempsey

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Advanced Bioprocess Development Ltd.
92 PUBLICATIONS 350 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 440 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Biofilm Reactor Modeling View project
Development of processes using expanded bed biofilm reactor technology. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Boltz on 16 February 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN OF
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

and the American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental and Water Resources Institute
About WEF
Formed in 1928, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a not-for-profit technical

and educational organization with 35,000 individual members and 75 affiliated Member
Associations representing water quality professionals around the world. WEF and its
Member Associations proudly work to achieve our mission of preserving and enhancing
the global water environment.
For information on membership, publications, and conferences, contact:
Water Environment Federation

601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1994 USA
(703) 684-2400
http://www.wef.org
About ASCE/EWRI
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) represents more than
146,000 members of the civil engineering profession worldwide, and is America’s oldest
national engineering society. Created in 1999, the Environmental and Water Resources
Institute (EWRI) is an Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. EWRI services
are designed to complement ASCE’s traditional civil engineering base and to attract new
categories of members (non-civil engineer allied professionals) who seek to enhance
their professional and technical development.
For more information on membership, publications, and conferences, contact:
ASCE/EWRI
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, VA 20191-4400 USA
(703) 295-6000
http://www.asce.org

DESIGN OF
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
WEF Manual of Practice No. 8
ASCE Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice No. 76
Fifth Edition
Prepared by the Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

Task Force of the Water Environment Federation and the American Society
of Civil Engineers/Environmental and Water Resources Institute
WEF Press
Water Environment Federation Alexandria, Virginia
American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental and Water Resources Institute

Reston, Virginia
New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid

Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul
Singapore Sydney Toronto

McGraw-Hill books are available at special quality discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions,
or for use in corporate training programs. To contact a representative, please e-mail us at bulksales@
mcgraw-hill.com.
Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers/
Environmental and Water Resources Institute. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be repro-
duced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base or retrieval system, without the
prior written permission of the publisher, WEF, and ASCE/EWRI.
1234567890 FGR/FGR 015432109
ISBN: P/N 978-0-07-166359-5 P/N 978-0-07-166360-1 P/N 978-0-07-166361-8

of set 978-0-07-166358-8 of set 978-0-07-166358-8 of set 978-0-07-166358-8
MHID: P/N 0-07-166359-2 P/N 0-07-166360-6 P/N 0-07-166361-4
of set 0-07-166358-4 of set 0-07-166358-4 of set 0-07-166358-4
Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3
Water Environment Research, WEF, and WEFTEC are registered trademarks of the Water Environment Feder-
ation. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Environmental and Water Resources Institute, and EWRI are
registered trademarks of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
The material presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with generally recognized
engineering principles and practices and is for general information only. This information should not be
used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific
application.
The contents of this publication are not intended to be a standard of the Water Environment Federation
(WEF) or the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Environmental and Water Resources Institute
(EWRI) and are not intended for use as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations,
statutes, or any other legal document.
No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or
implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by WEF or ASCE/EWRI.
WEF and ASCE/EWRI make no representation or warranty of any kind, whether expressed or implied,
concerning the accuracy, product, or process discussed in this publication and assumes no liability.
Anyone using this information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to
infringement of any patent or patents.

Prepared by Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Task Force
of the Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil
Engineers/Environmental and Water Resources Institute
Terry L. Krause, P.E., BCEE, Chair
Roderick D. Reardon, Jr., P.E., BCEE, Volume 1 Leader

Albert B. Pincince, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE, Volume 2 Leader
Thomas W. Sigmund, P.E., Volume 3 Leader
Solomon Abel, P.E. Jeanette Brown, P.E., DEE, D. WRE

Kenneth N. Abraham, P.E., P. Eng. Scott L. Buecker, P.E.
Mohammad M. Abu-Orf Marie Sedran Burbano, Ph.D., P.E.
Orris E. Albertson Ron Burdick
Charles M. Alix, P.E. Misti Burkman, P.E.
George P. Anipsitakis, Ph.D., P.E. Peter Burrowes
Richard G. Atoulikian, PMP, P.E. Onder Caliskaner, Ph.D., P.E.
David M. Bagley, Ph.D., P.E. Alan James Callier
Katherine Bangs Anne M. Carayon, P.E.
Michael W. Barnett, Ph.D. Scott Carr
Britt D. Bassett, P.E., BCEE Leonard W. Casson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Somnath Basu, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Peter V. Cavagnaro, P.E., BCEE
Laura B. Baumberger, P.E. Richard H. Cisterna, P.E.
Robert Beggs, Ph.D., P.E. James H. Clark, P.E.
Mario Benisch Patrick E. Clifford
Jeff Berk, P.E. Patrick F. Coleman, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Vanessa Bertollini Anne Conklin
George Bevington Timothy A. Constantine
Katya Bilyk, P.E. Kevin D. Conway, P.E.
Paul A. Bizier, P.E., BCEE Rhodes R. Copithorn
Linda Blankenship, P.E., BCEE John B. Copp, Ph.D.
David Bloxom, P.E. George V. Crawford, P. Eng.
Joshua Philip Boltz, Ph.D., P.E. Ronald W. Crites, P.E.
Brian L. Book, P.E. Brent E. Crowther, P.E.
Robert C. Borneman, P.E., BCEE Ky Dangtran, Ph.D.
Lucas Botero Michael E. Davis, Ph.D.
Edward Boyajian Chris DeBarbadillo, P.E.
Ken Brischke Carlos De Leon

Michael J. Dempsey Gary L. Hunter, P.E.
Steven K. Dentel, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Sidney Innerebner, Ph.D., P.E.
Laxman Mani Devkota, Ph.D., P.E., Samuel S. Jeyanayagam, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
M. ASCE Bruce R. Johnson, P.E., BCEE
Petros Dimitriou-Christidis, Ph.D., P.E. Gary R. Johnson, P.E., BCEE
Paul A. Dombrowski Terry L. Johnson, Ph.D., P.E.
Alexandra Doody, LEED AP John C. Kabouris, Ph.D., P.E.
Brian Dooley Amit Kaldate, Ph.D.
Kimberly R. Drake, RLA Brian M. Karmasin
Ronald Droste Dimitri Katehis
Derya Dursun, Ph.D. Ishin Kaya, P. Eng.
Brian Dyson, Ph.D. Raymond J. Kearney, P.E., BCEE
Chris Easter Justyna Kempa-Teper, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Robert W. Emerick, Ph.D., P.E. Philip C. Kennedy, AICP
Murali Erat Wayne L. Kerns
Angela S. Essner, P.E. Carl M. Koch, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Adam Evans, P.E. John E. Koch, P.E., BCEE
Kristin Evans, Ph.D., P.E. Tom A. Kraemer, P.E.
Richard Finger Thomas E. Kunetz, P.E.
Alvin C. Firmin, P.E., BCEE May Kyi
Kari Beth Fitzmorris, Sc.D. Peter LaMontagne
James D. Fitzpatrick Cory Lancaster
Amanda L. Fox Damon Lau
Val S. Frenkel, Ph.D., P.E., D. WRE Nathan Lester
Morgan R. Gagliano Scott D. Levesque, P.E.
James Gallovich, P.E. Jian Li, Ph.D., P. Eng., P.E.
M. Truett Garrett, Jr., Sc.D., P.E. Helen X. Littleton
Trevor Ghylin Terry J. Logan, Ph.D.
Boris Ginzburg Frank Loge, Ph.D.
Mikel E. Goldblatt Carlos Lopez
Albert W. Goodman, P.E. Becky J. Luna, P.E.
David C. Hagan, P.E. Venkatram Mahendraker, Ph.D., P. Eng.
John Harrison, P.E. Arthur P. Malm, P.E.
Brian Hemphill, P.E. Chris Marlowe, CIH, CSP
Gene Heyer, P.E., PMP F. Jason Martin, P.E.
Webster Hoener Russell Mau, Ph.D., P.E.
Michael Hribljan, M.Eng., P. Eng William C. McConnell
Sarah Hubbell John H. McGettigan, P.E., LEED AP

Charles M. McGinley, P.E. Chris Quigley, Ph.D., P.E.
James P. McQuarrie, P.E. Douglas L. Ralston
Jon H. Meyer Tanja Rauch-Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Indra N. Mitra, Ph.D., P.E. Joseph C. Reichenberger, P.E., BCEE
Greg Moen, P.E. Joel C. Rife, P.E.
Eberhard Morgenroth, Ph.D. Ignasi Rodriguez-Roda, Ph.D.
Audra N. Morse Frank Rogalla
Erin Mosley, P.E. James M. Rowan, P.E.
Lynne H. Moss A. Robert Rubin, Ph.D.
Christopher Muller, Ph.D. Andrew Salveson, P.E.
Naoko Munakata Julian Sandino, P.E., Ph.D.
Sudhir N. Murthy Hari Santha
J. B. Neethling, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Patricia A. Scanlan
Robert Nerenberg, Ph.D., P.E. Perry L. Schafer, P.E., BCEE
James J. Newton, P.E., BCEE James W. Schettler, P.E.
John W. Norton, Jr., Ph.D., LEED AP Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E., BCEE
David W. Oerke, P.E. Kenneth Schnaars
Carroll J. Oliva Ralph B. “Rusty” Schroedel, Jr., P.E., BCEE
Rebecca Overacre Paul J. Schuler
Lokesh Padhye Robert J. Scott
Tim Page-Bottorff Dipankar Sen, Ph.D.
Sanath Bandara Palipana, B.E., G. Dip., Rick Shanley
M. Env. Eng. Sc., C.P. Eng. Andrew R. Shaw
Sanjay Patel Gary Shimp
Vikram M. Pattarkine, Ph.D. Ronald R. Skabo, P.E.
Jeff Peeters, M. Eng., P. Eng. Marsha Slaughter, P.E.
Marie-Laure Pellegrin, Ph.D. Mark M. Smith, P.E.
Ana J. Pena-Tijerina, Ph.D., P.E. Vic Smith, P.E., LEED AP
Chris J. Peot Henri Spanjers
Robert E. Pepperman Julia Spicher
Matt Peyton Tom Spooren
Heather M. Phillips, P.E. George Sprouse, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Scott D. Phipps Robert B. Stallings
Richard J. Pope, P.E., BCEE Roger V. Stephenson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Benjamin T. Porter, P.E. Tracy Stigers
Raymond C. Porter Kendra D. Sveum
Russell Porter, P.E. Steven Swanback
Douglas Prentiss Jay L. Swift, P.E.

Imre Takacs Cindy Wallis-Lage
Stephen Tarallo Matthew Ward, P.E.
Rudy J. Tekippe, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Thomas E. Weiland, P.E.
David Terrill, P.E. James E. Welp
Daniel L. Thomas, Ph.D., P.E. Michael J. Whalley, M. Eng., P. Eng.
Peter J. H. Thomson, P.E. Jane W. Wheeler
Andrea Turriciano, P.E. G. Elliott Whitby, Ph.D.
Dave Ubert Drury Denver Whitlock
Chip Ullstad, P.E., BCEE Todd O. Williams, P.E., BCEE
Art K. Umble, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Hannah T. Wilner
K. C. Upendrakumar, P.E. Michael J. Wilson, P.E.
Don Vandertulip, P.E. Philip C. Y. Wong
Ifetayo Venner, P.E. David W. York, Ph.D., P.E.
Miguel Vera Thor A. Young, P.E., BCEE
Under the Direction of the Municipal Subcommittee of the

Technical Practice Committee
2009
Water Environment Federation American Society of Civil

601 Wythe Street Engineers/Environmental and
Alexandria, VA 22314-1994 USA Water Resources Institute
http://www.wef.org 1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, VA 20191-4400 USA
http://www.asce.org

Manuals of Practice of the Water Environment Federation
The WEF Technical Practice Committee (formerly the Committee on Sewage and Indus-
trial Wastes Practice of the Federation of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Associations)
was created by the Federation Board of Control on October 11, 1941. The primary func-
tion of the Committee is to originate and produce, through appropriate subcommittees,
special publications dealing with technical aspects of the broad interests of the Federa-
tion. These publications are intended to provide background information through a
review of technical practices and detailed procedures that research and experience have
shown to be functional and practical.
Water Environment Federation

Technical Practice Committee
Control Group
R. Fernandez, Chair
J. A. Brown, Vice-Chair
B. G. Jones, Past Chair
A. Babatola
L. W. Casson
K. D. Conway
V. D’Amato
A. Ekster
S. Innerebner
R. C. Johnson
S. Moisio
T. Page-Bottorff
S. Passaro
R. C. Porter
E. P. Rothstein
A. T. Sandy
A. Tyagi
A. K. Umble
T. O. Williams

Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice
(As developed by the ASCE Technical Procedures Committee, July 1930, and revised
March 1935, February 1962, and April 1982)
A manual or report in this series consists of an orderly presentation of facts on a partic-

ular subject, supplemented by an analysis of limitations and applications of these facts.
It contains information useful to the average engineer in his or her everyday work,
rather than findings that may be useful only occasionally or rarely. It is not in any sense
a “standard,” however; nor is it so elementary or so conclusive as to provide a “rule of
thumb” for nonengineers.
Furthermore, material in this series, in distinction from a paper (which expresses
only one person’s observations or opinions), is the work of a committee or group
selected to assemble and express information on a specific topic. As often as practi-
cable, the committee is under the direction of one or more of the Technical Divisions
and Councils, and the product evolved has been subjected to review by the Executive
Committee of the Division or Council. As a step in the process of this review, proposed
manuscripts are often brought before the members of the Technical Divisions and
Councils for comment, which may serve as the basis for improvement. When pub-
lished, each work shows the names of the committees by which it was compiled and
indicates clearly the several processes through which it has passed in review, in order
that its merit may be definitely understood.
February 1962 (and revised in April 1982) the Board of Direction voted to establish
a series entitled “Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,” to include the Manuals
published and authorized to date, future Manuals of Professional Practice, and Reports
on Engineering Practice.
All such Manual or Report material of the Society would have been refereed in a
manner approved by the Board Committee on Publications and would be bound, with
applicable discussion, in books similar to past Manuals. Numbering would be consecu-
tive and would be a continuation of present Manual numbers. In some cases of reports
of joint committees, bypassing of Journal publications may be authorized.

Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Volume 1: Planning and Configuration of Wastewater Treatment Plants

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Chapter 2 Overall Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Chapter 3 Principles of Integrated Facility Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Chapter 4 Site Selection and Plant Arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Chapter 5 Sustainability and Energy Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Chapter 6 Plant Hydraulics and Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Chapter 7 Odor Control and Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Chapter 8 Occupational Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Chapter 9 Support Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
Chapter 10 Materials of Construction and Corrosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
Volume 2: Liquid Treatment Processes

Chapter 11 Preliminary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
Chapter 12 Primary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
Chapter 13 Biofilm Reactor Technology and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1
Chapter 14 Suspended-Growth Biological Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1
Chapter 15 Integrated Biological Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
Chapter 16 Physical and Chemical Processes for Advanced Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . 16-1
Chapter 17 Sidestream Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-1
Chapter 18 Natural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1
Chapter 19 Disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-1
Volume 3: Solids Processing and Management

Chapter 20 Introduction to Solids Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-1
Chapter 21 Solids Storage and Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-1
Chapter 22 Chemical Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-1
Chapter 23 Solids Thickening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-1
Chapter 24 Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-1
Chapter 25 Stabilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-1
Chapter 26 Thermal Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-1
Chapter 27 Use and Disposal of Residuals and Biosolids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-1
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
xi
Preface
This manual, updated from the 4th edition, continues its goal to be one of the principal
references of contemporary practice for the design of municipal wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs). The manual was written for design professionals familiar with waste-
water treatment concepts, the design process, and the regulatory basis of water pollu-
tion control. It is not intended to be a primer for the inexperienced or the generalist.
The manual is intended to reflect current plant design practices of wastewater engineer-
ing professionals, augmented by performance information from operating facilities. The
design approaches and practices presented in the manual reflect the experiences of
more than 300 authors and reviewers from around the world.
This three-volume manual consists of 27 chapters, with each chapter focusing on a
particular subject or treatment objective. The successful design of a municipal WWTP
is based on consideration of each unit process and the upstream and downstream
effects of that unit’s place and performance in the overall scheme of the treatment
works. The chapters that compose Volume 1 generally cover design concepts and prin-
ciples that apply to the overall WWTP. Volume 2 contains those chapters that discuss
liquid-train-treatment operations or processes. Volume 3 contains the chapters that deal
with the management of solids generated during wastewater treatment.
In the 11 years since the publication of the 4th edition of this manual, key technical
advances in wastewater treatment have included the following:
• Membrane bioreactors replaced conventional secondary treatment processes in

a smaller footprint;
• Advancements within integrated fixed-film/activated sludge (IFAS) systems
and moving-bed biological-reactors systems;
• Disinfection alternatives to chlorine;
• Biotrickling filtration for odor control;
• Increased use of ballasted flocculation;
• Sidestream nutrient removal to reduce the loading on the main nutrient-removal
process; and
• Use and application of modeling wastewater treatment processes for the basis of
design and evaluations of alternatives.
In response to these advancements, this edition includes some significant

changes from the 4th edition. As with prior editions, technologies that are no longer
xiii
xiv Preface
considered current industry practice have been deleted, such as vacuum filters for
sludge dewatering. While not intended to be all-inclusive, the following list describes
some of the other pertinent processes and newer processes or concepts:
• Concept of sustainability,
• Energy management,
• Odor control and air emissions,
• Chemically assisted/ballast flocculation clarification,
• Membrane bioreactors,
• IFAS processes,
• Enhanced nutrient-control systems,
• Sidestream treatment, and
• Approaches to minimizing biosolids production.
Additionally, the focus of the manual has been sharpened. Like earlier editions,
this manual presents current design guidelines and practices of municipal wastewater
engineering professionals. Design examples also are provided, in some instances, to
show how the guidelines and practice can be applied. However, information on process
fundamentals, case histories, operations, and other related topics is covered to a lesser
extent than in the previous edition. Readers are referred to other publications for infor-
mation on those topics.
This 5th edition of this manual was produced under the direction of Terry L.
Krause, P.E., BCEE, Chair; Roderick D. Reardon, Jr., P.E., BCEE, Volume 1 Leader;
Albert B. Pincince, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE, Volume 2 Leader; and Thomas W. Sigmund, P.E.,
Volume 3 Leader.
Principal authors of the publication are:
Chapter 1 Terry L. Krause, P.E., BCEE

Hannah T. Wilner
Chapter 2 Julian Sandino, P.E., Ph.D.

Hannah T. Wilner
Rachel Carlson
Albert W. Goodman, P.E.
Indra N. Mitra, Ph.D., P.E.
Ignasi Rodriguez-Roda, Ph.D.
Chip Ullstad, P.E., BCEE
Don Vandertulip, P.E.

Preface xv
Drury Denver Whitlock

Michael J. Wilson, P.E.
Chapter 3 Alvin C. Firmin, P.E., BCEE

William C. McConnell
Orris E. Albertson
Kimberly R. Drake, RLA
Brian M. Karmasin
Cory Lancaster
Chapter 4 Jane W. Wheeler

Philip C. Kennedy, AICP
Kimberly R. Drake, RLA

Sanath Bandara Palipana, B.E., G. Dip., M. Env. Eng. Sc., C.P. Eng.
Chapter 5 Ralph B. “Rusty” Schroedel, Jr., P.E., BCEE

George V. Crawford, P. Eng.
Peter V. Cavagnaro, P.E., BCEE

Patrick E. Clifford
Michael E. Davis, Ph.D.
Arthur P. Malm, P.E.
John H. McGettigan, P.E., LEED AP
Erin Mosley, P.E.
John W. Norton, Jr., Ph.D., LEED AP
Don Vandertulip, P.E.
Chapter 6 Joseph C. Reichenberger, P.E., BCEE
Katherine Bangs
James Gallovich, P.E.
David Terrill, P.E.
Chapter 7 Raymond C. Porter

Charles M. Alix, P.E.
Petros Dimitriou-Christidis, Ph.D., P.E.

Chris Easter

xvi Preface
Charles M. McGinley, P.E.

Richard J. Pope, P.E., BCEE
Chris Quigley, Ph.D., P.E.
Mark M. Smith, P.E.
Tom Spooren
Matthew Ward, P.E.
Chapter 8 Tim Page-Bottorff
Chris Marlowe, CIH, CSP

Douglas Prentiss
Chapter 9 Dave Ubert

David Bloxom, P.E.
Vic Smith, P.E., LEED AP

Hannah T. Wilner
Chapter 10 Ronald R. Skabo, P.E.

Wayne L. Kerns
Misti Burkman, P.E.

Damon Lau
Robert J. Scott
Chapter 11 Joel C. Rife, P.E.

Lucas Botero
Chapter 12 Thomas E. Weiland, P.E.

Anne M. Carayon, P.E.
Chapter 13 Joshua Philip Boltz, Ph.D., P.E.

Eberhard Morgenroth, Ph.D.
Chris DeBarbadillo, P.E.

Michael J. Dempsey
Trevor Ghylin
John Harrison, P.E.
James P. McQuarrie, P.E.
Robert Nerenberg, Ph.D., P.E.

Preface xvii
Chapter 14 Roger V. Stephenson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE

Rudy J. Tekippe, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Patrick F. Coleman, Ph.D., P. Eng.

Anne Conklin
George V. Crawford, P. Eng.
Samuel S. Jeyanayagam, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Bruce R. Johnson, P.E., BCEE
Roderick D. Reardon, Jr., P.E., BCEE
George Sprouse, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Chapter 15 Art K. Umble, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE

Amanda L. Fox
Kenneth N. Abraham, P.E., P. Eng.

Dipankar Sen, Ph.D.
Chapter 16 Val S. Frenkel, Ph.D., P.E., D. WRE

Onder Caliskaner, Ph.D., P.E.
Chapter 17 Dimitri Katehis

Cindy Wallis-Lage
Timothy A. Constantine
Heather M. Phillips, P.E.
Chapter 18 Ronald W. Crites

Robert Beggs, Ph.D., P.E.
Brian L. Book, P.E.

Kristin Evans, Ph.D., P.E.
Chapter 19 Jay L. Swift, P.E.

Russell Porter, P.E.
Somnath Basu, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE

Leonard W. Casson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
Robert W. Emerick, Ph.D., P.E.
Gary L. Hunter, P.E.
Frank Loge, Ph.D.

xviii Preface
Lokesh Padhye
Andrew Salveson, P.E.
Justyna Kempa-Teper, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Andrea Turriciano, P.E.
G. Elliott Whitby, Ph.D.
Chapter 20 Jeanette Brown, P.E., DEE, D. WRE
Chapter 21 Paul A. Bizier, P.E., BCEE

George P. Anipsitakis, Ph.D., P.E.
Chapter 22 Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E., BCEE

Derya Dursun, Ph.D.
Mikel E. Goldblatt
Chapter 23 Jeff Berk, P.E.

Benjamin T. Porter, P.E.
May Kyi
Brian Hemphill, P.E.
Adam Evans, P.E.
Greg Moen, P.E.
Chapter 24 Carl M. Koch, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE

Angela S. Essner, P.E.
Laura B. Baumberger, P.E.

Morgan R. Gagliano
David C. Hagan, P.E.
John C. Kabouris, Ph.D., P.E.
Peter LaMontagne
Nathan Lester
Rebecca Overacre
Rick Shanley
Julia Spicher
Tracy Stigers
Steven Swanback
Chapter 25 Sudhir N. Murthy

Perry L. Schafer, P.E., BCEE

Preface xix
Charles M. Alix, P.E.

Anne Conklin
Kari Beth Fitzmorris, Sc.D.
Terry J. Logan, Ph.D.
Christopher Muller, Ph.D.
Chris J. Peot
James W. Schettler, P.E.
Miguel Vera
Todd O. Williams, P.E., BCEE
Chapter 26 Peter Burrowes

Ky Dangtran, Ph.D.
Scott Carr
Webster Hoener
Raymond J. Kearney, P.E., BCEE
James M. Rowan, P.E.
Hari Santha
James E. Welp
Chapter 27 Lynne H. Moss
Alexandra Doody, LEED AP

Tom A. Kraemer, P.E.
Terry J. Logan, Ph.D.
Robert E. Pepperman
Glossary Kendra D. Sveum

Matt Peyton
The following also contributed to the development of this manual: Murali Erat
(Chapter 15), Sarah Hubble (Chapter 15), Vikram Pattarkine (Chapter 15), Frank
Rogalla (Chapter 13), and Stephen Tarallo (Chapter 13).
Authors’ and reviewers’ efforts were supported by the following organizations:
AECOM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Alexandria, Virginia; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Advanced Bioprocess Development, Ltd., Manchester, England
Aqualia, Madrid, Spain
Associated Engineering, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

xx Preface
Bassett Engineering, Inc., Montoursville, Pennsylvania

Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, Beaumont, California
Binkley and Barfield, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Houston, Texas
Black & Veatch, Los Angeles, California; Sacramento, California; Atlanta, Georgia;
Gaithersburg, Maryland; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cincinnati, Ohio
Brown and Caldwell, Davis, California; Rancho Cordova, California; Walnut Creek,
California; Washington, D.C.; and Seattle, Washington
Caboolture Shire Council, Caboolture, QLD
Carollo Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona; Walnut Creek, California; Broomfield, Colorado;
Littleton, Colorado; Sarasota, Florida; Winter Park, Florida; Portland, Oregon;
Dallas, Texas; and Seattle, Washington
CDM, Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; Maitland, Florida; Chicago, Illinois;
Louisville, Kentucky; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Cambridge, Massachusetts;
Kansas City, Missouri; Manchester, New Hampshire; Edison, New Jersey;
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Providence, Rhode Island; Austin, Texas; Dallas,
Texas; and San Antonio, Texas
CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colorado; Tampa, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; Boston,
Massachusetts; Kansas City, Missouri; Henderson, Nevada; Parsippany, New
Jersey; Knoxville, Tennessee; Austin, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Chantilly,
Virginia; Richmond, Virginia; Bellevue, Washington; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin
CH2M Hill Canada, Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada; and Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Chastain-Skillman, Inc., Lakeland, Florida; and Orlando, Florida
City of Missoula, Missoula, Montana
City of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona
City of Stamford, Stamford, Connecticut
Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers, Nashville, Tennessee
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Whittier, California
Degremont Technologies – Infilco (Suez Environnement), Richmond, Virginia
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Washington, D.C.
DLT&V Systems Engineering, Oceanside, California
Donohue and Associates, Chesterfield, Missouri
Eco-logic Eng., Rocklin, California
Eimco Water Technologies, Salt Lake City, Utah
EnerTech Environmental, Inc., Los Angeles, California
Entex Technologies, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Enviro Enterprises, Inc., La Barge, Wyoming
Environmental Group Services, Baltimore, Maryland
Environmental Operating Solutions, Inc., Bourne, Massachusetts

Preface xxi
Forsgren Associates, Inc., Rexburg, Idaho

Freese and Nichols, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas
GE Water and Process Technologies, Oakville, Ontario, Canada; and Portland, Oregon
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
Gloversville Johnstown Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant, Johnstown, New York
Gray and Osborne, Seattle, Washington
Greeley and Hansen, L.L.C., Phoenix, Arizona; Wilmington, Delaware; Tampa,
Florida; Sarasota, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; Gary, Indiana; Indianapolis, Indiana;
Landover, Maryland; Las Vegas, Nevada; New York City, New York; and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia; Roanoke, Virginia; and
Springfield, Virginia
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., New York, New York; and Raleigh, North Carolina
HDR Engineering, Inc., Folsom, California; Irvine, California; Riverside, California;
Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Bellevue, Washington; and Burlington, Washington
Herbert Rowland and Grubic, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania
Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,
Georgia
Johnson Controls, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Palo Alto, California; Sacramento, California; and
San Francisco, California
Knowledge Automation Partners, Inc., Wellesley, Massachusetts
Lake County Public Works, Libertyville, Illinois
Lettinga Associates Foundation, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Logan Environmental, Inc., Beaufort, South Carolina
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Columbus, Ohio; Wakefield, Massachusetts; and White Plains,
New York
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MWH Americas, Inc., Arcadia, California; Denver, Colorado; Tampa, Florida;
Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts; and Cleveland, Ohio
MWH EMEA, Inc., Mechelen, Belgium
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; and
Schaumburg, Illinois
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
North Carolina State University Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering, Raleigh, North Carolina

xxii Preface
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc., Sheboygan, Wisconsin
St. Croix Sensory, Inc., Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Stantec Consulting Ltd., Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Stearns and Wheler, Bowie, Maryland
Tetra Tech, Inc., Pasadena, California
Total Safety Compliance, Mesa, Arizona
Trinity River Authority of Texas, Arlington, Texas
University of California, Davis, California
University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
University of Girona, Girona, Spain
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Westin Engineering, Elk Grove, California
Woodard & Curran, Inc., Cheshire, Connecticut

Chapter 13
Biofilm Reactor Technology

and Design
1.0 INTRODUCTION: BIOFILMS 2.2 Mathematical Biofilm

AND BIOFILM REACTORS IN Models for the Practitioner 13-23
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER 2.2.1 Why Should We Use
TREATMENT 13-5 Biofilm Models as a
1.1 Biofilm Reactor Design Tool? 13-23
Compartments 13-8 2.2.2 Diffusion and Reaction
1.2 Biofilm Processes, in a One-Dimensional
Structure, and Function 13-8 Biofilm: First- and
1.3 Bulk-Liquid Zero-Regions in
Hydrodynamics 13-10 Biofilm Reactors 13-25
1.4 Biofilm Development 2.2.3 Identifying the

and Detachment 13-12 Rate-Limiting
Substrate 13-29
2.0 BIOFILM REACTOR
DESIGN APPROACHES, 2.2.4 Biofilm Models Used in
CONSIDERATIONS 13-15 Engineering Design 13-31
2.1 Simplified Biofilm Reactor 2.2.5 Limitations of Biofilm

Design Approaches 13-16 Models for the
Practitioner 13-33
2.1.1 Graphical Procedure 13-17
2.2.6 Wastewater
2.1.2 Empirical and
Characterization 13-35
Semi-Empirical Models 13-20
13-1
13-2 Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.0 MOVING BED BIOFILM 4.1.3 Upflow Biologically

REACTORS 13-36 Activate Filter with
3.1 General Description 13-38 Floating Media 13-81
3.1.1 Plastic Biofilm Carriers 13-39 4.1.4 Moving Bed, Continuous
Backwash Filters 13-82
3.1.2 Media Retention Sieves 13-42
4.1.5 Non-Backwashing,
3.1.3 Aeration System 13-43
Open-Structure Media
3.1.4 Mechanical Mixing
Filters 13-84
Devices 13-44
4.2 Media for Use in
3.2 Process Flow Sheets and
Biologically Activated
Bioreactor Configurations 13-44
Filter Reactors 13-87
3.2.1 Carbon Oxidation 13-45
4.3 Backwashing and Air
3.2.2 Nitrification 13-49 Scouring 13-87
3.2.3 Denitrification 13-58 4.4 Biologically Activated
3.2.4 Phosphorus Limitations Filter Process Design 13-88
(Focus on Denitrification) 13-64 4.4.1 Secondary Treatment 13-90
3.3 Design Considerations 13-66 4.4.2 Nitrification 13-94
3.3.1 Preliminary and 4.4.3 Combined Nitrification
Primary Treatment 13-66 and Denitrification 13-97
3.3.2 Plastic Biofilm Carrier 4.4.4 Tertiary Denitrification 13-99
Media 13-66
4.4.5 Phosphorus Removal
3.3.3 Aeration System 13-68 Considerations 13-104
3.3.4 Media Retention Sieves 13-70 4.5 Facility Design
3.3.5 Mechanical Mixing 13-71 Considerations for
3.3.6 Solids Separation 13-72 Biologically Activated
Filter Plants 13-105
4.0 BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE
FILTERS 13-73 4.5.1 Preliminary and
Primary Treatment 13-105
4.1 Biologically Activate
Filter Configurations 13-74 4.5.2 Backwash Handling
Facilities 13-105
4.1.1 Downflow with Sunken
Media 13-77 4.5.3 Process Aeration 13-106
4.1.2 Upflow with Sunken 4.5.4 Supplemental Carbon

Media 13-79 Feed Facilities 13-109

Biofilm Reactor Technology and Design 13-3
5.0 EXPANDED AND FLUIDIZED 5.9.1 Nitrogen Removal Rate 13-133

BED BIOFILM REACTORS 13-109 5.9.2 Temperature 13-135
5.1 Fluidized Bed Biofilm 6.0 ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
Reactor Advantages CONTACTORS 13-136
and Disadvantages 13-112
6.1 Introduction 13-136
5.2 Fluidized Bed Biofilm
6.2 Carbon Oxidation 13-137
Reactor Technology Status 13-115
6.2.1 Monod Kinetic Model 13-137
5.2.1 History 13-115
6.2.2 Second-Order Model 13-138
5.2.2 Installations 13-115
6.2.3 Empirical Model 13-138
5.3 Process Design 13-116
6.3 Nitrification 13-139
5.3.1 Typical Design
Parameters 13-116 6.4 Media and Media
Support Shaft 13-139
5.3.1.1 Vertical Flow
Velocity 13-116 6.5 Covers 13-140
5.3.1.2 Recirculation 13-117 6.6 Biofilm Thickness Control 13-140
5.3.1.3 Flow Distribution 13-118 7.0 TRICKLING FILTERS 13-141
5.3.2 Media 13-120 7.1 General Description 13-141
5.3.3 Biofilm Thickness 7.1.1 Distribution System 13-142

Control 13-124 7.1.2 Biofilm Carriers 13-143
5.3.4 Aeration 13-125 7.1.3 Containment Structure 13-148
5.4 Pilot Testing 13-126 7.1.4 Underdrain System
5.5 Fluidized Bed Biofilm and Ventilation 13-148
Reactor Design Models 13-128 7.1.5 Trickling Filter
5.6 Design Considerations 13-128 Pumping Station 13-149
5.6.1 Nitrification 13-128 7.1.6 Hydraulic and

Pollutant Loading 13-150
5.6.2 Tertiary Denitrification 13-129
7.2 Process Flow Sheets and
5.7 Design Example for
Bioreactor Configuration 13-151
Denitrification 13-130
7.2.1 Process Flow Diagrams 13-151
5.8 Performance of Fluidized
7.2.2 Bioreactor Classification 13-153
Bed Biofilm Reactor Fauna 13-133
7.2.3 Hydraulics 13-155
5.9 Process Performance 13-133

7.3 Oxygen Requirements and 7.6.4 Albertson and Okey

Air Supply Alternatives 13-157 Model 13-184
7.3.1 Natural Draft 13-158 7.6.5 Comparisons of NTF
7.3.2 Forced Ventilation 13-159 Models 13-186
7.4 Trickling Filter Design 7.6.6 Temperature Effects 13-186
Models 13-160 7.6.7 Hydraulic Application 13-187
7.4.1 National Research 7.7 Design Considerations 13-188
Council Formula 13-161 7.7.1 Distribution System 13-189
7.4.2 Galler and Gotaas 7.7.2 Hydraulic Propelled
Formula 13-163 Distributors 13-189
7.4.3 Kincannon and Stover 7.7.3 Electronic or
Model 13-165 Mechanically Driven
7.4.4 Velz Equation 13-165 Distributors 13-190
7.4.5 Schulze Formula 13-166 7.7.4 Other Means for
7.4.6 Germain Formula 13-167 Distributor Speed
Control 13-192
7.4.7 Eckenfelder Formula 13-168
7.7.5 Trickling Filter
7.4.8 Institution of Water
Pumping Station or
and Environmental
Dosing Siphon 13-193
Management Formula 13-169
7.7.6 Construction of
7.4.9 Logan Trickling Filter
Rotary Distributors 13-193
Model 13-170
7.7.7 Filter Media 13-194
7.4.10 Selecting a Trickling
Filter Design Model 13-171 7.7.7.1 Media Selection 13-194
7.5 Combined Carbon Oxidation 7.7.7.2 Filter Media

and Nitrification 13-173 Depth 13-195
7.6 Nitrifying Trickling Filters 13-178 7.7.7.3 Structural

Integrity 13-196
7.6.1 Kinetics and Design
Procedures 13-180 7.8 Design Examples 13-198
7.6.2 Gujer and Boller Model 13-182 7.8.1 Example 13.1: Biofilter
Design for Carbonaceous
7.6.3 Modified Gujer and
Biochemical Oxygen
Boller Model 13-184
Demand Limitations 13-198

7.8.2 Example 13.2: Nitrifying 8.1.2 Oxygen-Based 13-209

Trickling Filter Design 13-200 8.2 Suspended-Biofilm
7.8.3 Example 13.3: Organic Reactors 13-210
and Hydraulic Loading 13-202 8.2.1 Reactors Based on
7.8.4 Example 13.4: Biofilter Aerobic Granules 13-210
Classification and 8.2.2 Anammox Biofilm
Distributor Adjustment 13-204 Reactors 13-211
8.0 EMERGING BIOFILM 8.2.3 Biofilm Airlift
REACTORS 13-205 Reactors 13-212
8.1 Membrane Biofilm 8.2.4 Internal Circulation
Reactors 13-206 Reactor 13-213
8.1.1 Hydrogen-Based 13-207 9.0 REFERENCES 13-214
1.0 INTRODUCTION: BIOFILMS AND BIOFILM

REACTORS IN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Biological systems treating municipal wastewater require (1) the accumulation of active
microorganisms in a bioreactor and (2) the separation of microorganisms from treated
effluent. In suspended growth reactors, such as the activated sludge process, microor-
ganisms grow and bioflocculate, and the resultant flocs are suspended freely in the bulk
phase. Flocculated bacteria are then separated from the bulk-liquid by sedimentation or
membranes. Clarifier-coupled suspended growth reactors rely on return activated
sludge, or underflow, from the clarifier to provide the desired active biomass concen-
tration in the bioreactor. Consequently, clarification units may be hydraulically or
solids limited (see Chapter 14 for additional information). Biofilm reactors retain bac-
terial cells in a biofilm attached to fixed or movable carriers. The biofilm matrix consists
of water and a variety of soluble and particulate components that include soluble
microbial products, inert material, and extracellular polymeric substances (EPS).
Without suspended biomass, the bioreactor is decoupled from the solids separation
unit. Active biomass concentrations inside the biofilm are large at 10 to 60 g of volatile
suspended solids (VSS)/L of biofilm compared to suspended growth reactors at 3 to 8 g

VSS/L of reactor volume. Biomass in suspended growth reactors is removed from the
system through sludge wastage, resulting in an average solids residence time (SRT). If
the suspended biomass SRT is insufficient, the system is incapable of maintaining a sub-
stantial inventory of slow-growing or temperature-sensitive bacteria. These bacteria
include autotrophic nitrifying bacteria and methanol-degrading heterotrophic bacteria,
respectively. This loss of specific bacterial groups is known as washout. In biofilm reac-
tors, bacteria attached to a carrier are protected from washout as long as they do not
detach from the biofilm and can grow in locations where their food supply remains
abundant. Detached biofilm fragments exit the system with the effluent stream.
Concentrations of organisms will accumulate only if the suspended biomass
washout rate is greater than the growth rate of a particular group of organisms. If the
suspended biomass SRT is less than the minimum required for a particular biomass to
develop, bacteria will grow selectively in the biofilm. However, little research exists to
describe the interaction between suspended and biofilm entrained bacteria when both
suspended biomass and biofilm compartments are used to transform substrates in a
single bioreactor (e.g., integrated fixed-film activated sludge bioreactors). Figure 13.1
provides a conceptual illustration of different biofilm reactor types. Biofilm reactors can
be classified according to the number of phases involved—gas, liquid, solid—according
to the biofilm being fixed or moving within the reactor. They also are classified accord-
ing to how electron donors or acceptors are applied to seven basic types as listed below
(Harremöes and Wilderer, 1993):
(1) Three-phase system—fixed biofilm-laden carrier material, bulk water, and air.
Water trickles over the biofilm surface and air moves upward or downward in
the third phase (e.g., trickling filter) (Figure 13.1a).
(2) Three-phase system—fixed (or semifixed) biofilm-laden carrier material, bulk
water, and air. Water flows through the biofilm reactor with gas bubbles (e.g.,
aerobic biologically active filters [BAFs]). Gravel is a fixed media and polystyrene
beads are semifixed (Figure 13.1b and 13.1c).
(3) Three-phase system—moving biofilm-laden carrier material, bulk water, and air.
Water flows through the biofilm reactor. Air is introduced with gas bubbles (e.g.,
aerobic moving bed biofilm reactors [MBBRs]) (Figure 13.1g).
(4) Two-phase system—moving biofilm-laden carrier material and bulk water.
Water flows through the biofilm reactor with the electron donor and electron
acceptor (e.g., denitrification fluidized bed biofilm reactor [FBBR]) (Figure 13.1g).
(5) Two-phase system—fixed biofilm-laden carrier material and bulk water. Water
flows through the biofilm reactor with the electron donor and electron acceptor
(e.g., denitrification filter).

A B C D
Air Air
E F G H
Air
Air
FIGURE 13.1 Types of biofilm reactors: (a) trickling filter; (b) submerged fixed bed biofilm reactor
operated as up flow or (c) down flow; (d) rotating biological contactors; (e) suspended biofilm reac-
tor including airlift reactor; (f) fluidized bed reactor; (g) moving bed biofilm reactor; and (h) mem-
brane attached biofilm reactors (Morgenroth, 2008; reprinted with permission from IWA Publishing).
(6) Three-phase membrane system—a microporous hollow-fiber membrane with

biofilm and water on one side and gas on the other diffusing through the mem-
brane to the biofilm (e.g., membrane biofilm reactor) (Figure 13.1h).
(7) Two-phase membrane system—a proton exchange membrane separating a com-
partmentalized biofilm-laden anode from a compartmentalized cathode with
water on both sides, but with the electron donor on one side and electron accep-
tor on the other (e.g., biofilm-based microbial fuel cell [MFC]).
Detailed design criteria, physical features, benefits, and drawbacks for MBBR, BAF,
FBBR, trickling filter (TF), and rotating biological contactor (RBC) processes are pre-
sented in this chapter. This chapter also presents a cursory review of new and emerg-
ing biofilm reactor processes.
Biofilms are ubiquitous in nature and in engineered systems and can be used ben-
eficially in municipal wastewater treatment. Biofilm and suspended growth reactors can
meet similar treatment objectives for carbon oxidation, nitrification, denitrification, and

desulphurization. The same microorganisms are responsible for biochemical reactions

in both activated sludge and biofilm systems and respond in the same way to local envi-
ronmental conditions (i.e., pH, temperature, electron donor, electron acceptor, and
macronutrient availability) (Morgenroth, 2008a). Biofilm reactor designers should con-
sider the effect of multiple substrates and biomass fractions and the way they are
affected by mass-transport limitations to evaluate system performance. Substrates typ-
ically considered during biofilm reactor design are
(1) Soluble compounds, including electron donors (e.g., readily biodegradable chem-
ical oxygen demand [COD], NH
4 , NO2 , and H2); electron acceptors (e.g., O2,
NO 2 3
3 , NO2 , and SO4 ); nutrients; and buffers (e.g., PO4 , NH4 , and HCO3 ).
(2) Particulate compounds, including electron donors (e.g., slowly biodegradable
COD); active biomass fractions (e.g., heterotrophic bacteria and autotrophic bac-
teria); inert biomass; and EPS.
1.1 Biofilm Reactor Compartments

Biofilm reactors have five primary compartments: (1) influent wastewater (distribution)
system; (2) containment structure; (3) carrier with biofilm; (4) effluent water collection
system; (5) and an aeration system (for aerobic processes and scour) or mixing system
(for anoxic processes that require bulk-liquid agitation and biofilm carrier distribution).
Because design is system specific, each is discussed relative to specific biofilm reactor
types in subsequent sections. Five components determine the local environment of the
biofilm: (1) carrier surface (i.e., substratum); (2) biofilm (including both particulate and
liquid fractions); (3) mass-transfer boundary layer (MTBL); (4) bulk liquid; and (5) gas
phase (when significant). These components are illustrated in Figure 13.2.
1.2 Biofilm Processes, Structure, and Function

Two processes—mass transfer and biochemical conversion—are characteristic of all
biofilm reactors and influence biofilm structure and function. Mass transport inside the
biofilm is controlled by molecular diffusion. If mass transfer to the biofilm is slow com-
pared to biochemical conversion, the result is strong concentration gradients for sub-
strates within the mass-transfer boundary layer and inside the biofilm. These mass-
transport limitations result in inactive zones deep inside the biofilm and have
implications for the design and operation of biofilm reactors and microbial ecology.
Mass transport is the primary mechanistic difference between biofilm and suspended
growth reactors. Typically, full-scale operating suspended growth systems are kineti-
cally (i.e., biomass) limited, whereas biofilm reactors are diffusion (i.e., surface-area)

Environment
Bulk liquid
Boundary layer
EPS
Cells Biofilm
Substratum
FIGURE 13.2 Schematic representation of biofilm components: (1) carrier surface (i.e.,
substratum) medium; (2) biofilm (particulate and liquid components); (3) mass transfer
boundary layer; (4) bulk liquid; and (5) gas phase (Wanner et al., 2006; reprinted with
permission from IWA Publishing).
limited. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the interactions between mass trans-

port and substrate transformation processes to completely evaluate biofilm systems.
Microbial competition in a biofilm is based on local substrate concentrations and the
location of different bacterial groups. Bacteria closer to the surface have the advantage of
higher local substrate concentrations. But these bacteria are also the most susceptible to
shear- and abrasion-induced detachment and subsequent removal from the system with
the effluent stream. Bacteria living near the carrier, also called the substratum, are offered
some protection from detachment but are subject to reduced substrate availability.
Biofilms in wastewater treatment applications typically are mass-transfer limited.
But, for high bulk-liquid concentrations or low degradation rates, the limiting substrate
can fully penetrate biofilms. Even systems that typically operate in a range of condi-
tions that generate mass-transfer-limited biofilms may be periodically subjected to con-
ditions that result in biofilms being completely penetrated. This is caused by a noncon-
tinuous detachment that is hydraulically triggered, induced by an organic shock load,
or carrier/granule collision. Concentration gradients inside the biofilm allow for the
development of different redox zones, and partial penetration can result in biofilms
simultaneously having aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic zones. The existence of aerobic
and anoxic zones inside the biofilm can be beneficial, for example, in promoting
processes such as simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. Once a biofilm is par-
tially penetrated, increasing its thickness (LF), it has no treatment benefit in removing
the mass-transfer-limited, depleted substrate. Therefore, biofilm reactor performance is

surface-area dependent and not dependent on the total amount of biomass in the sys-
tem. In some cases, biofilm penetration can be increased by increasing bulk-phase con-
centrations (e.g., by increasing bulk phase O2 concentrations in aerobic biofilm reac-
tors). Boltz et al. (2006) and Boltz and La Motta (2007) demonstrated that the removal
of organic and inorganic particles is also a function of biofilm surface area. Most organ-
ics in municipal wastewater are particles.
A balance between bacterial growth and detachment will result in biofilms with a
range of thicknesses. Biofilm thickness that exceeds the rate-limiting substrate penetra-
tion depth typically hinders system performance. Excessive biofilm thickness can have
two detrimental effects on full-scale reactors that rely on either passive or dedicated
biofilm thickness control mechanisms. First, it can reduce biofilm surface area. Second,
it can deprive biomass near the carrier of electron donor, electron acceptor, or macronu-
trients. As a result, the interior biofilm is likely to become anaerobic, may produce odors
and result in uncontrolled detachment of biofilm segments that are equivalent in size to
its thickness, LF. The latter is known as sloughing. Passive biofilm thickness control
mechanisms are inherent to normal biofilm reactor operating conditions, including, for
example, mixing resulting in continuous carrier collisions in an MBBR. Dedicated
biofilm thickness control mechanisms require function-specific operating cycles such
as backwashing a submerged biologically active filter or flushing a trickling filter. A
majority of the biofilm thickness control mechanisms are mechanically induced and
hydrodynamically mediated. Table 13.1 lists, for relative comparison, the controlled
biofilm thickness range typical of the reactor types described in this chapter.
1.3 Bulk-Liquid Hydrodynamics

Bulk-liquid hydrodynamics is an important, often overlooked, component of biofilm
reactor design and simulation. A key difference between the seven previously described
biofilm reactor types is mixing conditions and bulk-liquid hydrodynamics. Systems
TABLE 13.1 Typical biofilm thicknesses for a variety of biofilm reactors.
Typical biofilm thickness (m)
Type of biofilm reactor Lower estimate Upper estimate

Moving bed biofilm reactor 50 500
Biologically active filters 20 300
Fluidized bed biofilm reactors 20 400
Rotating biological contactors 200 2 000
Trickling filters (carbon oxidizing units) 200 2 000
Membrane biofilm reactors 20 500

with complex bulk-liquid hydrodynamics, such as trickling filters, make mathematical

model application to process design and evaluation a complicated and difficult task.
Relatively simple bulk-liquid hydrodynamics, such as submerged and completely
mixed systems, however, promote use of mechanistic principles during biofilm reactor
design. Reactor-scale hydrodynamics are influenced by tank and biofilm carrier config-
uration; type; appurtenances (e.g., baffles, mixers, and aeration system); and operating
mode (e.g., continuous flow, sequencing batch, and periodic backwashing) (Grady et al.
1999). Bulk-liquid hydrodynamics influence biofilms at all stages of their development
(Lewandowski, 2000) and biofilm reactor design through (1) biofilm development and
control and (2) biofilm surface area loading (i.e., by influencing the extent of mass-trans-
fer resistance external to the biofilm and load distribution over the available carrier
area). Modeling and design approaches typically evaluate bulk-liquid mixing, the mass-
transfer boundary layer, and biofilm processes separately. This is a simplification, how-
ever, because bulk-liquid turbulence affects biofilm density and development.
Turbulent, high-shear stress environments result in planar, denser biofilms,
whereas quiescent, low-shear stress environments result in rough, less-dense biofilms
(van Loosdrecht et al., 1995). Boessmann et al. (2004) suggested that the planar, denser
biofilms may have improved diffusivity compared with rough, less-dense biofilms. As
suggested in Table 13.1, different biofilm reactor types designed to achieve identical
treatment objectives may have varying characteristics because of reactor qualities. This
chapter focuses on biofilm reactor scale hydrodynamics. Biofilm-scale hydrodynamics
is discussed in more detail in other publications (Wanner et al., 2006).
Mass-transfer resistance external to the biofilm results in reduced flux into the
biofilm. In some cases, this can be the rate-controlling process, such as in nitrification
MBBR (Hem et al., 1994). The extent of external mass-transfer resistance can vary
among biofilm reactor types and operating conditions and are conceptualized with the
hypothetical mass-transfer boundary layer. This diffusion layer mechanistically links
biofilm (micro) and bioreactor (macro) scales. Figure 13.3 illustrates the cross-sectional
view of a completely mixed bulk liquid, mass-transfer boundary layer, biofilm, and car-
rier element (or growth substratum). Mass-transfer boundary layer thickness (LL) is a
function of bulk-liquid hydrodynamics and substrate concentration.
In Figure 13.4, oxygen profiles both external and internal to the biofilm are shown
(Zhang and Bishop, 1994). Lines are conceptual profiles based on observed mass-trans-
fer boundary layer thickness. Although the photograph shows that biofilms are non-
planar, porous, and heterogeneous biostructures, the simplified fundamental concepts
discussed here are useful for capturing the mechanisms that govern substrate transfor-
mation in reactors. Increasing turbulence in the bulk liquids helps to reduce the effect
of external mass-transfer resistance, or the mass-transfer boundary layer thickness.

FIGURE 13.3 Concentration over the thickness of the biofilm (LF) in the mass transfer
boundary layer and the bulk phase. The space coordinate can be measured either from
the biofilm carrier (z, typically used for numerical simulations) or from the surface of
the biofilm (x, simplifies the solution of hand calculations) (Morgenroth, 2008; reprinted
with permission from IWA Publishing).
Even with vigorous mixing, however, there will be some degree of external mass-transfer
resistance that must be considered when designing a biofilm reactor
1.4 Biofilm Development and Detachment

Five factors affect biofilm development:
(1) Bulk-phase environmental conditions (i.e., pH, temperature, electron donor, elec-
tron acceptor, and macronutrient availability);

FIGURE 13.4 Photograph of a biofilm grown on a commercially available carrier and

comparison of measured oxygen concentrations (circles/squares) and calculated (lines)
mass transfer boundary layer thickness (Zhang and Bishop, 1994; reprinted from Water
Science and Technology, with permission from the copyright holders, IWA).
(2) Extent of mass-transfer resistances external to the biofilm;

(3) Extent of biofilm internal mass-transfer resistances;
(4) Kinetics and stoichiometry of transformation processes resulting from microbial
conversion processes inside the biofilm; and
(5) Detachment.
Biofilm ecology in reactors affects their activity. Cold wastewater, for example, increases
solubility (thereby increasing the rate of diffusion) but retards biochemical transformation
processes. Soluble substrates may, therefore, penetrate deeper into the biofilm resulting
in a reactor that can support more active biomass. Figure 13.5 illustrates these effects for
a nitrification MBBR with increasing active biomass concentrations during cold weather.

FIGURE 13.5 Seasonal biomass growth in a nitrification moving bed biofilm reactor.
As the temperature increases, biofilm mass decreases.
Developing biofilms accumulate bacterial cells, but all biofilms eventually loose
particulate components. The loss of particulate components and their introduction to
bulk liquid is called detachment. Bryers (1984) described four biofilm detachment
processes: (1) abrasion, (2) erosion, (3) sloughing, and (4) predator grazing. Abrasion
and erosion are illustrated in Figure 13.6. Abrasion, which is initiated by particle colli-
sion, and erosion, initiated by hydrodynamic shear near the biofilm surface, are the
removal of small groups of cells. Predatory higher life forms such as macro- and micro-
fauna graze biofilms (Boltz et al., 2008). Abrasion, erosion, and, to a certain extent, fauna
grazing are associated with well-operating biofilm reactors. Sloughing and excessive
predation is detrimental to biofilm reactor performance. Avoiding excess predatory
fauna accumulation and promoting continuous detachment of small biofilm fragments
results from proper thickness control, which occurs in a stable environment not subject
to excessive mass-transfer resistances.
The biofilm detachment mechanism can influence biofilm reactor performance.
Figure 13.7 compares simulated bacterial mass (i.e., non-methanol degrading het-
erotrophic biomass and autotrophic nitrifier biomass) and substrate flux (COD and
NH3-N) for three detachment modes: (1) constant detachment resulting in constant
biofilm thickness, (2) daily backwashing, and (3) a 7-day backwashing interval (meant

FIGURE 13.6 Erosion and abrasion (a) and sloughing biofilm detachment processes
(b) (Morgenroth, 2003; reprinted with permission from IWA Publishing).
to capture biofilm sloughing) in a BAF. Analysis by Morgenroth and Wilderer (2000)

suggests that an increase in the average mass of heterotrophic organisms does not pro-
duce a higher COD flux. This, in turn, suggests that the biofilm was partially penetrated
and the system was diffusion rather than biomass limited. Average ammonia-nitrogen
flux and autotrophic nitrifier biomass were reduced significantly after seven-day back-
washing. The rapid loss of both fast- (nonmethanol degrading heterotrophic biomass)
and slow-growing (autotrophic nitrifier biomass) bacterial species is advantageous to
the former. Biofilm formation and detachment has a significant influence on bacterial
competition for substrate in mixed-culture biofilms (Morgenroth, 2003).
2.0 SIMPLIFIED BIOFILM REACTOR DESIGN

APPROACHES AND CONSIDERATIONS
Several design approaches, biofilm reactor model, and biofilm model types typically
are used in engineering practice. The primary objective of biofilm or biofilm reactor

FIGURE 13.7 Simulated bacteria mass and substrate flux in a mixed-culture biofilm for different
detachment intervals. Black bars represent a constant thickness; gray bars represent a one-day back-
wash frequency; and white bars represent a seven-day backwashing frequency (100% equals the
results for constant biofilm thickness) (Morgenroth and Wilderer, 2000).
models is to predict soluble substrate flux ( J) into the biofilm. This flux information
can be used to obtain an estimate of the (1) overall biofilm reactor performance;
(2) required active biofilm surface area; (3) electron acceptor (e.g., dissolved oxygen);
(4) external electron donor (e.g., methanol or hydrogen); (5) biosolids management
requirements. This section discusses the relative benefits and limitations of general
biofilm reactor design approaches. It is common practice to use more than one biofilm
reactor design approach and base the final process design on a comparison of results.
The design approaches and biofilm reactor models discussed here include a graphical
procedure, empirical models, semiempirical models, and mechanistic mathematical
models. Examples are used to demonstrate applicability of the described design
approaches, facilitates the comparison of results produced by each method, and pro-
vides a basis for discussion of relative benefits and drawbacks. Because mathematical
biofilm models are so widely used, this approach is discussed on more detail later in
this chapter.
2.1 Simplified Biofilm Reactor Design Approaches

Improvement to a hypothetical water reclamation facility (WRF) was evaluated using
each of the design procedures outlined above based on meeting the more stringent total
nitrogen limitation of 3 mg/L on an annual average basis. Two single-stage or one two-
stage MBBRs are evaluated to denitrify secondary wastewater effluent. The system
must produce a NO3-N concentration in the effluent stream of less than 1 mg/L to meet

the effluent total nitrogen goal of 3 mg/L. Detailed design criteria for MBBRs are pre-
sented later in this chapter. Several assumptions were applied to each example:
• Annual average day flow rate influent to the denitrification MBBR is 34 000
(m3/d).
• The annual average wastewater temperature is 24°C.
• The following annual average secondary (clarifier) effluent wastewater charac-
teristics have been recorded by operation staff:
– NO3-N 8 mg/L
– dissolved oxygen ⬇ 0 mg/L
• Two, 650-m3 empty-bed liquid volume tanks exist and can be operated in paral-
lel or series.
• Both of the existing tanks have a 1⬊1 length-to-width (L⬊W) ratio.
• Evaluations are conducted assuming that the media has a 250 m2/m3 effective
biofilm specific surface area when the empty-bed media fill fraction is 50%.
• The bulk-liquid volume displaced by 50% empty-bed media fill fraction is 7.25%.
• A 100-mm headloss is permissible through the system.
• Methanol will be used as the supplemental carbon source.
• Acceptable empty-bed media fill fractions is 25 to 67%.
• Downstream filtration units are sufficiently sized to receive solids produced dur-
ing denitrification.
2.1.1 Graphical Procedure

A graphical procedure can be used to determine the total hydraulic load (THL) required
to decrease a substrate concentration, and by definition the biofilm surface area
required to provide a desired substrate concentration remaining in the effluent stream.
These items can be determined directly. The graphical procedure can be used to deter-
mine effluent substrate concentration from any series of continuous flow stirred tank
(biofilm) reactors (CFSTRs) and the size required to achieve a desired substrate con-
centration remaining in the effluent stream.
A stepwise procedure must be used when a series of CFSTRs will be used. Antoine
(1976) and Grady et al. (1999) developed the graphical procedure described here and
the approach is valid for any biofilm-based CFSTR. If multiple stages are expected to
have different characteristics, then the graphical method requires different flux curves
to describe system response in each of the CFSTRs.
The procedure requires a graphical representation of substrate flux (J) as a function
of bulk-liquid substrate concentration. This relationship between flux and bulk-liquid
substrate concentration can be obtained from numerical simulations or full-scale or

pilot-plant observations. In practice, this graphical procedure typically is used to extend

pilot-plant observations to full-scale biofilm reactor design criteria. The process
designer should recognize that the relationship between flux and bulk-liquid substrate
concentration is based on the system and location. Therefore, the flux curve required to
implement the graphical procedure may not be obtained from or correlate well with
values reported in the literature or from different systems. As a result, the process
designer should consider carefully the conditions under which the flux curve was
developed before applying results. A flux curve representing mass transfer and envi-
ronmental conditions characteristic of a specific system and operating mode may not be
representative of different biofilm reactor types designed to meet the same treatment
objectives. A flux curve generated for the same biofilm reactor type under similar oper-
ating conditions, however, may offer some direction in the absence of system-specific
numerical simulation or pilot/full-scale observations.
When using the graphical procedure to evaluate pilot-plant observations, fluxes
should be compared to rates in full-scale systems. Any flux that deviates significantly
or those reported in published studies should be used only after careful consideration.
Pilot or experimental systems may promote a greater flux than expected.
The basis for the graphical procedure is a material balance on a biofilm-based
CFSTR:
0 Q Sin ,i Q SB ,i J LF ,i A rB ,i VB
123 123 12
4 4 3 123 (13.1)
mass per mass per biofilm suspended growth
time input time output transformation rate transformation rate
Where,
Q flow rate through the system (m3/d);
Sin,i influent concentration of soluble substrate i (g/m3);
SB,i effluent, or bulk-liquid, concentration of soluble substrate i (g/m3);
JLF,i flux of soluble substrate i across the biofilm surface (g/m2 d);
A biofilm surface area (m2);
rB,i rate of substrate i conversion because of suspended biomass (g/m3 d);
VB bulk-liquid volume (m3).
Assuming that transformation occurring in the bulk liquid is negligible, the “suspended
growth transformation rate” (Equation 13.1) can be neglected. Rearranging Equation
13.1 provides the rationale for the graphical procedure:
Q Q
J LF ,i Sin ,i SB ,i (13.2)
A
12
4 4 3 { A
const. slope

The slope, or ⎛⎜ − Q ⎞⎟ , is referred to as the operating line and represents the total hydraulic
⎝ A⎠
load on each stage [ 34 000 m3/d (250 m2/m3 650 m3 0.5) 0.4 m/d for the
example conditions]. Figure 13.8 illustrates the graphical method for the denitrification
MBBR example. It is assumed that the flux curves have been created based on observa-
tions in both the first and second stage of a pilot-scale denitrification MBBR treating
secondary effluent similar to the example. There is a 50% empty-bed media fill fraction
and supplemental methanol (MeOH) dosing based on 3⬊1 (g MeOH⬊g NO3-N) and
1.5⬊1 (g MeOH⬊g O2) nitrate-nitrogen and oxygen mass ratios, respectively. The graph-
ical solution indicates that the first-stage denitrification MBBR effluent NO3-N concen-
tration is approximately 3.9 mg/L. The second stage effluent NO3-N concentration is
approximately 1.1 mg/L with flux rates of approximately 1.6 g/m2 d and 1.1 g/m2 d
in the first and second stage, respectively.
FIGURE 13.8 Graphical procedure for describing the response of a denitrification

moving bed biofilm reactor to defined conditions, including (1) first- and second-stage
operating lines and (2) flux curves based on observations at a pilot-scale denitrification
moving bed biofilm reactor.

The graphical procedure depends on the graphical representation of substrate flux.

The method requires development of multiple flux curves if the stages vary signifi-
cantly. When using pilot-plant data to generate a flux curve, appropriate scale consid-
erations must be given when designing the pilot unit and experiments.
2.1.2 Empirical and Semi-Empirical Models

Empirical models can be implemented easily either by hand or using a spreadsheet but
have limited applicability because of their simplistic, “black-box” consideration of sys-
tem parameters. Because environmental conditions and bioreactor configuration affect
biofilm reactor performance, a system can respond differently from the description pro-
vided by an empirical model. The limited descriptive capacity of empirical models typ-
ically results from parameter values and model features based on data that was
obtained from few system installations or operating conditions. Therefore, the process
designer should be aware of conditions under which system-specific model parameters
have been defined. Significant sources of variability in values include differences in
biofilm carrier type and configuration, the extent of external mass-transfer resistances,
and biofilm composition. Despite their ease of implementation, empirical models can
produce results that vary 50 to 100% compared to actual system performance. The
designer must determine if such an error is acceptable.
Coefficient values, and sometimes the empirical models, typically are created to
describe system response for the removal of a specific material (e.g., five-day biochem-
ical demand [BOD5] removal, nitrification, and denitrification). The models can be used
as an indicator of system viability for meeting treatment objectives with respect to the
specific process governing transformation. Empirical models are, however, inadequate
for describing complex processes such as explicit evaluation of two-step nitrification of
ammonia to nitrite and then to nitrate. Therefore, empirical models have limited appli-
cation in defining the conditions that either promote or deter complex processes in bio-
logical systems.
Historically, biofilm reactors have been designed using empirical criteria and mod-
els. Although this trend is changing, a majority of the design formulations presented in
this chapter are empirical in nature even for newer biofilm reactor types such as the
MBBR and BAF. In practice, biofilm models typically are applied to process design.
Bioreactor-specific empirical models are described in the relative reactor-specific sec-
tion of this chapter. Equation 13.3, however, presents a simple empirical model applic-
able to the denitrification MBBR example.
⎛ SB ,i ,EA ⎞ ⎛ SB ,i ,ED ⎞
J i J i ,max,T ⎜ ⎜ (13.3)
⎟
⎝ SB ,i ,EA K i ,EA ⎠ ⎝ SB ,i ,ED K i ,ED ⎟⎠

Where,
Ji flux of soluble substrate i (g/m2 d);
Ji,max,T reaction rate constant, for this empirical model the global maximum flux
of soluble substrate i at temperature T (g/m2 d);
SB,i soluble substrate i concentration remaining in the effluent stream
(g/m3);
Ki system-specific half-saturation coefficient incorporating mass-transfer
resistances and other local environmental conditions (g/m3);
EA electron acceptor;
ED electron donor.
Temperature correction often is introduced with an Arrhenius function, which in this

case is applied to the global maximum flux (Ji,max,T):
kT2
(T2 T1 ) (13.4)
kT1
Where,
k reaction-rate constant at temperature T1 and T2 (varies for function);
temperature coefficient ⬇ 1.1.
Equation 13.3 includes multiple Monod-like rate expressions. The designer should rec-
ognize that the half-saturation coefficient, K, includes system, and many times, loca-
tion-specific mass-transfer resistances (Grady et al., 1999). For this reason, the values
typically differ from apparent or intrinsic values reported in the literature. For illustra-
tion, Equation 13.3 has model parameters that include a maximum NO3-N flux (Ji,max,T)
of 5.2 g/m2 d, methanol half-saturation coefficient (Ki,ED) of 18 mg/L as COD, and a
NO3-N half-saturation (Ki,EA) of 1.5 mg/L as N that were obtained from a nonlinear
regression analysis. The methanol concentration influent to the first stage was 23 mg/L.
These values were obtained from a pilot-scale denitrification MBBR and were applied
to Equation 13.3 to create the flux curves illustrated in Figure 13.8. Consistent with the
illustrative application of the graphical procedure, supplemental carbon is assumed to
have been consumed at 3⬊1 (g MeOH⬊g NO3-N) and 1.5⬊1 (g MeOH⬊g O2) nitrate-
nitrogen and oxygen mass ratios, respectively. Equation 13.3 can be applied to calculate
flux, but Equation 13.1 must be rearranged, neglecting bulk-phase conversion
processes, to calculate the material concentration remaining in the effluent:
J LF ,i A
SB ,i Sin (13.5)
Q

Applying Equations 13.3 and 13.5 to the denitrification MBBR example requires an iter-
ative procedure that can be implemented easily by hand or using an optimization tool
such as the Excel™ Solver. The following equations were applied:
STAGE 1
g ⎛ SSTAGE 1 ⎞ ⎛ SBSTAGE 1
⎞
STAGE 1
J NO 5.2 ⎜ STAGEB1, NO3 − N ⎟ ,M
⎝ SB ,NO3 -N K NO3 -N ⎠ ⎝ SB , M K M ⎟⎠
⎜ STAGE 1
3-N
d · m2
64444444 47 A 44444444 8
67
4SSA4
8
64444 4744444 8
m2 }
Fill V
g J STAGE 1
NO 3-N
250 3
0 . 5 (650 m 3
650 m 3
0. 0725)
m
,NO 3-N 8
SBSTAGE { m3
1
3
Sin m
34, 000
1444444444 d
424444444444 3
J·A
Q
g ⎧⎛ g 1 ⎞ gM ⎫
SBSTAGE 1
, NO 3 -N ⎟ 3
23 3 ⎨⎜ 8 3 SBSTAGE ⎬
m3 ⎩⎝ m ⎠ g NO3 -N ⎭
,M
12 144444 4244444 3
Sin
&& NO -N iMeOH
AS 3
STAGE 2
g ⎛ SSTAGE 2 ⎞ ⎛ SBSTAGE 2
⎞
STAGE 2
J NO 5.2 ⎜ STAGEB2,NO3 -N ⎟ ,M
⎝ SB ,NO3 -N K NO3 -N ⎠ ⎝ SB , M K M ⎟⎠
⎜ STAGE 2
3-N
d · m2
m2
STAGE 2
J NO 3 -N
250 0.5 (650 m 3 650 m 3 0.0725)
m3
, NO 3 -N SB , NO 3 -N
SBSTAGE 2 STAGE 1
m3
34, 000
d
⎧⎛ g 2 ⎞ gM ⎫
SBSTAGE 2
SBSTAGE 1
8 SBSTAGE
, NO 3 -N ⎟ 3 ⎬
,M
12
4, M 4 3 ⎨⎜⎝ m 3 ⎠ g NO3 -N ⎭
Sin ⎩144444244444 3
&& NO -N iMeOH
AS 3
After iterating, the equations converged on predetermined error criteria. The method
produced, approximately, a first- and second-stage nitrate-nitrogen flux of 1.6 g/m2 d

and 1.2 g/m2 d, respectively. These values are comparable with results obtained from
the graphical procedure.
If sufficient data exists to allow for development of parameter values and math-
ematical relationships capable of describing a complete range of conditions expected
when treating municipal wastewater, then empirical models can be used. The addi-
tion of model components to account for specific phenomenon encroaches on the
premise of mechanistic mathematical model development. For this reason, a distinc-
tion is made between empirical and semi-empirical models. Gujer and Boller (1986)
and Sen and Randall (2008a; 2008c) provide an example of the latter describing
nitrifying trickling filters (describing MBBRs and BAFs). The literature and biofilm
reactor-specific sections of this chapter provide additional information on these semi-
empirical approaches. Some system manufacturers develop and use proprietary semi-
empirical models that are based on sufficient data collected from a variety of instal-
lations for a specific biofilm reactor type. Therefore, process designers typically
cross-reference design criteria with manufacturer recommendations and seek to rec-
oncile discrepancies.
2.2 Mathematical Biofilm Models for the Practitioner

The mass transport and biochemical transformation processes previously described are
common to all biofilms; therefore, biofilms can be described by a unifying mathemati-
cal expression. Wanner et al. (2006) describe the general biofilm model. Uncertainty and
complexity because of wastewater composition, differences in biofilm reactor configu-
ration, appurtenances, operation, and bulk-liquid hydrodynamics renders the general
biofilm reactor model for engineering design impractical. Therefore, a variety of sim-
plifications, primarily in the assumed biofilm structure and spatial complexity, to over-
come these factors has resulted in the several mathematical biofilm models. Biofilm
models, however, are complex despite these simplifications. Furthermore, little docu-
mentation exists to aid practitioners in selection and application of biofilm models for
meeting specific modeling objectives. Because of their complexity and limited applica-
tion guidance, biofilm models are not widely used in engineering design, although this
is changing.
2.2.1 Why Should We Use Biofilm Models as a Design Tool?

Biofilm models should be used to answer specific questions. Its quality should then be
judged based on its usefulness in answering the questions. For example, the Modified
Velz Equation was developed, primarily, to describe carbon-oxidation in trickling filters
(Eckenfelder, 1961). The empirical model is not applicable to other biofilm reactor types

nor is it in any way sufficient for describing complex processes. The following ques-
tions are relevant for the design and operation of biofilm reactors:
• What is the rate of substrate removal as a function of bulk-liquid substrate con-

centrations at a given location within a biofilm reactor?
• What factors are controlling substrate removal in each stage of the system? Pos-
sible factors include available biofilm surface area, total amount of biomass, or
amount of specific types of microorganisms in the biofilm.
• How much substrate removal occurred throughout the system?
• How should the reactor be designed and operated to ensure that sufficient
biofilm remains while avoiding flow distribution problems resulting from exces-
sive biofilm accumulation?
• What are the mixing conditions for water in a biofilm reactor and how do they
influence reactor performance? Mixing conditions directly influence flow distri-
bution, problems associated with short-circuiting, and mass-transfer resistances
from the bulk of the water to the biofilm surface.
Existing biofilm models can answer at least some of these questions. In addition, math-
ematical modeling of biofilm reactors can build on understanding modeling approaches
that have been developed for suspended culture systems (see Chapter 7). Two key
aspects of biofilms in which behavior varies from suspended cultures have to be taken
into account when developing mathematical models for biofilm systems. First, is the
previously discussed mass-transfer resistances imposed on soluble substrate diffusing
into the biofilm, biochemical reaction products diffusing out of the biofilm, and the
resulting concentrations gradients inside the biofilm. Concentrations at any point inside
the biofilm that result from these gradients can be significantly different from the bulk-
liquid concentrations. Second, particulate compounds in a biofilm (e.g., bacteria, par-
ticulate organic matter) cannot be transported inside the biofilm by diffusion. Particles
can, however, attach to the surface, and, depending on biofilm structure, smaller parti-
cles can be transported into the biofilm through voids and channels (Janning et al., 1997;
Morgenroth et al., 2002).
In contrast, the structure of microbial aggregates growing in suspended growth
reactors is more open, and particles are enmeshed rapidly in sludge flocs. Ideally, math-
ematical biofilm models take into account the different mass transport properties for
particulate and soluble components. Therefore, it is critical to consider wastewater char-
acteristics and the deficiency in existing wastewater characterization protocol when
assessing the usefulness of biofilm models in whole wastewater treatment plant model-
ing programs. Typically, existing biofilm models used in engineering design accurately

describe the flux of soluble substrates. Therefore, such models are ideally suited for
designing tertiary biofilm reactors, biofilm reactors downstream of chemically enhanced
primary treatment (CEPT) units, or hybrid bioreactors (e.g., integrated fixed-film acti-
vated sludge).
2.2.2 Diffusion and Reaction in a One-Dimensional Biofilm:

First- and Zero-Regions in Biofilm Reactors
Each of the reactor-specific sections in this chapter discusses, at some point, local envi-
ronmental conditions that promote either first- or zero-order kinetics. Therefore, a
description of the underlying concepts is introduced. The partial differential equation
describing dynamic accumulation of any substrate i inside a biofilm can be described
mathematically by:
∂SF ,i ∂ 2 SF ,i
DF ,i r{F (13.6)
{∂t 142∂4
2
x3 biochemical
accumulation diffusion reaction
Where,
SF concentration of substrate i in the biofilm (g/m3);
x distance from the biofilm surface (m);
t time (d);
DF,i substrate i diffusion coefficient in the biofilm (m2/d);
rF rate of substrate conversion per biofilm volume (g/m3 d).
Equation 13.6 is presented here to emphasize that the basis for one-dimensional biofilm
models is simultaneously occurring molecular diffusion and biochemical reaction. Molecu-
lar diffusion is based on Fick’s Law. Monod-type kinetics is typically applied to
describe the biochemical transformation rate. Analytical solutions to Equation 13.6 are
available only for first- and zero-order rate expressions and assuming steady state.
Zero-order kinetics are valid if the bulk-liquid substrate concentration is well above the
half-saturation concentration (i.e., SB,i Ki), and first-order kinetics is applicable for
low substrate concentrations (i.e., SB,i Ki). Solving the second-order differential equa-
tion (Equation 13.6) requires constants that can be derived from two boundary condi-
tions. The first boundary condition takes into account that, assuming a non-reactive and
dSF ,i
non-permeable carrier, there is no flux into or out of the carrier: 0 at x LF. The
dx
second boundary condition takes into account that the biofilm-liquid interfacial con-
centration of substrate i, SF,i (x 0), is given, based on the definition in Equation 13.6,
as SF,i SLF,i at x 0.

Solving Equation 13.6 for zero-order kinetics in a partially penetrated flat biofilm
results in Equation 13.7. The second square root shows that the flux is “half-order” with
respect to the biofilm-liquid interfacial concentration of substrate i. The first square root
is the “half-order” rate constant applied in the approach proposed by Harremoës (1978).
J F0 ,i , p 2 DF ,i k0 , F ,i X F , k SLF ,i (13.7)
Where,
0
JF,i zero-order substrate flux into partially penetrated biofilm (g/m2 d);
k0,F,i zero-order specific conversion rate of substrate i (g/gd);
XF,k biofilm biomass concentration for biomass type k (g/m3);
SLF,i biofilm-liquid interfacial concentration of substrate i (g/m3).
Equation 13.7 does not apply for completely penetrated biofilms, and the following
relationship must be used to describe zero-order flux:
J F0 ,i ,c LF k0 , F ,i X F , k (13.8)
Where,
0
JF,i zero-order substrate flux into completely penetrated biofilm (g/m2 d);
k0,F,c,i zero-order specific conversion rate of substrate i (g/gd).
Solving Equation 13.6 for first-order rates within the biofilm results in Equation 13.9
describing the flux of substrate i into a flat biofilm:
k1, F ,i X F ,i LF SLF ,i
J F1 ,i (13.9)
ki
Where,
1
JF,i first-order flux of substrate i into a partially penetrated biofilm (g/m2 d);
tanh efficiency factor (dimensionless);

k1, F ,i X F , k L2F biofilm constant (dimensionless);

DF ,i ki
k1,F,i first-order specific substrate conversion rate (g/gd).
No biofilm penetration depth can be calculated when first-order kinetics is assumed

because the substrate concentration does not reach zero inside the biofilm. The designer

cannot universally assume that either the first- or zero-order kinetic expression is
valid, and the concentration of biomass type k, XF,k, is not readily identified. A bio-
mass balance and optimization method can be used to calculate the respective biomass
concentrations when homogenous biofilms are assumed. The flux of substrate i can be
calculated using a weighted average of the first- and zero-order flux values, or more
simply, by taking the minimum values of Equations 13.7, 13.8, and 13.9 (Perez et al.,
2005; Boltz et al., 2009a; 2009b; 2009c; Morgenroth, 2008a).
The bulk-liquid concentration increases gradually, as shown in Figure 13.4, directly
outside the biofilm surface. This concentration gradient typically is described as a mass-
transfer resistance and expressed mathematically as:
LL
J MTBL (SB SLF ) (13.10)
DW
At steady-state, substrate flux through the mass-transfer boundary layer, JMTBL, is bal-
anced by the substrate flux across the biofilm surface. Consequently, an additional
equation (boundary condition) is required to calculate the unknown value of the
biofilm-water interfacial concentration of substrate i: JMTBL JLF. Flux curves calcu-
lated using eqs 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10 are provided in Figure 13.9 for increasing
mass-transfer boundary layer thicknesses over a heterotrophic biofilm consuming
COD (LF 200 m; XF 12 000 g/m3; KS 4 g/m3; k0,F,S 6 1/d; k1,F,S 1.5 1/d;
DF,S 0.000 070 m2/d; DW,S 0.000 087 5 m2/d). To illustrate, the effect of mass-trans-
fer resistances external to the biofilm using Figure 13.9 assumes a bulk-liquid concen-
tration of 5 g/m3. In this case, the flux is reduced from approximately 11 g/m2 d with
negligible external mass-transfer resistances to 5 g/m2 d with a 160-m mass-transfer
boundary layer thickness. Clearly, concentration gradients near the biofilm surface
have a significant effect on transformation process rates in a biofilm reactor.
The mass-transfer boundary layer thickness (LL) can be estimated using a method
similar to the one described by Morgenroth (2008a) and Boltz et al. (2009b). The rela-
tionship can be expressed mathematically by Equation 13.11.
Lc
LL (13.11)
Sh
Where,
LL mass-transfer boundary layer thickness,
Lc characteristic length, and
Sh the non-dimensional Sherwood number.

FIGURE 13.9 Reduction in modeled soluble substrate flux across the surface of a
biofilm, due to heterotrophic bacteria, at different mass transfer boundary layer thick-
nesses (LF 200 m; XF 12 000 g/m3; KS 4 g/m3; k0,F,S 6 1/d; k1,F,S 1.5 1/d;
DF,S 0.000 070 m2/d; and DW,S 0.000 087 5 m2/d).
The Lc equals, in the case of a plastic biofilm carrier used in a MBBR, for example, the
flow-through distance of the biofilm carrier (Lc-K1 0.0045 m and Lc-Hydroxyl-Pac ⬃ 0.005 m)
(Rusten et al., 2006). An empirical correlation, similar to the one described by Frössling
(1938), developed by Rowe et al. (1965) can be used to estimate the external diffusion
layer thickness (LL). Based on this relationship, the Sherwood number can be calculated
using the following equation:
Sh A B Rem Scn (13.12)
Where,
A 2;
B 0.8;
m 1/2;

n 1/3 for the case of fluid flow around a spherical particle;

U Lc ⎞
Re Reynolds number ⎛⎜ ⎟;
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞
Sc Schmidt number ⎜ ⎟.
⎝ Daq ,i ⎠
The values for A, B, m, and n are empirically determined parameters. These parameters
are applicable for 30 Re 2000 (Rowe et al., 1965). A majority of the empirical para-
meter values were determined for nonbiofilm systems, and the effect of the biofilm is
not clearly understood (Wanner et al., 2006). The velocity in the vicinity of the biofilm,
U, typically is assumed. A variety of empirical relationships exists in handbooks and
the chemical engineering literature. However, few relationships have been developed
for the commercially available biofilm carriers described in this chapter. Additional
research is required to establish what parameters are of importance (e.g., aeration, mix-
ing, bioreactor configuration) and mathematical descriptions of their influence on LL,
especially in the context of modern biofilm reactors (Boltz et al., 2008).
The discussion here has been limited to one-dimensional biofilms in which lateral
concentration gradients are considered to be of marginal influence. Therefore, the con-
centration profile is only reduced in the z-direction. Indeed, biofilms are nonplanar and
heterogeneous structures, but this analysis is adequate for fundamental discussion and
the introduction of terms useful for biofilm reactor design.
2.2.3 Identifying the Rate-Limiting Substrate

Biochemical transformation processes occur inside a biofilm reactor as a result of con-
centration gradients because of substrates diffusing into and out of a biofilm. The rate
limitation of biochemical transformation processes typically is because of a single termi-
nal substrate. The terminal substrate can be the electron donor (e.g., ammonia-nitrogen);
electron acceptor (e.g., oxygen); or any other soluble substrate (diffusing through the
biofilm) that is required to complete a biochemical reaction (e.g., alkalinity or macronu-
trients). The depth to which substrates penetrate a biofilm, (m), can be calculated and
compared. The rate limiting of the diffusing substrates penetrates the biofilm the least
(Szwerinski et al., 1986). Soluble material penetration depth in a one-dimensional biofilm,
assuming zero-order kinetics, is defined as the biofilm thickness at which the material
concentration becomes zero, and is described mathematically by Equation 13.13:
2 DF ,i SLF ,i
i (13.13)
k0 , F ,i X F , k L2F

Where,
i depth to which substarte i penetrates a biofilm (m);
DF,i substrate i diffusion coefficient in the biofilm (m2/d);
SLF,i biofilm-liquid interfacial concentration of substrate i (g/m3);
k0,F,I zero-order specific conversion rate of substrate i (g/gd);
XF,k biofilm biomass concentration for biomass type k (g/m3); and
LF biofilm thickness (m).
Substrate penetrating a biofilm is a function of diffusivity, biofilm-liquid interfacial sub-

strate concentrations, reaction kinetics, and the descriptive biofilm features XF and LF.
The basis for comparing biofilm penetration depths is the stoichiometric relationship
linking transformation rates. Electron donor and electron acceptor reaction rates, for
example, are stoichiometrically linked according to Equations 13.14 and 13.15.
r0,F,ED k0,F,ED XF,k (13.14)
and,
r0,F,EA vED,EA k0,F,ED XF,k (13.15)
Where,
r0,F zero-order transformation rate of the electron donor (ED) or acceptor
(EA) (g/m3 d);
vED,EA stoichiometric constant linking electron donor consumption relative to
electron acceptor consumption (gO2/gED).
Dividing Equation 13.12 by Equation 13.13 yields the coefficient linking electron donor
⎛ r0 , F ,ED 1 ⎞ . Dividing the biofilm penetration depths
to electron acceptor use, or
⎜⎝ r ⎟
0 , F ,EA ED ,EA ⎠
(Equation 13.11) calculated for the electron donor and electron acceptor, combining this
stoichiometric relationship, and canceling terms yields (Equation 13.16).
2 DF ,i SLF ,i
k0 , F ,i X F , k L2F ED DF ,ED SLF ,ED
ED ,EA ED ,EA (13.16)
2 DF ,i SLF ,i DF ,EA SLF ,EA
ED ,EA k0 , F ,i X F , k L2F EA

Here, ED,EA is the dimensionless ratio between the electron donor biofilm penetration
depth and the electron acceptor biofilm penetration depth. Conceptually, Equation
(13.14) can result in three scenarios:
(1) ED,EA 1: The electron donor is estimated as the potentially rate-limiting sub-
strate inside the biofilm. The electron acceptor will penetrate completely the
biofilm by diffusion.
(2) ED,EA 1: The electron acceptor is estimated as the potentially rate-limiting sub-
strate inside the biofilm. The electron donor will completely penetrate the biofilm
by diffusion.
(3) ED,EA 䊝 1: Both substrates have the same biofilm penetration depth and are
mutually limiting. A closer analysis using detailed modeling is required to iden-
tify the rate-limiting substrate. This ratio can also be interpreted as a transition
point changing the rate-limiting substrate.
The third scenario presents the following mathematical definition that can be used to
calculate the substrate concentration, or ratio of substrate concentrations, that transi-
tion between rate-limiting substrates:
2 DF ,i SLF ,i 2 DF ,i SLF ,i

k0 , F ,i X F , k L2F ED ED ,EA k0 , F ,i X F , k L2F EA
or (13.17)
SLF ,ED 1 D
F ,EA
SLF ,EA ED ,EA DF ,ED
The process designer should note that this approach assumes the biofilm is mass-trans-
fer limited. It also should be emphasized that the basis for these calculations is the
biofilm-water interfacial concentration, which is less than the bulk-liquid concentration.
In the absence of detailed modeling, using bulk-liquid concentrations will provide an
initial estimate of the rate-limiting material. However, bulk-liquid substrate concentra-
tions are not typically of equal proportion to the bulk-phase concentrations. Therefore,
the process designer must consider the sensitivity of decisions being made using results
produced by this analytical technique.
2.2.4 Biofilm Models Used in Engineering Design

Typically, process design involves the use of mathematical biofilm models because
(1) simulation models are efficiency tools that allows to evaluate quickly a variety of
scenarios; (2) empirical procedures are inadequate for providing information that is

now widely considered essential to biofilm reactor design (e.g., local flux as a function
of bulk-liquid substrate concentrations, biofilm composition and competition for mul-
tiple substrates, and influence of individual processes on interaction between several
bacterial types).
Modern biofilm reactors facilitate the use of biofilm models in engineering design.
For example, MBBRs do not present the hydrodynamic or operational complexities that
historically have hindered use of mathematical biofilm model-based process design. This
is because they are comprised of zones that are essentially completely mixed and are
continuous flowing systems, respectively. Submerged completely mixed biofilm reac-
tors allow for the application of modern biofilm knowledge and are conducive to simu-
lation with existing biofilm models. As a result, most of the existing whole-wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) modeling programs have been expanded to include a sub-
merged completely mixed biofilm reactor module that consists of a mathematical biofilm
model. The process designer should understand the basis for the mathematical biofilm
model, its supporting assumptions, and limitations before using these models in design.
Unfortunately, choosing a modeling approach that offers an appropriate level of
complexity to meet the modeling objective can be difficult. An overview of different
model approaches that are suitable for biofilm reactor design is provided below.
• One-dimensional homogeneous biofilm (single limiting substrate): This approach

takes into account mass-transfer limitations and the corresponding effects on
concentration profiles and substrate flux into the biofilm. It is assumed that active
bacteria are homogeneously distributed across the biofilm thickness. The
approach is valid only if calculations are performed for the limiting substrate,
which has to be determined a priori. Based on the reaction stoichiometry, the flux
of the nonlimiting substrates can be calculated using Equations 13.6 to 13.10. See
Morgenroth (2008a) for additional information.
• One-dimensional homogeneous biofilm (multiple substrates and multiple bio-
mass components): One key aspect of modeling biofilms is to evaluate the com-
petition and coexistence of different bacterial groups (e.g., carbon-oxidizing
heterotrophic bacteria, nitrifying autotrophic bacteria) and local process condi-
tions (e.g., aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic). Local process conditions can be deter-
mined by calculating biofilm penetration depths for different soluble substrates
(e.g., COD, ammonia-nitrogen, oxygen, and nitrate-nitrogen). Growth of indi-
vidual bacterial groups can be determined based on fluxes. To simplify calcu-
lations, it can be assumed that all bacterial groups are homogeneously distrib-
uted over the thickness of the biofilm (Rauch et al., 1999; Boltz et al., 2009a;
2009b; 2009c).

• One-dimensional heterogeneous biofilm: Different groups of bacteria are com-

peting in a biofilm for substrate and space. One-dimensional heterogeneous
biofilm models must keep track of local growth and decay of different bacterial
groups and detachment to biomass distributions over the biofilm thickness
(Wanner and Reichert, 1996).
Different scales of heterogeneity are relevant for biofilm reactor design. Length scale of
biofilm thickness, on the order of 100 to 1 000 m, is taken into account in one-dimen-
sional and multi-dimensional biofilm models. Substrate fluxes from these simulations
can then be integrated into models describing overall reactor performance where the
length-scale is on the order of 1 m. But, heterogeneities also can be observed in biofilm
reactors in between these scales. For example, in some cases, patchy biofilms develop.
This may occur in any under-loaded biofilm reactor such as the lower reaches of some
nitrifying trickling filters. These observations confirm that some sections of the biofilm
carrier are bare whereas others contain dense development. These heterogeneities
between the micro and macro scale typically are not considered in biofilm models, and
it is not clear to what extent they are relevant.
Wanner et al. (2006) provide a detailed description and comparison of different
modeling approaches. Wanner et al. (2006) and Boltz et al. (2009d) state that one-dimen-
sional biofilm models are adequate for reactor design. Currently, most commercial soft-
ware that is used for biofilm reactor design and evaluation takes into account multiple
substrates and biomass fractions in either a one-dimensional heterogeneous or homoge-
neous biofilm. Some examples of software and references are summarized in Table 13.2.
Mathematical biofilm models are now standard design tools despite the fact that
they are significantly more complex than the previously described graphical proce-
dures, empirical and semi-empirical models.
2.2.5 Limitations of Biofilm Models for the Practitioner

Mathematical biofilm modeling has advanced reactor design. Furthermore, the models
have been instrumental in explaining the mechanisms that result in mass-transfer limita-
tions, stratification of bacteria over the biofilm thickness (and throughout a biofilm reac-
tor), competition between bacterial groups, and factors affecting the development of
multi-dimensional heterogeneous biofilm morphologies. Adoption of biofilm models has
been slow; additional research and development is needed to overcome limitations of
existing models. There are several limitations of which process designers should be aware:
• Biofilm models are complex and they typically exclude important factors. Most
models focus on small-scale heterogeneities inside the biofilm to better describe
soluble substrate flux. Many approaches, however, fail to describe overall reactor

TABLE 13.2 Biofilm models used in practice.
Biofilm model type and

Software Company biomass distribution Reference
AQUASIM™ EAWAG, Swiss Federal 1-D, DY, N; Heterogeneous Wanner and Reichert
Institute of Aquatic (1996) (modified)
Science and Technology,
Dübendorf, Switzerland
(www.eawag.ch/index_EN)
AQUIFAS™ Aquaregen, Mountain View, 1-D, DY, SE and N, Sen and Randall
California (www.aquifas.com) Heterogeneous (2008a,b,c)
BioWin™ EnviroSim Associates Ltd., 1-D, DY, N, Heterogeneous Wanner and Reichert
Flamborough, Canada (1996) (modified),
(www.envirosim.com) Takács et al. (2007)
GPS-X™ Hydromantis Inc., Hamilton, Canada 1-D, DY, N, Heterogeneous Hydromantis (2002)
(www.hydromantis.com)
Pro2D™ CH2M HILL Inc., Englewood, 1-D, SS, N(A), Homogeneous Boltz et al. (2009a,b,c)
Colorado (www.ch2m.com/ (constant LF)
corporate)
Simba™ ifak GmbH, Magdeburg, Germany 1-D, DY, N, Heterogeneous Wanner and Reichert
(www.ifak-system.com) (1996) (modified)
STOAT™ WRc, Wiltshire, England 1-D, DY, N, Heterogeneous Wanner and Reichert
(www.wateronline.com/ (1996) (modified)
storefronts/wrcgroup.html)
WEST™ MOST for WATER, Kortrijk, Belgium 1-D, DY, N(A)a, Nb, Rauch et al. (1999)a,
(www.mostforwater.com) Homogeneousa, Wanner and Reichert
Heterogeneousb (1996) (modified)b
Legend:
1-D one dimensional
DY dynamic
N numerical
N(A) numerical solution using analytical flux expressions
operation (e.g., backwashing, flow distribution) as a function of system appur-

tenances (e.g., aeration system, mixing devices).
• Too many models are available. The choice of modeling approach depends on
the specific question to be addressed. This is different from activated sludge
modeling where mathematical models are directly applicable. The design engi-
neer must be aware of the biofilm model type being used, its simplifying assump-
tions, and the resultant limitations. If this information is not clearly documented,
then results from the model should be used with caution.

• There are significant deficiencies in approaches for calibrating biofilm models.

Without reliable and transparent approaches for model calibration, the devel-
oped models will not be accepted as a robust design tool.
• Existing biofilm models adequately describe soluble substrate flux, but little
basic research exists to allow for development of mathematical terms describing
the fate of particulate matter.
• The mass-transfer boundary layer that links the one-dimensional biofilm model
with the bioreactor compartment is well understood. Unfortunately, there is a
paucity of mathematical descriptions based on a fundamental understanding of
the features that influence mass-transfer resistances external to the biofilm.
2.2.6 Wastewater Characterization

The characteristics of wastewater influent to a biofilm reactor affect system perfor-
mance and the amount of residual biosolids produced. Influent wastewater character-
istics may vary appreciably for different municipal wastewaters (Melcer et al., 2003).
Wastewater characterization refers to the constituents of a raw wastewater stream. A
majority of process models divide COD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phos-
phorus into finite compartments. Because of its use in a featured trickling filter design
model, divisions of dissolved contaminant molecular weights also are discussed. Using
common nomenclature to define various process classifications helps designers better
understand the difference between and applicability of existing design models. A
majority of biofilm reactor models fail to acknowledge that the largest fraction of COD
in municipal wastewaters is in particulate form, including colloids. The complexity
introduced to biofilm reactor design and simulation because of particulate material has
been discussed.
The highest level of organic matter division lies between biodegradable and non-
biodegradable COD. The nonbiodegradable COD consists of soluble (SI) and particulate
(XI) inert material. Biodegradable COD consists of readily biodegradable COD (SS)
(rbCOD) and slowly biodegradable COD (sbCOD). The rbCOD is presumed to consist
of small, low-weight molecules such as volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and low-molecular
weight carbohydrates. Alternately, sbCOD consists of more complex materials that
require entrapment and hydrolysis with EPS before internal diffusion and biochemical
reaction (Dold et al., 1980). The environmental engineering literature has assigned these
parameters physical meaning. Essentially, rbCOD is commensurate with soluble sub-
strates (passing a 0.45-m filter) and sbCOD is particulate substrates. The next level of
division is for both the rbCOD and sbCOD. The rbCOD may either be fermentable
(complex) (SF) or a short-chain VFAs (SA). These rbCOD, or dissolved, substrates can
be categorized into five molecular weight ranges (MWRs) (Logan et al., 1987a): (1) 3 to

30 103 atomic mass unit (amu); (2) 30 to 50 103 amu; (3) 50 to 100 103 amu; (4) 100
to 500 103 amu; (5) 500 to 1000 103 amu.
Logan et al. (1987a) assigned diffusivities to each MWR. The sbCOD may either be
colloidal, supracolloidal, or settleable. To describe size ranges in biological systems
more specifically, a subset of supracolloidal particles, macrocolloidals, has been used
for sizes from 1 to 10 m (Levine, et al., 1985; 1991). Figure 13.9 illustrates the division
of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable COD. The wastewater treatment definition of
“soluble” substrate refers to material that passes a 0.45-m filter. Tests performed on
samples passing such a filter are called “filtered” or “filtrate” (e.g., filtered COD) and
can be highly variable. Colloidal COD comprises a significant portion of the total COD.
A portion of these colloids typically are retained within the filter cake. Several proce-
dures exist to quantify the dissolved, or soluble, content of a wastewater sample.
The next group is related to influent nitrogenous material and is presented in terms
of TKN. The highest level of TKN division lies between free and saline ammonia and
organically bound TKN. The organically bound TKN may be further divided into
biodegradable and nonbiodegradable fractions. Similar to COD, both the biodegrad-
able and nonbiodegradable TKN portions consist of soluble and particulate fractions.
The designer must consider that organic nitrogen persists in biological municipal
wastewater treatment systems.
The final grouping discussed is based on an influent wastewater stream’s phos-
phorus content, or total phosphorus. The highest level of total phosphorus division lies
between orthophosphate and organically bound phosphorus. The organically bound
phosphorus contains biodegradable and nonbiodegradable portions. Both the
biodegradable and nonbiodegradable total phosphorus portions consist of soluble and
particulate fractions. Presumably, each nutrient particulate fraction consists of the divi-
sions presented for COD. However, little research exists to support this notion. Biofilm
reactors are incomplete bioflocculating units, therefore, coupled biofilm reactor-solids
separation system effluents may contain a significant colloidal fraction. Other refer-
ences provide a listing of test procedures and detailed discussions related to the quan-
tification of the wastewater component divisions presented (Melcer et al. 2003).
3.0 MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTORS

The MBBR is a two (anoxic) or three (aerobic) phase system with a buoyant free-moving
plastic biofilm carrier that requires energy (i.e., mechanical mixing or aeration) to ensure
uniform distribution throughout the tank. These systems can be used for municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment. The process includes a submerged biofilm reactor and
liquid-solids separation unit. Around 500 MBBRs were operating in 50 different counties

in 2008 (Ødegaard, 2008). The installations include several process configurations and
effluent water quality standards for carbon oxidation, nitrification, and denitrification.
The MBBR process is capable of processing wastewater to meet effluent water quality
standards ranging, for example, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defin-
ition of secondary treatment (30 mg/L total suspended solids [TSS] and 30 mg/L BOD5
monthly average) to more stringent nitrogen limits (advanced wastewater treatment
standard total nitrogen less than 3 mg/L). According to Rusten et al. (2006), the first
MBBR installed in Norway (see European Patent No. 0.575,314 and United States Patent
No. 5,458,779) has been routinely inspected and no plastic biofilm carrier wear had
been observed after 15 years of continuous operation. Benefits of MBBR include:
• It can meet similar treatment objectives as activated sludge systems for carbon-
oxidation, nitrification, and denitrification, but requires a smaller tank volume
than a clarifier-coupled activated sludge system.
• Biomass retention is clarifier independent. Therefore, solids loading to the
liquid-solids separation unit is reduced significantly compared to activated
sludge systems.
• Because it is a continuous flow process, it does not require a special operational
cycle for biofilm thickness control. Hydraulic head loss and operational com-
plexity is minimized.
• It offers much of the same flexibility to manipulate system flowsheet (to meet a
specific treatment objective) as the activated sludge process. Multiple reactors
can be configured in series without the need for intermediate pumping or return
activated sludge pumping (to accumulate mixed liquor).
• It can be coupled with a variety of different liquid-solids separation processes
including sedimentation basins, dissolved air flotation, ballasted flocculation,
and membranes.
• It is well-suited for retrofit installation into existing municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants.
Research and development supporting MBBR-process commercialization resulted from

a political agreement among North European countries to make a substantial reduc-
tion of approximately 50% in nutrient discharge to the North Sea from 1985 to 1995
(Hem et al., 1994). Since then, many free-moving plastic biofilm carriers have been used
in different MBBR configurations. In addition, a range of pollutant loading and bulk-
phase external carbon sources in denitrification MBBRs and dissolved oxygen in carbon-
oxidation/nitrification MBBRs concentrations have been applied, and system response
evaluated (Lazarova and Manem, 1994).

3.1 General Description

An MBBR may be a single reactor or several reactors in a series. Typically, each MBBR
has a length-to-width ratio (L⬊W) in the range of 0.5⬊1 to 1.5⬊1. Plans with a L⬊W
greater than 1.5⬊1 can result in nonuniform distribution of free-moving plastic biofilm
carriers. The MBBRs contain a plastic biofilm carrier volume ranging from 25 to 67% of
the liquid volume. This parameter is referred to as the carrier fill. Sieves typically are
installed with one MBBR wall and allow treated effluent to flow through to the next
treatment step while retaining the free-moving plastic biofilm carriers. Carbon-oxida-
tion, nitrification, or combined carbon-oxidation and nitrification MBBRs use a diffused
aeration system to uniformly distribute plastic biofilm carriers and meet process oxygen
requirements. Plastic biofilm carriers in denitrification MBBRs are homogenized by
mechanical mixers. Each component is submerged. Plastic biofilm carriers must be
removed before draining and servicing or repairing air diffusers. Figure 13.10 depicts
the Williams-Monaco WWTP, Commerce City, Colorado, a two-train bioreactor that
consists of four MBBRs in series.
FIGURE 13.10 Moving bed biofilm reactor at the Williams-Monaco Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant, Colorado. This installation consists of two parallel trains each with four
moving bed biofilm reactor in series.

3.1.1 Plastic Biofilm Carriers

The biofilm carriers described here typically are extruded or molded from either virgin
or recycled high-density polyethylene. Table 13.3 summarizes characteristics and man-
ufacturers of several commercially available plastic biofilm carriers. The carriers are
slightly buoyant and have a specific gravity between 0.94 and 0.96 g/cm3. Both native
and biofilm-covered plastic biofilm carriers have a propensity to float in quiescent
water. In operating MBBRs, they are uniformly distributed throughout the bulk of the
liquid by the aeration system, liquid recirculation, or mechanical mixing. Biofilms pri-
marily develop on the protected surface inside of the plastic biofilm carrier. For this rea-
son, the specific surface areas of plastic biofilm carriers listed in Table 13.3 exclude areas
that are not inside plastic carrier. Plastic biofilm carriers have a bulk specific surface
area, net specific surface area, bulk liquid volume displacement, and net liquid volume
displacement. These terms are defined below.
• Bulk specific surface area: biofilm area per unit volume of plastic biofilm carriers,
⎛ m 2 of biofilm ⎞
or ⎜ 3 ;
⎝ m of plastic biofilm carrier ⎟⎠
• Net specific surface area: biofilm area per unit bioreactor volume, or
⎛ m 2 of biofilm ⎞
⎜⎝ m 3 of reactor volume ⎟⎠ ;
• Bulk liquid volume displacement: liquid volume displaced per unit volume of
⎛ m 3 of liquid displaced ⎞
plastic biofilm carriers, or ⎜ 3 ;
⎝ m of plastic biofilm carrier ⎟⎠
• Net liquid volume displacement: liquid volume displaced per unit bioreactor
⎛ m 3 of liquid displaced ⎞
volume, or ⎜ 3 .
⎝ m of reactor volume ⎟⎠
Bulk specific surface area, based on 100% carrier fill, is characteristic of a specific plas-
tic biofilm carrier and is reduced proportionately. Hence, the net specific surface area is
characteristic of a specific plastic biofilm carrier and carrier fill. For example, if a plas-
tic biofilm carrier has a 500-m2/m3 bulk specific surface area, then the net specific sur-
face area at 50% carrier fill is 250 m2/m3. Similarly, the net liquid volume displacement
at 50% carrier fill is 0.0725 for a plastic biofilm carrier having a characteristic 0.15-bulk
liquid volume displacement.

TABLE 13.3 Plastic biofilm carrier characteristics.a
Bulk specific Nominal carrier

surface area, dimensions
Manufacturer Name weight, gravity (depth; diameter) Carrier photo
Veolia Inc. AnoxKaldnes™ K1 500 m2/m3 7.2 mm; 9.1 mm
145 kg/m3
0.96–0.98
AnoxKaldnes™ K3 500 m2/m3 10 mm; 25 mm

95 kg/m3
0.96–0.98
AnoxKaldnes™ 1,200 m2/m3 2.2 mm; 45 mm

Biofilm Chip (M) 234 kg/m3
0.96–1.02
AnoxKaldnes™ 900 m2/m3 3 mm; 45 mm

Biofilm Chip (P) 173 kg/m3
0.96–1.02
Infilco Degremont Inc. ActiveCell™ 450 450 m2/m3 15 mm; 22 mm

134 kg/m3
0.96
ActiveCell™ 515 515 m2/m3 15 mm; 22 mm

144 kg/m3
0.96
Siemens Water ABC4™ 600 m2/m3 14 mm; 14 mm

Technologies Corp. 150 kg/m+
0.94–0.96
ABC5™ 660 m2/m3 12 mm; 12 mm

150 kg/m3
0.94–0.96
Entex Technologies Inc. BioPortz™ 589 m2/m3 14 mm, 18 mm
a
As reported by manufacturer.

Figure 13.11 illustrates how biofilm thickness on plastic carriers varies depending
on reactor conditions. Biofilm thickness does not become excessive because of the tur-
bulent motion of the carriers in the reactor. Therefore, effective surface area reduction
resulting from increasing biofilm thickness is not a critical factor for the design engi-
neer. The rate of soluble substrate transformation in biofilm systems is defined in terms
of mass flux (J), which has the units of g/m2 d. Therefore, it is convenient to quantify
loading rate in similar terms. The net specific surface area of a plastic biofilm carrier is
directly related to the calculation of MBBR pollutant loading. The volumetric load can
be multiplied by the net specific surface area (a) to calculate a surface loading rate. This
is expressed mathematically by Equation 13.18.
Q Sin g
Loading Rate [] 2 (13.18)
VB a m d
The plastic biofilm carriers listed in Table 13.3 maximize protected bulk specific surface
area and preserve an adequate open space through which significant advective flow
FIGURE 13.11 Photograph of biofilm carriers taken from moving bed biofilm reactors
(MBBR) in series and illustrative renderings of how biofilm thickness on the carriers
can vary from reactor to reactor based on electron acceptor and donor conditions
(Boltz et al., 2009b).

can pass. As previously discussed, mass-transfer resistances external to the biofilm sur-
face are reduced if, among other factors, a sufficiently high water velocity exists in this
region. Furthermore, conditions in an MBBR promote development of relatively thin
and dense biofilms, which is characteristic of effective biofilm thickness control (see
Section 13.1 for additional discussion). Larger plastic biofilm carriers allow for sieves to
be constructed with larger openings. As a result, hydraulic headloss is reduced per unit
sieve area. Other factors affecting MBBR plastic biofilm carrier properties include cost
of manufacturing and transportation.
3.1.2 Media Retention Sieves

Plastic biofilm carriers are retained in an MBBR by horizontally configured cylindrical
sieves or vertically configured flat sieves (Figure 13.12). Aerobic zones typically con-
tain cylindrical sieves; anoxic zones contain flat-wall sieves. The cylindrical sieves
extend horizontally into the upward-flowing air bubbles imparted by the diffuser grid.
As a result, the air scours accumulated debris from the sieve surface. Energy imparted
by the mechanical mixers is insufficient to dislodge debris accumulated on the wall
sieve. Therefore, flat-sieve scour is accomplished in a denitrification MBBR with a
sparging air-header. Removing the debris retained on a sieve aids in maintaining
hydraulic throughput. The sieves and their supporting structural assemblies, if
required, typically are constructed from stainless steel and may be wedge-wire, mesh,
or perforated plates.
FIGURE 13.12 Horizontal cylindrical sieves over coarse-bubble diffuser grid (left) and vertical flat-
panel wall sieves with sparging air-header (right).

3.1.3 Aeration System

Low-pressure diffused air is applied to aerobic MBBRs. The airflow enters the reactor
through a network of air piping and diffusers that are attached to the tank bottom. Air-
flow has the dual purpose of meeting process oxygen requirements and uniformly dis-
tributing plastic biofilm carriers throughout the aerobic MBBR. To promote uniform
distribution of the plastic biofilm carriers, the diffuser grid layout and drop pipe
arrangement provides a rolling water circulation pattern as illustrated in Figure 13.13.
Fine- and coarse-bubble diffusers have been used in free-floating plastic biofilm carrier
reactors (both are pictured in Figure 13.14).
Historically, process oxygen requirements and distribution of plastic biofilm
carriers in MBBRs have been achieved with coarse-bubble aeration systems. Coarse-
bubble diffusers typically used in MBBRs are plastic or stainless-steel pipes with cir-
cular orifices along the underside. These coarse-bubble diffusers are less affected by
scaling and fouling because of the large dimension and turbulent airflow through the
discharge orifice (Stenstrom and Rosso, 2008). As a result, coarse-bubble diffusers
require less maintenance than fine-bubble diffusers. Figure 13.14 illustrates that the
coarse-bubble diffusers are designed with a structural end support that enables it to
withstand the weight of plastic biofilm carriers when the MBBR is taken out of service
and drained.
FIGURE 13.13 Rolling-water circulation pattern induced by a diffused aeration system

(left) and mechanical mixers (right) (Ødegaard et al., 1994; reprinted from Water Science
and Technology, with permission from the copyright holders, IWA).

FIGURE 13.14 Coarse-bubble diffusers in an moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) (left) and fine-
bubble tube diffusers in a MBBR (right).
3.1.4 Mechanical Mixing Devices

Denitrification MBBRs use mechanical mixers to agitate the bulk of the liquid and to
distribute uniformly plastic biofilm carriers. The mechanical mixers may be platform
(dry-motor) mounted hyperbolic or rail-mounted submersible (wet motor) units. Typ-
ically, these mixers agitate liquids with biological suspended solids concentrations up
to 10 000 g/m3. State-of-the art submersible mechanical mixers typically have a maxi-
mum 120-rpm impeller speed and a minimum of three blades per impeller. These fea-
tures are designed to meet process objectives and minimize potential for impeller dam-
age resulting from abrasion induced by the plastic biofilm carriers. Figure 13.15 shows
a denitrification MBBR and submersible mechanical mixers in a MBBR.
3.2 Process Flow Sheets and Bioreactor Configurations

Relevant considerations when selecting a MBBR configuration include site-specific
treatment objectives, wastewater characteristics, site layout, existing basin configuration
(if a retrofit), system hydraulics, existing treatment scheme (if applicable), and the
potential to retrofit existing tanks. Figure 13.16 illustrates carbon oxidation, nitrification,
and denitrification MBBR flow sheets. Although the process mechanical features of a
MBBR are typically consistent, biofilms grown in carbon oxidation, nitrification, deni-
trification, and combined carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBRs are variable and
depend on local environmental conditions (see Section 13.1 for additional information).

FIGURE 13.15 Anoxic moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) (left) and basin internals of a swing-anoxic
MBBR (right). The molded fiberglass impellers were among the first generation of denitrification
MBBRs. Many of these impellers were damaged by the free-moving plastic biofilm carriers.
For example, the MBBRs pictured in Figure 13.10 were designed to achieve carbon
oxidation, nitrification, and partial denitrification with a process configuration similar
to the modified Ludzack–Ettinger process. Table 13.4 demonstrates variability in the
system’s biofilm characteristics from the first reactor (R1) to the fourth reactor (R4).
Plastic biofilm carriers in the first denitrification MBBR (R1) have a brownish color
and contain 150% more biomass than the dark biofilm in the second denitrification
MBBR (R2). The first aerobic MBBR (R3) has the thickest biofilm development in the
series, and the final MBBR (R4) has approximately 50% of the biomass in the first aero-
bic MBBR (R3).
3.2.1 Carbon Oxidation

Biodegradable soluble organic carbon is quickly consumed in an MBBR. Figure 13.17
illustrates filtered-COD flux (i.e., soluble COD), as a function of filtered-COD load for
two types of plastic biofilm carriers (with different specific surface areas). Figure 13.18
illustrates for the same two plastic biofilm carriers the “obtainable” COD removal rate
per unit biofilm area as a function of total-COD load. Particulate organic matter is
entrapped by a biofilm; subsequently a portion of the entrapped biodegradable organic
particulates is hydrolyzed and the resulting soluble organic carbon used. The remain-
ing entrapped particulate exits the biofilm before being hydrolyzed with detached
biofilm fragments. Suspended organic particles exit the MBBR in the effluent stream

FIGURE 13.16 Typical process flowsheets for carbon oxidation, nitrification, combined
carbon oxidation and nitrification, and denitrification in an MBBR treating municipal
wastewater (Ødegaard, 2006; reprinted with permission from IWA Publishing). Rectan-
gular tanks with crosses are MBBRs and rectangular tanks with mixers are anoxic (COD
chemical oxygen demand; BOD biochemical oxygen demand; P phosphorus; and
AS activated sludge).

TABLE 13.4 Example of the variation of biofilm across four moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) in
series (SS suspended solids).
Parameter/reactor (R) R1–anoxic R2–anoxic R3–aerobic R4–aerobic
Function Denitrification Denitrification Carbon oxidation Combined carbon oxidation

and high-rate nitrification
Biomass per net specific 9.4 g SS/m2 6.1 g SS/m2 28 g SS/m2 12.9 g SS/m2
surface area
Carrier fill 57% 57% 60% 60%
Solids per unit tank volume 2 680 g SS/m3 1 740 g SS/m3 8 400 g SS/m3 3 870 g SS/m3
Photograph of media taken
from tank
with the detached biofilm fragments and are subject to removal in the liquid-solids
separation unit.
Based on this premise, Ødegaard et al. (2000) used the “obtainable” COD removal
rate, which is defined as the influent total-COD concentration less the soluble-COD
concentration remaining in the effluent stream. This “obtainable” removal rate of COD
at 100% biomass separation suggests that high removal efficiencies were obtained in
FIGURE 13.17 Filtered chemical oxygen demand (COD) flux (1.2-m pore opening) for
two types of plastic biofilm carriers with different specific surface areas as a function of
filtered COD load (Ødegaard et al., 2000; reprinted from Water Science and Technology,
with permission from the copyright holders, IWA).

FIGURE 13.18 Total chemical oxygen demand (COD) flux for two types of plastic bio-
film carriers with different specific surface areas as a function of bulk-liquid COD con-
centration (Ødegaard et al., 2000; reprinted from Water Science and Technology, with per-
mission from the copyright holders, IWA).
the pilot-scale carbon-oxidizing MBBR at high organic loading and provided good
liquid-solids separation. For the pilot-scale MBBR evaluated, these graphs demonstrate
that approximately 30 g/m2 d filtered COD flux was attainable for filtered COD load-
ing greater than 60 g/m2 d. They also show that a total COD load up to a 60 g/m2 d
resulted in substantial COD removal when coupled with an effective liquid-solids sep-
aration. The MBBRs require a high bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration for nitri-
fication (4 to 6 g/m3); however, a 2- to 3-g/m3 dissolved-oxygen concentration has been
proven sufficient for carbon oxidation because of the significant particulate and col-
loidal COD fraction in municipal wastewater (Ødegaard, 2006). Essentially, additional
dissolved-oxygen driving force is ineffective when the soluble-COD concentration is a
relatively small fraction of the total COD in municipal wastewater.
Carbon-oxidizing MBBRs are classified as low-rate, normal-rate, or high-rate bio-
reactors. Low-rate carbon oxidizing MBBRs promote conditions for nitrification in
downstream reactors. The effect of organic matter on nitrification is discussed in a sub-
sequent section. High- and normal-rate MBBRs are strictly carbon-oxidizing bioreac-
tors. In the absence of site-specific pilot-scale observations or a calibrated mathematical

model, high-rate MBBRs typically are designed to receive a filtered BOD5 load in the
range 15 to 20 g/m2 d at 15°C. This corresponds to total-BOD5 loads as high as 45 to 60
g/m2 d at 15°C (Ødegaard, 2006). Such high surface area loadings, however, result in
short hydraulic residence time (HRT). The designer should attempt to achieve a plug-
flow reactor regime so that higher loads may be allowed. Therefore, at least two reac-
tors in series should be used, even at high loads. To reach secondary treatment effluent
standards HRT, less than 30 minutes is not recommended. Equation 13.4 can be applied
to adjust these rates and describe MBBR performance at different wastewater tempera-
tures. Ødegaard (2006) observed biomass yield in a carbon-oxidizing MBBR approxi-
mately equal to 0.5 g suspended solids per gram of filtered COD transformed.
The settling characteristics of detached biofilm fragments suspended in the
MBBR effluent stream deteriorates as BOD5 (or COD) load increases (Ødegaard et al.,
2000; Melin et al., 2004). Consequently, process performance may be limited by the
solids separation unit. An increased BOD5 (or COD) load may be imparted on the
MBBR when coupled with a high-efficiency solids separation such as chemically
enhanced secondary clarification, dissolved air flotation, or coupled with a solids con-
tact reactor clarifier. A majority of the organic matter in municipal wastewater is col-
loidal or particulate (Levine et al. 1985; 1991). Biofilms growing in MBBRs readily con-
sume soluble organic matter, however, like other biofilm reactors, they may be poor
bioflocculating units.
Medium-rate MBBRs designed for meeting basic secondary treatment standards
typically are designed for a loading of 5 to 10 g BOD5/m2 d at 10°C, depending on choice
of final separation method. Values in the higher range are used when coagulation occurs
before the separation unit; values in the lower range are used without coagulation. Prop-
erly designed, chemically enhanced secondary clarification units improve water quality
by reducing carbon-based oxygen demand, suspended solids, and phosphorus. Table
13.5 summarizes BOD, COD, and phosphorus removal at four WWTPs with MBBR fol-
lowed by chemically enhanced secondary clarification. Each normal-rate MBBR instal-
lation was designed to receive a 7 to 10 g/m2 d total-BOD5 loading rate at 10°C.
3.2.2 Nitrification
Nitrification in MBBRs has been extensively studied using synthetic and municipal
wastewater (Hem et al., 1994; Rusten et al., 1995a; Æsøy et al., 1998). Like all biofilm
reactors, the rate of ammonia-nitrogen oxidation in an MBBR is influenced by organic
load, bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration, bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen con-
centration, temperature, pH, and alkalinity. Ammonia-nitrogen oxidation has been
achieved in the MBBR process flowsheets illustrated in Figure 13.16 (d to e). This chapter
defines (tertiary) nitrification (Figure 13.16e) as the ammonia-nitrogen oxidation

TABLE 13.5 MBBR coupled with chemically enhanced secondary clarification performance (BOD7
seven-day biochemical oxygen demand; COD chemical oxygen demand; WWTP wastewater
treatment plant) (Ødegaard et al., 2004).
BOD7a COD Total phosphorus
WWTP IN (g/m3) OUT (g/m3) IN (g/m3) OUT (g/m3) IN (g/m3) OUT (g/m3)
Steinsholtb 398 10 833 46 7.1 0.3
Trettenc 361 4 — — 7.3 0.1
Svarstadc — — 403 44 5.1 0.25
Fryac 181 5 — — 8.6 0.21
a
BOD5/BOD7 ⬃0.86.
b
1996–1997.
c
Data from 2000–2002.
process in a biofilm reactor treating secondary effluent that meets the following criteria:
BOD5⬊TKN 1.0 and soluble BOD5 12 g/m3. A combined carbon oxidation and
nitrification MBBR (Figure 13.16d) is defined as a unit that receives an organic load
exceeding these conditions. Sufficient bulk-liquid total-BOD5 and ammonia-nitrogen
concentrations result in competition between heterotrophic and autotrophic nitrifying
organisms growing inside a mixed-culture biofilm. When competing for dissolved oxy-
gen in a combined carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBR, the faster growing het-
erotrophic organisms may overgrow the slower developing autotrophic nitrifiers at
high bulk-liquid soluble BOD5 concentrations (Wanner and Gujer, 1984). If a high bulk-
liquid soluble BOD5 concentration exists and the bulk-liquid dissolved-oxygen concen-
tration is insufficient to penetrate the faster growing heterotrophic bacteria that have
overgrown the autotrophic nitrifiers, then the slower growing (autotrophic) bacteria
will washout of the biofilm. Therefore, as biofilm reactor BOD5 loading increases, the
bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration must be increased to maintain a constant
ammonia-nitrogen flux.
Figure 13.19 illustrates (total) ammonia-nitrogen flux in an MBBR for various BOD5
loads and bulk-liquid dissolved-oxygen concentrations. While studying a pilot-scale
combined carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBR receiving primary effluent, a (ter-
tiary) nitrification MBBR receiving secondary effluent and maintaining a 4- to 6-g/m3
bulk-liquid dissolved-oxygen concentration in both units, Hem et al. (1994) observed:
• Total-BOD5 load of 1 to 2 g/m2 d resulted in nitrification rates from 0.7 to

1.2 g/m2 d,
• Total-BOD5 load of 2 to 3 g/m2 d resulted in nitrification rates from 0.3 to
0.8 g/m2 d, and
• Total-BOD5 load greater than 5 g/m2 d resulted in virtually no nitrification.

FIGURE 13.19 Impact of organic load and bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration
on ammonium (or ammonia-nitrogen) flux (Rusten et al., 2006).
Rusten et al. (1995a) described ammonia-nitrogen flux as a function of bulk-liquid

ammonia-nitrogen concentration in an MBBR as a first-order process when bulk-liquid
ammonia-nitrogen is the rate-limiting substrate. They described it as a zero-order
process when bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen is the rate-limiting substrate. The researchers
used Equation 13.19 to describe ammonia-nitrogen flux in a MBBR.
J NH3 -N k (SB ,NH3 -N )n (13.19)
Where,
JNH3-N ammonia-nitrogen flux (g/m2 d);
k rate constant (m/d);
SB,NH3-N bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen concentration (g/m3);
n reaction order constant.
The reaction-order constant, n, is assigned the value 0.7 for MBBRs (Hem, 1991). How-
ever, the rate-constant value, k, varies because of its dependence on local environmental
conditions such as primarily soluble BOD5 load. Rusten et al. (1995a) reported k-values

in the range of 0.4 to 0.7 m/d for pilot-scale combined carbon oxidation and nitrification
MBBRs treating pre-precipitated primary effluent at 10°C. The following k-values at
10°C and respective conditions can be applied to combined carbon oxidation and nitri-
fication MBBR design: k 0.40 m/d with no primary clarifier; k 0.47 m/d with pri-
mary clarification or pre-denitrification; k 0.50 m/d with primary clarification and
pre-denitrification; k 0.53 m/d with chemically enhanced primary clarification. The
rate constant of 0.6 to 0.7 m/d at 15°C can be used in tertiary nitrification MBBR appli-
cations following secondary treatment.
When applying Equation 13.19 to describe nitrification in an MBBR, the ratio
bulk liquid dissolved oxygen concentration SB ,O2
, , is used to identify the tran-
bulk liquid ammonia nitrogen concentration SB ,NH3 -N
sition whereby ammonia-nitrogen flux transforms from being ammonia-nitrogen lim-
ited to oxygen limited as a function of bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen concentration in
the reactor effluent. The ratio has been assigned the value 3.2 m/d by Rusten et al.
(1995b, 2006). The calculated ammonia-nitrogen flux is adjusted to reflect the influence
of site-specific wastewater temperature with Equation 13.4.
SB ,O2
In practice, a designer may assume a constant transition ratio 3.2.
SB ,NH3 -N
However, the transition point is influenced by stoichiometric coefficient for the elec-
tron donor and acceptor and, to a lesser extent, the material diffusivity influenced by
liquid temperature. The diffusivity of a material i is characterized by the aqueous-phase
⎛ D ⎞
diffusion coefficient, Daq ,i ⎜ ≈ F ,i ⎟ , where DF,i is the diffusion coefficient of substrate i
⎝ 0.8 ⎠
inside the biofilm (m2/d) (Stewart, 2003; Horn and Morgenroth, 2006). The tempera-
ture dependence of Daq,i is calculated using the following relationship:
Daq ,i viscosity T viscosity 25°C

constant, or Daq ,i ,T Daq ,i ,25°C
T 25°C viscosity T
Where,
T temperature (°C), and
viscosity kinematic (m2/d).
Equation 13.17 is applied to calculate the flux transition point based on system-spe-
cific conditions. Figure 13.20 illustrates nitrification rates observed at a pilot-scale ter-
tiary nitrification MBBR (Kaldate et al., 2008). The data is identified as being in the
ammonia-nitrogen rate-limiting region or oxygen rate-limiting region according to
Equation 13.17. Figure 13.20 also illustrates the previously described empirical MBBR
nitrification model. Equation 13.19 was applied to the pilot-plant data and four dif-

FIGURE 13.20 Observed ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in a second-stage nitrification moving

bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) grouped according to the rate-limiting substrate as defined by Equation
13.14 (left) (Kaldate et al., 2008). Empirical nitrification MBBR model for various bulk-liquid dissolved
oxygen concentrations (model: JNH3-N k(T20)(SB,NH3-N)n, n 0.7, 1.10, k 0.7, and T 18°C).
Nonlinear regression analysis performed using DataFit© v9.0.59 (Oakdale Engineering, California;
www.curvefitting.com). The average bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration for observations in
the oxygen-limiting region is 6.8 g/m3 (Hem et al., 1994).
ferent oxygen rate-limiting regions corresponding to the bulk-liquid dissolved-oxygen

concentrations 2, 4, 6, and 8 g/m3. To illustrate, the transition between near first- and
zero-order response (horizontal line) with dissolved oxygen of 2 g/m3 the following
is calculated:
1 ⎡ DF ,O2T ⎤
SB ,NH3 -N ⋅⎢ ⎥ ⋅ SB ,O2
ED ,EA ⎣ DF ,NH3 -N,T ⎦
⎡ m2 ⎤
⎢ 0.077 ⎥
m2 18°C d
⎢ 0.000200 ⋅ ⋅ ⎥
⎢ d 25°C m2 ⎥
0.081
1 ⎢ d ⎥ g O2
⋅⎢ ⎥ ⋅ 2 m3
gO m2
4.57 2 ⎢ 2
18°C
0.077 ⎥
gN ⎢ 0.000197 m ⋅ ⋅ d ⎥
⎢ d 25°C m2 ⎥
⎢⎣ 0.081 ⎥⎦
d
gN
0.44
m3

Figure 13.20 helps to illustrate how operating at higher dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions increases ammonia nitrogen flux in the oxygen limited region but provides little
benefit once ammonia becomes rate-limiting at approximately 2.5 g/m3.
The design bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration is not available entirely for
ammonia-nitrogen oxidation in a combined carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBR.
Heterotrophic-organism activity resulting from the presence of biodegradable organic
matter reduces the dissolved oxygen concentration available for ammonia-nitrogen oxi-
dation. Rusten et al. (1995a) observed that a soluble-BOD5 load of 0.5 g/m2 d reduced
the dissolved oxygen concentration available for nitrification by 0.5 g/m3. Rusten et al.
(2006) estimated that a 1.5-g/m2 d soluble-BOD5 load reduces the dissolved oxygen
concentration available for nitrification by 2.5 g/m3. Ammonia-nitrogen flux values cal-
culated using Equation 13.19 should be applied to combined carbon oxidation and nitri-
fication MBBR design only if (1) the k-value is representative of site-specific environ-
mental conditions, or (2) the flux has been verified by a calibrated mathematical model
that considers competition in mixed culture biofilms (see Table 13.2).
Siegrist and Gujer (1987) and Rusten et al. (1995a) recommend a minimum alkalin-
ity of 75 mg/L as CaCO3 (1.5-meq/m3). Szwerinski et al. (1986) and Zhang and Bishop
(1996) state that the ratio bulk-liquid bicarbonate-to-dissolved oxygen molar concentra-
tion should be greater than 2.4, or [HCO 3 ]:[O2], to avoid nitrification being alkalinity-
limited in a nitrifying biofilm reactor. Nordeidet et al. (1994) reported that (tertiary) nitri-
fying biofilm reactors may become orthophosphate (PO4-P) limited at bulk-liquid
concentrations less than approximately 0.15 g P/m3. Phosphorus limitation in tertiary
biofilm reactors is discussed at greater depth in the post-denitrification MBBR section.
Given the following assumptions and treatment objectives, ammonia-nitrogen flux
can be estimated and the volume of a single-stage nitrification MBBR receiving settled
effluent from secondary treatment calculated.
• Wastewater temperature 10°C;

• Targeted effluent ammonia-nitrogen concentration 2 g/m3;
• Bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration is kept constant at 6 g/m3;
• Soluble BOD5 load is less than 0.5 g/m2 d;
• Nitrification MBBR receives 3785 m3/d of partially nitrified secondary effluent;
• A 16 g/m3 ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the influent stream;
• Plastic biofilm carrier bulk-specific surface area is 500 m2/m3 at a 50% carrier fill.
Solution,
(1) Using Equation 13.17 and given a bulk-liquid oxygen concentration of 6 g/m3,
estimate the ammonia-nitrogen concentration corresponding to the point whereby

flux transitions from being oxygen-limited to being ammonia-nitrogen limited.

Reduce the bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration by 0.5 g/m3 to account
for heterotrophic bacteria activity inside the biofilm.
1 ⎡ DF ,O2 ,T ⎤
SB ,NH3 -N ⋅⎢ ⎥ ⋅ SB ,O2
ED ,EA ⎣ DF ,NH3 -N ,T ⎦
⎡ m2 ⎤
⎢ 0.077 ⎥
m2 10°C d
⎢ 0.000200 ⋅ ⋅ ⎥
⎢ d 25°C m2 ⎥
0.081
1 ⎢ d ⎥ ⎛ g O2 g O2 ⎞
⋅⎢ ⎥ ⋅ ⎜⎝ 6 m 3 0.5 m 3 ⎟⎠
gO m2
4.57 2 ⎢ 2
10°C
0.077 ⎥
gN ⎢ 0.000197 m ⋅ ⋅ d ⎥
⎢ d 25°C m2 ⎥
⎢⎣ 0.081 ⎥⎦
d
gN
1.2
m3
(2) The reactor effluent ammonia concentration 1.2 g/m3 is suitable given the design
objective of less than 2 g/m3. Calculate the ammonia-nitrogen flux as a function
of the above-defined (Step 1) bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen concentration.
J B ,NH3 -N k ⋅ (T2 T1 ) ⋅ (SB , N )n
0.7 ⋅ 1.1(1015) ⋅ (1.2)0.7
g
0.5
m2 ⋅ d
The zero-order ammonia-nitrogen flux is less 0.5 g/m2 d Therefore, the esti-
mated ammonia-nitrogen flux for the given design example is 0.5 g/m2 d.
(3) Rearranging Equation 13.1 and calculate the biofilm area required to meet the
treatment objective.
Q ⋅ (Sin ,NH3 -N SB ,NH3 -N )
A
J NH3 -N
m3 ⎛ g g ⎞
3, 785 ⎜ 16 2 3 ⎟
d ⎝ m3 m ⎠

g
0.5 2
m ⋅d
105 980 m 2

(4) The nitrification MBBR volume is calculated.
A
A
a
105, 980 m 2

m2
500 3 ⋅ 0.5
m
424 m 2
An alternate method for sizing a nitrification MBBR when pilot-plant data is available
is the graphical biofilm reactor design approach described in Section 13.2. Figure 13.21
FIGURE 13.21 Graphical design procedure applied to the nitrification moving bed biofilm reactor
(MBBR) example. Ammonia-nitrogen flux curves based on data obtained from a pilot-scale two-
stage nitrification MBBR (Kaldate et al., 2008).

presents ammonia-nitrogen flux curves obtained from pilot data collected from a pilot-
scale system consisting of two reactors in series (Kaldate et al., 2008). Using the pilot-
scale nitrification MBBR data and assuming a design dissolved oxygen of 6 g/m3, a first-
stage MBBR operating line intersects the ammonia-nitrogen flux curve at 1.04 g/m2 d.
For the second reactor, an ammonia nitrogen flux curve is determined assuming a dis-
solved oxygen of 4 g/m3, and the second-stage MBBR operating line intersects the
ammonia-nitrogen flux curve at 0.36 g/m2 d. For this graphical design example, the
reactor volume determined above for a single reactor (424 m3) is subdivided into two
equal-volume reactors in series.
(1) Determine the design loading rate for reactor 1 (R1) by using R1 flux from Figure
13.21. Ensure the required ammonia oxidation is achieved in R1 such that the
influent ammonia concentration to reactor 2 (R2) is in the range of 4 g/m3.
J NH3 -N
R1 design loading rate
⎛ Sin ,NH3 -N SB ,NH3 -N ⎞
⎜⎝ Sin ,NH3 -N ⎟⎠
gN
1.04
m2 ⋅ d

⎛ gN gN ⎞
16 4 3
⎜ m3 m ⎟
⎜ gN ⎟
⎜⎝ 16 3 ⎟⎠
m
gN
1.39
m2 ⋅ d
(2) Determine the carrier area required in R1 given the influent ammonia loading,
and the design surface area loading rate (SALR) from Step 1.
Q ⋅ Sin ,NH3 -N
A
SALR
m3 g
3785 ⋅ 16 3
d m
⎛ gN ⎞
⎜⎝ 1.39 m 2 ⋅ d ⎟⎠
43 568 m 2

(3) Determine the fill fraction given the volume of R1 and amount of carrier area
required based on a media specific surface area (SSA) of 500 m2/m3.
A
Fill fraction
V⋅a
43 568 m 2

⎛ m2 ⎞
⎜⎝ 212 m ⋅ 500 m 3 ⎟⎠
3
41%
(4) Determine the design loading rate, carrier area, and fill fraction for R2 using the
same calculation procedure.
Reactor 2 requires 31 540 m2 of carrier area in a 212 m3 resulting in a 30% media fill frac-
tion. The designer should note the difference in carrier area required with a two-reactor
design versus a single reactor design.
3.2.3 Denitrification
Denitrification in an MBBR has also been extensively studied using synthetic and
municipal wastewater (Rusten et al., 1995b; Rusten et al. 1996; Aspegren et al., 1998; Bill
et al., 2008). Like all biofilm reactors, the rate of denitrification in an MBBR is influenced
by the external carbon source, bulk-phase carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C⬊N), wastewater
temperature, bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration, and bulk-liquid macronutri-
ent concentration (primarily phosphorus). Nitrogen removal using the MBBR process
has been achieved using the flowsheets illustrated in Figure 13.16 (g to k) for both pre-
denitrification and post-denitrification.
Pre-denitrification typically is used in the activated sludge process. Pre-denitrifi-
cation activated sludge configurations such as the modified Ludzack Ettinger (MLE),
have been well documented (Grady et al., 1999). The pre-denitrification MBBRs are
situated upstream of combined carbon-oxidation and nitrification MBBRs. The electron
acceptor nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen is supplied by an internal recirculation stream that
directs nitrified MBBR effluent to the pre-denitrification MBBR. The internal recirculation
QR
ratio, or , is typically in the range 2 to 4, but may be as high as 6. There is a practical
Qin
upper limit on the effective recirculation ratio, but this must be evaluated on a site spe-
cific basis. Additional increase in the recirculation flow rate beyond the effective limit
has been found to reduce overall denitrification effectiveness (Ødegaard, 2006).

Pre-denitrification MBBR performance is primarily dependent on the availability

of soluble BOD5 in the influent wastewater stream. When ample soluble-BOD5 concen-
tration exists, pre-denitrification MBBRs can achieve 50 to 70% nitrogen removal. Dis-
solved oxygen inhibits anoxic biochemical transformation processes. Combined carbon
oxidation and nitrification MBBRs operate at a relatively high bulk-liquid dissolved
oxygen concentration (i.e., 3 to 6 g/m3). Therefore, the internal recirculation stream may
also have a high dissolved oxygen concentration. Aerobic reactions have an energetic
advantage over denitrification, and will take precedence resulting in reduced soluble-
BOD5 for denitrification. Therefore, the presence of dissolved oxygen in the internal
recirculation stream must be considered when assigning a pre-denitrification MBBR
volume and assessing the availability of soluble-BOD5 for denitrification. Dissolved
oxygen is converted to its nitrate equivalence with the dissolved oxygen-to-nitrate-
nitrogen mass ratio (g-O2⬊g-NO3-N) of 2.86⬊1. Table 13.6 lists ranges of denitrification
rates that a designer could expect to observe in a pre-denitrification MBBR.
Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen transformation rates in a pre-denitrification MBBR are typi-
cally in the range 0.3 to 0.6 g NO3-Neq/m2 d (at 10°C).
Variation in the observed nitrate-nitrogen transformation rates is a result of differ-
ent wastewater characteristics and environmental conditions.
Post-denitrification MBBRs require the addition of a supplemental electron donor
(i.e., an external carbon source), but do not require recirculation of a nitrified effluent
stream to receive the electron acceptor nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen. These MBBRs are ben-
eficial when the stream influent to pre-denitrification MBBR has insufficient soluble-
BOD5 concentration to promote the desired nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen conversion. Bill
et al. (2008) demonstrated that some commercially available, readily biodegradable
electron donors result in higher nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen flux than previously described
for pre-denitrification MBBRs. They use readily biodegradable, low-molecular weight
compounds that typically are measured as soluble-BOD5 in raw sewage. Therefore, a
post-denitrification MBBR is beneficial when a high-volumetric efficiency design is
TABLE 13.6 Comparison of pre-denitrification MBBR performance (WWTP

wastewater treatment plant).
Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen flux
Reference (g NO3-Neq/m2 ⴢd)
Gardermoen WWTP (Rusten et al., 2007) 0.40–1.10
FREVAR WWTP (Rusen et al., 2000) 0.15–0.50
Crow Creek WWTP (McQarrie and Maxwell, 2003) 0.25–0.80
NRA WWTP 0.20–0.40

required to meet treatment objectives in a compact footprint. Post-denitrification

MBBRs are capable of achieving nearly complete nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen reduction
within a short hydraulic retention time (Ødegaard, 2006). The nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen
load and flux selected for post-denitrification MBBR design is influenced by (1) the type
of external carbon used, (2) wastewater temperature, (3) acceptable residual soluble-
BOD5 concentration, and (4) phosphorus availability.
Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen removal in four bench-scale MBBRs (treating synthetic
wastewater) configured to simulate post-denitrification using four different supple-
mental carbon sources—methanol, ethanol, glycerol, and sulfide—is illustrated as a
function of nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen load in Figure 13.22. Ethanol resulted in the most
FIGURE 13.22 Nitrate/nitrite removal rates as a function of bench-scale moving bed biofilm reactor
loading rate for electron donors methanol (MeOH), ethanol (EtOH), glycerol (Glyc), and sulfide at
20°C (Bill et al., 2008).

substantial biofilm development (see Figure 13.23), and had the highest observed
nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen flux, which approached a maximum rate of 2.5 g N/m2 d at
20°C. Similarly, Aspegren et al. (1998) reported that a pilot-scale post-denitrification
MBBR had a maximum denitrification rate approximately equal to 2.5 g N/m2 d and
2.0 g N/m2 d (at 16°C) when ethanol and methanol were used as the supplemental
electron donors, respectively. Supplemental carbon source selection typically is depen-
dent on cost and availability of commercial electron donors and, sometimes, the deni-
trification rate required at cold temperatures. Despite improved efficiency in denitrifi-
cation using ethanol as the supplemental electron donor, operational costs typically
result in a design optimized for performance, capital, and life-cycle cost. The beneficial
reuse of waste products, such as spent aircraft deicing fluid, has been used as the exter-
nal carbon source in post-denitrification MBBRs (Rusten et al., 1996). Typically, loading
rates applied to post-denitrification MBBR design range from 1 to 2 g NO3-Neq /m2 d.
FIGURE 13.23 Commercially available plastic biofilm carriers with biofilms grown in
bench-scale moving bed biofilm reactor operating under identical loading conditions
and using (clockwise from upper left corner) methanol, ethanol, pure glycerol, and sul-
fide as the electron donor (Bill et al., 2008).

FIGURE 13.24 Post-denitrification moving bed biofilm reactor effluent nitrate/nitrite-

nitrogen and nitrite-nitrogen concentrations as a function of carbon-to-nitrogen ratio
(C⬊N) (Rusten et al., 1995b).
Figure 13.24 illustrates effluent nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentrations in 24-hour-flow

proportional samples collected from a pilot-scale post-denitrification MBBR. The figure
illustrates that effluent nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentrations approach an asymptotic
minimum value when operating a post-denitrification MBBR with a carbon-to-
nitrogen ratio (C⬊N) from 4 to 6 g COD/g NO3-Neq.
These observations are consistent with other pilot-scale post-denitrification MBBR
investigations and full-scale operations (Aspegren et al., 1998; Täljemark et al., 2004).
Lower C⬊N ratios are applicable to less stringent nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen effluent water
quality standards. Higher carbon-to-nitrogen ratios may be applied to increase the rate
of denitrification. Operating a post-denitrification MBBR with a C⬊N ratio higher than
4 to 6 g COD/g NO3-Neq increases the risk of residual soluble-COD concentration in the
final anoxic tank effluent stream. The acceptable soluble-COD concentration is depen-
dent on external carbon source cost, effect on downstream processes, and effluent
water-quality standards. A postaeration zone containing media may be required to

oxidize the remaining COD. Post-denitrification MBBRs typically have two equally
sized anoxic zones and, sometimes, a postaeration zone.
Aspegren et al. (1998) reported an observed biomass yield resulting from nitrate-
nitrogen removal in a post-denitrification MBBR using ethanol or methanol as the exter-
nal carbon source in the range 0.2 to 0.3 g suspended solids per gram of COD trans-
formed. Little information exists describing the startup period required to achieve a
quasi steady-state with respect to nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentration remaining in
the effluent stream of a post-denitrification MBBR. Rusten et al. (1995c) reported that
the Lillehammer WWTP required approximately 4 to 6 weeks to obtain complete
nitrate-nitrogen conversion.
The Sjölunda and Klagshamn WWTPs, Malmö, Sweden, operate full-scale post-den-
itrification MBBRs. Table 13.7 summarizes relevant design features and operational obser-
vations reported by Täljemark et al. (2004). See the cited work for study overview data.
These post-denitrification MBBRs typically operate with a wastewater temperature
of 10 to 20°C. The performance of the reactors typically exceeds 90% nitrate/nitrite-
nitrogen reduction when load is 0.8 to 1.2 g/m2 d. Neither of these post-denitrification
MBBRs are followed by post-aeration reactors to oxidize any soluble-COD remaining
in the effluent stream. Periodically, nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen removal at both of these
post-denitrification MBBRs have been rate limited by phosphorus availability.
TABLE 13.7 Comparison of Sjölunda and Klagshamn Wastewater Treatment Plants

(WWTPs), Malmö, Sweden, full-scale post-denitrification moving bed biofilm reactor
design features and operational observations (COD chemical oxygen demand;
SS suspended solids) (Täljemark et al., 2004).
Sjölunda WWTP Klagshamn WWTP

Parameter (in operation since 1997) (in operation since 1999)
Flow rate (m3/d) 126 000 23 800
Nitrate-nitrogen load (kg/d) 1 960 310
Effluent total nitrogen (g/m3) 6.8 5.8
Nitrate-nitrogen removal rate 1.05 1.05
(g/m2/d)
C⬊N (g COD added/g NO3-N 4.4⬊1 5.4⬊1
removed)
Carrier fill (%) 50 36
Supplemental carbon Methanol Ethanol
Overall sludge yield ⬃0.2 ⬃0.2
(g SS/g COD removed)
Mixing power (W/m3) 23 31
Effluent total phosphorus (g/m3) 0.21 0.15
Supplemental phosphorus Phosphoric acid Phosphoric acid

Where possible, combined pre- and post denitrification MBBRs should be consid-
ered when high levels of nitrogen removal is required. This helps to optimize perfor-
mance, efficiency, and operational flexibility. Most MBBRs designed for high levels of
nitrogen removal use combined pre- and post-denitrification reactors (Ødegaard, 2008;
Rusten and Ødegaard, 2007). The benefit of using combined pre- and post denitrifica-
tion is that removal efficiency becomes independent of the availability of biodegrad-
able carbon source and temperature of the raw water. In addition, use of external car-
bon source to reach the effluent nitrogen standard is minimized.
3.2.4 Phosphorus Limitations (Focus on Denitrification)

Macronutrients, such as phosphorus, are required to complete biochemical transfor-
mation processes including nitrification and denitrification. The electron acceptor (i.e.,
nitrate-nitrogen or nitrite-nitrogen), external carbon source (e.g., methanol or ethanol),
or macronutrients (primarily phosphorus) may be rate-limiting in a post-denitrification
biofilm reactor. The soluble material orthophosphate is an indicator of phosphorus that
is readily available for use in biofilm reactors. Particulate phosphorus assimilation and
endogenous respiration are other phosphorus sources. There is a paucity of information
describing both practical and applied aspects of simultaneous phosphorus and nitrogen
reduction to low concentrations. Design engineers must be aware, however, of the
potential effect of low orthophosphate concentrations in the influent to a post-denitri-
fication MBBR. They must fully evaluate the need for additional process components
required to ensure that the system is capable of meeting treatment objectives over the
range of expected operating conditions.
Coworkers and deBarbadillo (2006) report that the nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen con-
centration remaining in the effluent stream of a pilot-scale denitrification filter (using
methanol as the external carbon source) increased when the influent orthophosphate
Sin ,PO 4 -P
concentration-to-influent nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentration ratio, , was
Sin ,NO3 -N
less than 0.02 g P/g N. These findings are illustrated in Figure 13.25.
When incorporated into a WWTP that produces effluent water with low nitrate-
nitrogen and total-phosphorus concentrations, upstream unit processes may require
optimization to meet phosphorus requirements in the post-denitrification biofilm reac-
tor. In some cases, it may be necessary to provide a supplemental phosphorus source
(e.g., commercially available phosphoric acid). Andersson et al. (1998) reported that
the ability to inject commercially available phosphoric acid into the influent stream of
a full-scale post-denitrification MBBR improved the rate of denitrification. Researchers
observed that an influent 0.1-g/m3 orthophosphate concentration resulted in a nitrate-

FIGURE 13.25 Nitrate-nitrogen concentration remaining in the effluent stream of a

pilot-scale post-denitrification biofilm reactor (using methanol as the external carbon
source) as a function of the influent ortho-phosphate concentration-to-influent nitrate/
nitrite-nitrogen concentration (deBarbadillo et al., 2006). The line drawn vertically from
Sin ,PO 4 -P
0.02 empirically represents the ratio below which the nitrate-nitrogen
Sin ,NO3 -N
concentration remaining in the effluent stream begins to increase.
nitrogen removal about 70% when the influent orthophosphate concentration was
1.0 g/m3. Although the mechanism is not clearly understood, it typically is accepted
that denitrification may proceed when the phosphorus availability is less than the sto-
ichiometric requirement Callieri et al. (1984) suggested that bacteria may reduce their
biomass yield and alter their phosphorus content when insufficient phosphorus is
available for normal biochemical transformation processes. However, such conditions
may result in a reduced denitrification rate or poor system response to dynamic load-
ing conditions.

3.3 Design Considerations

Successful MBBR design includes appropriate pretreatment, provisions for handling
plastic carriers, well-designed aeration system and media retention sieves, properly
specified mixers, and appropriate solids separation.
3.3.1 Preliminary and Primary Treatment

Biofilm reactors, including the MBBR, require proper preliminary treatment. Robust
screening and grit removal is recommended to prevent sieve blinding and long-term
accumulation of inert material such as rags, plastics, and sand in the tank. Once accu-
mulated, these materials are difficult to remove. Manufacturers typically recommend
no larger than 6- to 12-mm screen spacing if primary treatment is also provided. Fine-
screens (3 mm) are recommended for secondary installations without primary treat-
ment. Scum must be removed from the system because of its potential to blind the
media-retention sieves. Tertiary or add-on MBBR processes receiving wastewater that
received significant upstream treatment do not require additional screening. Table 13.8
provides a list of screen spacing for installations at selected full-scale wastewater treat-
ment plants incorporating the MBBR process.
3.3.2 Plastic Biofilm Carrier Media

Plastic biofilms carriers typically are delivered to the site in sacks of known volume.
The carriers are introduced to the MBBR simply by elevating the sacks and allowing the
TABLE 13.8 Preliminary treatment at full-scale moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) installations
(WWTP wastewater treatment plant).
Facility Pretreatment Details

a
Lillehammer WWTP Step screens/grit removal 15-mm (coarse screens)
(Lillehammer, Norway) followed by 3-mm (fine screens)
Gardemoen WWTPa Step screen/grit removal 6 mm
(Oslo, Norway)
Crow Creek WWTPa Self-cleaning filter screen 10-mm 15-mm
(Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Yavne Municipal WWTPc Medium screen, sedimentation 15-mm (coarse screens) followed by
(Yavene, Israel) lagoon, fine screen 6-mm (screens)
Western WWTPb Step screen/grit removal 3-mm (fines screens)
(Perth, Australia)
Mao Point WWTPa Step screen/grit removal 3-mm (fine screens)
(Wellington, New Zealand)
a
Facility includes primary treatment.
b
Facility does not have primary treatment.
c
Tertiary MBBR process.

plastic biofilm carriers to fall into the tank (see Figure 13.26). A recessed impeller pump
can be used to transfer the plastic carriers out of the water-filled MBBR to perform aer-
ation system maintenance. The MBBR aeration or mixing system should remain
engaged while the pump transfers carriers to temporary storage. Ideally, a dedicated
basin or container must be available for interim plastic biofilm carrier storage to ensure
that the original carrier fill volume is returned to the emptied tank. If the carrier fill is
transferred to another MBBR for temporary storage, then the best way to restore origi-
nal carrier fill is to pump the plastic carriers back into the emptied tank, drain both
MBBRs, and measure the average bed height at several locations. The plastic carrier bed
depths should be equal.
It is common for light foam to float on the water surface during MBBR startup and
while mature biofilm is developing. If necessary, a defoaming agent may be used. It is
important, however, to ensure that the defoaming agent is compatible with the plastic
carriers by consulting with the manufacturer. Even when agitated, plastic biofilm car-
riers have a propensity to float when introduced to the water-filled tank, but will dis-
appear within a few days. Carbon-oxidation likely will be observed after 2 to 15 days;
ammonia-nitrogen oxidation will proceed after approximately four weeks but may take
60 to 120 days to reach a quasi steady state for biofilm thickness, mass, and ammonia-
nitrogen flux. Approximately four to six weeks may be required before nitrate/nitrite-
nitrogen removal occurs because the denitrifying biofilms will not develop until suffi-
cient nitrate-nitrogen is present.
FIGURE 13.26 Plastic biofilm carrier installation and 50% carrier fill in a dry moving bed biofilm
reactor before startup.

3.3.3 Aeration System

The MBBRs are not compatible with all commercially available diffused aeration sys-
tems that typically are used for aerobic (biological) municipal wastewater treatment.
The piping network and air diffusers must (1) provide air that meets process oxygen
requirements; (2) have a reasonable oxygen-transfer efficiency; (3) promote rolling-
water circulation pattern that uniformly distributes plastic biofilm carriers; (4) struc-
turally withstand the weight of biofilm-covered plastic carriers (unit weight of a biofilm
is approximately equal to unit weight of water) when the tank is drained; (5) be robust
with infrequent maintenance requirements.
Coarse-bubble diffusers produce bubbles with a diameter of 6 to 12 mm (compared
to 2-mm diameter typical of fine-bubble diffusers). These bubbles rise rapidly through
the plastic biofilm carrier laden water column. Therefore, a rolling-water circulation
pattern can be generated with a coarse-bubble diffuser grid that covers a majority of the
tank bottom, although complete floor coverage is not recommended. Multiple drop
pipes with individual valves for modulation provide added flexibility to induce a
rolling pattern. Coarse-bubble diffusers typically used in MBBRs are 25-mm diameter
stainless-steel pipes with 4- to 5-mm diameter orifices that are spaced approximately
50-mm apart along the underside of the diffuser pipe (see Figure 13.27, top). The air
diffuser typically is anchored approximately 0.25 m above the tank bottom. The coarse-
FIGURE 13.27 Photograph of the underside of a coarse-bubble air diffuser commonly used in mov-
ing bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs) showing the structural support (left). Disc-type, fine-bubble air dif-
fuser network configured in a T-pattern promotes the rolling water circulation pattern and uniformly
distributes plastic biofilm carriers.

bubble diffuser orifice must be smaller than the plastic biofilm carrier to avoid air-pipe
and orifice plugging. Pham et al. (2008) reported that a 2-m deep tank (with a length-
to-width ratio equal to 1) produced 2.1, 3.1, and 2.5% clean-water oxygen transfer effi-
ciency per meter of water submergence at a 13.6-m3/hr airflow rate when containing 0,
25, and 50% carrier fills, respectively. These clean-water trials demonstrate, for the
conditions tested, that the presence of plastic biofilm carriers increases coarse-bubble
aeration system oxygen transfer efficiency by 20 to 40%. Clean-water oxygen transfer
efficiency design values for full-scale operating MBBRs with coarse-bubble diffusers
are 3.0 to 3.5% per meter of water submergence. The MBBR-specific coarse-bubble air
diffusers have been designed with a 0.8-alpha () factor and 0.95-beta () factor.
When using fine-bubble diffusers, biofilm carriers must periodically be removed to
service or replace diffusers. The ideal MBBR-diffused air system would operate at a point
that optimizes both oxygen transfer efficiency and mixing capacity. Manufacturers have
examined the capability of fine-bubble-diffusers to meet the air-induced plastic carrier
mixing requirements and desirable maintenance characteristics typical of coarse-bubble
diffusers historically used in MBBRs. The bubble-rise velocity characteristic of fine-
bubble diffusers does not create the rolling-water circulation pattern required to uni-
formly distribute the plastic biofilm carriers. Therefore, the diffuser-grid layout may
require modification to promote a rolling-water circulation pattern (see Figure 13.28, left).
The fine-bubble diffuser configuration required to promote a rolling water-circulation
FIGURE 13.28 Mechanical mixers on rail-mounts (left) and top-mount (right) for denitrification
moving bed biofilm reactor.

pattern has a negative effect on oxygen transfer efficiency. Pham et al. (2008) reported
that a 2-m deep tank (with a length-to-width ratio equal to 1) produced 7.1, 5.8, and 4.9%
clean-water oxygen transfer efficiency per meter of water submergence at a 13.6-m3/hr
air-flow rate when containing 0, 25, and 50% carrier fills, respectively. These clean-water
trials demonstrate, for conditions tested, that the presence of plastic biofilm carriers
decreases fine-bubble aeration system oxygen transfer efficiency by 20 to 30%.
3.3.4 Media Retention Sieves

Sieves used to retain media, and their supporting structural assemblies if required, typ-
ically are constructed with stainless steel. The sieve may be wedge-wire or mesh with
approximately 6-mm spacing, but can be procured as perforated plates with 5- to 6-mm
diameter orifices. Two sieve configurations typically are used in MBBRs: horizontally
configured cylindrical sieves (carbon oxidation/nitrification MBBRs) and vertically
mounted wall sieves (denitrification MBBRs). Horizontal sieves are attached to the reac-
tor wall by cast-in-place wall thimbles or by inserting wall sleeves through poured or
core-drilled holes in the reactor wall. The cylindrical sieves are typically submerged 35
to 65% of the side water depth (see Figure 13.12, left). Depending on the selected sieve
length, it may be necessary to add a structural sieve support assembly.
Vertically mounted flat panel sieves are attached to wall-fixed brackets. The
brackets extend outward from the wall and create approximately a 0.15- to 0.3-m space
between the sieve panels and the reactor wall (see Figure 13.12, right). Forward flow
passes through the sieves, then through the void space between the sieve panels and
the wall, and finally into the next treatment step through the concrete wall openings
located at the liquid surface. A full concrete wall is used to divide MBBRs for two rea-
sons: (1) the concrete wall provides structural support for the sieve brackets and pan-
els; (2) the rigid segregation of MBBRs promotes a completely mixed bulk liquid (i.e.,
eliminates the potential for back mixing with the downstream MBBR).
The sieve area is defined based on the allowable hydraulic head loss across the
MBBR wall. However, typical sieve design allows for a maximum 50- to 100-mm head-
loss (at the peak hydraulic flow, which is typically measured as the peak hour flow)
across each sieve-containing wall. Proper sieve design is primarily related to system
hydraulics. Critical design parameters include sieve loading rate, approach velocity,
and the MBBR length-to-width ratio. These terms are defined below.
• Sieve loading rate: wastewater flow rate (including recirculation streams)

⎛ m3 ⎞
⎜ flow rate hr ⎟
applied per unit screen area, or ⎜ .
⎝ sieve area m 2 ⎟⎠
,

• Approach velocity: wastewater flow rate (including recirculation streams) in an MBBR

⎛ m3 ⎞
divided by the reactor cross-sectional area, or .
⎜ flow rate hr ⎟
⎜ , 2⎟
⎝ side depth ⋅ tank ⋅ width m ⎠
• Length-to-width ratio: reactor L⬊W 0.5⬊1 to 1.5⬊1; MBBR L⬊W 1.5 may be
possible, but also may result in plastic biofilm carrier migration. The designer
must ensure that the approach velocity is below the recommended limit.
Based on the design hydraulic headloss across each MBBR sieve-containing wall, the
corresponding sieve loading rate is selected by the MBBR manufacturer using empiri-
cal criteria that accounts for sieve material and the influence of plastic biofilm carrier
fill. Sieve loadings are typically 50 to 60 m/hr, but values up to 85 m/hr have been
applied with sufficiently low approach velocity. Once determined, the total sieve area
is divided by the area of a sieve fabricated with a standard wedge-wire (or perforated
plate) panel length. Typically, cylindrical sieves have a 16- to 24-inch diameter. Their
length varies but is typically 12 feet. Under peak flow conditions, the approach veloc-
ity should be less than 30 to 35 m/h. Higher approach velocities will cause the media
to migrate with the flow and accumulate on the sieves. The result is reduced sieve
hydraulic throughput, increased hydraulic headloss, poor oxygen transfer in the zone
where media accumulates, and likely an oxygen deficiency because of incomplete use
of the MBBR volume. When an approach velocity greater than 30 m/hr cannot be
avoided, it may be prudent to reduce the sieve loading rate.
Provisions for filling and draining an MBBR train are necessary. Small wall open-
ings with screens typically are installed near the floor of the reactor to allow for equal-
ization of water level between reactors during fill and drain periods. The designer also
must consider how the tank will be drained without removing the plastic biofilm carri-
ers. Perhaps water can be withdrawn from a location immediately downstream of the
last MBBR wall or with an underdrain system.
3.3.5 Mechanical Mixing

There are special requirements for proper mechanical mixer design for denitrification
MBBRs. Early MBBR designs used molded fiberglass blades, which did not hold up
well in the abrasive environment induced by the plastic biofilm carriers (see Figure
13.15). These early designs also used a paint-protected motor and gear housing which
quickly gave way to the abrasive environment ultimately, exposing the metallic surface
to corrosive conditions. State-of-the art mixer placement and tank orientation has
resulted from full-scale operational experience. Early designs placed the mixers near

the tank bottom. As a consequence, poor mixing of the plastic biofilm carriers resulted
in their accumulation at the water surface and in the tank corners.
Manufacturers have developed a mechanical mixer specially designed to with-
stand the abrasive MBBR environment. The mixer uses a stainless-steel backward-curve
propeller with a round bar welded along its leading edge to avoid damage to the plas-
tic biofilm carriers and impeller wear. The mixer has a large-diameter impeller with a
fairly low rotational speed (90 rpm at 50 HZ and 105 rpm at 60 HZ). Unlike activated
sludge, the plastic biofilm carriers described in this section will float in quiescent water.
As a result, the mixers need to be located near the water surface but not so close as to
create an air-entraining vortex because dissolved oxygen inhibits denitrification. In
addition, a slight negative inclination of mixer orientation helps maintain the rolling-
water circulation pattern and uniformly distribute plastic biofilm carriers (see Figure
13.28). It is especially important to use rail-mounted units to facilitate access to the
mixer when maintenance is required. These specially designed mechanical mixers are
typically sized to input 25 W/m3. However, the references listed in Table 13.9 provide
the designer with a full-scale operating basis for estimating the mixing energy require-
ment per unit MBBR volume.
3.3.6 Solids Separation

The MBBR process performance is dependent of a liquid-solids separation unit. Bio-
mass accumulation in an MBBR is, however, independent of the settler. Therefore, the
MBBR process offers considerable flexibility in terms of the type of process that can be
used for liquid-solids separation. Typically, the suspended solids concentration in the
MBBR effluent stream is at least an order of magnitude lower than typical of activated-
sludge bioreactors. As a result, a variety of different solids separation processes have
been paired with MBBRs. Representative examples of solids separation following
TABLE 13.9 Observed mixing energy required per unit moving bed biofilm reactor
volume (WWTP wastewater treatment plant).
Operating mode, mixing energy

Wastewater treatment plant (media fill fraction)
NRA WWTPa (Oslo, Norway) Pre-denitrification, 10 W/m3 (54%)
Post-denitrification, 8 W/m3 (52%)
Post-denitrification, 5 W/m3 (14%)
Sjolunda WWTPb (Malmo, Sweden) Post-denitrification, 23 W/m3 (50%)
Klagshamn WWTPb (Malmo, Sweden) Post-denitrification, 31 W/m3 (50%)
South Adams Countyb (Colorado) Pre-denitrification, 19 W/m3 (57%)
a
Measured consumption.
b
Motor label.

MBBRs are summarized in Table 13.10. The MBBR can be combined with compact,
high-rate solids separation technologies such as dissolved air flotation and ballasted
flocculation. Tertiary units may discharge directly to a filtration unit or coagulation/
flocculation/sedimentation (with lamella plate settlers) basins. Circular or rectangular
secondary clarifiers also may be used (especially in the case of retrofit application in
which the clarifiers already exist). Figures 13.29 and 13.30 present representative long-
term performance of conventional clarifier settling and dissolved air flotation following
MBBRs designed and sized for nitrogen removal. These figures showing long-term per-
formance provide the designer with a range of expected effluent suspended solids con-
centrations for the two liquid-solids separation technologies.
4.0 BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE FILTERS

Biological wastewater treatment and suspended-solids removal are carried out in bio-
logically active filters (BAF) under either aerobic or anoxic conditions. In a BAF, the
media acts simultaneously to support the growth of biomass and as a filtration medium
to retain filtered solids. Accumulated solids are removed from the BAF through back-
washing. There is a direct interaction between the media characteristics and the process,
because the configuration (sunken media or floating media), and flow and backwash
regimes depend on media density. Media may be natural mineral, structured plastic, or
random plastic.
The BAF reactor can be used for carbon oxidation or BOD removal, only, combined
BOD removal and nitrification, combined nitrification and dentrification, tertiary nitri-
fication, and tertiary denitrification. Once the raw wastewater has undergone screen-
ing, grit removal, and primary treatment, the BAF process can include full secondary
TABLE 13.10 Solids separation examples at moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
installations.
MBBR facility Separation technology Design rate (m3/m2 ⴢhr)

Yavne Municipal WWTPb Rectangular clarifiers 1
South Adams WWTPa Reuse existing clarifiers 1.0–1.8
Crow Creek WWTP(1) Reuse existing clarifiers 1.1–2.2
Lillehammer WWTP(1) Flocculation/settling 1.3–2.2
Gardemoen WWTP(1) Flocculation/flotation 3.1–6.4
Nordre Follo WWTPa Flocculation/flotation 5–7.5
Sjolunda WWTPb Dissolved air flotation —
Skreia WWTPa Ballasted flocculation 45–70
a
Multi-stage MBBRs.
b
Tertiary MBBR.

FIGURE 13.29 Settled clarifier effluent suspended solids concentration following moving
bed biofilm reactor.
treatment for a facility or can be constructed for operation in parallel to an existing sec-
ondary treatment process. Using BAF as a tertiary treatment process for nitrification
and/or denitrification as an upgrade to existing secondary processes is common. A typ-
ical process flow diagram for four different BAF options is provided in Figure 13.31.
4.1 Biologically Active Filter Configurations

Historically, the acronym BAF has meant “biological aerated filters” and the term typ-
ically has been used to refer to aerated biofilters used in secondary treatment. How-
ever, the acronym BAF is being expanded herein to cover all “biologically active fil-
ters”, including those that operate under anoxic conditions for denitrification, which
have been referred to as denitrification filters. The BAF reactors can be characterized
into groups according to their media configurations and flow regime:
• Downflow BAF with media heavier than water. This general category includes
both the Biocarbone® reactors commercially marketed in the 1980s for secondary

FIGURE 13.30 Dissolved air flotation influent and effluent suspended solids concen-
tration following a moving bed biofilm reactor process.
and tertiary treatment and packed-bed tertiary denitrification reactors such as

Tetra Denite® filters. These BAFs are backwashed using an intermittent counter-
current flow regime.
• Upflow BAF with media heavier than water. This includes BAF reactors for sec-
ondary and tertiary treatment that use expanded clay and other mineral media,
such as the Degremont Biofor®. These BAFs are backwashed using an intermit-
tent concurrent flow regime.
• BAF with floating media. This includes BAF with polystyrene, polypropylene, or
polyethylene media, such as the Kruger Biostyr®. These BAFs are backwashed
using an intermittent counter-current flow regime.
• Continuous backwashing filters. These filters operate in an upflow mode and
consist of media heavier than water that continuously moves downward, coun-
tercurrent to the wastewater flow. Media is directed continuously to a center air
lift where it is scoured, rinsed, and returned to the top of the media bed.

FIGURE 13.31 Typical process flow diagram for four different biologically active filter
options.

• Nonbackwashing, submerged filters. These processes consist of submerged, sta-

tic media and are often referred to as submerged aerated filters (SAF) although
there has been recent work in applying this technology with anoxic conditions
for denitrification. Solids are intended to be carried through the reactor and
removed through a dedicated solids separation process.
This section provides a detailed description of each type of BAF reactor, followed by
practical design considerations and guidance.
4.1.1 Downflow with Sunken Media

The general process arrangement of a downflow BAF is shown in Figure 13.32. Air is
sparged into the lower zone of the downflow submerged granular bed of expanded
shale to produce good oxygen-transfer efficiency by counter-current gas-liquid flow
and a circuitous flow path caused by the media. Counter-current backwashing of the
filter removes accumulated solids and excess biofilm growth. Biocarbone® was a com-
mercially available downflow BAF that was installed in more than 100 plants through-
out the world beginning in the early 1980s.
While the process performance of this type of BAF reactor was improved over pre-
vious practice, the counter-current air and water-flow limited its application for BOD
FIGURE 13.32 Biocarbone downflow.

removal and nitrification. Air would become entrapped in the accumulated solids on
the surface and at the top of the media. Headloss could then increase unpredictably and
backwashing would be necessary. Some remedies were applied, such as intermittent
aeration at higher rates to expand the bed, or mini-backwashes to expel the excess solids
from the surface. For secondary treatment applications, the downflow BAF was
replaced by upflow configurations which could operate at higher hydraulic rates and
handle wider hydraulic variations.
A downflow BAF configuration with sunken media successfully was developed,
however, for tertiary denitrification applications (Figure 13.33). The Denite® process
configuration has been used since the late 1970s for meeting stringent total nitrogen
limits while providing a filtered effluent. Methanol or another carbon source is added
FIGURE 13.33 Downflow denitrification filter (courtesy of Severn Trent Services).

to the influent wastewater to provide substrate for denitrification. A typical installation

includes 1.8 m (6 ft) of 2- to 3-mm sand media over 457 mm (18 in.) of graded support
gravel. F.B. Leopold Co., Zelienople, Pennsylvania, also offers a similar denitrification
BAF configuration. Several conventional deep-bed filter installations have been retrofit
over the years for this application. Various underdrain supports are used for these
installations.
In a downflow denitrification BAF, the backwash cycle typically consists of a brief
air scour followed by an air-water backwash and water rinse cycle. Design backwash
water and air scour flow rates are typically 15 m3/m2 h (6 gpm/sq ft) and 90 m3/m2 h
(5 cfm/sq ft), respectively. The filter influent and backwash piping are similar to that of
conventional filters. Backwash water usage is typically 2 to 3% of the average flow
being treated. Nitrogen gas accumulates within the media and is released by pumping
backwash water up through the media bed for a short duration. The denitrification
capacity between nitrogen release cycles typically ranges from 0.25 to 0.5 kg NOx-N/m2
(0.05 to 0.10 lbs NOx-N/sq ft) (Severn Trent, 2008).
4.1.2 Upflow with Sunken Media

The upflow mode of BAF operation through a sunken granular bed has been used in
more than 185 installations worldwide. The Degremont Biofor® reactor is a commer-
cially available upflow BAF and may be used for BOD removal, nitrification, and den-
itrification. Its general process arrangement is shown in Figure 13.34. Solids are trapped
mostly in the lower part of the media bed during normal operation and are backwashed
FIGURE 13.34 Biofor upflow.

as required by increasing the hydraulic rate and applying scour air. As the backwash
consists of concurrent scour air and backwash water, the accumulated solids travel up
through the media bed before being released at the top.
Three types of media can be used in the Biofor® depending on the application. The
media consists of expanded clay or expanded shale either in the form of spherical grains
(with an effective size of 3.5 or 4.5 mm) or as angular grains (with an effective size of
2.7 mm). The media form a submerged, fixed bed in the bottom of the reactor, typically
a height of 3 to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 ft), with approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) of freeboard zone above
the bed. The clean surface area of grains is approximately 1640 m2/m3 (500 sq ft/cu ft).
Influent water is introduced to the bed through a filter plenum and nozzle air/water
distribution system. The nozzles are installed in a false floor located approximately 1 m
(3.3 ft) above the filter floor. The influent flow must be fine screened to prevent block-
age of the nozzles. Backwash water and scour air are introduced through the same
plenum/nozzle system. Process air is introduced through separate air diffusers located
in the media bed above the inlet nozzles.
To reduce the quantity of backwash water and the risk of media loss, the backwash
starts with a drain down. The duration of the drain down is affected by the level of
solids accumulation and determines the need for more vigorous backwashing. The con-
current backwash then consists of an air scour to break up the media, followed by an
air/water wash, and finally by a water rinse. During backwashing, the solids are
pushed from the bottom of the bed and transferred into the freeboard zone between
top media level and the discharge, and on to waste.
Backwash water quantities equivalent to several times the volume of the freeboard
zone are needed to reduce solids levels to discharge limits as they are released directly
from the filter. The effect of the discharge of these solids depends on the actual treat-
ment objectives and number of BAF cells. This can be addressed by incorporating a
“filter-to-waste” step at the end of the backwash cycle. Alternately, increasing the total
volume of flushing water may be necessary to improve the effluent quality following
backwashing (Michelet et al., 2005).
A key issue with backwash of sunken media systems is the potential for “boils”
during backwashing. For even backwashing, the water flow must be well distributed
across the plan area of the BAF, and, therefore, the headloss across the distribution sys-
tem must be greater than the headloss through the bed. If the bed becomes blocked
because of high loads or insufficient backwash, then its headloss becomes the control-
ling factor. The flow will short circuit through the line of least resistance. This will result
in a “boil”, or violent eruption of the flow through the point of least resistance. Similar
short circuits and boils can also occur if the nozzles are blocked. These boils during
backwashing can result in excessive media loss.

4.1.3 Upflow Biologically Activate Filter with Floating Media

These processes use a floating bed of media to provide biological surface area and fil-
tration. This process was first used in industrial filtration and drinking water denitrifi-
cation (Roennefahrt, 1986). Coarse-bubble aeration diffusers were introduced at the bot-
tom of the media to enhance the contact of air, water, and biomass (Rogalla and
Bourbigot, 1990). While the Biostyr® process uses lightweight expanded polystyrene
(specific gravity of 0.05), a process using recycled polypropylene with a specific grav-
ity slightly lower than 1, the Biobead® (Brightwater F.L.I.), also has found large appli-
cation in the United Kingdom.
The Veolia Water Biostyr® unit (see Figure 13.35) is a reactor that is partially filled
with small (2- to 6-mm) polystyrene beads. Process objectives determine selection of
the bead size; larger beads can be more heavily loaded and smaller beads typically
achieve higher process performance. The beads, which are lighter than wastewater,
form a floating bed in the upper portion of the reactor, typically a height of 3 to 4 m
(9.8 to 13.1 ft), with approximately 1.5 m (4.9 ft) of free zone below the bed. The top of
the bed is restrained by a ceiling fitted with filtration nozzles to evenly collect the
treated wastewater. The clean surface area of spherical beads is 1000 to 1400 m2/m3.
In the bottom of the reactor, influent is distributed by troughs formed in the base
of the cells. The troughs are covered with plates, which have gaps at intervals to allow
the flow to enter the cells and backwash wastewater to be collected. There is no need for
a filter underdrain because the media does not require support. Process air is distributed
FIGURE 13.35 Biostyr filter.

through diffusers located along the bottom of the reactor or within an aeration grid in
the media bed; the latter being used if an anoxic zone is required for nitrogen removal.
Only treated wastewater comes in contact with nozzles. Backwashing consists of
counter-current air scour and backwash water flow. Solids are removed through the
shortest pathway at the bottom of the reactor. Since 1993, when Toettrup et al. (1994)
presented information regarding process status, the Biostyr® process has been widely
used in European and the United States. The Biobead® BAF process is similar to
Biostyr®, except that the media is larger and heavier, using polypropylene or polyeth-
ylene with a density of approximately 0.95. Wastewater flow enters at the bottom of the
reactor, and the flow is distributed by a grid or specially designed distribution system.
For small cells, a simple system using one central feed and distribution plate arrange-
ment is sufficient. For larger cells (greater than 5.5 m 5.5 m (18 ft 18 ft), a more
sophisticated arrangement is required, such as horizontal slots staggered across the
cells. The slot size needs to be carefully designed for even distribution, especially at low
flows (Cantwell and Mosey, 1999).
To prevent the media loss, a metal grid is fixed near the top of the reactor. Process
air is supplied from a grid located below or within the media bed. By placing the
process air grid within the media, it is possible to achieve some solids removal at the
bottom of the bed. Because of specific gravity, it is relatively easy to release the accu-
mulated suspended solids during backwashing, requiring only a relatively low head.
Typically, backwashing consists of a combination of partial drainage, air scour, and
countercurrent water flush. The dirty backwash water is removed over the outlet weir
or through a bottom drain. Recovery of solids retention following backwash may take
some time until the bed is sufficiently packed again, during which the effluent from the
reactor may be recirculated through the plant.
Upflow floating BAF also may require a certain number of mini-backwashes (typ-
ically four to eight and, in extreme cases, more than 10) to bump the filter, remove some
solids, and lower the head-loss to achieve a complete filtration cycle of 24 or 48 hours
(time between two “normal” backwashes). The requirement for mini-backwashes plus
normal backwashes can generate significant backwash wastewater. During the demon-
stration testing in San Diego, California, a single stage BOD removal application, the
floating media BAF generated a volume of backwash wastewater between 10.3 and
13.9% of the influent flow, compared to a sunken media BAF which produced between
7.4% and 7.9% (Newman et al., 2005).
4.1.4 Moving Bed, Continuous Backwash Filters

Moving bed, continuous backwash filters operate in an upflow mode and consist of
media heavier than water that continuously moves downward, countercurrent to the

wastewater flow. These filters are used widely for tertiary solids and turbidity removal
but also have been applied to separate stage nitrification and denitrification. For nitri-
fying systems, air or pure oxygen is added; for denitrifying systems, a source of read-
ily biodegradable carbon substrate such as methanol is added. Two commercially
offered systems using this technology are Parkson DynaSand® filters and Paques
Astrasand® filters. The filter cells are supplied as 4.65 m2 modules with center airlift
assembly. The effective media depth is typically 2 m, and sand media size typically
ranges from approximately 1 to 1.6 mm.
Moving bed filters backwash continuously at a low rate; the treatment process is
not interrupted by discrete backwash cleaning cycles. A typical unit is shown in Figure
13.36. Influent wastewater enters the filter bed through radials located at the bottom of
FIGURE 13.36 Schematic of moving bed denitrification filter (courtesy of Parkson Corp.).

the filter. The flow moves up through the downward-moving sand bed and effluent
flows over a weir at the top of the filter. The media, with the accumulated solids, is drawn
downwards to the bottom cone of the filter. Compressed air is introduced through an
airlift tube extending to the conical bottom of the filter and rises upward with a veloc-
ity of greater than 3 m/s (10 ft/sec) creating an airlift pump that lifts the sand at the
bottom of the filter up the center column. The turbulent upward flow in the airlift pro-
vides scrubbing action that effectively separates solids from the media before dis-
charging to the filter wash box.
There is a constant upward flow of liquid into the wash box (backwash water) con-
trolled by the wash box discharge weir. This discharge weir elevation is lower than the
filtrate weir elevation, thus assuring a constant flow over the backwash weir. Accord-
ingly, the rate of backwash water remains relatively constant and is independent of the
filter forward flow. The media will drop to the surface of the filter while the lighter sus-
pended solids will be washed out with the backwash liquid. Moving bed filter manu-
facturers typically set the reject weir to provide a wash water flow rate of about 10 to
12 gpm per filter module. This is the equivalent to a wash water rate of approximately
10% of the forward flow at an average filter loading rate of 4.9 m/h (2 gpm/cu ft).
The backwash frequency is quantified by the bed turnover rate. If used for solids
removal only, moving bed filters media turnover rates range from 305 to 460 mm/h or
four to six bed turnovers per day. To maintain sufficient biomass in the filter for deni-
trification, the bed turnover rate must be reduced to approximately one to three
turnovers per day or 100 to 250 mm/h.
4.1.5 Non-Backwashing, Open-Structure Media Filters

These processes consist of submerged, static media to support the growth of biofilm for
BOD removal, nitrification, or denitrification, but solids are intended to be carried
through the reactor. This type of BAF typically is referred to as a submerged aerated fil-
ter (SAF). If suspended solids removal is required beyond adsorption and capture in the
biofilm, then it is carried out in a separate downstream process. A diagram of a typical
simple submerged activated filter (SAF) system is shown in Figure 13.37. The system
arrangement depends on the supplier and duty of the SAF. This section is adapted in
part from Rundle (2009).
The SAF media used may be plastic (either random or structured) or mineral. The
media must be open in structure to prevent blockage by accumulated solids. Structured
plastic media systems must include provisions for retaining the media. Mineral media
has a high specific gravity and is unlikely to be dislodged in normal use. In the United
Kingdom, blast furnace slag is readily available and is used for both carbonaceous and
nitrification applications.

FIGURE 13.37 Schematic of non-backwashing, open-structure media filter (Rundle, 2009).
Influent wastewater typically is introduced at the bottom of the reactor. Larger sys-
tems may have more than one cell in series or have a more sophisticated flow distribu-
tion system, similar to upflow BAF, or use the air and the headloss to distribute the flu-
ids when used in a downflow mode (Sulzer Biopur®). Proper distribution of water and
air has to be assured to scour all parts of the media and prevent anaerobisis in the outer
zones (Cooper-Smith and Schofield, 2004).
For SAFs using mineral media, the air and influent distribution systems are com-
bined with a floor system designed to support the heavier media. This system configu-
ration is shown in Figure 13.38. Influent wastewater enters via a central channel in the
base of the reactor, which is covered by plates. The plates are covered by rows of spe-
cially designed concrete underdrain blocks that are fitted with interlocking plastic jack-
ets. For upflow SAF, treated effluent is discharged over a weir or trough at the top of the
cell. For downflow SAF, piping or channels in the bottom collect the treated effluent.

FIGURE 13.38 Mineral media upflow submerged activated filter with block under drain
(courtesy of Severn Trent Services).
In addition to process needs, aeration is required to prevent media blockage. The

air can be supplied either by a grid consisting of perforated distribution pipes or by dif-
fusers installed at the bottom of the SAF. Though improved air distribution may be
achieved by using diffusers, some studies have shown that in packed beds, air bubble
coalescence results in little to no oxygen transfer advantage (Hodkinson et al., 1998). In
some WWTPs, aeration scouring was insufficient to keep the media clean resulting in
deteriorated performance. Therefore, it is good design practice to maintain a backwash
or backflush option where air and water flows can be increased to scour the media peri-
odically. Jet aeration, in which air is injected into a moving stream of water typically via
a Venturi and dispersed into fine bubbles, also has been coupled with a shallow SAF
plant for small communities (Daude and Stephenson, 2004).

4.2 Media for Use in Biologically Activated Filter Reactors

Several media types are available for use in BAF reactors. Media selection is integral to
treatment objectives, flow and backwashing regimes, and specific process equipment
manufacturer. Media typically can be categorized as mineral media and plastic media.
In most cases, mineral media is denser than water and plastic media is buoyant. The
media needs to resist breakdown from abrasion during backwashing and chemical
degradation by constituents in municipal wastewater. Commercially available BAF
systems and their media are listed in Table 13.11.
4.3 Backwashing and Air Scouring

Backwashing filters maximizes capture and run times and guarantees proper effluent
quality. Proper backwashing requires filter bed expansion and rigorous scouring,
followed by efficient rinsing. Poor filter cleaning will result in shortened filter runs,
accumulation of solids, and deteriorating performance. Accumulation of solids and
media (mudballing) produces shortcircuiting of water flow and can result in exces-
sive media loss.
Feed characteristics and type of treatment provided by the BAF affect solids pro-
duction and frequency of backwashing. For wastewaters with high suspended solids
concentrations, a significant portion of solids is removed by filtration. Inert solids will
TABLE 13.11 Commercially available biologically activated filter reactor systems and media.
Specific
Specific Size surface area
Process Supplier Flow regime Media gravity (mm) (m2/m3)
Astrasand ®
Paques/Siemens Upflow, Sand 2.5 1–1.6
moving bed
Biobead® Brightwater F.L.I. Upflow Polyethylene 0.95
Biocarbone® OTV/Veolia Downflow Expanded shale 1.6 2–6
Biofor® Degremont Upflow Expanded clay 1.5–1.6 2.7, 3.5 1 400–1 600
and 4.5
Biolest Stereau Upflow Pumice/pouzzolane 1.2
Biopur Sulzer/Aker Downflow Polyethylene Structured
Kvaerner
Biostyr® Kruger/Veolia Upflow Polystyrene 0.04–0.05 3.3–5 1 000
Colox™ Severn Trent Upflow Sand 2.6 2–3 656
Denite® Severn Trent Downflow Sand 2.6 2–3 656
Dynasand® Parkson Upflow, Sand 2.6 1–1.6
moving bed
Eliminite® FB Leopold Downflow Sand 2.6 2
Submerged Severn Trent Up/down Slag 2–2.5 28–40 240
activated filter Washed gravel 2.6 19–38

be retained within the media until removed by backwashing, but biological solids may
be degraded depending upon retention time. Inorganic salts of iron or aluminum,
which may be added to the influent for phosphorus removal, will form precipitates
within the media bed and increase backwash frequency. Solids growth for tertiary BAF
systems is typically low, so backwashing is relatively infrequent (one backwash per 36
to 48 hours). When solids content is low, foam caused by detergent in the wastewater
may be a problem because the scour aeration is concentrated in a small surface. Foam
also can be an issue during process startup. Netting is recommended across the surface
of the cells to keep the foam from blowing about the site.
Reactor characteristics and media type influence backwash frequency. More
openly structured media capture fewer solids. This reduces backwash frequency, but
effluent wastewater may contain higher suspended solids concentrations. Fine mineral
media typically have the best solids retention characteristics but tend to require more
frequent backwashing.
Intense backwashing regimes have been developed to clean rapid gravity filters
used in potable water treatment (Fitzpatrick, 2001). The bed typically is fluidized to
allow the grains to separate and move freely and to remove as much accumulated mate-
rial as possible. However, fluidization is avoided in BAFs; instead, the removal of
excess biomass and accumulated solids is achieved during backwash by intense media
contact and air scouring in a slightly expanded media bed.
Table 13.12 provides a comparison of typical BAF backwashing requirements and
Section 4.1 described backwashing for each type of BAF configuration. Final back-
washing requirements and duration typically are developed in collaboration with the
BAF manufacturer. For example, the backwash sequence for an upflow sunken media
BAF typically includes drain down, air scour, air and water scour (may include cycling
between air only and air/water scour), a water-only rinse, and filter-to-waste when the
backwashed cell initially is placed back in operation. Thus, backwash water is deliv-
ered only to the BAF cell for a portion of the total duration. Media, hydraulic and
organic loading rates, and treatment objectives influence the frequency and duration of
each step. It is often adjusted during facility commissioning and long term operation.
4.4 Biologically Activated Filter Process Design

Several factors influence process design for BAF systems. As discussed earlier, mass-
transfer limitations into the biofilm often limit substrate removal performance, and the
media-specific surface area available for biofilm attachment and substrate flux affect
biofilm reactor design. Several physical conditions within BAF systems also signifi-
cantly affect performance including oxygen availability and air flow velocity, filtration

TABLE 13.12 Summary of biologically active filter (BAF) backwashing (BW) requirements
(Degremont, 2008; Kruger, 2008; Severn Trent, 2004; Parkson, 2004).
Total Total
Backwash backwash backwash
water rate, Air scour Total water wastewater
m/h rate, m/h duration, volume volume
(gpm/ft2) (scfm/ft2) (minc) per cellc per celld
Upflow, sunken media 20 (8.2) 97 (5.3) 50 9.2 m3/m2 12 m3/m2

normal BW energetic (225 gal/sq ft) (293 gal/sq ft)
BWa 30 (12.3) 97 (5.3) 25 9.2 m3/m2 10 m3/m2
(225 gal/sq ft) (245 gal/sq ft)
Upflow, floating media
normal BW 55 (22.5) 12 (0.65) 16 2.5 m3/m3 mediae 2.5 m3/m3 mediae
(18.7 gal/cu ft media) (18.7 gal/cu ft
media)
mini-BWb 55 (22.5) 12 (0.65) 5 1.5 m3/m3 mediae 1.5 m3/m3 mediae
(11.2 gal/cu ft media) (11.2 gal/cu ft
media)
Downflow, sunken media 15 (6) 90 (5) 20–25 3.75–5 m3/m2 3.75–5 m3/m2
(90–120 gal/sq ft) (90–120 gal/sq ft)
Upflow, moving bedf 0.5–0.6 Continuous Continuous 55–67 m3/d 55–67 m3/d
(0.2–0.24) through (14,400–17,300 gpd) (14,400–17,300 gpd)
air lift
a
Energetic backwash once every one to two months depending on trend in “clean bed” headloss following normal backwash.
b
Mini-backwash applied as interim measure when pollutant load exceeds design load.
c
Backwash duration reflects total duration of the typical backwash cycle, which includes valve cycle time and pumping and
nonpumping steps. The duration of each step is adjustable via programmable logic controller and supervisory control and
data acquisition control systems.
d
The total backwash wastewater volume includes drain and filter to waste steps where applicable.
e
Backwash volume requirements for upflow floating media BAF typically are based on media volume rather than cell area
because depths vary.
f
Continuous backwash filter backwashing is based on a standard 4.65 m2 cell and a typical weir setting for reject flow of
approximately 2.3–2.8 m3/h/cell (10–12 gpm/cu ft/cell).
velocity, media packing density, and backwash efficiency. These factors all affect exter-
nal mass transfer, and indirectly, penetration into the biofilm. Because of the impor-
tance of these parameters, and perhaps because of uncertainty of actual media-specific
surface area, BAF performance results typically are expressed as a function of substrate
volumetric loading rates rather than surface area.
Deterministic modeling of BAFs based on kinetic expressions is complicated, as
biofilms are complex and highly dynamic structures. Therefore uncertainty of predic-
tion persists because of the many variables involved which affect the degree of soluble
and particulate substrate diffusion, rate of biomass growth, biofilm density, and type
and quantity of microorganisms in the biofilm. The filtering capability of BAFs makes

the already difficult task of quantifying the degree of particle hydrolysis even more
important in BAFs than in activated sludge systems or other biological processes with
downstream solids separation. However, although continued development and cali-
bration of biofilm models is needed, these models provide an excellent tool for evalua-
tion and development of more tailored designs.
Parameters governing treatment capacity of BAF are as follows:
• Substrate loading (volumetric loading rates in terms of kg BOD/m3 d or kg

N/m3 d), which will determine media volume. Guidelines for design loading
rates have been compiled from the literature and are a function of wastewater
characterization, substrate flux, temperature, and physical conditions in the
biofilm reactor as discussed above. Design guidance is provided based on flow
regime and typical media and backwashing practices in use for different BAF
reactors.
• Filtration rate, or total volume of wastewater applied per area of media per unit
time (m3/m2 d), also is used to determine filter surface area. Filtration velocity
affects system headloss, solids capture, and air and water distribution within the
media, diffusion, and detention time.
• Solids holding capacity, which will determine backwash frequency.
4.4.1 Secondary Treatment

This section reviews criteria for BAFs designed for carbon oxidation and suspended
solids removal in secondary treatment.
Volumetric BOD loading rates vary widely in the literature for upflow BAFs
designed for secondary treatment, ranging from 1.5 to 6 kg/m3 d. Table 13.13 provides
COD and BOD applied loading rates and removal efficiencies for several pilot- and full-
scale references.
Average and peak hydraulic loading rates for secondary treatment systems typi-
cally range from 4 to 7 m/h and 10 to 20 m/h, respectively. Because BAFs for secondary
treatment typically are placed immediately downstream of primary clarification, the
applied volumetric mass loading rate is almost always the limiting design parameter
(see Table 13.14).
For simultaneous secondary treatment and nitrification, the carbon loading at
lower temperatures needs to be limited to less than 2.5 kg BOD/m3 d (Rogalla et al.,
1990). Simultaneously, a total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) loading removal rate of 0.4 kg
N/m3 d can be obtained.
The backwash frequency for BAFs designed for secondary treatment is related to
the applied organic and TSS load, degree of particle hydrolysis taking place within

TABLE 13.13 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) applied
loading rate and removal efficiencies for selected full- and pilot-scale biologically activated filter
(BAF) facilities.
BAF applied volumetric loading
Removal
Wastewater treatment plant kg BOD5/m3 ⴢd kg COD/m3 ⴢd efficiency, % Source and notes
Roanoke, Virginia (upflow, 2.8 80 (2001) First-stage BAF performance

sunken media) 80–96 (2006) testing data from two-stage
C N BAF system (2006)
(Degremont, 2008).
Seine Centre, Colombes, 2.8 (average) 5.9 (average) 86 2000 full-scale data
France (upflow, sunken 72
media)
King County, Seattle, 4.4 80 Neethling et al. (2002)
Washington (pilot, upflow (average loading and
sunken media) removal efficiency)
Binghamton, New York BOD5: 3.7–7.8 60–75 Average of three test phases
(pilot, upflow sunken during five-month pilot
media) test, March 1999–July 1999
the media, biomass yield, and solids retention capacity of the media. Because of the
higher biomass yield of heterotrophic bacteria and higher applied TSS loadings, BAFs
for secondary treatment (BOD removal) need to be backwashed at least once per day.
More frequent backwashing results in less hydrolysis of particulate BOD, which in
turn results in lower oxygen demand and higher backwash waste solids quantities.
Phipps and Love (2001) calculated biomass observed yields in the range of 0.43 to
0.48 mg biomass as COD generated per mg substrate COD consumed. They also
TABLE 13.14 Typical biologically active filter (BAF) loading rates for secondary treatment.
Applied volumetric loading, Hydraulic loading, Removal
Type of BAF kg/m3 ⴢd (lb/d/1000 cu ft) m3/m2 ⴢh (gpm/cu ft) efficiency, %
Upflow sunken or BOD: 1.5–6 (94–370) 3–16 (1.2–6.6) BOD: 65–90%

floating media, TSS: 0.8–3.5 (50–220) TSS: 65–90%
backwashinga,b
Upflow, sunken mediac 10
Upflow, floating mediac 8
Submerged, non-backwashingd BOD: 0.8–1.5 (50–94) @ 20°C 2–12 (0.8–5) @ 20°C BOD: 85–95%
Notes: Design loading rates depend on specific wastewater characteristics and level of treatment required.
a
Degremont, 2007.
b
Kruger, 2008.
c
German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste, 1997.
d
Severn Trent, 2008.

determined that 40 to 46% of applied particles underwent hydrolysis in a full-scale

Biofor® treating conventional primary clarifier effluent for carbon removal (back-
wash frequency of once per day). The main limitation of any BAF remains the solids
storage capacity. The volume that can be accumulated between backwashes is 2.5 to
4 kg TSS/m3 d depending on the media selection, water velocity, and water tempera-
ture (Degremont, 2007).
Backwash water typically contains 500 to 1 500 mg/L suspended solids, but this
varies with the type of treatment, cycle time, and water used. The BOD removal pro-
duces biomass from growth of the microorganisms which convert degradable material
into new cells, carbon dioxide, and water, similar to that of activated sludge. Sludge
production is typically 0.7 to 1 kg solids per kg BOD removed. In a two-stage SAF/BAF
in Aberdeen, the German ATV Standard equation to predict solids from activated
sludge was successfully applied (Jolly, 2004; German Association for Water, Waste-
water and Waste [ATV-DVWK], 2000).
Below is a design example for a submerged, upflow BAF system for secondary
treatment without nitrification:
Determine the total volume of BAF media, total BAF reactor filtration area, and
number of BAF cells required to achieve BOD5 and TSS removal efficiencies (EBOD and
ETSS) of at least 90% when treating domestic wastewater. Determine BAF backwash
wastewater volume and solids concentration. Assume the following conditions apply
for this example:
• Influent (including returns) maximum month flow rate: Q0 94,800 m3/d;

• Influent (including returns) flow peaking factor: PF 2.8;
• BOD5 after primary settling: CBOD5 220 mg/L;
• TSS after primary settling: CTSS 150 mg/L;
• BAF media height: HM 4 m;
• BAF effluent used as backwash water;
• BAF backwash return flow equalized and combined with other return flows at
head of plant.
(1) Calculate BOD5 and TSS load to the BAF system:
BOD5 load (Q0)(BOD5)/1000 (94 800)(220)/1000 20 856 kg/d;

TSS load (Q0)(TSS)/1000 (94 800)(150)/1000 14 220 kg/d (31 284 lbs/d).
(2) Assume maximum volumetric applied loading rates (Table 13.14):
BOD5 3 kg/m3 d for 90% removal efficiency;

TSS 1.6 kg/m3 d for 90% removal efficiency.

(3) Calculate total BAF media volume (VM) required:
V1BOD 20 866/3 6955 m3;

V2TSS 14 220/1.6 8888 m3 TSS load is limiting.
(4) Calculate total BAF filtration area (A) required based on volumetric loading and
filter depth:
Avol V/HM 8888/4 2222 m2 (23 909 cu ft).
(5) Calculate total BAF filtration area based on maximum hydraulic loading rate of
20 m/h:
Ahyd. (94 800/24)(PF)/20 (3950)(2.8)/20 553 m2 2222 m2, Avol is

limiting.
(6) Select standard cell size, Acell (144 m2), provided by BAF manufacturers.
(7) Calculate number of BAF cells required assuming one backwash per cell per
24 hours:
n 2222/144 15.4
N 15.4 15.4/24 16 BAF cells
Note: Depending on the initial capacity needs compared to design capacity, the
designer should consider incorporating a redundant BAF unit for reliability and ease of
maintenance.
(8) Check BAF media retention capacity (see Table 13.13).
Assume 2.5 kg/m3 cycle solids retention capacity:
Total media retention capacity (2.5)(16)(144)(4) 23 040 kg/cycle;

Biomass yield Y 0.7 1 kg TSS/kg BOD removed (assume Y 1.0);
Solids production (Y)(BOD5 load)(EBOD);
(1.0)(20 856)(0.90) 18 770 kg/d 782 kg/h;
Backwash frequency (23 040)/(782) 29 hours.
(9) Check maximum hydraulic loading rate with one cell in backwash and one cell
out of service:
(Q0)(PF)/(N 2)(Acell) (94 800/24)(2.8)/(16 2)(144) 5.5 m/h 20 m/h

(10) Calculate BAF backwash wastewater volume and solids concentration based on
one backwash per cell per day (volume of backwash wastewater produced per
media volume, VolBW, from Table 13.12):
Assume VolBW 3 m3/m3 media;

Volume of backwash wastewater produced per backwash, VBW;
VBW (VolBW)(HM)(Acell) (3)(4)(144) 1728 m3.
Backwash wastewater solids concentration, CBW;

CBW (Y)(BOD5 load)(EBOD)/(N)(VBW);
CBW (1.0)(20 856)(0.9)(1/16)(1/1728) 679 kg/m3 679 mg/L.
This set of calculations represents an initial estimate of the BAF facility sizing. Devel-
opment of the final design is typically an iterative process between the design engineer
and the process equipment manufacturers being considered. Refinements typically are
made by incorporating a combination of the manufacturer’s experience and more
detailed process modeling results.
4.4.2 Nitrification
Temperature, effluent requirements, fluid velocities (air and water), and loading influ-
ence nitrification capacity. As discussed in Section 2.0, biochemical transformation
processes occurring in the biofilm are dependent on substrates diffusing in and out of
the biofilm. Reaction rates or level of treatment achieved are defined by the rate limited
substrate. Bulk phase ammonia, alkalinity, oxygen, and COD concentrations affect nitri-
fication. As COD loadings increase, oxygen tends to become the rate limited substrate.
Competition for oxygen intensifies, and the heterotrophic respiration at the outer lay-
ers of the biofilm will reduce availability of oxygen for nitrification in the deeper layers
(Wanner and Gujer, 1985). Rogalla et al. (1990) found that nitrification tends to decrease
when biodegradable COD loadings approach 4 kg/m3 d. The influence of the C/N
ratio on nitrification is illustrated in Figure 13.39 (Rother, 2005).
In BAFs, increasing fluid velocities increase external mass transfer, which leads to
higher nitrification rates (Tschui et al., 1993). Under constant volumetric loading rates
of 1.3 to 1.4 kg NH3-N/m3 d and 0.65
0.2 kg CBOD5/m3 d, Husovitz et al. (1999)
observed a 17% increase in ammonia mass removal (up to 1.26 kg NH3-N/m3 d) as the
hydraulic loading rate was increased from 5.1 to 15.8 m/h. If temperature, effluent
quality, and removal efficiency are not the limiting factors, then ammonia removal of
80 to 90% at ammonia loads between 2.5 and 2.9 kg/m3 d can be achieved (Peladan,
et al., 1996; Peladan et al., 1997). On a full-scale demonstration cell (surface 144 m2) at
22°C, 91% removal of NH3-N at loadings up to 2.3 kg/m3 d was observed (Pujol et al.,

FIGURE 13.39 Nitrification rate for differently pretreated raw wastewaters as a function of
C/N ratio (temperature adjusted to 12°C; expanded clay vw 8 to 8.5 m/h, vG 20 m/h)
(Rother, 2005) (BOD biochemical oxygen demand; COD chemical oxygen demand).
1994). A summary of typical loading rates for nitrification applications is provided in

Table 13.15.
Similar to water velocity, the increase of process air velocity improves nitrification
rates as higher process air velocities increase turbulence and external mass transfer (Fig-
ure 13.40) (Tschui et al., 1993; Tschui et al., 1994).
When BAFs are operated for significant periods under reduced ammonia loading
conditions, the inventory of biomass also will decrease. An example of this was shown
in testing by Tschui et al. (1994) where volumetric ammonia removal rates decreased by
30% after a transition from operation under non-NH3-N limiting conditions to lower
volumetric NH3-N loading rates. This is an important consideration for separate-stage
nitrification BAF applications in which some nitrification can occur in the main secondary
plant during summer months. The BAF will need to be able to treat higher ammonia
loads when temperature drops and upstream nitrification decreases.
Nitrification performance also depends on long-term loading of the reactor. Excess
biomass accumulates in the media that can be available when peaks are applied because
they typically are associated with higher velocities or concentrations, which allow

TABLE 13.15 Typical biologically active filter (BAF) loading rates for nitrification.
Type of BAF kg/m3 ⴢd (lb/d/1000 cu ft) m3/m2 ⴢh (gpm/cu ft) efficiency, %
Upflow, sunken or floating BOD: 1.5–3 (94–188) 3–12 (1.2–5) BOD: 70–90%
media, backwashinga,b TSS: 1.0–1.6 (62–100) TSS: 65–85%
following primary NH3-N: 0.4–0.6 (31–62) @ 10°C NH3-N: 65–75%
treatment 1.0–1.6 (62–100) @ 20°C
Upflow, sunken or floating BOD: 1–2 (62–125) 3–20 (1.2–8.2) BOD: 40–75%
media, backwashinga,b TSS: 1.0–1.6 (62–100) TSS: 40–75%
following secondary NH3-N: 0.5–1.0 (31–62) @ 10°C NH3-N: 75–95%
treatment 1.0–1.6 (62–100) @ 20°C
Upflow, floating media, NH3-N: 1.5 (94)
backwashingc following
secondary treatment
Upflow, sunken media, NH3-N: 1.2 (75)
backwashingc following
secondary treatment
Submerged, non-backwashingd NH3-N: 0.2–0.9 (12–56) @ 20°C 2–12 (0.8–5) @ 20°C NH3-N: 85–95%
following secondary treatment
Notes: The design loading rates depend on specific wastewater characteristics, upstream treatment processes and level of
treatment required.
a
Degremont, 2007.
b
Kruger, 2008.
c
d
Severn Trent, 2008.
deeper penetration of the substrates into the biofilm. Figure 13.41 illustrates that max-
imum instantaneous removal rate can be twice the average applied load, up to the
maximum capacity of the reactor.
Lower operating temperatures have a significant effect on nitrification. Comparing
three types of tertiary nitrifying BAFs (downflow mineral media and either floating or
modular upflow plastic media), the following long term temperature dependency of
nitrification was established (Tschui et al., 1994):
rV ,NH 4 -N (T ) rV ,NH 4 -N (T10°C) e kT (T10) (13.22)
Where,
rV,NH4-N(T) volumetric nitrification rate at temperature, T (°C);
rV,NH4-N(T10°C) volumetric nitrification rate at T 10°C;
kT temperature coefficient (Arrhenius factor) 0.03/°C.
These authors found that the temperature coefficient was 0.03/°C for all three types of
media studied (corresponding to an Arrhenius factor of 1.04).

FIGURE 13.40 Effects of air velocity on nitrification (Tschui et al., 1993).
Nitrifying organisms have a relatively low solids yield [about 0.05 kg per kg N
removed (Downing et al., 1964a; 1964b)]. Most of the sludge produced by tertiary BAFs
is derived from the suspended solids removed by filtration. A portion of these solids
undergo hydrolysis and heterotrophic degradation. The net sludge production is about
0.5 to 0.8 kg per kg of solids removed.
4.4.3 Combined Nitrification and Denitrification

Nitrogen removal can be accomplished by either oxidizing the ammonia in a first stage
followed by reducing the nitrate in a second stage where an external carbon source is
added (referred to as post-denitrification), or by recycling the nitrified effluent to a den-
itrification stage before nitrification (pre-denitrification). In pre-denitrification, the nitri-
fied effluent is recycled to a separate anoxic BAF reactor located upstream of the reactor.
In some upflow, floating media BAF configurations, a portion of the nitrified effluent
may be recycled to an anoxic zone in the bottom of the media (U.S. Patent No. 6632365).
If sufficient carbon is available and the anoxic zone is large enough, then nitrogen
removal is proportional to the recycle but with a diminishing return. Recycle typically

FIGURE 13.41 Maximum nitrification versus on long-term average loading (Rother,

2005; developed from Le Tallec et al. [1997] and Nicolavcic [2002]).
is limited to ratios of 3 or total nitrogen removals of 75% because of the excessive

hydraulic load and oxygen recycle. The minimum nitrate concentration achievable
assuming complete nitrification and denitrification and ignoring nitrogen uptake
because of cell synthesis is given by:
NH 3 -N INF
NO 3 -N EFF (13.23)
R 1
Where,
NH3–NINF ammonia concentration in influent;
NO3–NEFF nitrate concentrations in effluent respectively;
R(QR/Qin) recirculation ratio.
Recycling treated wastewater has the advantage of increasing upflow velocity in both
pre-denitrification and nitrification reactors, which increases the reaction rate.
Ryhiner et al. (1993) tested a pre-denitrification configuration using submerged
structured media BAFs with a final polishing filter to ensure low nitrogen and suspended
solids. Approximately 60 to 70% NO3-N removal was achieved in the pre-denitrification

reactor at loading rates ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 kg NO3-N/m3 d. During a one-year
study, Pujol and Tarallo (2000) achieved approximately 68% NO3-N removal (or 0.9 kg
NO3-N/m3 d) with typical wastewater feed to the pre-denitrification BAF and up to
90% removal when additional substrate (methanol) was added. A range of recycle rates
(150 to 350%) and corresponding filtration velocities (9.4 to 16.9 m3/m2 h) also were
tested. Design guidance for pre-denitrification BAF systems is provided in Table 13.16.
4.4.4 Tertiary Denitrification

This section focuses on process design criteria for post-denitrification BAF including
half-order nitrogen removal kinetics, temperature, supplemental carbon and nitrogen
release cycle requirements, and hydraulic, volumetric mass, and solids loading.
Volumetric loading (and removal) rates vary widely, with citations ranging from 0.2
to 4.8 kg/m3 (15 to 300 lbs/1000 cu ft) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA],
1993; WEF, 1998; Tchobanoglous, 2003; Degremont, 2007). Many post-denitrification filters
are preceded by an activated sludge biological nutrient removal process. Because some
denitrification is achieved upstream, filter influent NOx-N concentrations are typically
less than 10 mg/L. In these cases, hydraulic considerations govern post-denitrification
design and many installations are operating at mass loading rates of approximately 0.3
to 0.6 kg/m3 d (20 to 40 lbs/d/1000 cu ft). The range of loading rates for upflow post-
denitrification BAF reactors tends to be higher than for post-denitrification sand filters
because they are not designed for the same level of TSS removal and are not as limited
by hydraulics. A summary of typical volumetric and hydraulic loading criteria for dif-
ferent types of denitrification filters is provided in Table 13.17.
Harremoes (1976) suggested that denitrification filter kinetics are dependent on
diffusion of substrate into pores in the biofilm. Zero-order heterogeneous reactions in
TABLE 13.16 Typical biologically active filter loading rates (BAF) for pre-denitrification.
Applied volumetric loading, Hydraulic loading,
Type of BAF kg/m3 ⴢd (lb/d/1000 cu ft) m3/m2 ⴢh (gpm/cu ft) Removal efficiency, %
a
Upflow, sunken media separate N-NO3: 1–1.2 (62–75) 10–30 (4–12) NO3-N: 75%–85%
BAF stages (pre-denitrification
nitrification)
Upflow, floating mediab combined 1–1.2 (62–75) 12–21.5 (4.9–8.8) NO3-N: 70% without
anoxic/aerated BAF stage supplemental carbon;
85% with supplemental
carbon
Notes: Design and performance are dependent on wastewater characteristics, upstream treatment processes, effluent goals,
and readily biodegradable carbon substrate.
a
Degremont, 2007.
b
Ninassi et al., 1998.

TABLE 13.17 Typical biologically active filters (BAF) loading rates for post-denitrification.

Type of BAF kg/m3 ⴢd (lb/d/1 000 cu ft) m3/m2 ⴢh (gpm/cu ft) efficiency, %
Downflow, sunken mediaa NO3-N: 0.3–3.2 (20–200) 4.8–8.4 (2–3.5) average NO3-N: 75–95%
12–18 (5–7.5) peak
Upflow, sunken mediab NO3-N: 0.8–5 (50–300) 10–35 (4 to14) NO3-N: 75–95%
Upflow, sunken mediac 2 (125)
Upflow, floating mediac 1.2–1.5 (75–94)
Moving bed, continuous NO3-N: 0.3–2 (20–120) 4.8–5.6 (2–4) average NO3-N: 75–95%
backwashd 13.4 (6) peak
Notes: Selected loading rates are dependent on treatment objectives, upstream processes, wastewater characteristics, and
carbon source.
a
Severn Trent, 2004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.
b
Degremont, 2007.
c
d
deBarbadillo et al., 2005.
a pore that is only partially penetrated by the substrate result in half-order reaction
kinetics for nitrate concentration. Half-order reaction kinetics result in the following
expressions for a plug flow reactor (Harremoes, 1976; Hultman et al., 1994):
dS
rDN k 1 ⋅ SB ,NO3 -N
dt 2
or (13.24)
1
SB ,NO3 -N Sin ,NO3 -N ⋅ k1 ⋅ t
2 2
Where,
rDN denitrification rate per unit volume of filter (mg/L min, or
g/m3 min);
SB,NO3-N bulk-liquid nitrate-nitrogen concentration (effluent) (mg/L);
Sin,NO3-N nitrate-nitrogen concentration in the influent stream (mg/L);
k 1 half-order reaction coefficient per unit volume of filter

2
[(mg/L)1/2 min,
h
or (g/m3)1/2 min]; t filter empty bed retention time (min);
qA
h filter media height (m);
qA filter surface hydraulic loading rate (m3/m2 min).

Substituting ST 0.87 dissolved oxygen, mg/L 2.47 NO3-N, mg/L 1.53 NO2-N
mg/L for SB and Sin (McCarty et al., 1969):
1 h
SB ,T Sin ,T ⋅ k1 ⋅ (13.25)
2 2 qA
or
SB ,T a⋅h
1 (13.26)
Sin ,T Sin ,T
Where,
k
a
2 ⋅ qA
Profile sampling conducted at different media depths by Harremoes (1976), Hultman

et al. (1994), and Janning et al. (1995) have shown the half-order kinetic model rea-
sonably correlates to observed values. A summary of half-order kinetic constants for
several post-denitrification BAF is provided in Table 13.18. Because of relatively lim-
ited information on half-order rate constants at full-scale facilities, several examples
also have been included. The rate constant is calculated from influent and effluent
data under the assumption that plug flow conditions were achieved as demonstrated
in earlier work.
There is a significant difference in design hydraulic loading rates for upflow post-
denitrification BAF and post-denitrification BAFs that serve as the final filtration step
(typically downflow BAF with sunken media or moving bed continuous backwash fil-
ters). Average hydraulic loading rates for denitrification sand filters typically range
from 4 to 9 m/h. Peak hour rates typically are limited to 18 m/h with one cell out of ser-
vice for backwashing. When upflow BAF are used for post-denitrification applications,
larger media size allows for higher hydraulic loading rates of 10 to 35 m/h, but solids
retention capability may be reduced.
Hydraulic loading rates also affect contact time within the filter. Original denitri-
fication filter design curves related percent NO3-N removal to empty-bed detention
time (EBDT) (Savage, 1983). Data from pilot and full-scale systems superimposed onto
existing curves suggested that NOx-N removals of 90% could be achieved at hydraulic
residence time of 10 minutes at temperatures ranging from 13 to 21°C (deBarbadillo
et al., 2005).
In addition to removal of solids from influent wastewater, biomass is produced
within the filter. Typically, a biomass yield coefficient of 0.4 g biomass COD produced/g

TABLE 13.18 Half-order kinetic constants for tertiary denitrification filters (BAF biologically
activated filter).
Half-order Half-order
constanta constanta
(based on (using NO3-N,
NO3-N) NO2-N, and DO)
Plant Temperature, °C [(mg/L)1/2 ⴢmin] [(mg/L)1/2 ⴢmin] Notes
Pilot scale downflow 6–19°C 0.25–0.90 N/A Based on profiles through

filter, 3–4 mm depth of media.
gravel mediab
Full-scale sunken 11.7°C 0.09–0.15 N/A Based on profiles through
media denitrifying depth of media. Values
BAF, Denmarkc transposed from half-order
constants reported per unit
of media surface area.
De Grote Lucht STP, 9–16°C 0.28 0.46 Based on inlet and outlet
The Netherlands concentrations. February
(full scale)d through May 2003
De Grote Lucht STP 19–24°C 0.32 0.50 Based on inlet and outlet
(full scale)d concentrations. July through
September 2003
Hagerstown, 14–15°C 0.23 0.38 Based on inlet and outlet
Maryland (pilot)d concentrations. Average
loading conditions, full
denitrification
Hagerstown, 14–15°C 0.36 0.64 Based on inlet and outlet
Maryland (pilot)d concentrations. Peak
loading conditions
a
Half-order reaction coefficients are reported per unit volume.
b
Harremoes, 1976.
c
Janning et al., 1995.
d
deBarbadillo et al., 2005.
methanol COD consumed (approximately 0.4 g VSS/g methanol consumed) is ade-

quate for post-denitrification systems using methanol as the carbon source. When esti-
mating solids quantities, it is assumed that approximately 10% of the biodegradable
solids removed and produced undergo hydrolysis.
Post-denitrification sand filters (downflow sunken media and moving bed) typi-
cally serve as the final solids separation step and can produce an effluent with average
TSS of 5 mg/L or less. Downflow, sunken media filter manufacturers have found that
as much as 9.8 kg/m2 solids an reliably captured between backwashes (Severn Trent,
2004). Normal design procedures account for backwash frequencies based on 4.9 kg/m2.
Data from a moving bed, continuous backwashing denitrification filter pilot test in

Hagerstown, Maryland, suggest that solids loading rates to the filters should be lim-
ited to 2.45 kg/m2 or less on average to maintain an average effluent TSS concentration
of 5 mg/L or lower (Schauer et al., 2006). This limitation is specific to denitrification
mode under the conditions tested and at a media recirculation rate. Other BAF config-
urations, including upflow with sunken and floating media, have installations that
achieve final effluent TSS as low as 5 mg/L; with larger media sizes, however, overall
solids filtration is not as robust and the effluent may be comparable to high quality sec-
ondary clarifier effluent.
For tertiary denitrification systems, such as filters, BAFs, and MBBRs with a post-
anoxic fixed-film zone, the supplemental carbon source is vital to system operation.
Methanol feed requirements can be estimated using Equation 13.27, as shown below
(McCarty et al., 1969).
SM 2.47 (NO3-N removed) 1.53 (NO2-N removed)

0.87 (Dissolved oxygen removed) (13.27)
Equation (13.27) applies specifically to methanol. The COD requirement for denitrifi-
cation varies depending on the carbon substrate used. The amount of substrate COD
stabilized by 1 mg of oxygen is (Copp and Dold, 1998; Melcer, 2003):
COD/NO3-N 1/(1 Y) (13.28)
Where,
Y heterotrophic yield coefficient (mg biomass COD formed per unit substrate
COD used).
A value of 0.66 is typically used for aerobic respiration. For denitrification, a 2.86 con-
version factor is incorporated into the equation to account for the amount of nitrate
required to accept the same number of electrons. This yields the following expression
for COD requirements for anoxic growth:
COD/NO3-N 2.86/(1 Y) (13.29)
An estimate of supplemental carbon substrate requirements can be made by factoring

the appropriate anoxic yield coefficient into the calculation. Determination of anoxic

yield coefficients for different substrates has been a topic of recent research (Mokhayeri
et al., 2006; Nichols et al., 2007; Cherchi et al., 2008). For example, incorporating a
methanol anoxic yield coefficient of 0.38 into equation 13.29 results in a requirement of
4.6 mg COD/mg NO3-N denitrified. Based on a COD-to-methanol ratio of 1.5, the
methanol requirement is 3.07 mg methanol/mg NO3-N denitrified.
4.4.5 Phosphorus Removal Considerations

Similar to those discussed for activated sludge systems, several methods are available
to remove phosphorus:
• Pre-precipitation using metallic salts (typically iron or aluminum) in primary

settling;
• Precipitation using metallic salts at the biofilter stage; and
• Biological removal.
Primary-stage precipitation is widely used because high-rate settling often is combined

with BAFs, which achieves some phosphorus removal in chemically enhanced primary
treatment. Multipoint dosing can be applied to reach low-effluent concentrations, but
phosphorus limitation has to be prevented to allow efficient biological reactions (Ode-
gaard, 2005). Precipitation by adding iron salts to the biofilter is possible, but the
increase of mass of solids removed by the biofilter results in higher backwash fre-
quency. When ferric chloride was used in a two-stage plant and precipitant was added
in the second (nitrifying) stage, filter run times were reduced and a smaller medium
was required to retain the floc (Sagberg et al., 1992).
Biological phosphorus removal has been developed for suspended growth sys-
tems, in which alternation of anaerobic and aerobic zones by recycling biomass encour-
ages phosphorus uptake (Barnard, 1974). To achieve biological phosphorus removal
with fixed biomass, the alternation can take place only in time, not in space. Therefore,
a two-reactor alternating system was tested, using two pilot biofilters in series, anaero-
bic and aerobic, and a six-hour cycle (Gonçalves and Rogalla, 1992). The system suc-
cessfully achieved biological phosphorus removal and was adapted for nitrogen
removal with one cell out of five switched into anaerobic mode (Gonçalves et al., 1994a;
1994b). However, the additional expense in valving arrangements has prevented its
application on full scale.
At some facilities, the need to meet stringent effluent total phosphorus limits while
operating a tertiary nitrification or denitrification process is difficult. Adequate phos-
phorus is needed for microbial growth and insufficient phosphorus will limit the ability
of tertiary BAF to achieve treatment goals. An evaluation of pilot and full-scale post-

denitrification BAF performance data suggests that nitrate removal goals can be achieved
in practice at orthophosphate to nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen ratios of 0.02 (deBarbadillo et al.,
2006). This subject is covered in more detail in Section 3.2.4 of this chapter.
4.5 Facility Design Considerations for Biologically

Activated Filter Plants
Several issues must be considered in the design of the BAF reactors, supporting facili-
ties, and upstream and downstream processes.
4.5.1 Preliminary and Primary Treatment

Fine screening should be implemented, if possible, at multiple locations in the plant
depending on the type of BAF used. Though the BAF influent may have been screened
several times, it is imperative to include a screen immediately upstream of the inlet for
upflow BAFs with nozzled bottom floors. A simple bag screen or manual flat screen
with less than 2.5-mm openings will protect the BAF if an automatic fine screen is pro-
vided upfront. Dedicated automatic screens are needed, however, if influent waste-
water screening is poor, some inlets are not screened (e.g., septage, imported sludges),
the plant is surrounded by trees, or channels are not covered.
For a plant with a smaller footprint, high-rate primary treatment often is used. This
may be achieved by chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT), high-rate lamella
settlers, or ballasted (sand or dense sludge) flocculation and settling.
4.5.2 Backwash Handling Facilities

The BAF backwash facilities and equipment typically include effluent clearwell, back-
wash water pumps (for concurrent systems only), air scour blowers, backwash waste
equalization tank and return pumps, and all automatic valves, instruments, and con-
trols required for automatic initiation and sequencing. Equipment and facilities must be
sized adequately to handle air and water rates and volumes necessary for effective
backwashing. During backwashing, the effluent flow from the BAF may stop or decrease,
which must be accounted for in design and operation of any downstream treatment
process, such as UV disinfection.
In multiple-stage BAF systems with varying requirements, facilities and equip-
ment sizes are based on the largest cell to avoid separate sets of equipment for each
stage. Final effluent taken directly from the effluent channel of the last stage of a mul-
tistage BAF system or via a final clearwell is used for backwash water. The effect of
backwash return streams must be accounted for in design. If an interstage clearwell
is used, then the ability to maintain minimum flow to the downstream BAF cells must

be considered to avoid flow interruptions and effects on downstream and disinfection

processes.
Provisions for mixing should be considered for large backwash waste tanks to pre-
vent solids settlement. Backwash waste may contain some media, which can accumulate
over time. The backwash waste return pumping system should be designed to avoid
drawing media into pumps and rising mains. Some installations use media recovery
systems including transfer pumps, settlement zones, or baskets.
Backwash waste is returned to the head of the treatment plant and the solids are
removed in the primary settling tanks. This improves performance of the primary set-
tling tanks because biological aeration filter (BAF) biosolids adsorb some BOD and
simplify pumping and handling of primary solids by improving rheology (Michelet
et al., 2005).
Alternatively, the backwash wastestream can be treated using a dedicated solids
separation system. This can be of particular benefit at larger facilities (more than
approximately 100 000 m3/d [26 mgd]), if the existing primary settling tanks have solids
handling limitations, or if there are multiple BAF stages. Several technologies can be
used, such as a ballasted flocculation and settling system, a solids contact/sludge recir-
culation system, or a dissolved air flotation thickener (DAF). The DAFs have been used
in this application at a number of European installations.
4.5.3 Process Aeration

Blowers or compressors supply process air that is distributed either by a grid of
pipework or by diffusers located at or near the bottom of the reactor. While the air flows
up the reactor through the media, oxygen is dissolved in the water and diffuses into the
biofilm. The passage of air bubbles also helps to maintain clear flow channels through
the medium (Rundle, 2009).
All aeration studies on BAF plants have observed higher oxygen uptake rates than
typically found in the activated sludge process, which is consistent with reduced vol-
ume and hydraulic retention time. Stensel et al. (1984) measured oxygen uptake rates
(OUR) from 121 to 250 mg/Lh in a 1.7-m tall reactor, which was 3.0 to 3.2 times greater
than the observed rates in clean water tests performed on the same equipment. This
was attributed to transfer of dissolved oxygen in water to the biomass and sparged air
bubble area being in direct contact with the biofilm, allowing a second mechanism of
direct transfer of oxygen from air bubbles to the biofilm. Lee and Stensel (1986) and
Canziani (1988) had similar findings.
In field demonstrations, oxygen transfer test of BAFs at full-depth of 3.6 m using
the off-gas method showed process water oxygen transfer efficiencies (OTE) of 1.6 to
5.8% per meter (0.5 to 1.8% per foot) for floating media (average 4-mm diameter) and

3.9 to 7.9 % per meter (1.2 to 2.4% per foot) for mineral media (3 to 5 mm) at nominal
design conditions (Redmon et al., 1983).
Additional studies yielded the following results:
• Rogalla and Sibony (1992) measured oxygen transfer rates of 7 to 15%.

• Pearce (1996) measured clean water oxygen transfer efficiencies of 10 to 17% in
a downflow BAF pilot with 2-m depth and 3.3-mm angular media.
• Shepherd et al. (1997) measured oxygen transfer efficiencies of 7.9 to 10.3 % in
upflow BAF with 4-m depth of 2- to 3-mm silica sand.
• Laurence et al. (2003) reported oxygen transfer efficiencies of approximately 20%
from off-gas testing of a 3-m depth upflow BAF with floating media and a 4-m
depth upflow BAF with sunken media during side-by-side pilot testing in New
York City.
• Stenstrom et al. (2008) measured oxygen transfer efficiencies of 5.8 to 21.1% for
3.6 m of 3- to 5-mm rock media and 13.1 to 29% for 3.6 m of 4-mm Styrofoam
spheres in pilot reactors.
Process air distribution systems in BAFs include (Rundle, 2009):
(1) Simple pipes with sparge holes drilled at intervals positioned in media or near
the floor of the filter. Coarse bubble aeration through sparging pipes is used
widely.
(2) Diffusers placed on a pipe grid at the floor of the reactor to obtain even air dis-
tribution at low airflow rates, rather than to produce smaller bubbles for improved
oxygen transfer efficiency. Although diffusers are more efficient for oxygen
transfer than coarse-bubble sparging in open aeration basins, a comparison
between coarse- and fine-bubble aeration did not reveal any difference (Harris
et al., 1996). In a comparison of coarse- and fine-bubble aeration in reactors with
and without plastic random media, fine-bubble diffusers were found to be more
efficient without packing and inefficient without (Hodkinson et al., 1998). The
media-sheared coarse bubbles favored dispersion into smaller bubbles with a
larger surface area and improved oxygen transfer. The fine bubbles, however,
coalesced into larger bubbles and reduced oxygen transfer.
(3) Injection of air under the plenum, frequently used to scour filters during back-
wash, also can be used during filtration. In this design, an air blanket is formed
under the false floor in the plenum chamber; air enters the cell via holes in the
specially designed combined nozzle. At low airflows, only the upper holes are
used (Figure 13.42), but as air flow and pressure increase, blanket depth increases

FIGURE 13.42 Operation of combined nozzles at low airflow (Rundle, 2009).
and more holes are used. This system provides efficient aeration, but requires
periodic chemical cleaning to prevent biological growth from blocking the air
holes, causing poor air distribution and increasing energy costs (Holmes and
Dutt, 1999; Springer and Green, 2005).
Several factors complicate process air control in BAF reactors (Rundle, 2009):
(1) The plants operate primarily as plug flow systems, so that the dissolved oxygen
at the top of the reactor does not represent the dissolved oxygen concentration
within the media.
(2) Oxygen transfer not only takes place from dissolved oxygen in water, but also
occurs by direct interfacial transfer from gas to biofilm, which cannot be
accounted for with a dissolved oxygen probe.
(3) In systems aerated by a coarse-bubble air grid, the minimum flow to provide
effective distribution of air can exceed process requirements.
Blower selection is important for efficient plant operation. As solids accumulate in the
media, filter headloss increases, which can affect the air flow. When several BAF cells
receive air from a common main, backwashed cells will have the lowest headloss and
will take more air flow. This balancing issue can be mitigated by providing individual
blowers for each BAF cell. For larger plants a centralized blower station with a com-
mon air main, air pipes feeding each cell are fitted with a mass flow meter (measuring

velocity, pressure, and temperature). The meter is used to control a modulating valve,
which balances air flow to the cells.
4.5.4 Supplemental Carbon Feed Facilities

In tertiary denitrification systems, and in some pre-denitrification, an external carbon
substrate (electron donor) must be dosed to the BAF. Methanol typically has been used
for this purpose. Increasingly, alternative carbon sources are being considered includ-
ing ethanol, acetic acid, and sugar solutions. The chemical properties for the selected
carbon source must be evaluated and accounted for in design.
Carbon dosage control is important for tertiary denitrification systems. Overfeed-
ing wastes chemical and could increase the BOD of effluent, which could be an issue for
plants with BOD limits of approximately 5 mg/L or lower. Underfeeding the carbon
source reduces the amount of nitrate removed, and the plant may not achieve the
desired effluent nitrate or total nitrogen concentration. Several alternatives exist for
control carbon dosing to BNR processes as follows:
• Manual control—for manual control of chemical dosing, all pumping rate adjust-
ments and sampling are performed manually.
• Flow-paced control—based on influent nitrate concentration and the required
level of nitrate removal, the average carbon dose requirement is determined. The
control system is then set to modulate pumping rate with fluctuations in waste-
water flow. Typically flow-pacing applies only to dry weather operation.
• Feed-forward control—a feed-forward control scheme, in which denitrification
influent nitrate concentrations are measured and used in combination with flow
to vary the carbon feed rate, offers the next level of automatic control. Because
the carbon dose is based on both wastewater flow and concentration, it is feasi-
ble to operate in this mode during wet and dry weather.
• Feed-forward and feedback with effluent concentration control—this represents
the most complex level of chemical feed control. Systems with this capability are
currently offered as proprietary packages by several denitrification filters sys-
tem suppliers. Some are based on flow and nitrate only, while others incorporate
nitrite and dissolved oxygen readings.
5.0 EXPANDED AND FLUIDIZED BED

BIOFILM REACTORS
Expanded and fluidized bed biofilm reactors (EBBRs and FBBRs) are attached-growth
systems with a range of applications in aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic biological treatment.

They use small media particles that are suspended in vertically flowing wastewater, so
that the media becomes fluidized and the bed expands. Individual particles become
suspended once the drag force of the flowing wastewater overcomes gravity and they
are separated from each other. The particles are in continual relative motion but are not
transported by the wastewater, which passes through the bed at a relatively fast rate
(30 to 50 m/h). Ideally, the wastewater passes through in plug-flow mode with minimal
backmixing, although most systems have some degree of recycle to maintain vertical
velocity. This technology has been used for anaerobic digestion, carbon oxidation, nitri-
fication, and denitrification of both industrial and municipal wastewaters. In municipal
applications, it typically has been used for tertiary denitrification in plants that have
low total nitrogen effluent goals.
Airlift and moving bed bioreactors sometimes are erroneously referred to as
“fluidized beds”, however, neither are fluidized beds in the true sense, as the particles
are not suspended in a vertical flow. With airlift, they are carried with the fluid flow in
an internal recirculation path (Figure 13.1e); whereas with MBBRs, the media are car-
ried in the horizontal flow (Figure 13.1g). This means that there is little relative motion
between the media and wastewater in either system; unlike in a true expanded or flu-
idized bed (Figure 13.1f), where there is considerable relative motion (30 to 50 m/h).
Particle fluidization is achieved when the drag force imparted by the vertical flow
overcomes gravity. Suspension of the media maximizes the contact surface between
microorganisms and wastewater. It also increases treatment efficiency by improving
mass transfer because there is significant relative motion between the solid (biofilm)
phase and the flowing wastewater. Because media tend to be naturally occurring mate-
rials, they are relatively inexpensive. Because of the balance of forces involved in par-
ticle fluidization and bed expansion, the smallest particles are found at the top and the
largest at the bottom. Therefore, the media particles should be graded to a relatively
tight size range.
The degree of bed expansion determines whether a bed is deemed expanded or
fluidized. The transition lies between 50 to 100% expansion over the static bed height.
This discussion assumes the upper limit: beds less than double static bed height (100%
expanded) are considered expanded; those more than double the static bed height
(100 % expanded) are fluidized. A lower degree of bed expansion is advantageous,
because it requires a lower flow velocity, less energy, and increases effective biomass
concentration, which reduces the footprint. In aerobic processes, however, it increases
volumetric oxygen demand because of increased biomass concentration.
Starting with a static bed that partially fills the column, the vertical flow velocity is
chosen to expand the bed to its initial design height, typically 50% of available height.
Microorganisms attach to the media particles and grow to form a biofilm. This results

in an increase in particle size but a decrease in composite particle (bioparticle) density.

Thus, despite their initial differences, all media tend towards a similar specific gravity
(approximately 1.1) as the biofilm thickness increases (Figure 13.43). Because of the size
increase and density decrease, the bed continues to expand until it reaches full design
height at which point biofilm thickness must be controlled.
Because biofilm thickness control is necessary to constrain the expanded bed
within the confines of the reactor, it is possible to use this for better control of bioreac-
tor performance. For example, biofilm thickness can be controlled to maintain optimum
thickness and maximum reaction rate by choosing bioparticle concentration based on
volume of support media added and degree of bed expansion.
Whether this generic technology is used for aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic processes,
all are based on a similar basic design (Figure 13.44). This design consists of a column
in which the particles are fluidized and the bed expanded and a recycle line that is used
to maintain a fixed, vertical hydraulic flow. In this way, bed expansion is kept constant
and bioparticles are retained irrespective of influent flowrate.
Anoxic and anaerobic designs are the simplest; aerobic designs require a system to
supply oxygen. Aeration typically is achieved during recycle, during which influent
2.8
2.4
SAND
␳pw(g cm–3)
2.0
ANTHRACITE
1.6
PVC
1.2
NYLON
POLYPROPYLENE
0.8
0 1 2 3 4
(L / rs)
FIGURE 13.43 Overall densities of solid support particles with attached biomass
(Atkinson and Black, 1981).

Effluent
Excess Biomass
Recycle
Separator
Influent
Media
Reactor
Bioparticle
O2 Chemicals
(Optional)
11
2 1 Medium
2 Biofilm
FIGURE 13.44 Process flow diagram of a fluidized bed biofilm reactor (Shieh and
Keenan, 1986 [With kind permission of Springer Science+Business Media]).
wastewater mixes with recycled effluent from the top of the bed. If aeration is con-
ducted within the fluidized bed, then a significant volume of gas disturbs the fluidized
state by causing turbulence and increased force of inter-particle collisions. This can dis-
lodge biofilm. Nevertheless, this approach is used sometimes. The advantage of adding
air to the recycle stream is that biomass is not stripped from the media by turbulence of
rising gas bubbles and, therefore, the treated effluent typically has a lower concentra-
tion of suspended solids (Jeris et al., 1981; Oppelt and Smith 1981).
Process flow enters at the bottom of the reactor and flows through a distribution
system to ensure even dispersion and uniform fluidization. Silica sand (0.3 to 0.7 mm
diameter) and granular activated carbon (GAC; 0.6 to 1.4 mm) typically are used. Other
materials, however, have been used at pilot scale, such as 0.7 to 1.0 mm glassy coke
(McQuarrie et al., 2007). Small carrier particles (1 mm) provide a large specific surface
area for biofilm growth (up to 2 400 m2 m3 when expanded 50%), which is one of the
key advantages of this process technology (Figure 13.45).
5.1 Fluidized Bed Biolfilm Reactor Advantages and Disadvantages

The key advantage of the FBBR configuration is the large specific surface area for
biofilm growth. This area results in a high concentration of active biomass (Table 13.19),
a high rate of reaction, and a small footprint. However, owing to high biomass concen-

FIGURE 13.45 Specific surface area of biomass support material particles and predicted biomass
hold-up (dry weight), based on 50% bed expansion and a calculated volume for 500-m deep biofilms
of 80% water content.
tration, aerobic processes can be oxygen limited. Another disadvantage can be the
degree of recycle required to maintain upward velocity for bed expansion and biopar-
ticle fluidization, which can increase pumping costs. The recycle pump, however, only
has to overcome the sum of frictional resistances and density difference between the
fluid in the recycle line (aeration gas and wastewater) and the expanded bed (waste-
water and biofilm-coated media). Pressure drop across the recirculation (fluidizing)
pump is significantly less than fluid height in the bioreactor. With processes that have
TABLE 13.19 Biomass Concentration in the fluidized bed biofilm reactor (MLVSS
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids).
Treatment MLVSS (mg/L)
Carbon oxidation 12 000–15 000
Nitrification 8 000–40 000
Denitrification 30 000–40 000

a gas phase within the bed—either through aeration or gas evolution such as denitrifi-
cation or anaerobic digestion—bioparticle loss and excess biomass in the treated efflu-
ent can require post-treatment sedimentation or filtration.
Specific surface area in an FBBR is dependent on media size (0.3 to 1.4 mm) and
degree of bed expansion (50 to 100%) but typically ranges from 1000 to 3000 m2/m3,
which is higher than for other systems (Table 13.20). This large surface area allows bio-
mass concentrations of 15 000 to 40 000 mg/L VSS to be maintained in the FBBR (Grady
et al., 1999). Thus, the volumetric efficiency of an FBBR can be as much as 10 times that
of an activated sludge system (Rabah and Dahab, 2004b). Because of its high biomass
concentration, the FBBR can operate efficiently at short retention times (less than three
minutes) for a denitrification process, even with high nitrate loading rates (greater than
70 kg NO 3
3 N/m d) (Green et al., 1994).
Clogging and the resulting high headloss can be avoided in FBBRs compared to
the use of small media in packed beds (Shieh and Keenan, 1986). Another advantage
is that the fluidized bed retains a thin active biofilm around the entire particle;
whereas in fixed beds, only the parts of the media that are not in contact with other
particles can develop biofilm. Thus, the surface area provided in FBBRs is 10 times
greater than the surface area provided in equivalent downflow fixed beds (U.S. Filter/
Envirex, 1997).
TABLE 13.20 Summary of fluidized bed biofilm reactor advantages and disadvantages (BAF
biologically activated filter; MBBR moving bed biofilm reactor).
Feature Advantage Disadvantage Compare to
2 3
Specific surface area (m /m ) 1,000–3,000 BAF: 1 200
Biomass concentration (mg/L) 40 000 High oxygen Activated sludge: 3 000
consumption
Biofilm specific surface area 3 000 Trickling filter: 300
(m2/m3)
Biomass age Several weeks Activated sludge: 10 days
F⬊M ratio 0.001 for tertiary Activated sludge: 0.2–0.4
nitrification
Wastewater recirculation Required for dry weather BAF and MBBR: normally,
flows or elevated no recirculation required
concentrations of
pollutant
Backflushing Not required BAF requires 10% of treated
effluent to be used
Aeration Highly efficient Nitrogen-depleted air, Aeration in upflow BAF is
counter-current oxygen-enriched air inefficient co-current. MBBR
systems can be or pure oxygen highly inefficient, as 80% of
used normally required aeration energy is required
for media suspension

The main disadvantages of the fluidized bed system recognized by U.S. EPA in
1993 were:
• Limitations on reactor size (in terms of maintaining the height-to-diameter ratio);

• Energy requirements (as a result pumping to maintain high recycle ratios);
• Difficulties in biomass control and media selection (media loss and biomass in
the effluent through particles that were too small or of insufficient specific grav-
ity and allowing biofilm to become too thick); and
• Imprecision in process control because of difficulty in monitoring biomass
concentration.
In addition, liquid distributors often were costly for large systems, long startup was
required for biofilm formation, and clogging in the flow distributor could prevent uni-
form fluidization (Rabah and Dahab, 2004a). Sutton and Mishra (1994) state that wide-
spread use of FBBR technology has been hampered by mechanical scale-up issues, slow
development of economically attractive commercial systems, and proprietary con-
straints. Nevertheless, the technology continues to be developed and some solutions
have been introduced. For example, glassy coke media and biofilm thickness control
using an internal bioparticle recycle system that, in tertiary nitrification, allows con-
sumption of removed biofilm by protozoa and metazoa in the system (Dempsey 2003,
2007; Dempsey et al., 2006).
5.2 Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor Technology Status

5.2.1 History
Manhattan College (New York), the U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab-
oratory (MERL), Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Water Research Centre, Medmenham, Eng-
land collaborated to develop FBBR technology for wastewater treatment. After a 1980
conference in Manchester, England, fluidized bed technology was hailed as the most
significant advance in the field of wastewater treatment in the last fifty years, although
there was no full-scale plant at that time (Cooper and Atkinson, 1980; Sutton and
Mishra, 1994). The first full-scale FBBR in the United States was installed at the Reno-
Sparks WWTP in the early 1980s and remains the largest full-scale FBBR treating
domestic wastewater in the United States as of 2009.
5.2.2 Installations
In 1999, more than 80 full-scale FBBRs had been installed in North America and Europe.
Two-thirds of these were treating industrial wastewater; the rest were treating municipal.

Nicollela et al. (2000) stated that the use of particulate biofilm reactors can be considered
a mature technology for which good design and scale-up guidelines are available.
Widespread use of this technology, however, has stalled recently. Treatment of a
variety of wastewaters has been investigated at both the laboratory and pilot-scale,
which may allow expansion or upgrading of plants to meet more stringent future stan-
dards, especially for ammonia, nitrate, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD), and TSS. In particular, anaerobic FBBRs have found a market for the treat-
ment of high-strength industrial wastewaters with COD concentration greater than
1 000 mg/L because the high costs of oxygenation can be avoided and valuable biogas
can be recovered. The compact nature of FBBRs may allow upgrading within existing
structures because complete skid-mounted systems can be directly shipped to site,
requiring only piping and electrical connections to make them fully operational. In
addition, modules can be added to either augment current processes or to add new ones
(Shieh and Keenan, 1986).
5.3 Process Design

5.3.1 Typical Design Parameters
5.3.1.1 Vertical Flow Velocity
The U.S. EPA recommends an upward velocity range for 0.5 mm silica sand of 36 to
60 m/h; others recommend a range of 30 to 36 m/h (U.S. EPA, 1993; Tchobanoglous
et al., 2003). Although the acceptable range of upflow velocities appears to be 30 to
60 m/h, many pilot-scale reactors have operated at 30 to 36 m/h (Shieh and Keenan,
1986). The upflow velocity is chosen according to the size and specific gravity of the
support media particles (Table 13.21). Basically, vertical drag force must exceed the
downward force of gravity, so that particles are fluidized and the bed expands. Once
this state is achieved, further increasing the flow velocity increases the degree of bed
expansion. As biofilm develops, the size of the particles increases (Figure 13.43). These
two changes in the physical characteristics of the particles result in continuous bed
TABLE 13.21 Upward velocity required to fluidize different media.

Media Size (mm) Umf (m/h) U50% (m/h) Reference
Glassy coke 0.7–1.0 9.0 30 Dempsey et al. (in press)
Granular activated carbon 1.7 10.2 — Coelhoso et al. (1992)
Silica sand 0.5–1.0 22.2 90 Dempsey et al. (in press)
Umf Upward velocity for minimum fluidization.
U50% Upward velocity for 50% bed expansion.

expansion until it reaches design height, at which point biofilm thickness control must
be initiated.
The upward flow velocity of wastewater does not have a significant effect on bio-
mass shearing in an FBBR because of laminar flow conditions. Grady et al. (1999)
stated that superficial velocities used in FBBRs result in low Reynolds numbers (less
than 10), and thus surface shear forces are small, resulting in a relatively thick biofilm.
However, if there is a significant gas phase, then biomass stripping by bubbles (single,
swarms, and coalesced) can be severe. Typically, however, accumulation of biofilm on
the fluidized media is affected primarily by bioparticle collisions, rather than by fluid
velocity past the biofilm surface (Shieh and Keenan, 1986). For this reason, the degree
of bed expansion can affect the rate of biofilm sloughing and, consequently, the degree
of additional biofilm control. That is, the greater the degree of bed expansion, the more
space there is between bioparticles resulting in fewer interparticle collisions and less
biofilm attrition.
A key factor that can affect upward flow velocity is the amount of entrained gas
because of its effect on fluid density. Most plants will have a control system for vary-
ing gas flow according to the dissolved oxygen concentration, which inevitably
affects the degree of bed expansion. For systems with in-bed aeration, the higher the
gas flow rate, the lower the bed expansion, owing to the decrease in fluid (gas and liq-
uid) density. For systems with external aeration, the same effect occurs because of
increased upward drag of the rising gas bubbles reducing inlet pressure to the pump.
Therefore, best practice is to install a flow meter between the fluidizing (recirculation)
pump and bed so that it can be controlled at the correct value (e.g., using an inverter
to vary the pump speed). This approach will also minimize the energy consumed for
bed expansion.
5.3.1.2 Recirculation
To maintain a constant degree of bed expansion, the vertical flow velocity if fixed and
differences in influent flow rates are addressed by recycling a fraction of process efflu-
ent. For tertiary nitrification, the basic design rule is to size the reactor so that it can take
the full influent flow rate without recirculation during extreme wet weather, when
wastewater is at its most dilute.
Although experimental reactors used for denitrification often are used without
recirculation, this mode is unsuitable for WWTPs, where recycle flows of 2 to 5 times
influent are used to maintain constant upflow velocity during diurnal variations and to
protect against shock loading by diluting the influent. For example, the denitrification
FBBR at Himmerfjarden WWTP (Figure 13.46) employs recirculation to compensate for
diurnal flow variations and ensure constant upward velocity (Bosander and Westlund,

Screen Gas- Primary- Activated sludge Post-

chamber clarifier clarifier
Recirculation
Drum-
serve
Sand filter
Fluidized bed reactor
Overflow to filters
Sand-
trap
FIGURE 13.46 Flow schematic of the Himmerfjarden Wastewater Treatment Plant,

Sweden (Bosander and Westlund, 2000; reprinted from Water Science and Technology,
with permission from the copyright holders, IWA).
2000). In aerobic processes, recirculation also is required for re-aeration, because of low
solubility of oxygen in wastewater.
5.3.1.3 Flow Distribution

The influent distribution manifold is a critical design feature in the FBBR. This distrib-
ution system must be balanced to
• Disperse influent kinetic energy by achieving uniform distribution of flow across

the entire reactor cross section;
• Support media and prevent it from falling through the manifold;
• Avoid plugging;
• Minimize biofilm shearing because of turbulence or particle collisions, thereby
promoting uniform biofilm buildup throughout the media;
• Minimize headloss.
Two important design aspects regarding distribution of the wastewater flow should be
examined. First, uniform distribution of incoming wastewater across the base and per-

pendicular to the flow avoids spouting, caused by rising jets of wastewater rising
(Rabah and Dahab, 2004a). Spouting tends to disrupt distribution of bioparticles and
substantially increases their collision frequency at the base of the bed. This can prevent
biofilm formation and lead to media loss through abrasion. It also increases the amount
of short circuiting through the reactor. In extreme cases, a portion of the bed at the reac-
tor bottom can remain static and largely inactive. Second, the kinetic energy associated
with incoming wastewater must be dissipated to ensure that turbulence in the region is
minimal.
Most pilot-scale FBBRs introduce wastewater upward into the reactor through a
perforated plate. Some pilot-scale reactors include a layer of gravel above the plate to
improve distribution and prevent media from clogging the plate (Jeris et al., 1981).
However, clogging of the static gravel bed by materials entrained in the wastewater
flow through biofilm growth or chemical precipitation or crystallization (e.g., struvite
formation) is likely. In contrast, downward-facing nozzles have been used by Sigmund
(1982) and Dempsey et al. (2006). At full scale, wastewater is introduced through wide-
bore pipework with downward-facing nozzles. Wastewater delivered into the reactor
makes a 180° turn, with much of its kinetic energy dissipated. Sigmund (1982) describes
two, full-scale distribution systems and states that headloss through the manifold
should be at least as much as that through the fluidized bed.
Most problems with distribution manifolds can be attributed to plugging. How-
ever, this can be prevented by removing solids from the influent stream and designing
a distribution manifold that prevents media backflow (U.S. EPA, 1993). Nevertheless, in
processes where struvite formation is possible, systems must be designed so that they
can be dismantled for maintenance.
Because successful inlet design must not allow clogging of openings by solids, use
of porous plates and small-diameter distribution systems is precluded. The designer
must achieve uniform flow distribution with the smallest possible headloss through the
distributor. Sigmund (1982) compared head losses for three manifold orifice areas
(2, 0.5, and 0.1%). When upflow velocity was 30 m/h, and orifice area was 2%, headloss
was 0.02 m of water across the manifold. The 0.5% area resulted in 0.32 m of head loss;
0.1% resulted in 8 m of head loss.
An innovative distributor using fractal geometry (Figure 13.47) has been devel-
oped to fluidize ion exchange beads in chemical absorption systems (Kearney, 2000). In
addition to excellent flow distribution, this design has a relatively low pressure drop
(0.7 to 1.4 m water). Processes have been built up to 6-m (20-ft) diameter and a diameter-
to-height ratio of 2⬊1 is possible if a matching collector is used at the top of the bed to
ensure vertical flow streaming. Furthermore, lower iteration of the fractal pattern com-
pared to that used for ion exchange beads is needed to produce sufficiently wide-bore

FIGURE 13.47 Fractal and conventional flow distributors.
flow channels that should not clog. Cost of this distributor is, however, related to its
cross-sectional area, making it more expensive for large-scale applications.
5.3.2 Media
The media should allow colonization by a variety of microorganisms that can develop
into a firmly attached biofilm. Small particles provide a large surface area, and the
material should be available in a narrow size to minimize classification (stratification)
upon fluidization. To minimize pumping energy, there should be sufficient difference
in the specific gravity between the wastewater and the material to allow adequate bed
expansion at an upward velocity that does not result in an excessive recirculation ratio.
Particles must not have a specific gravity too close to that of water, however, or be so
small that they become buoyant or form aggregates by attaching to each other. Also, the
material should be inexpensive. For these reasons, mineral particles of about 1-mm
nominal diameter typically are used.
In one of the first trials of FBBR technology for municipal wastewater treatment,
Oppelt and Smith (1981) reported that anthracite coal (1 mm) and cinders (0.5, 1.2, and
2.0 mm) were unsuitable for CBOD oxidation because of “frequent separation of the

fluid bed, plugging of the columns and interconnecting piping and excessive media loss
in the effluent”. Nevertheless, some of these problems may have been caused by the
scale of operation (column diameter was only 10 cm) and the method of aeration, which
involved injecting oxygen at the base of the bed, which may have caused churn turbu-
lence within the bed. However, they achieved more success when they used fine (0.5 mm)
silica sand, which is inexpensive and readily available. Jeris et al. (1974), however,
found that activated carbon was more suitable than silica sand.
Silica sand used in FBBRs typically has a diameter of 0.3 to 0.7 mm and GAC is
0.6 to 1.4 mm. Shieh and Keenan (1986) found that 0.3 mm GAC resulted in the high-
est biomass concentration. The GAC has some properties that make it more desirable
than silica sand, for example lower density, macro-porosity, good adsorptive charac-
teristics, homogeneous biofilm thickness along the reactor, and easy startup or restart.
In response to variations in superficial upflow velocity, the bed height stability
increases with increased media size and density (Figures 13.48 and 13.49) (Shieh and
Keenan, 1986). The Y-axis in both of these figures represents bed expansion, while the
X-axis represents upflow velocity. Figure 13.49 includes three curves with varying
media size ( m). Figure 13.50 includes three curves with varying media density (
m).
Although smaller media particles reduce the energy required for fluidization and pro-
vide a larger specific surface area for biofilm formation, if the media is too small (0.3 to
0.9 mm silica sand) and the biofilm is too thick (greater than 200 m), bioparticles
80
60
6 (mgcm-␩)
40
20
80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
6 (mm)
FIGURE 13.48 Biofilm dry density versus biofilm thickness (Shieh and Keenan, 1986
[With kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media]).

180
140
120
100
cm = 0.15 mm
HB x A/V m
80
60
40
0.3
20
0.5
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
U (cms–3)
FIGURE 13.49 Effect of media size on fluidized bed biofilm reactor bed expansion (Shieh
and Keenan, 1986 [With kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media]).
180
140
120
100 ␳m = 1.4 g ml–1

HB x A/Vm
80
60
40
2.4
20 4.5
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
U (cms–1)
FIGURE 13.50 Effect of media density on fluidized bed biofilm reactor bed expansion.
The y axis in represents bed expansion and the x axis represents vertical flow velocity.
Three curves show the effect of changing media density (
m) (Shieh and Keenan, 1986
[With kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media]).

may aggregate into “golf balls” and operation may become unstable (Grady et al.,
1999; Cooper, 1986).
Coelhoso et al. (1992) showed that differences occurred in biofilm thickness, mass-
transfer resistance, and solids production with GAC compared to silica sand. When
thick biofilms (800 m) were allowed to develop on GAC, the reactor operated under a
diffusion-controlled regime. In contrast, biofilms were much thinner when silica sand
was used and the reactor functioned in a kinetic-controlled regime. Easier startup was
observed with GAC, when grey biofilm formed within three days. Although many dif-
ferences were observed, N removal rates were not significantly different: GAC at 5.3
to 8.6 kg NO
3 -N/m d; silica sand at 5.4 to 10.4 kg NO3 -N/m d.
3 3
The most important advantage reported for GAC compared to silica sand, was the
rapid startup period. This is probably because of its adsorptive capacity, irregular
shape, and porosity (bacteria in pores are sheltered from shear forces). In one study,
initial biofilm development occurred in a few days on GAC media, while biofilm did
not develop on silica sand media for several weeks (Jeris and Owens, 1975). In a later
study, initial biofilm development also was found to occur more rapidly on GAC than
on silica sand. Coelhoso et al. (1992) reported that a bed of GAC showed homogeneous
biofilm thickness (800 m) throughout the reactor, because of the more similar specific
gravity of biofilm and media. However, when silica sand was used, the difference in
specific gravity caused stratification—particles with thicker biofilms moved to the top
of the bed and thinner biofilms moved to the bottom. For this reason, GAC or media
with a similar porosity and specific gravity to GAC, such as glassy coke, are typically
better than silica sand.
Fundamental studies of microbial adhesion and fouling show that materials that
are prone to biofilm formation have a rough or porous surface. In a comparison of sil-
ica sand (nonporous) with three types of porous, diatomaceous earth (all four media
approximately 0.4- to 0.6-mm diameter), Yee et al. (1992) found that media with 6- or
30-m pores allowed the fastest rate of methanogenic biofilm formation and organic
carbon removal. Pores of this size are substantially larger than the typical size of Bacte-
ria or Archaea (both approximately 1 m) and provide protected zones for initial
attachment. Although diatomaceous earth has not become widely used in expanded or
fluidized beds, another porous material, glassy coke, manufactured from bituminous
coal, has been used successfully at pilot scale for tertiary nitrification of municipal
wastewater (Dempsey et al., 2006). Because coke is carbon-based and porous, it has a
substantially lower specific gravity than silicon dioxide-based, nonporous sand, which
means that the energy consumption for particle fluidization and bed expansion is lower
(see Table 13.21). Coke is approximately 90% carbon (atomic mass of C 12) and 10%
ash; whereas silica sand is mainly silicon dioxide (molecular mass of SiO2 46).

5.3.3 Biofilm Thickness Control

Continued growth of biofilm causes an increase in bioparticle volume and degree of
bed expansion, resulting in the bed exceeding its design volume. Therefore, it is neces-
sary to have a system to control biofilm thickness and prevent bioparticles leaving with
the treated effluent. The expanded bed height must be controlled continuously at a
fixed height or intermittently between a minimum and maximum. To maintain a con-
stant biomass inventory, the rate of biomass wasting must balance its rate of growth.
Therefore, for faster-growing systems such as carbon oxidation or heterotrophic deni-
trification, the rate of biofilm growth and consequent bed expansion is higher than for
slower growing systems such nitrification, autotrophic denitrification, and anaerobic
digestion.
Any control system should maintain the initial particle inventory. Atkinson (1981)
states that “either an impeller has to be added at the top of the bed to provide increased
attrition, or particles which elutriate from the bed have to be recycled through a shear
field, or the flow through the bed has to be increased by recycle to further expand and
agitate the bed”. An alternative approach is to deliberately remove bioparticles from
near the top of the bed, strip the biofilm and return the cleaned particles. A variety of
systems have been developed to control biofilm thickness, using either internal control
as advocated by Atkinson (1981), or external control. An example of internal control
involves a rotating perforated disc at the top of the bed that strips excess biomass and
allows the cleaned particles to sink back into the bed; treated effluent then carries off the
stripped biofilm (Bosman and Hendricks, 1981).
Historically, a common approach involved removal of bioparticles for external
control. For example, in their FBBR for CBOD oxidation of primary effluent, Jeris et al.
(1981) used a pump to transport bioparticles from the top of the bed onto a vibrating
screen, which removed excess biofilm. A variation of this system was used for an
anthracite-based fluidized bed to denitrify nuclear industry wastewater. In that case,
particles with thick biofilms that elutriated from the bed were captured on a vibrating
screen before being pumped back to the base of the bed; a sedimentation tank captured
stripped biofilm (Francis and Hancher, 1981). In the Dorr-Oliver oxitron process, the
fluidized sand bed height was controlled within a band of 0.6 to 0.7 m by intermittently
pumping bioparticles from the upper region of the bed using a “a rubber-lined centrifu-
gal pump operating in conjunction with a hydrocyclone and media washer” (Sutton
et al., 1981).
To avoid operational problems of mechanical pumps and screens, Basin Water/
Envirogen’s fluidized bed reactor uses an airlift system for biofilm control (Frisch,
1998a; 1998b). A newer method is to recycle bioparticles from the top of the bed to the
bottom via an eductor pump, where excess biofilm is stripped off during passage

through the turbulent regions in the eductor and the base of the bed (McQuarrie et al.,
2007). Advantages of this system include its simplicity, as it requires no sensor, actua-
tor or moving parts; and the fact that, in a tertiary nitrification process, stripped
biofilm is consumed by protozoa and metazoa during its passage up through the bed
(Dempsey et al., 2006).
Control of the expanded bed height provides the most direct and convenient
means to maintain optimum biofilm thickness. In conventional denitrification, the
expanded bed height is not continuously controlled because, if it were, the separated
biomass would be carried away as a dilute sludge requiring further thickening before
final disposal, thus increasing the costs. To minimize these costs, the bed height is
allowed to fluctuate over a range and is controlled once a day to produce a thickened
sludge that can be captured.
The denitrification FBBR at Himmerfjarden WWTP in Sweden produces an aver-
age of 0.5 g VSS/g NO 3 -N (Bosander and Westlund, 2000). In earlier work, U.S. EPA
(1993) reported that biomass production in denitrifying FBBRs was 0.4 to 0.8 g TSS/g
NO 3-N consumed. In the Himmerfjarden FBBR, biomass is sheared from media
using a pump inside a central cone at the top of the bed, producing sludge of 2000 to
4 000 mg/L VSS. In contrast, the U.S. Filter/Envirex proprietary FBBR growth control
system produces wasted solids concentrations of 5000 to 15 000 mg/L TSS (U.S. Filter/
Envirex, 1997). At Himmerfjarden, the excess biomass is removed at the top of the bed,
where a sand trap captures any escaping particles and the cleaned silica sand is
dropped back into the bed. In contrast, the Rancho, California denitrification FBBR uses
periodic backwashing to control biofilm thickness (MacDonald, 1990).
5.3.4 Aeration
There are two approaches to supplying oxygen, either in the bed or in the recirculation
loop. Oxygen typically is supplied using air, nitrogen-depleted air, oxygen-rich air, or
pure oxygen. Using air to supply oxygen may not be the least expensive solution.
Because oxygen is sparingly soluble, the high concentration of active biomass that char-
acterizes EBBR and FBBR processes typically means that the dissolved oxygen concen-
tration at the bed inlet achieved using air is insufficient to keep the entire bed aerobic.
By increasing the oxygen content of the aeration gas, the dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion can be increased by the same proportion. For example, if oxygen saturation using
air (20.9% O2) is 10 mg/L then that using pure oxygen (100% O2) is almost 48 mg/L.
Nitrogen can be removed from air using vacuum or pressure swing molecular sieve
technology, which has been considerably improved and costs lowered recently. An alter-
native is to add oxygen to air from a cryogenic source, which has also become cheaper
recently. Although it is also possible to raise the dissolved oxygen concentration by

pressurization, pressure vessels are expensive and are not typically considered practi-
cal for wastewater treatment. Key factors affecting the rate of oxygen transfer from the
gas phase to the wastewater include the surface area of gas bubbles and the relative
velocity between the gas and liquid phases.
5.4 Pilot Testing

The advantage of in-bed aeration is that oxygen can dissolve from rising gas bubbles to
replace dissolved oxygen consumed by the microorganisms. However, achieving an
oxygen transfer rate (OTR) to at least match the oxygen consumption rate (OCR) of the
microorganisms is difficult. If OTR is less than OCR, then the dissolved oxygen con-
centration will fall along the bed and within the biofilm until it becomes rate-limiting.
Also, because the gas bubbles and wastewater are both rising, their relative velocity is
lower than in a counter-current bubble contactor. In fact, Fonseca et al. (1986) cite a
study that demonstrated that the OTR of a fluidized bed with 1-mm particles was 20%
that of a bubble column, compared to 200% when 6-mm diameter particles were used.
Therefore, this theoretical advantage of increased oxygen transfer in the main FBBR has
practical limitations when small (approximately 1 mm) media are used.
Another significant disadvantage of in-bed aeration is that rising gas bubbles can
transport bioparticles and entrain them in either recirculation or effluent flows. This
phenomenon can be caused either by small gas bubbles attaching to bioparticles and
making them buoyant or by gas bubbles coalescing and forming gas slugs that trans-
port bioparticles by bulk flow. For example, at high gassing rates (superficial liquid
velocity/superficial gas velocity less than 0.4), churn-turbulence occurs, fluidization
breaks down, and particles can be transported (Lee and Buckley, 1981). Furthermore,
this research shows that the violent movements associated with churn-turbulence could
make initial biofilm formation or its retention a problem. Thus, increased turbulence
can result in biofilm stripping and increased TSS in the treated effluent.
If bioparticles exit the bed, they must be trapped to avoid being lost with the efflu-
ent or, if they enter the recirculation flow, they may either damage the fluidizing pump
or be damaged during passage. Thus, to prevent transport of bioparticles by rising gas,
Oppelt and Smith (1981) fitted bubble traps to the top of their multistage, pilot-scale FBBR
with in-bed aeration for CBOD oxidation. An alternative approach is to generate gas bub-
bles that are small or sparse enough not to coalesce as they rise through the bed by using,
for example, a static mixer to generate submillimeter bubbles. Thus, by careful choice
of process technologies, otherwise troublesome operational issues can be overcome.
The alternative to in-bed aeration is to oxygenate in the recirculation flow by using
a cone, bubble column, or static mixer (Jeris et al., 1981; Cooper and Wheeldon, 1981;

Dempsey et al., 2006). There are several advantages to this approach: biofilm disruption
by gas bubble turbulence is avoided; transport of bioparticles by gas slugs is prevented;
and the driving force for oxygen uptake is maximized. Because these systems work
with counter-current flow, the relative velocity between the two phases is maximized.
By judicious design, the downward velocity can be such that turbulent conditions pre-
vail in the aeration device and the injected gas is broken up into tiny bubbles. This
increases the gas-liquid interfacial area for mass transfer of O2, which then increases
OTR. Furthermore, it is possible to obtain up to 25% gas holdup in downflow bubble
columns, which is typically accepted as ideal in static mixing systems. If pure oxygen is
used, then it is possible to dissolve almost all of the gas but difficult to strip metaboli-
cally produced CO2, which inhibits biological processes. In contrast, when nitrogen-
depleted or oxygen-enriched air is used, the rising gas bubbles become depleted in oxy-
gen, but CO2 is extracted by the residual inert gases (N2 and Ar) and transported out of
the system.
Table 13.22 presents typical design criteria for denitrifying FBBRs that used silica
sand media.
TABLE 13.22 Design criteria for denitrifying fluidized bed biofilm reactors (FBBRs).
Parameter Unit Value range Typical
Packing:
Type Sand Sand
Effective size mm 0.3–0.5 0.4
Sphericity Unitless 0.8–0.9 0.8–0.85
Uniformity coefficient Unitless 1.25–1.50 1.4
Specific gravity Unitless 2.4–2.6 2.6
Initial depth m 1.5–2.0 2.0
Bed expansion % 75–150 100
Empty-bed upflow velocity m/h 36–42 36
Hydraulic loading rate m3effluent/m2bioreactor aread 400–600 500
Recirculation ratio Unitless 2⬊1–5⬊1 2⬊1–5⬊1
NOⴚ3 -N loading:
13°C kg/m3d 2.0–4.0 3.0
20°C kg/m3d 3.0–6.0 5.0
Empty-bed contact time min 10–20 15
Methanol–NO3-N ratio Unitless 3.0–3.5 3.2
Specific surface areaa (m2/m3) 1 000–3 000 2 000–3 000
Biomass concentration1 mg/L 15 000–40 000 30 000–40 000
Source: Metcalf and Eddy (2003); U.S. EPA, 1993; Sadick et al., 1994; Sadick et al., 1996.
a
Grady et al., 1999.

5.5 Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor Design Models

Because of the complex nature of mathematically modeling the biological activity of
fluidized bed biofilm reactors, the reader is referred to existing literature on this topic.
Shieh and Keenan (1986) provide an extensive discussion of FBBR modeling theory,
whilst Grady et al. (1999) provide a more recent review of this topic.

5.6.1 Nitrification
For tertiary nitrification of activated sludge settled effluent (5 to 25 mg/L NH3-N)
using 1-mm particles of glassy coke as the support medium, 1 m3 of expanded bed is
required to remove each kg NH3-N per day. Whereas for nitrification of sludge filtrate
(1000 mg/L NH3-N) or centrate, only 0.5 m3 expanded bed is required because this
process produces so much acid that alkali is added and, therefore, it can be operated
at the optimum pH (7.8 to 8.0). However, it would probably be too expensive to use pH
control for tertiary nitrification because of the large volume of wastewater needing
treatment, which is typically the entire works flow.
Because of the high rate of oxygen consumption by nitrifying bacteria, the maxi-
mum bed depth is typically between 5 to 6 m. All oxygen has been consumed by then,
even when using nitrogen-depleted or oxygen-rich air. Under these conditions, each
meter of bed depth can oxidize up to 2 mg/L NH3-N. Thus, a 5-m deep bed can oxidize
up to 10 mg/L NH3-N per recycle.
Although the stoichiometric amount of oxygen for nitrification is 4.6 kg O2/kg N,
the oxygen supply needs to exceed this (e.g., 5 kg O2/kg N) to allow for organic matter
consumed by heterotrophs. However, the actual oxygen supply will depend on the
amount of organic matter (CBOD plus TSS) that needs to be removed from the influent.
Nevertheless, it may not always be possible to control the degree of CBOD and TSS
removal and, therefore, more or less oxygen than 5 kg/kg may be needed. Because of
competition for oxygen, the hydraulic loading rate should be less than 40 m3 secondary
effluent per m3 of expanded bed per day to achieve less than 5 mg/L NH3-N; and less
than 25 m3/m3 d to achieve less than 0.5 mg/L NH3-N (Dempsey et al., 2006).
At technical-scale, it has been found that rate-limiting concentrations of dissolved
oxygen (dissolved oxygen) and NH3-N at the top of the bed were both 1 mg/L
(Dempsey et al., 2005). This finding means that if the effluent concentration of NH3-N
has to be less than 1 mg/L, then the loading rate must be reduced. It also means that if
the dissolved oxygen concentration falls below 1 mg/L, then the NH3-N effluent con-
centration will rise. Therefore, if the process is to be used at maximum efficiency, then
the bioreactor must be designed to supply oxygen fast enough to meet the metabolic

requirements of nitrifying bacteria. This includes control of oxygen supply based on

the dissolved oxygen concentration at the top of the bed and use of nitrogen-depleted
or oxygen-enriched air and a counter-current bubble-column or a static mixer.
5.6.2 Tertiary Denitrification

Empirical design methods are presented in the U.S. EPA Nitrogen Control Manual (U.S.
EPA, 1993). Onsite pilot testing is recommended to generate design criteria. The
designer must first define the following design criteria:
• Influent flow rate,

• Influent and effluent nitrate concentration, and
• Minimum operating temperature.
Figure 13.51 shows that the nitrogen-removal rate in an FBBR is 6.4 kg NO3 -N/m d
3
(400 lb/d/1000 cu ft) at 10°C, which is the U.S. EPA (1993) design recommendation.
This removal rate assumes methanol as the carbon source and sand media (0.3 to
0.6 mm). The U.S. EPA (1993) also gives a loading rate in terms of surface area of 0.8
to 3.4 kg NO
3 -N/1000 m d, with an average of 1.84 kg NO3 -N/1000 m d. How-
2 2
ever, Tchobanoglous (2003) recommend design loading rates in the range of 2 to 6 kg

Nitrogen removal per unexpanded bed volume
2,500
(lb N removed / 1,000 ft3-d)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE 13.51 Fluidized bed biofilm reactor nitrogen removal rate versus temperature
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993).

NO 3 -N/m d. All of these rates are based on unexpanded bed volumes. For denitrifi-
3
cation FBBRs, loading and removal rates are calculated for unexpanded bed volumes,
although using expanded bed volume would make it easier to compare to other
processes and technologies, which typically are based on bioreactor volume.
The concept of hydraulic loading rate (HLR) can be confusing for FBBRs, where
the diameter of the reactor and required upflow velocity dictate the flow rate (HLR)
through the bed. Thus, HLR equals the influent plus recirculation flow rates. For single-
pass operation (e.g., extreme wet weather) influent HLR equals bed HLR and there is
no recycle. During normal operation, however, influent flow rate is less than bed HLR
and, therefore, there is a degree of recycle. The recycle flow rate is variable and equal to
the bed HLR minus the influent flow rate. It varies automatically, without need for elec-
tronic monitoring and control. The required nitrogen-removal rate, the expected bio-
mass concentration, and its specific treatment rate dictate the nitrogen-loading rate
for a given process. The U.S. EPA (1993) recommends a bed hydraulic loading range of
880 to 1470 m3/m2 d (36 to 61 m/h) and Grady et al. (1999) recommend a bed hydraulic
loading rate of 576 to 864 m3/m2 d (24 to 36 m/h).
5.7 Design Example for Denitrification

This design example (Table 13.23) was adapted from U.S. EPA (1993). It uses a nitrate
loading rate of 6.4 kg NO 3 -N/m d, which was derived empirically. Assuming a media
3
specific surface area of 2000 m2/m3, this results in a loading rate of 3.2 kg NO
3 -N/1000
m2 d. However, other sources recommend lower loading rates. Tchobanoglous (2003)
suggest 2.0 to 6.0 kg/m3 d as an appropriate range for nitrogen loading rate, depending
TABLE 13.23 Design criteria for denitrifying fluidized bed biofilm reactor (FBBR) (TSS
total suspended solids; CBOD carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand; COD
chemical oxygen demand; TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen; TN total nitrogen).
Characteristic Influent–FBBR Effluent limits

Minimum monthly temperature 15°C
Average flow (m3/d) 18 930
Peak week flow (m3/d) 28 396
TSS (mg/L) 15 30
CBOD (mg/L) 3 30
COD (mg/L) 33 —
TKN (mg/L) 1.8 —
(NO3 NO2)-N (mg/L) 23.4 7
NH4 -N (mg/L) 0.05 2
TN (mg/L) 26.5 10
Source: U.S. EPA, 1993.

on temperature. Pilot testing is recommended to confirm the effectiveness of the flu-

idized bed process with the site-specific wastewater and to determine an appropriate
nitrate loading rate for use in plant design.
(1) Calculate nitrate removed:
(23.4 7 mg/L)(18 930 m3/d)/1 000 311 kg NOx-N/d
(2) Calculate reactor volume:
Assume nitrate loading rate 6.42 kg NOx-N/m3 d (Note that the nitrate load-
ing rate is provided for the unexpanded media volume. See Figure 13.51 to cor-
rect for temperature effect.)
Calculate volume of reactor:
Volume (311 kg NOx-N/d)/(6.42 kg NOx-N/m3 d) 48.4 m3

Assume two reactors in service and one standby; 3.65-m (12-ft) diameter reactor
(area 10.5 m2 (113 sq ft)).
Calculate bed height:
(48.4 m3)/[(10.5 m2/reactor)(2 reactors)] 2.3 m

Use 3-m high bed with 1.8 m of freeboard for solids separation for a 4.9-m high
reactor, based on manufacturer’s standard.
Total volume of in-service reactors 2(10.5 m2)(3 m) 63 m3
(3) Calculate HRT at peak week flow:
(63 m3)(1440 min/d)/28 396 m3/d 3.2 min
(4) Check total hydraulic load:
Total hydraulic load influent flow/area

(18 930 m3/d)/(10.5 m3)/2 901 m3/m2 d at average flow
(28 396 m3/d)/(10.5 m3)/2 1 352 m3/m2 d at peak week flow
(5) Calculate actual nitrogen loading rate based on selected reactor:
(311 kg NOx-N/d)/(63 m3) 4.94 kg N/m3 d
Calculate recycle rate:
Maintain reactor flow rate equal to peak flow rate of 20 m3/min because the peak
flow rate provides adequate fluidization for the media in this example. Total
hydraulic load should be between 880 to 1470 m3/m2 d.

(6) Calculate methanol required:
Calculate nitrate removed: 311 kg/d;

Assume 3 kg methanol/kg N removed;
Methanol (311 kg/d) (3 kg methanol/kg N removed) 933 kg/d;
(933 kg/d)(1 L/0.79 kg) 1 181 L/d;
Methanol dose 50 L/h.
Alternatively, methanol requirements can be computed from the following equa-

tion: Methanol 2.47 (NO3-N) 1.53 (NO2-N) 0.87 dissolved oxygen.
If the influent dissolved oxygen to denitrification is assumed to be 3 mg/L, then
the methanol requirement (neglecting residual methanol) is:
(311 kg)(2.47) (0.87)(3)(18 930 m3/d)/1000 818 kg (1800 lb)
(7) Calculate biomass produced:
From suspended growth systems, use 0.18 kg VSS/kg COD removed;

COD removed (933 kg methanol/d)(1.5 kg COD/kg methanol) 1400 kg/d;
VSS (0.18 kg VSS/kg COD)(1400 kg COD/d) 252 kg VSS produced/d.
At 75% volatile:
TSS produced 252/0.75 336 kg TSS/d 1.08 kg TSS/kg NO 3 -N;

Typical biomass production is 0.4 0.8 kg TSS/kg NOx-N.
Calculate excess biomass flow rate (assume 1% solids):
Flow (336 kg TSS/d)(1/0.01)(1 L/kg)(1/1 440 min/d) 23.3 L/min
(8) Calculate horsepower (hp) of pumps:
Fluidization pump: total pump capacity is 19 720 L/min (peak week flow);
With two pumps: 19 720/2 9860 L/min.
A typical fluidized-bed configuration requires a fluidization pump with approxi-

mately 12.2 m total dynamic head (TDH). This should be verified for the actual reactor
configuration.
kW [(Q)(
)(a)(TDH)]/[(Pump efficiency)(Motor efficiency)]
Where
Q flow (m3/s),

density of water,
a acceleration of gravity,
TDH 12.2 m (assumed), and

Pump efficiency 75% (assumed).

(Note that hp kw/0.746.)
kW [(9 860 L/min)/(1 000 L/m3)/(60 sec/min)](1 000 kg/m3)

(9.81 m/s2)(12.2 m)]/[0.75 0.9] 29 kW
(hp 29 kW/0.746 39 hp)
Calculate horsepower of growth control pump:
Base flow rate on biomass flowrate of 11.5 L/min for each pump.
kW [(11.5 L/min)/(1 000 L/m3)/(60 sec/min))(1 000 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(12.2 m)]/
[0.75 0.9] 0.03 kW
(hp 0.03 kW/0.746 0.04 hp)
5.8 Performance of Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor Fauna

In a study of tertiary nitrification of activated sludge settled effluent using a pilot-scale
EBBR, Dempsey et al. (2006) found that the process also removed up to 56% CBOD and
62% TSS from the influent. Removal of these materials was attributed to the activities
of protozoa (free-living and stalked) and metazoa (rotifers, nematodes, and oligochaetes),
as shown in Figure 13.52. Soluble organic matter probably was metabolized by het-
erotrophic bacteria, which were in turn consumed by protozoa and rotifers. Activated
sludge flocs carried over from the preceding process and sloughed biofilm from the
EBBR were probably consumed primarily by the worms. In this way, approximately
90% of the incoming organic matter (soluble or suspended) was mineralized to carbon-
dioxide, water, and ammonia, thus increasing the actual rate of nitrification above the
apparent one, which is measured using the difference between inlet and outlet ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations. Madoni (1994) provides an excellent explanation of these phe-
nomena and their relation to similar processes in natural waterbodies.
Bergtold et al. (2007) reported destruction by bactivorous nematode worms; Ratsak
and Verkuijen (2006), Liang et al. (2006), and Huang et al. (2007) observed it with
oligochaete worms.
5.9 Process Performance

5.9.1 Nitrogen Removal Rate
Nitrogen removal rate is the single most important parameter quantifying denitrifica-
tion FBBR performance. This parameter is useful because it accounts for differences in
bed volume and nitrogen loading rate between various FBBR systems. The nitrogen

FIGURE 13.52 Particulate biofilms with associated protozoa and metazoan from
expanded bed: (a) bioparticles in expanded bed; (b) bioparticles with surface attached;
(c) close-up of rotifer attached to bioparticle; (d) stalked protozoa on surface of partic-
ulate biofilms; (e) testate amoeba grazing on biofilm; and (f) oligochaete worm grazing
on bioparticles (Dempsey et al., 2006; reprinted from Water Science and Technology, with
permission from the copyright holders, IWA).
removal rate depends on biomass concentration, biomass surface area, temperature,

carbon source, bulk nitrate concentration, nutrient availability, and hydrodynamic and
physical conditions.
Green et al. (1994) reported that nitrate removal efficiency always was greater than
97% with nitrate concentrations in the effluent less than 3 mg/L and nitrite concentra-
tions less than 1 mg/L when the nitrate loading rate was 10.8 kg NO 3 -N/m d and the
3
retention time was 3 minutes. These authors also showed that the FBBR can operate
efficiently at retention times shorter than 3 minutes and at nitrate loading rates higher
than 15.8 kg NO 3 -N/m d. In fact, when this FBBR was operated at a loading rate of
3
21.7 kg NO 3 -N/m d and a hydraulic retention time of 1.5 minutes, it removed nearly
3
100% of the influent NO 3 -N. However, this system required careful control of the
biofilm thickness to achieve reliable performance. The maximum nitrate removal rate
achieved by the pilot-scale FBBR was 30.5 kg NO 3 -N/m d. Although based on
3
groundwater treatment, the results of this study are likely to be applicable to secondary
effluent if the organic matter (CBOD) content is not too high.
Table 13.24 displays some nitrogen removal rates observed in various pilot- and
full-scale studies. All removal rates are calculated using the unexpanded bed volume.

TABLE 13.24 Nitrogen removal rates reported in literature.

N removal rate N Removal rate
Scale Temperature (°C) Sin (mg N/L) (g N/g VSS ⴢd) (kg N/m3 ⴢd) Reference
Pilot 18–23 5–100 N/A 5.4–20.7 Jeris and Owens, 1975

Pilot N/A 6.6–30 0.033–0.243 0.69–3.28 Hermanwicz and Cheng, 1990
Pilot 30 15–300 0.141–2.575 3.23–18.7 Hirata and Meutia, 1996
Pilot N/A 676–1 500 N/A 11.8–17.7 Chen et al., 1996
Pilot 23 1 000 0.41 12 Rabah and Dahab, 2004b
Pilot N/A N/A N/A 5.3–8.6 Coelhoso et al., 1992
Full 10–20 18 N/A 1.7 Bosander and Westlund, 2000
Full 20 20 0.1 3.5 MacDonald, 1990
* N/A not available.
Observed denitrification rate in an FBBR is likely to be mass-transfer limited for

nitrate levels typically found in nitrified municipal wastewaters (Shieh and Keenan,
1986). Some FBBR studies have cited empirically derived N removal rates as high as 15
to 30 kg NO 3 -N/m d. However, it should be noted that some of these studies are not
3
representative of full-scale operations as they operated at optimal temperatures (20 to

30°C), high nitrate loading rates, high effluent nitrate concentrations and nonlimiting
orthophosphate concentrations (P 1 mg/L). Nitrogen removal rates in full-scale
plants are substantially less than those observed in these studies due to lower temper-
atures. lower bulk liquid nitrate concentration and lower nitrate loading rates.
The denitrification rate at the Rancho California WWTP was 3.5 kg NO 3 -N/m d
3
at 20°C (MacDonald, 1990). The denitrification rate in the Himmerfjarden FBBR was
1.7 kg NO
3 -N/m d. The plant received an influent of 18 mg/L NO3 -N at temperatures
3
as low as 10°C and produced an average effluent concentration of 1.9 mg/L NO 3 -N.
5.9.2 Temperature
At temperatures between 15 and 25°C, the nitrogen removal rate doubles with each 5°C
increase in temperature (Figure 13.51). Shieh and Keenan (1986) reported that the opti-
mal temperature for development of denitrifying biofilms lies between 20 and 30°C.
Most pilot-scale studies have been performed at optimal temperatures. Coelhoso et al.
(1992) ran experiments at 26°C and Rabah and Dahab (2004b) operated their pilot plant
at temperatures of 21 to 25°C. However, Bosander and Westlund (2000) reported con-
sistent denitrification of wastewater at 10 to 20°C.
It is likely, from the standpoint of microbial ecology, that operation within any
particular temperature range will select for microorganisms with temperature optima
in that range (e.g., psychrophiles have optimum temperatures less 15°C). Therefore,

pilot-plant studies under laboratory conditions may be misleading and should be con-
ducted at WWTPs to ensure design criteria are obtained at typical process temperatures.
6.0 ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS

6.1 Introduction
Rotating biological contactor (RBC) design criteria presented in this chapter are limited
to carbon oxidation and nitrification. As a secondary treatment process, RBC has been
applied where average effluent water-quality standards are less than or equal to 30-mg/
L BOD5 and TSS. When the RBC is used in conjunction with effluent filtration, the
process is capable of meeting more stringent effluent water-quality limits of 10-mg/L
BOD5 and TSS. Nitrification RBCs can produce effluent having less than 1-mg/L
ammonia-nitrogen remaining in the effluent stream. The RBC employs a cylindrical,
synthetic media bundle that is mounted on a horizontal shaft. Figure 13.53 illustrates
the shaft-mounted media. The media is partially submerged (typically 40%) and slowly
(1 to 1.6 rpm) rotates to expose the biofilm to substrate in the bulk of the liquid (when
submerged), and to air (when not submerged). Detached biofilm fragments suspended
in the RBC effluent stream are removed by solids separation units. The RBC process
typically is configured with several stages operating in series. Each reactor-in-series
may have one or more shafts. Parallel trains are implemented to provide additional sur-
face area for biofilm development.
FIGURE 13.53 Photograph of rotating biological contactor cylindrical synthetic media bundle
mounted on a horizontal shaft (left) and rotating biological contactor covers (right).

Media-supporting shafts typically are rotated by mechanical-drives. Diffused air-

drive systems and an array of air-entraining cups that are fixed to the periphery of the
media (to capture diffused air) have been used to rotate the shafts. The RBC process has
the following advantages: operational simplicity, low energy costs, and rapid recovery
from shock loadings. The literature has documented several examples of RBC failure
resulting from shaft, media, or media support system structural failure; poor treatment
performance; accumulation of nuisance macro fauna; poor biofilm thickness control; inad-
equate performance of air-drive systems for shaft rotation. State-of-the art biofilm reactors
such as the MBBR and BAF can provide equivalent or improved effluent water quality
with reduced susceptibility to macrofauna infestation and reduced physical footprint.
6.2 Carbon Oxidation

Several empirical RBC models and design equations have been proposed for describing
carbon oxidation. The models and equations in this chapter are presented on a soluble-
BOD5 basis.
6.2.1 Monod Kinetic Model

The following relationship was derived by Clark et al. (1978)
Q SB ,i
⋅ (Sin ,i SB ,i ) J max,i (13.30)
A SB ,i K i
Where,
Jmax,i flux of substrate i (g/m2 d);
Qi wastewater flow rate to stage i (m3/d);
A biofilm area in reactor (m2);
SB,i soluble-BOD5 concentration remaining in the effluent stream (g/m3);
Si soluble-BOD5 concentration in the influent stream (g/m3);
Ki system-, or reactor-, specific half-maximum rate concentration (g/m3).
Based on an analysis of interstage soluble BOD5 transformation in 11 RBC facilities,

values for the maximum removal rate, Jmax,i, and the half-maximum rate concentration
were determined. The majority of the RBCs were air-driven, and none of the systems
were considered organically overloaded (i.e., first-stage total-BOD5 loads were below
31-g/m2 d). Jmax,i and Ki values were determined for each of four stages as follows:
• Stage 1
Jmax,I,1 40 g/m2 d
K1 161 g/m3

• Stage 2
Jmax,I,2 27 g/m2 d
K2 139 g/m3
• Stage 3
Jmax,I,3 16 g/m2 d
K3 82 g/m3
• Stage 4
Jmax,I,4 4 g/m2 d
K4 25 g/m3.
6.2.2 Second-Order Model

A second-order kinetic model describing RBC performance has been developed
(Opatken, 1980) based on an analysis of interstage data from two full-scale facilities,
and can be expressed mathematically with Equation 13.31.
0.5
⎡ V ⎤
1 ⎢1 4 ⋅ k ⋅ ⋅ SB ,S , N1 ⎥
⎣ Q ⎦
SB ,S , N (13.31)
V
2⋅k⋅
Q
Where,
SB,S,N bulk-liquid soluble BOD5 concentration remaining in the effluent stream
from stage N (g/m3);
k reaction constant (m3/gd).
The researchers determined that the reaction rate constant, k, value of 1.0 m3/g/d is
appropriate for describing RBCs treating municipal wastewater.
6.2.3 Empirical Model

An empirical relationship was described by Benjes (1977) to describe RBC performance:
0.5
⎛ VM ⎞
SB ,i k ⎜
Q ⎠⎟
e ⎝ (13.32)
Sin ,i
Where,
SB,i effluent total BOD5 (g/m3);
Sin,i influent total BOD5 (g/m3);

VM media volume (m3);

Q average flow rate (m3/d);
k reaction-rate constant (1/d) ⬃ 0.3.
6.3 Nitrification
Rotating biological contactors have been designed for combined carbon oxidation and
nitrification, and nitrification. Pano et al. (1983) presented Equation 13.33 to describe
nitrification in a RBC.
⎡ SB ,NH3 -N ⎤
J NH3 -N , N J max,NH3 -N ⋅ ⎢ ⎥ (13.33)
K
⎣ NH3 -N , N S B , NH 3 -N ⎦
Where,
JNH3-N,N ammonia-nitrogen flux in stage N (g/m2 d);
Jmax, NH3-N maximum ammonia-nitrogen flux (g/m2 d);
SB,NH3-N bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen concentration stage N (g/m3); and
KNH3-N,N system-, or reactor-, specific half-maximum rate ammonia-nitrogen
concentration (g/m3).
Values for Jmax,NH3-N and KNH3-N,N of 0.5 g/m2 d and 0.4 g/m3, respectively, were
developed from pilot-scale data at 15°C (Brenner et al., 1984).
6.4 Media and Media Support Shaft

The RBC tank typically is sized at 4.9 103 m3 per square meter of media for low-den-
sity units. Discs typically have a 3.5-m diameter and are situated on a 7.5-m long rotat-
ing shaft. The RBCs may contain low or high-density media. Low-density media has a
118-m2/m3 biofilm active specific surface; high-density units have 180 m2/m3. Low-
density media typically are used in the first stages of RBC systems designed for BOD5
removal to reduce potential media clogging and weight problems resulting from sub-
stantial biofilm accumulation. High-density media typically is used for nitrification.
Mechanical shaft drives consist of an electric motor, speed reducer, and belt- or
chain-drive. Typically, 3.7-kW mechanical drives have been provided for full-scale
RBCs. Air-driven shafts require a remote blower for air delivery. Air headers are
equipped with coarse-bubble diffusers. The air flow rate is approximately 4.2 to 11.3 m3/
min per shaft. Air quantity required by systems using air-driven shaft rotation, how-
ever, must be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Mechanical-drive units have been
designed for operation from 1.2 to 1.6 rpm; air-drive units have been designed for 1.0 to

1.4 rpm. Shaft rotational speeds ideally are consistent. The development of an evenly
distributed biofilm is desirable to avoid an uneven weight distribution, which may
cause cyclical loadings in mechanical-drive systems and loping (uneven rotation) in air-
driven shaft rotating systems. A loping condition often accelerates rotational speed
and, if not corrected, may lead to inadequate treatment and the inability to maintain
shaft rotation.
Air-drive systems should provide ample reserve air supply to maintain rotational
speeds, restart stalled shafts, and provide short-term increased speeds (two- to four-
times normal operation) to control excessive or unbalanced biofilm thicknesses. Avail-
able data indicate that in excess of an 11.3-m3/min airflow rate per shaft may be
required to maintain a 1.2-rpm shaft rotational speed during peak organic loading con-
ditions (Brenner et al., 1984). Large-capacity air cups (150-mm diameter) typically are
provided in the first stages of the process to exert a greater torque on the shaft and
reduce loping.
6.5 Covers
The RBC process is covered to avoid UV-light induced media deterioration and algae
growth, to prevent excessive cooling, and to provide odor control. RBCs have been
installed in buildings or under prefabricated fiberglass-reinforced plastic covers. Build-
ings may be constructed of masonry, treated wood, and pre-engineered metal. Fiber-
glass-reinforced plastic covers are designed in sections to facilitate shipment and
removal should mechanical equipment require service or repair. Designs using a build-
ing to house the RBC units should include provisions for removing roof sections and
shafts for replacement. In addition, the designer must consider ventilation, condensa-
tion control, heat loss, and corrosion caused by the humid atmosphere inside the build-
ing or cover.
6.6 Biofilm Thickness Control

Excessive biofilm thickness can result in process impairment because of excessive or
uneven shaft weight, loping in air-drive systems, media clogging, excess energy con-
sumption, nuisance macrofauna, and odors. The design should include provision for
operation staff to monitor shaft weight as an indication of biofilm accumulation. Load-
cell devices can be used to allow manual weighing of the shaft with a hand hydraulic
pump and a pressure-sensing device. Electronic strain gauge load cells are also avail-
able. Excessively thick biofilms may be controlled by removing interstage baffles or
step feeding to reduce organic loading on the overdeveloped stages. In addition,
biofilm thickness may be controlled in an RBC by: increasing shaft (and therefore disc)

rotational speed; temporarily taking a train out of service and starving the biofilms;
supplemental aeration (i.e., scour); alternately reversing rotation; chemically stripping
the media.
7.0 TRICKLING FILTERS

During the first five decades of use, trickling filters included soil and rock biofilm car-
riers and their design was scattered and empirical in nature. During the 1950s and
1960s, Dow Chemical Co. (Midland, Michigan) began early experimentation with mod-
ular plastic packing media (Bryan, 1955; Bryan and Moeller, 1960). Other studies dur-
ing that time that resulted in development of accepted design protocol (Howland, 1958;
Schulze, 1960; Eckenfelder, 1961 and 1963; Atkinson et al., 1963; Galler and Gotaas,
1964; Germain, 1966). In the early 1970s, when U.S. EPA issued its definition of sec-
ondary treatment standards, the trickling-filter was regarded as being unable to pro-
duce water quality that consistently met published standards (Parker, 1999). This was
partly because of poor secondary sedimentation tank design. In 1979 in Corvallis, Ore-
gon, Norris and co-workers (1980, 1982) followed a rock-media trickling filter with a
small aeration basin and a flocculator clarifier. The researchers demonstrated that
WWTP effluent water quality could be significantly improved by bioflocculation in the
solids contact basin and improved clarification. The researchers referred to the com-
bined units as the trickling filter/solids contact process. Chapter 14 described combined
suspended-growth and biofilm bioreactors. The German definition of instantaneous
hydraulic application rate, or Spülkraft (SK), was described by ATV-DVWK in 1983.
Albertson (1995a) advanced the use of Spülkraft with a timing mechanism that adjusted
rotary-distributor speed with an electric drive.
7.1 General Description

The trickling filter is a three-phase system with fixed biofilm carriers. Wastewater
enters the bioreactor through a distribution system and trickles down over the biofilm
surface and air moves upward or downward in the third phase. Biofilm develops on
biofilm carriers. Trickling filter components typically include a distribution system,
containment structure, rock or plastic biofilm carrier, underdrain and ventilation sys-
tem. Figure 13.54 illustrates a modern trickling filter cross-section. Trickling filter that
are treating wastewater produce TSS, which means that liquid-solids separation is
required. This is achieved with either circular or rectangular secondary sedimentation
basins. The secondary segment of a trickling filter process typically includes an influent
pumping station, trickling filter, trickling filter recirculation pumping station, and liq-
uid-solids separation unit process.

FIGURE 13.54 Typical trickling filter components and cross section.
7.1.1 Distribution System

Primary effluent (fine-screened and degritted wastewater) is either pumped or flows by
gravity to a trickling filter distribution system. The distribution system uniformly dis-
tributes wastewater over the trickling filter biofilm carriers in intermittent doses. The
distributors may be hydraulically or electrically driven. Intermittent application allows
for resting, or aeration, periods. Efficient influent wastewater distribution results in
proper media wetting. Poor media wetting may lead to dry media pockets, ineffective
treatment zones, and odor. There are two types of systems: fixed-nozzle and rotary dis-
tributors. Because their efficiency is poor, distribution with fixed nozzles should not be
used (Harrison and Timpany, 1988).
Hydraulic rotary distributors use retardant back spray orifices to slow rotational
speed, while maintaining desired pump flow rate. Figure 13.55 illustrates both a mod-
ern, hydraulically driven rotary distributor that uses gates that either opens or closes
distributor orifices to adjust rotational speed and an electrically driven rotary distribu-
tor. The use of a variable frequency drive allows for more precise control of distributor-

FIGURE 13.55 Hydraulically driven rotary distributors use pneumatically-controlled gates that
either open or close distributor orifices that adjust with varying pumped flows to maintain a constant
preset rotational speed (left). On the right is an electrically driven rotary distributor (courtesy of
WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
arm rotation. Electrically driven rotary distributors have motorized drive units that
control distributor speed independent of the wastewater flow.
7.1.2 Biofilm Carriers

Ideal trickling filter biofilm carriers, or media, provide a high specific surface area, low
cost, high durability, and high enough porosity to avoid clogging and promote venti-
lation (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003). Trickling filter biofilm carriers include rock, random
(synthetic), vertical flow (synthetic), and 60°Crossflow (synthetic) media. Both vertical-
flow and crossflow media are constructed with corrugated plastic sheets. Some vertical-
flow media is manufactured with corrugated sheets only while others have e-other
sheet corrugated (the makeup are smooth plastic panels). Figure 13.56 illustrates trick-
ling filter media. Another synthetic media that is commercially available, although not
typically installed, is vertically hanging plastic strips. Horizontal redwood or treated
wooden slats also have been used as trickling filter media, but are no longer considered
because of high cost and limited supply.

FIGURE 13.56 Trickling filter media.

Modular plastic trickling filter media (i.e., self-supporting vertical flow or cross-
flow modules) is used almost exclusively for new trickling-filter-based WWTPs. Several
trickling filters using rock-media exist provide good service when properly designed
and operated. Figure 13.57 compares filter media; Table 13.25 presents physical prop-
erties of various media types. Figure 13.58 illustrates self-supporting crossflow modu-
lar plastic trickling filter media. Synthetic media allows for higher hydraulic loadings
and enhanced oxygen transfer compared to rock-media because of the higher specific
surface area and void space. Rock media has, ideally, a 50-mm diameter, but may range
in size. Rounded rock trickling filter media helps mitigate issues associated with rigid,
rock (slag) media. The slag-type rock contains numerous crevices that can retain water
and accumulate biomass. Because of structural requirements associated with the large
unit weight of the rock media, the trickling filters are shallow in comparison to syn-
thetic media towers and are susceptible to excessive cooling. The water retained inside
crevices in the slag-type rock media may then expand and sever rock fragments. This
can result in the production and accumulation of fine material. The accumulation of
both fine material and retained biomass is a primary contributor to rock-media trickling
FIGURE 13.57 Relative comparison of trickling filter media (CH2M HILL, 1984).

TABLE 13.25 Physical properties of commonly used trickling filter media (lb/cu ft 16.02 kg/m3
b
sq ft/cu ft × 3.281 m2/m3)
Specific surface Void
Nominal size, Bulk density, area m2/m3 space,
Media type Material m (feet) kg/m3 (lb/cu ft) (sq ft/cu ft) percent
Rock (river) 0.024–0.076 (0.08–0.25) 1442 (90) 62.3 (19) 50
Rock (slag) 0.076–0.128 (0.25–0.42) 1601 (100) 45.9 (14) 60
Corrugated
plastic
modulesa
60° crossflow PVC 0.61 0.61 1.22 24.0–44.9 (1.5–2.8) 100 and 223.1 95
(2 2 4) (30, 48, and 68)
Vertical flow PVC 0.61 0.61 1.22 24.0–44.9 (1.5–2.8) 101.7 and 131.2 95
(2 2 4) (31 and 40)
Random packb PP 0.185 ø 0.051 H 27.2 (1.7) 98.4 (30) 95
7.3 ø 2 H
a
Manufacturers of corrugated plastic modules are (formerly) BF Goodrich, American Surf-Pac, NSW, Munters, (currently)
Brentwood Industries, Jaeger, and Marley (SPX Cooling).
b
Manufactures of random media are (formerly) NSW Corp. and (currently) Jaeger.
c
Manufacturers of plastic strips are (formerly) NSW corp. and (currently) Jaeger.
filter plugging (Grady et al., 1999). Typically, rock media has low specific surface area,
void space, and high unit weight. Although recirculation is common, the low void ratio
in rock-media trickling filters limits hydraulic application rates. Excessive hydraulic
application can result in ponding, which results in limited oxygen transfer and poor
bioreactor performance. Existing rock-media trickling filters may sometimes be improved
by providing forced ventilation, solids contact channels, or deepened secondary clari-
fiers that include energy dissipating inlets (EDIs) and flocculator-type feed wells.
Replacement or deepening of the trickling filter using plastic media often is required if
rock media quality is poor, space is limited, and WWTP expansion is expected. A well-
designed and operated rock-media trickling filter can provide high-quality effluent.
Grady et al. (1999) suggest that for organic loads of less than 1 kg BOD5/dm3, rock- and
synthetic-media trickling filters are capable of equivalent performance. However, as
organic load increases synthetic media will result in fewer nuisance problems and
reduced plugging.
Synthetic trickling filter media has a high specific surface area and void space, and
low unit weight. Because of the reduced unit weight, synthetic-media trickling filters
can be constructed at depths more than three times that for a comparably sized rock-
media trickling filter. Modular plastic media is manufactured with the following spe-

FIGURE 13.58 Self-supporting crossflow modular plastic trickling filter media (cour-
tesy of Brentwood Industries, Inc.).
cific surface areas: 223-m2/m3 (68-sq ft/cu ft) as high-density; 138 m2/m3 (42 sq ft/cu
ft) as medium-density; 100 m2/m3 (30 sq ft/cu ft) as low-density. Both vertical and
crossflow media are reported to effectively remove BOD5 and TSS (Harrison and Daig-
ger, 1987; Aryan and Johnson, 1987). Research shows, however, that different synthetic
media provide different treatment efficiencies despite being manufactured with virtu-
ally identical specific surface areas. The designer should carefully consider effects of
media type and configuration on trickling filter effluent water quality.
Plastic modules with a specific surface area of 89 to 102 m2/m3 are well suited for
carbon oxidation and combined carbon oxidation and nitrification. Parker et al. (1989)
recommended a medium-density crossflow media and were against the use of high-
density crossflow media in tertiary nitrification applications. This argument is sup-
ported by the pilot application data and conclusions of Gujer and Boller (1983, 1986)
and Boller and Gujer (1986), which show lower nitrification rates for lower-density

media. Researchers claim that lower rates occur with high-density media because of the
development of dry spots below the interruption points in the media. Higher density
media has more interruptions and, therefore, is wet less effectively. Using medium-
density media will reduce plugging. Vertically oriented modular plastic media is suited
for high-strength wastewater (perhaps industrial) or high organic loadings such as with
a roughing filter. Other advantages of vertical flow include more effective biomass
flushing and less complicated geometry, which enhances air movement. In some cases,
crossflow media has been placed in the top layer to enhance wastewater distribution.
7.1.3 Containment Structure

Rock and random plastic media are not self supporting when stacked and require
structural support to contain the media within the bioreactor. Containment structures
typically are precast or panel-type concrete tanks. When self-supporting media such
as plastic modules is used, other materials such as wood, fiberglass, and coated steel
are used as containment structures. The containment structure avoids splashing and
provides media support, wind protection, and flood containment. Trickling filters are
well known for the nuisance macrofauna such as filter flies and snails. A properly
designed containment structure increases operator flexibility and allows control of
nuisance macrofauna. It can include a variety dosing alternatives and possibly a flood-
ing the filter.
7.1.4 Underdrain System and Ventilation

The trickling filter underdrain system is designed to meet two objectives: collect treated
wastewater for conveyance to downstream unit processes and create a plenum that
allows for the transfer of air throughout the media (Grady et al., 1999). Clay or concrete
underdrain blocks typically are used for rock media because of the required structural
support. A variety of support systems, including concrete piers and reinforced fiber-
glass grating, are used for other media types. Figure 13.59 illustrates field-adjustable
plastic stanchions and fiber-glass-reinforced plastic grating on the concrete floor of a
trickling filter containment structure. The volume created between concrete and media
bottom creates the underdrain.
The vertical flow of air through the media can be induced by either mechanical
means (forced or fan ventilation) or natural air draft. Natural air ventilation results from
a difference in ambient air temperature outside and inside the trickling filter. The tem-
perature causes air to expand when warmed and contract when cooled. The net result
is an air-density gradient throughout the trickling filter. Depending on the differential
condition, an air front either rises or sinks, which results in continuous airflow through
the bioreactor. Natural ventilation may become unreliable or inadequate in meeting

FIGURE 13.59 Field-adjustable plastic stanchions and figerglass reinforced plastic grat-
ing on the concrete floor of a trickling-filter containment structure. The volume created
between concrete and media bottom creates the under drain (courtesy of Brentwood
Industries, Inc.).
process air requirements when neutral temperature gradients do not produce air move-
ment. Such conditions may be daily or seasonal and can lead to odorous anaerobic
biofilm conditions and poor performance. Therefore, mechanical forced air ventilation
typically is included. Forced-air ventilation is accomplished by adding low-pressure
fans to circulate air continuously. When using ventilation, the designer should ensure
that the air is uniformly distributed to provide oxygen to all biofilm in the reactor.
7.1.5 Trickling Filter Pumping Station

The pumping station lifts primary effluent and recirculates unsettled trickling filter efflu-
ent (also known as underflow) to the influent stream. Typically, trickling filter under-
flow is recirculated to the distribution system to achieve the hydraulic load required
for proper media wetting and biofilm thickness control. The intent of recirculating bio-
reactor effluent is to decouple hydraulic and organic loading. Although effluent from

the secondary clarifier can be recirculated, this not common practice because it may lead
to the hydraulic overloading of secondary clarifiers. Influent pumping typically is
selected to allow underflow to flow by gravity to the suspended growth reactor (or
solids contact basin), secondary clarifier, or other downstream process. Submersible or
vertical turbine pumps are used. Weir positioning in the wet well typically allows for
one pumping station.
7.1.6 Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading

Trickling filters are classified by the intended mode of pollutant degradation and load-
ing, including carbon oxidation, combined carbon oxidation and nitrification, or nitri-
fication. Organic loading is expressed as kg/dm3 of filter media as BOD5 or COD. Gen-
eral practice is to ignore the organic load imparted by recirculation streams, but the
designer should account for the effects of recycle flow and pollutant loading (specifi-
cally ammonia-nitrogen) on treatment efficiency. The total organic load (TOL) may be
calculated using:
⎛ BOD 5 applied ⎞ ⎛ Qin ⋅ SI ⎞ 1 kg

TOL ⎜ ⋅
⎝ media volume ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ VM ⎟⎠ 103 g (13.34)
Where,
VM trickling filter media volume, m3;
Qin influent to the trickling filter (typically primary effluent), m3/d; and
SI influent BOD concentration, g/m3.
Nitrifying trickling filter data is expressed in terms of surface-based ammonia-nitrogen

loading rate. The surface loading rate can be calculated using Equation 13.17. Trickling
filter hydraulic loading rate is calculated without and with recirculation. The waste-
water hydraulic load (WHL) excludes recirculation and can be calculated using the
equation below (m3/dm2).
Qin
WHL (13.35)
A
Where,
A biofilm area in reactor (m2); and
QI influent flowing from upstream unit processes.
The total hydraulic load (THL) is used to gauge media wetting and biofilm thickness
control, and considers trickling filter influent flowing from upstream unit processes, QI,

and the recirculation stream, QR. The total hydraulic load can be expressed mathemat-
ically by Equation 13.36.
Qin QR
THL (13.36)
A
Where,
QR recirculation stream.
Current practice, and the standard for this section, is to reference hydraulic load-
ing in units of cubic meter per day per square meter of plan trickling filter area
(m3/m2 d) rather than referencing the required hydraulic application per unit biofilm
growth area.
7.2 Process Flow Sheets and Bioreactor Configuration

7.2.1 Process Flow Diagrams
The trickling filter process typically consists of preliminary treatment (including screen-
ing and grit removal), primary clarification, bioreactor, secondary clarification, and dis-
infection unit processes. Recirculation methods influence the process flow. There are
two types of recirculation. The first allows for direct recirculation to the trickling filter,
and the second passes flow through a primary clarifier before entering the trickling fil-
ter. Four trickling filter process flow diagrams, including both single- and two-stage
trickling filters, are shown schematically in Figure 13.60. Recirculation dilutes influent
wastewater and dampens organic variability in the influent because of diurnal fluctua-
tions. Clarifying trickling effluent will enhance performance of a subsequent trickling
filter in two-stage operation. The designer must ensure that the recirculation flow
required for wetting and biofilm thickness control does not exceed the limiting
hydraulic loading rate for the sedimentation tank. When two trickling filters are oper-
ated in series (rather than parallel) several studies have shown that the second stage
trickling filter performance is not adversely affected by the absence of a clarifier
between first and second stage units. However, there are indications that certain waste-
waters containing high concentrations of soluble BOD5 (likely from an industrial
source) will result in excessive biofilm growth and subsequent excessive biomass pro-
duction. These solids can adversely affect the second-stage trickling filter if not
removed by intermediate settling. The design of settling tanks in two-stage trickling fil-
ter systems also is affected by the recirculation pattern. The designer should consider
the most economical method of securing acceptable effluent quality.

FIGURE 13.60 Typical flow diagrams for the trickling filter process: (a and b) single-stage trickling filter
process; (c) two-stage trickling filter process; (d) two-stage trickling filter process with intermediate
clarification (RS raw wastewater; PC primary clarifier; PS primary sludge; PE primary efflu-
ent; TFINF trickling filter influent; TF trickling filter; TFEFF trickling filter effluent; TFRCY trick-
ling filter recycle; SC secondary clarifier; WS waste sludge; SE secondary effluent; IC inter-
mediate clarifier; and ICE intermediate clarifier effluent).

The practice of alternating the lead trickling filter in a primary-secondary trickling

system is referred to as an alternating double-filtration (ADF) system. This concept is
beneficial when applied to modular plastic-media trickling filters. Gujer and Boller
(1986) and Parker et al. (1989) observed patchy biofilm growth in the lower section of
pilot-scale nitrifying trickling filters (NTFs). The researchers attributed the patchy
growth to dry spots. Boller and Gujer (1986) advocated use of the ADF mode to enhance
performance of the NTF. Aspegren et al. (1992) also observed improved nitrification
using the ADF mode versus a single-stage NTF because of virtual elimination of biofilm
patchiness. Use of the ADF approach with two trickling filters in series encourages full-
depth biofilm development in both trickling filters. The lead trickling filter should be
switched every three to seven days to ensure that both contain a steady-state biofilm
developed along the entire bioreactor length. Operating trickling filters in series (rather
than parallel) may result in added nitrification without requiring ADF operation.
Sludge handling also affects the trickling filter process. Each of the process flow
diagrams illustrated in Figure 13.60 implies that waste biological solids are removed by
cosettling the biological sludge with the primary sludge before withdrawal from the
system. Many facilities exist that separately handle primary and secondary sludge. For
example, primary sludge may be thickened by gravity thickeners and trickling filter
humus by gravity belt thickeners. The benefits must be evaluated by the designer. In
principle, however, sludge cosettling is sound practice. It does, however, require that
operators consistently withdraw the solids from the process, and that designers pro-
vide equipment and means to maintain a near zero sludge blanket if necessary. A com-
mon operational issue that arises from improper maintenance of a solids inventory is
“rising sludge”. In any trickling filter application that results in nitrification, the pro-
duced nitrate (NO 3 ) may be further reduced to nitrogen gas (N2) in an anoxic sludge-
blanket macroenvironment. The N2 (g) can become entrained in the sludge blanket and
float clumps of biomass to the sedimentation basin surface. This biomass may float over
weirs and degrade secondary effluent water quality. Improper maintenance of a pri-
mary clarifier sludge blanket is also a consideration. When combined with waste bio-
logical sludge, sbBOD5, that exists in primary sludge may generate odor. The mecha-
nism for odor control strategies are discussed later. Alternatively, sbBOD5 may
hydrolyze and reenter the bulk liquid as rbBOD5. This can result in an increased trick-
ling filter TOL and diminish bioreactor performance.
7.2.2 Bioreactor Classification

Trickling filters can be categorized by four modes of operation or application: (1) rough-
ing, (2) carbon oxidation, (3) carbon oxidation and nitrification, and (4) nitrification.
Table 13.26 summarizes typically accepted defining criteria for each operational mode.

TABLE 13.26 Trickling filter classification (VF vertical flow; RA random pack; XF crossflow;
RO rock; and TSS total suspended solids).
Carbon oxidizing cBOD and
Design parameter Roughing (cBOD) nitrification Nitrifying
Media used VF RA, RO, XF or VF RA, RO, or XF RA or XF

Wastewater source Primary effluent Primary effluent Primary effluent Secondary effluent
Hydraulic loading, 52.8–178.2 13.7–88.0 13.7–88.0 35.2–88.0
3 (0.9 2.9) (0.25*–1.5) (0.25*–1.5) (0.6–1.5)
m
(gpm/sq ft)
d⋅m
2
Contaminant loading, 1.6–3.52 0.32–0.96 0.08–0.24 N/A

kg (100–220) (20–60) (5–15)
(lb BOD5/d/1000 cu ft)
m ⋅d
3
g
(lb NH3-N/d/1000 sq ft) N/A N/A 0.2–1.0 (0.04–0.2) 0.5–2.4 (0.1–0.5)
m ⋅d
2
Effluent quality, mg/L 40–70% BOD5 15–30 BOD5 and 10 BOD5 0.5–3 NH3-N
(unless noted) conversion TSS 3 NH3-N
Predation No appreciable Beneficial Detrimental Detrimental
growth (nitrifying
biofilm)
Filter flies No appreciable No appreciable No appreciable No appreciable
growth growth growth growth
Depth, m (ft) 0.91–6.10 (3–20) 12.2 (40) 12.2 (40) 12.2 (40)
* Applicable–shallow trickling filters; gpm/ft gallons per minute per square foot of trickling filter plan area gpm/sq ft
2
58.674 m3/m2d (cubic meter per day per square meter of TF plan area); lb BOD5/d/1000 cu ft 0.016 0 kg/m3d
(kilograms per day per cubic meter of media); and lb NH3-N/d/1000 sq ft 4.88 g/m2d (grams per day per square
meter of media).
Roughing filters receive high-hydraulic and high-organic loadings and require the use of
vertical-flow media to minimize plugging. Although they may provide a high-quantity
organic load removal per unit volume, their settled effluent still contains substantial
BOD5. Roughing filters provide approximately 50 to 75% soluble BOD5 conversion and
may receive total loadings of 1.5 to 3.5 kg BOD5/dm3. Carbon-oxidizing trickling fil-
ters provide settled effluent of 15 to 30 mg/L for both BOD5 and TSS, and may receive
BOD5 loadings of 0.7 to 1.5 kg/d m3. Combined carbon oxidation and nitrification
trickling filters provide effluent BOD5 less than 10 mg/L and NH3-N less than or equal
to 0.5 to 3 mg/L (after solids separation). These trickling filters may receive BOD5 load-
ings less than 0.2 kg/d m3, and TKN loadings of 0.2 to 1.0 g/d m2. Tertiary nitrifying

trickling filters provide 0.5 to 3 mg/L effluent NH3-N when receiving a clarified sec-
ondary effluent and NH3-N loadings of 0.5 to 2.5 g N/dm2.
7.2.3 Hydraulics
Recirculation, distributor operation, biofilm thickness, and macro fauna accumula-
tion affect wetting of trickling filter media. Albertson and Eckenfelder (1984) postu-
lated that the active biofilm surface area in a trickling filter is dependent upon biofilm
thickness and media configuration, and that increased biofilm thickness reduces
active surface area. The net result of excess biomass accumulation is reduced trick-
ling-filter performance. The researchers stated that for medium-density crossflow
media with 98 m2/m3 specific surface area, a 4-mm biofilm thickness would cause a
12% reduction of active biofilm area, assuming that the entire media has been appro-
priately wetted.
Poor trickling filter media wetting results in reduced effluent water quality. Crine
et al. (1990) found that the wetted area-to-specific surface area ratio of trickling filters
ranged from 20 to 60%. The lowest values for wetting occurred with high-density ran-
dom-pack media. Many of the newer hydraulically based design formulations incor-
porate a term that allows for specific surface-area reduction because of distributor inef-
ficiency in media wetting. The interrelationship of liquid residence time, dosing, and
media configuration on BOD5 removal kinetics has not been addressed, and additional
research is required. Increasing the average hydraulic application rate reduces the liq-
uid residence time, but has been proven to increase wetting efficiency.
Conventional practice is direct recirculation of the trickling-filter underflow.
Recirculation systems with recycle of settled effluent and direct recycle were compared
at a plant in Webster City, Iowa (Culp, 1963). No significant differences in results were
obtained when trickling filters operated simultaneously on the same settled waste-
water under either winter or summer conditions. Researchers have concluded that it
is the amount of recirculation and not the arrangement that is the more important for
optimizing performance of rock-media trickling filters. The absence of intermediate
settling between the first and second trickling filter operating in series does not
adversely affect performance of the second-stage unit. The recirculation ratio is typically
in the range 0.5 to 4.0. Dow Chemical Co. studies, which are summarized in Figure
13.61, demonstrate that vertical-flow corrugated media require an average application
rate higher than 0.5 L/m2 s to provide maximum BOD5 removal efficiency (Bryan
et al., 1955, 1960, 1962). Shallow towers using crossflow media have used hydraulic
rates of 0.39 to 1.08 m3/m2 h.
Slowed distributor operation benefits trickling-filter facilities because of interrupted
flow (periodicity of dosing), increased wetting efficiency (percent of media wetted), and

25
Reaction Velocity Constant, lb BOD5/cu ft/hr

5
25
2 2 4
15 1,5
4 3
10
8 3
1
6 2 1. 10.5-ft Media, R=0
2. 21.0-ft Media, R=0
5 3. 31.5-ft Media, R=0
4. 42.0-ft Media, R=0
4 5. 42.0-ft Media, R=1
0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0

Total Hydraulic Rate, gal/min/sq ft
FIGURE 13.61 Effect of hydraulic application rate on five-day biochemical demand

removal (Bryan et al., 1955, 1960, 1962).
controlled biofilm thickness. The designer should consider recirculation capabilities,

the effect of reverse thrusting jets, or use of speed control on the distributor to enhance
performance or improve operation. Another useful process control parameter is the
dosing rate, Spülkraft. Methods for calculating dosing rate (mm/pass) are given by
Equations 13.37 and 13.38.
mm
QI QR 1 000
DR ⋅ m
min (13.37)
A N a ⋅ d ⋅ 1 440
day
or
mm
THL ⋅ 1 000
DR ⋅ m
min (13.38)
N a ⋅ d ⋅ 1 440
day

Where,
Na number of arms on the distributor, and
d distributor rotational speed (rev/min).
Here, Spülkraft is in mm/pass. The typical hydraulically driven distributor in

North America operates in the range of 2 to 10 mm/pass. Table 13.27 lists recom-
mended operating and flushing dosing rates for rotary distributors. Higher dosing rates
are recommended for higher organic loading rates to provide biofilm thickness control.
Wastewater characteristics, temperature, or media type may influence dosing rate. It
also may be beneficial to periodically use a higher flushing dosing rate for 5 to 10% of
the 24-hour operating period. Work by Albertson (1989a; 1989b; 1995a) and Parker et al.
(1995, 1997, 1999) demonstrate that biofilm control measures enhance the trickling fil-
ter process when operating and flushing dosing rate values are used. These enhance-
ments include improved performance, reduced odors, reduced power use for recycling,
reduced nuisance organisms, and elimination of heavy sloughing cycles (Albertson
1989a, 1989b, 1995a). Parker et al. (1995) described the use of both distributor speed con-
trol and variable frequency drive controlled recirculation pumps to maintain constant
trickling filter hydraulic application. Pilot studies demonstrated mechanically driven
distributor dosing did not improve performance of a nitrifying trickling filter. There is
little research describing the effect of hydraulic transients on synthetic trickling filter
media and their effect on media life.
7.3 Oxygen Requirements and Air Supply Alternatives

Trickling filters require oxygen to sustain aerobic biochemical reactions. Several
researchers have demonstrated that at least some portion of roughing, carbon oxidizing,
combined carbon oxidizing and nitrification, and NTFs may operate under oxygen-
TABLE 13.27 Operating and flushing dosing rates for distributors.
Total organic load, kg/m3d Operating dosing rate, Flushing dosing rate,
(lb BOD5/d/1000 cu ft) mm/pass (in./pass) mm/pass (in./pass)
0.4 (25) 25–75 (1–3) 100 (4)
0.8 (50) 50–150 (2–6) 150 (6)
1.2 (75) 75–225 (3–9) 225 (9)
1.66 (100) 100–300 (4–12) 300 (12)
2.4 (150) 150–450 (6–18) 450 (18)
3.2 (200) 200–600 (8–24) 600 (24)
Note: Actual values are site specific and vary with media type.

limited conditions (Schroeder and Tchobanoglous, 1976; Kuenen et al., 1986; Okey and
Albertson, 1989b). Ventilation is essential to maintain aerobic conditions. Current
design practice requires adequate sizing of underdrains and effluent channels to permit
free airflow. Passive devices for ventilation include vent stacks on the periphery, exten-
sions of underdrains through side walls, ventilating manholes, louvers on the sidewall
of the tower near the underdrain, and discharge of effluent to the subsequent settling
basin in an open channel or partially filled pipes. However, these methods may not be
adequate if high performance is required or in the presence of low natural draft.
7.3.1 Natural Draft

One method to determine the amount of natural draft is to require 1 m2 of ventilating
area for each 3 to 4.6 m of trickling filter circumference. Another gauge is 1 to 2 m2 of
ventilation area in the underdrain area per 1000 m3 of media. Inlet openings to rock-
media underdrains have a recommended nonsubmerged combined area equal to at
least 15 % of the trickling filter surface area. Drains, channels, and pipes should be sized
to prevent submergence of greater than 50% of the cross-sectional area under design
hydraulic loading. Forced ventilation should be provided for covered trickling filters.
Benzie et al. (1963) studied 17 rock-media based WWTPs in Michigan and demon-
strated that airflow was stagnant when ambient and wastewater temperatures were
equal. Researchers also concluded that, during winter months, recirculation has a cool-
ing effect on natural draft.
Schroeder and Tchobanoglous (1976) proposed the following equation to deter-
mine the natural draft in synthetic-media trickling filters.
⎛ 1 1⎞
P 353 ⋅ D ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (13.39)
⎝ TC TH ⎠
Where,
P pressure head resulting from differential temperature, mm H2O;
TC colder temperature (ambient air or air inside trickling filter), °K;
TH hotter temperature (ambient air or air inside trickling filter), °K;
TC TH
Tm ⎛ T ⎞ average temperature inside the trickling filter, °K; and
ln ⎜ C ⎟
⎝ TH ⎠
D media depth, m.
The log-mean pore temperature, Tm, can be replaced by the hotter temperature, Th, to
obtain a less conservative estimate of the average pore air temperature. Some trickling

filters do not have adequate oxygen daily for at least part of the year. Air stagnation
results in odors and performance variability. Furthermore, little data exists to provide
guidance on defining the amount of natural airflow through rock- or synthetic-media
trickling filters. The velocity of air is low except when there is a large difference between
air and wastewater temperature or if the trickling filters are deep (6 to 12 m). In the case
of natural draft, if the wastewater is colder than ambient air, then the air will flow
down. Alternatively, if the ambient air is colder than the wastewater, then the airflow
will be up. Because a constant temperature differential does not occur naturally, power
ventilation by mechanical means is recommended.
7.3.2 Forced Ventilation

Most new and improved trickling filter-based WWTPs use low-pressure fans to force
airflow. This practice, known as power ventilation, offers a wintertime benefit of limit-
ing cold airflow and minimizing cooling of wastewater. Powered ventilation and
enclosed trickling filters also can destroy odorous compounds in influent wastewater
and prevent excessive ventilation during winter or during periods of high air–water
temperature differentials. Trickling filters may be ventilated in either an upward or
downward airflow pattern. Dow Chemical presented a calculation to determine differ-
ential pressure as a function of airflow rate (m3/m2 h) through VFM for natural draft
and mechanical fans. Differential air pressure for natural draft typically is insufficient
during some portion of the day. Whether the trickling filter is 1.5 m (5 ft) or 6 m (20 ft)
deep, the driving force is low. With temperature differentials between ambient air and
water of less than
2.8°C (5°F), airflow in the trickling filter can stagnate. Humidity
differences also drive airflow, but ambient air values vary widely and are unpre-
dictable. Downflow may reduce or eliminate trickling filter odors if incorporated with
good flushing hydraulics.
Recommended minimum airflow for design of power ventilation has been devel-
oped. However, additional research is required to determine airflow rates necessary to
maximize kinetics. Influent BOD5 and effluent rbBOD5 are used to determine the
required airflow rate. The oxygen-transfer rate used to determine airflow is 5% for car-
bon oxidizing trickling filters and 2.5% for both combined carbon oxidation and nitrifi-
cation and NTFs. The higher air rate used for NTFs is to ensure that all areas of the trick-
ling filter have airflow. Losses through vertical corrugated media can be described by
using the following equation:
⎛ 2 ⎞
P R ⋅ ⎜
⎝ 2 ⋅ g ⎟⎠
(13.40)

Where,
v2 superficial air velocity, m/s;
g acceleration because of gravity, 9.81 m/s2;
R tower resistance, velocity heads lost per unit tower depth, kPa/m; and
P total head losses, kPa.
The term, R, is the total sum of individual head losses through the trickling filter.
Assuming adequate inlet and underdrain openings, the main loss through the trickling
filter will be the packing loss (Rp) of the filter media. Dow Chemical proposed that
R can be determined using Equation 13.41 for medium density (89 m2/m3) VFM
(Tchobanoglous, 2003):
⎛ L⎞
( 1.36105 )⎜ ⎟
Rp 10.33 ⋅ D ⋅ e ⎝ A⎠ (13.41)
Where,
Rp packing headloss in terms of velocity heads;
L liquid loading, kg/h;
A trickling filter plan (slab) area, m2; and
D trickling filter media depth, m.
To estimate total headloss through the trickling filter, the value of Rp determined by
Equation 13.39 should be multiplied by a factor of 1.3 to 1.5 to account for minor head-
losses such as the inlet and underdrain. Because there are few data for other media
types, the following multipliers should be used to determine Rp (Tchobanoglous, 2003):
• Crossflow: 100 m2/m3 (30 ft2/ft3) 1.3 Rp

• Crossflow: 138 m2/m3 (42 ft2/ft3) 1.6 Rp
• Rock: 39 to 49 m2/m3 (12 to 15 ft2/ft3) 2.0 Rp
• Random: 100 m2/m3 (30 ft2/ft3) 1.6 Rp
7.4 Tricking Filter Design Models

Numerous investigators have attempted to delineate the fundamentals of the trickling
filter process by developing relationships among variables that affect operation. Exist-
ing process models range from simplistic empirical formulations to complex numerical
models. Analyses of operating data have established equations or curves and have led
to development of various empirical formulas. Unfortunately, many models exist and
there no industry standard. Trickling filter models may be classified as dissolved-

organic-loading models, particulate-organic-loading models, hydraulic-loading models,

and mass-transfer models. Although these formulas include many variables that affect
operations, none can predict actual performance. Designers need to assess which equa-
tion best fits a particular situation, particularly when meeting discharge permit require-
ments. Several formulas are discussed below: National Research Council, Galler and
Gotaas, Kincannon and Stover, Velz equation, Schulze equation, Germain equation,
Eckenfelder formula, Institution of Water and Environmental Management (IWEM)
formula, and Logan model.
7.4.1 National Research Council Formula

The National Research Council (NRC) formula (1946) resulted from an analysis of oper-
ational records from rock-media trickling filter WWTPs serving military installations.
The NRC analysis is based on two principles: The amount of contact between media
and organic matter removed depends on trickling filter dimensions and number of
passes; the greater the effective contact, the greater the performance efficiency. How-
ever, the greater the applied load, the lower the efficiency. Therefore, the primary deter-
minant of efficiency in a trickling filter is the combination of effective contact and
applied load. Organic loading primarily influences trickling filter efficiency. Hydraulic
loading modifies the efficiency; increased rate equals increased efficiency. For the 34
WWTPs selected for the study, the efficiency curve best fitting a plot of the parameter
“applied load per effective contact area” (W/VF) is captured in Equations 13.42 and
13.43 for single- and second-stage trickling filters, respectively.
100
E1 0.5
⎛ W ⎞ (13.42)
1 0.0085 ⋅ ⎜ 1 ⎟
⎝ V ⋅ F⎠
and,
100
E2 0.5
1 0.0085 ⎛ W2 ⎞
⋅⎜ (13.43)
1 1
E ⎝ V ⋅ F ⎟⎠
100
Where,
E1 BOD5 removal efficiency through first-stage and settling tank, %;
W1 BOD5 loading to first or single stage, not including recycle, kg/d;

V volume of stage (cross-sectional area media depth), acre-feet

(Note: 1 ac ft 1 233 m3);
QR
1
Q
F number of organic material passes ⎡ 2
⎛ QR ⎞ ⎤ ;
⎢1 (1 P) ⋅ ⎜ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ Q ⎟⎠ ⎦
QR
dimensionless recirculation ratio;
Q
P a weighing factor, for military trickling filters, with rock media 0.9;
E2 BOD5 removal efficiency through second stage and settling tank, %; and
W2 BOD5 loading to second stage, not including recycle, kg/d.
Equations 13.42 and 13.43 are empirical but represent the average of data for rock-
media trickling filter-based WWTPs, both with and without recirculation. Because of
the nature of their development, the NRC formulas include several limitations and
conditions:
(1) Military wastewater has a higher strength (250 to 400 mg/L) than average
domestic wastewater.
(2) Effect of temperature on performance is not considered (most of the studies were
in the Midwest and South).
(3) Clarifier practice when the formulas were developed favored shallow units that
were hydraulically loaded higher than current practice allows, resulting in exces-
sive BOD5 and TSS losses.
(4) Applicability may be limited to stronger-than-normal domestic wastewater
because no factor is included to account for differing treatability rates of lower
strength wastewater.
(5) The formula for second-stage trickling filters is based on the existence of inter-
mediate settling tanks following first stage. Figure 13.62 compares trickling filter
operational data for recirculation ratios of 0 to 2 with predicted values using the
first- or single-stage NRC formula with a similar range of recirculation ratios
(NRC, 1946). This figure shows that actual trickling filter performance may devi-
ate substantially from predicted removals. Scattered data for loadings less than
0.3 kg/m3 d (20 lb/d/1000 cu ft) could be biased by lack of a BOD5 test that
inhibits nitrification. Inadequate flushing, poor ventilation, or an inefficient

FIGURE 13.62 Comparison of trickling filter operating data with performance pre-
dicted by the National Research Council formula. (kg/m3d 0.062.4 lb/d/cu ft)
(NCR, 1946).
clarifier design could have contributed to poor performance data. Thus, the fore-
going variables should be accounted for when designing trickling filters based on
the NRC formula curves of Figure 13.63.
7.4.2 Galler and Gotaas Formula

Galler and Gotaas (1964) attempted to describe the performance of rock-media trick-
ling filters with multiple regression analysis of data from existing WWTPs. Based on
analysis of extensive data (322 observations), the following was developed:
K ⋅ (Q ⋅ Si QR ⋅ Se )1.19
Se (13.44)
(Q QR )0.78 ⋅ (1 D)0.67 ⋅ ra 0.25

FIGURE 13.63 Biochemical oxygen demand removal versus loading and depth of
plastic media from simultaneous loading studies at Midland, Michigan, plant (lb/d/
1 000 cu ft 0.016 02 kg/m3d; gpm/sq ft 0.679 L/m2s).
Where,
0.13
⎛ 43, 560 ⎞
K coefficient 0.464 ⋅ ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ ;
Q 0.28 ⋅ T 0.15
Q flow rate (ML/d);
QR recirculation flow rate (ML/d);
D trickling filter depth (m);
Se settled trickling filter effluent as BOD5 at 20°C (mg/L);
Si trickling filter influent as BOD5 at 20°C (mg/L); and
ra trickling filter radius (m).
The Galler and Gotaas formula recognizes recirculation, hydraulic loading, trickling fil-
ter depth, and wastewater temperature as important variables for performance. Deeper

trickling filters performed better in their analysis. They indicated that recirculation
improves performance but established a 4:1 ratio as a practical upper limit. A statistical
analysis of experimental data, performed by Galler and Gotaas (1964), resulted in a high
coefficient of multiple determination (R2 0.97). Hydraulic flow rate was unimportant
in determining bioreactor efficiency. The BOD5 loading correlated most closely with
performance; BOD5 loading controlled performance.
7.4.3 Kincannon and Stover Model

Kincannon and Stover (1982) developed a mathematical model based on a relationship
between the specific substrate use rate and total organic loading, which followed a
Monod plot to determine required biofilm area (As):
⎛ 8.345 ⋅ q ⋅ Si ⎞
⎜⎝ max ⋅ Si ⎟⎠
(13.45)
As Kb
Si Se
Where,
Si influent BOD5 (mg/L);
Se effluent BOD5 (mg/L); and
Kb proportionality constant of specific surface area (m2).
Biokinetic parameters, namely the maximum specific substrate use rate and Monod-
type half-saturation constant (or max and Kb, respectively), are reported based on pilot-
plant tests, full-scale results, or a summary of prior experiences. When extracting these
parameters from test data, they may be determined graphically by plotting BOD5 load-
ing versus the inverse of BOD5 removed. Investigators noted that variability in corre-
lated data is normal. Biochemical oxygen demand removal is controlled by volumetric
loading and treatability, and BOD5 removal is not influenced by media depth.
7.4.4 Velz Equation

Velz (1948) proposed the first formulation delineating a fundamental law, compared to
previous empirical attempts that were based on data analyses. The Velz equation
relates the BOD5 remaining at depth D mathematically by:
Se
10k⋅t (13.46)
Si

Where,
SD BOD5 (mg/L) removed at depth D, meters;
t residence time (d); and
k Velz first-order rate constant (d1).
The formula depicted in Equation 13.44 implies that kV is constant for all hydraulic
rates; however, Albertson and Davies (1984) presented evidence that kV varies with the
hydraulic rate. The Velz equation is presented because of its foundation in currently
used design formulations, namely the Schulze and Eckenfelder equations.
7.4.5 Schulze Formula

Schulze (1960) postulated that the time of liquid contact with the biological mass is
directly proportional to trickling-filter depth and inversely proportional to the hydraulic
loading rate. This is expressed by Equation 13.47.
c⋅D
tc (13.47)
THLn
Where,
tc liquid contact time (d);
c constant (dimensionless);
THL hydraulic loading rate (m3/m2 d); and
n exponent on hydraulic loading (dimensionless).
Combining the time of contact with the first-order equation for BOD5 removal in an
adaptation of the Velz theory, Schulze derived the following formula:
k s ⋅D
Se
e THL
n
(13.48)
Si
Where,
Se soluble BOD5 in trickling filter effluent stream (mg/L);
Si soluble BOD5 in trickling filter influent stream (mg/L);
kS Schulze coeffecient (d1 when n 1);
n exponent on hydraulic loading (dimensionless); and
THL hydraulic loading rate (m3/m2 d).

Equation 13.46 is similar to that proposed by Velz. However, Velz’s constant, k, was not
formulated to consider hydraulic load. For a given wastewater strength, the hydraulic
rate is proportional to the loading rate. Thus, volumetric organic loading may still be
the controlling process variable. The value of k published by Schulze (based on U.S. cus-
tomary units) for a rock-media trickling filter with a 1.8-m (6-ft) depth at 20°C was
0.69 d1. The dimensionless constant characteristic of rock-media trickling filter, n, was
found to be 0.67. The common temperature correction value of 1.035 could be
applied to determine kt as follows by:
kt k20 1.035(T20) for ks (13.49)
and
kt As kS
Where,
kt temperature-corrected coefficient value (d1 when n 1);
kS Schulze coefficient (d1 when n 1); and
As clean surface area of the media, m2.
7.4.6 Germain Formula

Germain (1966) applied the Schulze formulation to a synthetic-media trickling filter:
kG ⋅D
Se
e THL
n
(13.50)
Si
Where,
Si soluble BOD5 in trickling filter influent stream (typically primary effluent
excluding recirculation) (mg/L);
THL hydraulic loading rate (m3/m2 d); and
kG Germain coefficient (d1 when n 1).
Values of kG and n are related to media configuration, clarification efficiency, dosing

cycle, and hydraulic rate; kG is a function of wastewater characteristics, media depth,
specific surface area, and media configuration. Therefore, because a high degree of
interdependency exists between kG and n, this must be considered in data comparisons.
Germain (1966) reported that the value of kG of 0.24 (L/s)n m2 (0.088 gpmn/ft2) for a
synthetic-media trickling filter 6.6 m (21.5 ft) deep treating domestic wastewater with a

value of 0.5 for n. This vertical-flow media had a clean surface area of 89 m2/m3 (27 sq
ft/cu ft). Correction of kG for the high BOD5 concentration represented by the Institution
0.5
⎛ 150 ⎞
of Water and Environment Management (IWEM) model, kG ⎜
⎝ 360 ⎟⎠
, resulted in similar
predictive values from these two models for plastic media operating in the loading
range of 0.2 to 1.5 kg/m3 d (12.5 to 93.6 lb/d/1000 cu ft) at 20°C.
In tests designed to determine the effects of recirculation on BOD5 removal, Ger-
main (1966) found no statistically significant difference. However, the relatively tall
6.6-m (21.5-ft) tower resulted in high influent application rates, ensuring adequate wet-
ting of media. This conforms to the practice of using recirculation for shallow filters
where influent hydraulic rates are low and wetting efficiency would likely suffer. Equa-
tion 13.48 is used widely for synthetic-media trickling filter analysis and design. The
kG data were developed from more than 140 pilot studies performed by Dow Chemical
and many more by other media suppliers. Most of these tests used a trickling filter
media depth of 6 to 7 m (20 to 22 ft).
7.4.7 Eckenfelder Formula

Eckenfelder (1961) and Eckenfelder and Barnhart (1963) described a modified trickling
filter formula to account for trickling filter media specific surface area (a, m2/m3). The
formula proposed for soluble BOD5 removal can be expressed mathematically by
Equation 13.51.
( 1b )
k s′⋅a ⋅D
Se
e THL
n
(13.51)
Si
Where,
kS overall treatability coefficient based on soluble BOD5 ((m3/d)0.5/m2);
D depth (m); and
THL hydraulic loading rate (m3/m2 d).
b surface area modifier for surface loss with increasing area.
With recirculation, Equation 13.51 can be extended and expressed mathematically by

Equation 13.52.
k s′⋅D
n
Se e WHL
k s′⋅D (13.52)
Si ⎛ QR ⎞
⎜⎝ 1 Q ⎟⎠ e
WHLn

Using the Eckenfelder formula and kS a ks, Equation 13.52 can be rewritten as Equa-
tion 13.53, this is known as the Modified Velz equation.
Si
Se k s ⋅a⋅D⋅( T 20 )
n
⎡ ⎛ QR ⎞⎤
⎛ QR ⎞ ⎢⎣WHL⋅⎝⎜ Q 1⎟⎠ ⎥⎦ Q (13.53)
⎜⎝ Q 1⎟⎠ ⋅ e R
Q
7.4.8 Institution of Water and Environmental Management Formula

The Institution of Water and Environment Management (IWEM) developed a formula
describing the BOD5 in trickling filters having rock, random-packed plastic media (rock
and random synthetic), or modular plastic media. Equation 13.54, resulting from a mul-
tiple regression analysis, follows:
Si 1

Se ⎛ am ⎞ (13.54)
1 k IWEM ⋅ (T15) ⋅ ⎜
⎝ VLR n ⎟⎠
Where,
kIWEM kinetic coefficient (mm1 dn1);
temperature coefficient;
a media specific surface area (m2/m3);
m reduction factor for surface loss with increasing area;
VLR volumetric hydraulic loading rate (m3/dm3) of trickling filter media; and
n hydraulic rate coefficient.
Equation 13.52 has reported coefficients that account for 90% of data variability:
• kIWEM 0.0204 (rock and random); 0.40 (modular plastic).

• 1.111 (rock and random); 1.089 (modular plastic).
• m 1.407 (rock and random); 0.732 (modular plastic).
• n 1.249 (rock and random); 1.396 (modular plastic).
The model was developed using data collected from tests performed on a strong domes-
tic wastewater with primary effluent concentrations of 360-mg/L BOD5, 240-mg/L TSS,
and 52-mg/L NH3-N. The model predicts a continuous performance curve from low- to
high-rate loadings. The trickling filter depths from which the samples were collected

range from 1.74 to 2.10 m, biofilm growth areas ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 m2, and loadings
were 0.3 to 16 kg/m3 d. The IWEM model is temperature sensitive which may be
caused by site-specific wastewater characteristics and data reduction procedures. The
NRC equations agree with the IWEM’s projection based on an influent strength of
360 mg/L BOD5 at loadings up to 1.0 kg/m3 d.
7.4.9 Logan Trickling Filter Model

The Logan trickling filter (LTF) model is based on characterizing modular plastic trick-
ling filter media as a series of inclined plates covered with a thick, partially penetrated,
biofilm. The rate of soluble COD removal is determined using a numerical model to
solve transport equations that describe biochemical transformation rates resulting from
diffusion through a thin liquid film and into the biofilm. Although the model was cali-
brated using a single data set for only one type of plastic trickling filter media, a vari-
ety of laboratory, pilot-plant, and full-scale trickling filter studies claim that LTF accu-
rately predicts soluble COD removal (Logan et al., 1987a, 1987b; Bratby et al., 1999;
Logan and Wagenseller, 2000). Unlike kinetic models, the LTF cannot be collapsed into
a single equation. Thus, a computer program is required to use this approach. The the-
oretical basis of the LTF model is reviewed, and example calculations are provided
below. The computer model of Logan et al. (1987a; 1987b) was developed to predict sol-
uble BOD5 removal in plastic media trickling filters as a function of plastic media geom-
etry. The LTF model has not been tested or adapted for use with rock- or random-media
trickling filter design.
A disadvantage of kinetic models, such as the Velz equation, is that new kinetic
(k20) and hydraulic (n) constants may require determination for each type of trickling
filter media. The LTF model requires only that the media geometry be measured and
input. Consequently, there was no need to recalibrate the model for new plastic media
types. The actual, computer-code-based model (written in FORTRAN) was given the
name TRIFIL2; the LTF computer program uses tabulated values for a range of condi-
tions for specific media. Dissolved organics that compose soluble COD in wastewater
are assumed to be equally distributed into a five-component molecular size. As the waste-
water flows over the biofilm, the dissolved organics diffuse into the biofilm and are
removed at a rate close to that predicted. Small molecules diffuse faster than larger ones
and are predicted to be removed more efficiently. Soluble COD is not included in the
model because it is assumed to be removed by particle bioflocculation. Temperature
affects water viscosity (), which affects fluid film thickness and thus retention time in
the trickling filter media. Changes in chemical diffusion coefficients (D) with temperature
D ⋅
(T) are adjusted by the usual assumption that is constant (Welty et al., 1976). The
T

model is available free at http://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/enve/logan/bioremediation/

trickling_filter/model.htm. Additional information on the model can be obtained from
the original publications cited below, as well as a chapter in Logan (1999).
7.4.10 Selecting a Trickling Filter Design Model

Design engineers may use various empirical criteria and design formulations for sizing
trickling filters. The NRC (Equations 13.42 and 13.43) or Galler and Gotaas (Equation
13.44) formulas typically are used for rock-media trickling filter design. The Schulze
equation (Equations 13.47 and 13.48), Eckenfelder equation, and IWEM equation are
used for both rock- and plastic-media trickling filter design over a wide range of media
specific surface areas and depths. The coefficients k and n vary, however. (The word
“coefficient” is used to describe k [or K] and n because they are neither constants nor
treatability factors.). Bruce and Merkens (1970, 1973) conducted simultaneous testing of
two trickling filters at the same flow and BOD5 loading but at a 4⬊1 ratio in the appli-
cation rate because one was 7.41 m (24.3 ft) deep and the other was 2.1 m (6.9 ft) deep
(Bruce and Merkens, 1970, 1973). From this study it was concluded BOD5 efficiency
would be independent of depth. Further work showed that the BOD strength also affect
BOD5 efficiency. Thus, the value of k of the hydraulically driven equations could be
modified as a function of media depth (D) and influent BOD strength (L) by Equation
13.53 where D1 is 6.1 m (20 ft) and L1 is 150 mg/L:
0.5 0.5
⎛D ⎞ ⎛ L1 ⎞
k 2 k1 ⋅ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜⎝ L ⎟⎠ (13.55)
⎝ D2 ⎠ 2
Where,
k Velz’s constant;
D depth (m); and
L length (m).
Simultaneous tests were also conducted by the Dow Chemical using 1.65-m and 6.55-m
trickling filters. The results of these studies (Figure 13.63) demonstrate that trickling fil-
ter performance is controlled by organic loading, and that k value of the deep trickling
filter is exactly 50% of that for the shallow trickling filter (i.e., (1.6/6.6)0.5 0.5).
The variation of k with trickling filter depth is an important consideration. A k-value
developed for specific depth should not be used for a different depth without proper
modification. Using data from installations and simultaneous tests, Albertson and
Davies (1984) showed that k could be used for any trickling filter configuration if corrected

for depth. However, this research also indicated that inadequate wetting might pro-
duce lower k values than optimum.
The Eckenfelder, Germain, Schulze, and Velz equations are similar. Because the
coefficients k (or K) and n must be, or have been, empirically derived, background data
are influenced by a variables such as hydraulic rate, dosing mode, temperature, waste-
water characterization, media configuration and depth, ventilation, and other unknown
test-specific factors. The equations have proven effective in modeling specific WWTP
data, but also have been proven to deviate significantly from observed results. When
modifying the configuration, the value of the treatment constant, k? (or K?) changes,
even when considering the same trickling filter media and wastewater.
The NRC, Germain, and Eckenfelder equations may be used for rock–media trick-
ling filters, although results are highly variable. Designers may use each of these mod-
els before making a decision. Improved hydraulic application systems provide con-
trol of ponding, nuisance macrofauna, and odors. The designer may want to attempt
to account for improved performance with increased dosing rates. A well-designed
and operated rock-media trickling filter can provide high-quality effluent. Grady
et al. (1999) suggest that for low organic loads (less than 1 kg BOD5/dm3), rock- and
synthetic-media trickling filters are capable of equivalent effectiveness at low to mod-
erate organic loading.
Synthetic-media CTFs are designed with the Eckenfelder, Germain, or LTF models.
Use of the Germain coefficient k (for AsK) is justified because of the lack of an adequate,
properly compiled database that allows for effective separation of As and K. Historical
pilot- and full-scale data are impaired by lack of proper dosing intensity and hydraulic
rate. In addition, many pilot plants used were equipped with continuous-flow nozzles,
which are known to be inefficient. The Eckenfelder equation often is used to define
rbCOD removal efficiency. The beneficial effect of recirculation is reflected in this for-
mula were derived from low application rates of standard rate rock-media trickling fil-
ters. The literature values of n were derived from continuous-flow studies; to properly
compare k values, use of 0.5 for n is suggested.
Municipal wastewater k20 values were generated from studies by Dow Chemical
on medium density, 89 m2/m3, vertical-flow media with hydraulic applications rates
ranging from 0.176 to 0.244 (L/s)0.5/m2 and a trickling filter media depth of 6.55 m. This
has evolved to a common design k20 value of 0.203 (L/s)0.5/m2 at 6.1 m (20 ft). This k20
value is used with a minimum wetting rate of 0.51 L/m2 s. As trickling filter depth
decreases, recycle must increase to maintain minimum wetting flow. This criterion
must not be ignored when replacing rock-media with synthetic media less than 4-m
(13.1-ft) deep. Hydraulic rates have been 20 to 50% of the minimum wetting rate estab-
lished by Dow Chemical. Therefore, wetting efficiency should be considered when

rerating or optimizing an existing facility. There is little evidence to resolve the question
of wetting effectiveness as a function of mode of application; additional research is
required. Drury et al. (1986) demonstrated improved process performance by simply
replacing rock media with synthetic media in a shallow-bed trickling filter (approxi-
mately 1 m). Designers must recognize that performance of crossflow media trickling
filters 1- to 2.4-m deep may not exceed that of rock-media trickling filter because of wet-
ting limitations (i.e., existing recirculation pumping facilities).
7.5 Combined Carbon Oxidation and Nitrification

Combined carbon oxidizing and nitrification trickling filters may be accomplished
using synthetic or rock-media. The effect of combined carbon oxidation and nitrification
in rock-media trickling filters is an artifact of under-loading based on soluble COD.
Parker (1998) noted that design of combined carbon oxidation and nitrification in syn-
thetic media trickling filters is empirical.
The U.S. EPA (1991) conducted a survey of 10 combined carbon oxidation and
nitrification facilities, six of which used the trickling filter/solids contact process. The
manual for nitrogen control recommends BOD5 loading (g/m2 d) to achieve both car-
bon oxidation and nitrification in a single trickling filter (U.S. EPA, 1993). The kinetics
of combined BOD5 removal and nitrification are complex. Lack of fundamental research
supporting the combined carbon oxidation and nitrification process contributes to the
empirical design procedures presented herein. Because of the facultative heterotrophic
biofilms, researchers such as Biesterfeld et al. (2003) have demonstrated that recircula-
tion sometimes results in denitrification.
The rate of nitrification in combined carbon oxidation and nitrification trickling fil-
ters will be influenced by many factors such as influent wastewater characteristics,
hydraulics, ventilation, and media type. The U.S. EPA (1975) summarized full- and
pilot-scale rock-media trickling filter data from Lakefield, Minnesota; Allentown, Penn-
sylvania; Gainesville, Florida; Corvallis, Oregon; Fitchburg, Massachusetts; Ft. Ben-
jamin Harrison, Indiana; Johannesburg, South Africa; Salford, England. Figure 13.64
illustrates these data and shows the relationship between BOD5 volumetric loading
with nitrification efficiency.
Recommendations proposed by U.S. EPA (1975) include an organic matter loading
limit of 0.16 to 0.19 kg BOD5/m3 d required to achieve approximately 75% nitrification.
Bacterial cellular synthesis of ammonia by heterotrophic bacteria for cell growth con-
tributes to the complexity of estimating nitrification (NH3-N) in trickling filters. Figure
13.64 indicates that recirculation typically improved nitrification, particularly for effi-
ciencies greater than 50%. Stenquist et al. (1974), reporting on combined carbon oxida-
tion and nitrification in both synthetic- and rock-media trickling filters, related organic

FIGURE 13.64 Effect of organic load on nitrification efficiency of rock trickling filters
(lb/d/1000 cu ft 0.016 02 kg/m3d).
loading to the level of nitrification achieved. These researchers determined that 89%
NH3-N removal occurred at an organic loading of 0.36 kg/m3 d. The nitrification capac-
ity of trickling filter was found to be a function of surface BOD5 loading (kg BOD5/m2 d
of trickling filter media). Bruce et al. (1975) demonstrated that effluent BOD5 and COD
had to be less than 30 and 60 mg/L, respectively, to initiate nitrification and complete
nitrification occurred with an effluent BOD5 less than 15 mg/L. Harremöes (1982) con-
cluded that soluble BOD5 would have to be less than 20 mg/L for the initiation of nitri-
fication and will reach maximum rates when effluent filtered or soluble BOD5, is 4 to
8 mg/L. Figure 13.65 illustrates results from full- and pilot-scale studies at Stockton,
California. This figure provides data for vertical-flow media and support for the work
of Harremöes (1982).
Lin and Heck (1987) reported successful operation of a trickling filter/SC process
with trickling filters designed for combined carbon oxidation and nitrification with

FIGURE 13.65 Relationship between nitrification efficiency and soluble biochemical

oxygen demand in the effluent of a vertical media trickling filter at Stockton, California.
1.5 mg/L effluent NH3-N at 13°C. The trickling filter design was based on 0.2 kg
BOD5/m3 d and a TKN loading of 0.051 kg/m3 d using 98-m2/m3 crossflow media.
Complete nitrification occurred with summer BOD5 loadings up to 0.32 kg/m3d.
Parker and Richards (1986) presented results of tests conducted at Garland, Texas,
and Atlanta, Georgia. The results are presented as percent ammonia-nitrogen removal
versus average BOD5 loading (lb/d/1000 cu ft) are shown in Figure 13.66 (a) and (b).
Daigger et al. (1994) presented an evaluation of three full-scale crossflow media trick-
ling filters achieving combined carbon oxidation and nitrification as shown in Figure
13.66 (right-hand side).
Removal of organic nitrogen was reported to vary between 21 and 85% (U.S. EPA,
1975). Rock-media trickling filter studies at Gainesville and Johannesburg indicated that

FIGURE 13.66 (a and b on left-hand side) Effect of organic loading on the rate of nitri-
fication in combined carbon oxidation and nitrification trickling filters (Parker and
Richards, 1986) and (right-hand side) practical experience with combined carbon oxi-
dation and nitrification in plastic media trickling filters (Daigger et al., 1994; reprinted
from Water Science and Technology, with permission from the copyright holders, IWA).

BOD5 loadings must be less than 0.2 kg/m3 d to remove 60 to 85% of the ammonia-
nitrogen. Studies at Bloom Township, Illinois, demonstrated that nitrification was
temperature dependent (Baxter and Woodman, 1973). Removals varied from 30 to 70%
from 10 to 23°C.
The Wauconda, Illinois, facility, for example, was designed with an empirical
approach that considered the organic loading and the BOD5 and TKN of the influent.
These procedures did not fully account for the effect of influent BOD5⬊TKN on the rate
of nitrification. Figure 13.67 is an illustration of TKN removal rate versus the applied
BOD5⬊TKN ratio. The TKN removal results from the combined effect of synthesis and
nitrification.
Trickling filters require biofilm control by flooding, flushing, or both to produce
the lowest ammonia-nitrogen concentrations. In the case of a combined carbon oxidiz-
ing and nitrification trickling filter, the designer must include provisions to control
growth of heterotrophic biofilms and provide predator control to avoid grazing of the
delicate nitrifying biofilm.
FIGURE 13.67 Study of nitrification at temperatures below 20°C for plants in Stockton
and Chino, California; Garland, Texas; and the Twin Cities Metro plant at St. Paul,
Minnesota (median y– 0.460
0.175; x– 11.081 and ⬇ 15°C TKNOX 1.086
[BOD5⬊TKN]0.44; g/m2d 0.204 8 lb/d/1000 sq ft).

Daigger et al. (1994) found that oxidation of BOD and NH3-N in trickling filters
can be characterized by the following:
⎛ ⎞
⎜ Lin 4.6 ⋅ (NO X -N) ⎟ ⎛ Q ⎞
VOR ⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎟ (13.56)
⎜ 10 3 g ⎟ ⎝ Vm ⎠
⎜⎝ kg ⎟⎠
Where,
VOR Volumetric oxidation rate, kg/m3 d;
Lin Influent BOD concentration, mg/L (or g/m3);
NOx-N amount of ammonia oxidized, mg/L (or g/m3);
Q Influent low rate, m3/d; and
Vm Volume of filter media, m3.
Using Equation 13.56, the volumetric oxidation rate for three trickling filter plants with
modular plastic media was found to vary from 0.75 to 1.0 kg/m3 d.
7.6 Nitrifying Trickling Filters

Using a nitrifying trickling filter, or NTF, to treat secondary effluent (versus primary
effluent as previously discussed) is a reliable and cost effective means to control NH3-N.
Mulbarger (1991) evaluated the literature to understand biological wastewater treat-
ment processes. The researcher postulated that NTFs are effective in the range of efflu-
ent NH3-N concentration greater than or equal to 2 mg/L. The NTFs are affected by
oxygen availability, temperature, organic matter and NH3-N in the influent wastewater
stream, media type, and process hydraulics. The following design practices help opti-
mize NTF performance:
• medium-density crossflow media to optimize hydraulic distribution and

oxygenation,
• power ventilation to avoid stagnation,
• ADF to promote more complete biofilm development,
• polished secondary effluent to avoid bacterial competition for substrates in the
biofilm,
• maximum wetting efficiency to avoid formation of dry spots, and
• storage and control of NH3-N laden supernatant from solids processing opera-
tions to even out diurnal NH3-N variability (Parker et al., 1997).

Low energy consumption, stability, operational simplicity, reduced sludge yield, and
improved sludge settleability are a few of the advantages of NTFs. Reduced sludge
yield because of nitrifying biofilms have led to construction of NTFs solids separation.
Predatory macrofauna can negatively affect performance; therefore, the designer must
include a way to manage solids and predator-laden water resulting from predator treat-
ment cycles. Subsequent sections present design and operational features dedicated to
macrofauna control. Current design practice may include alternating double filtration
(ADF). Hawkes (1963), Gujer and Boller (1986), Parker et al. (1989), and Wik (2000) have
demonstrated that alternating the sequence of NTFs in series improves system perfor-
mance. The researchers observed patchy biofilm growth near the bottom of the NTFs.
The ADF may allow for more complete biofilm coverage in both bioreactors. The lead
NTF typically is alternated every three to seven days; therefore, current practice sug-
gests construction of a minimum of two NTFs. Although the responsible mechanism
has not been identified, the use of high NTFs with 6 to 12.2 m (20 to 40 ft) media depths
have demonstrated good performance. Some NTFs have been constructed with depths
as great as 12.8 m (42 ft) with excellent results. Recirculation should be minimized to
maintain maximum NH3-N concentration in the influent, up to 12 mg/L, and reduce
pH depression of nitrification. To maximize nitrification, a depth of 6 to 12 m (20 to
40 ft) typically is optimal for producing a high hydraulic rate and maintaining a maxi-
mum zero-order kinetic region. Shallower trickling filters can be used in series.
Parker (1998; 1999) further illustrated that performance differences between trick-
ling filter media types are most clear for tertiary NTFs. Table 13.28 demonstrates that
on a unit-area basis, zero-order nitrification rates are greater for crossflow media than
vertical-flow media. Because NTFs are compared on a unit-area basis, it is easier for the
designer to evaluate site-to-site data. In each of the cases listed in the table, ammonia-
nitrogen fluxes were greater for crossflow than vertical-flow media. As previously
TABLE 13.28 Nitrification rates for vertical (VF) and crossflow (XF) media (Parker, 1998, 1999).
Media ⎛ gN ⎞ Temperature
J N0 ⎜
⎝ d · m biofilm ⎟⎠
2
Location Investigator(s) type range (°C)
Central Valley, Utah Parker et al. (1989) XF 140 2.3–3.2 11–20

Malmo, Sweden Parker et al. (1995) XF 140 1.6–2.8 13–20
Littleton/Englewood, Parker et al. (1997) XF 140 1.7–2.3 15–20
Colorado
Midland, Michigan Duddles et al. (1974) VF 89 0.9–1.2 7–13
Lima, Ohio Okey and Albertson (1989a) VF 89 1.2–1.8 18–22
Bloom Township, Baxter and Woodman (1973) VF 89 1.1–1.2 17–20
Illinois

discussed, the postulated factors contributing to enhanced crossflow performance are

improved oxygen transfer efficiency because of the increased number of media inter-
ruption (mixing) nodes (Gujer and Boller, 1986; Parker et al. 1989). Because of the low
biofilm accumulation associated with autotrophic nitrifying biofilms, denser crossflow
media typically is used in NTFs. The higher specific surface area characteristic to
medium- and high-density crossflow media yields increased volumetric nitrification
rates. The combined effect of higher ammonia-nitrogen flux and media density may
result in volumetric uptake rates approximately three times higher than can be expected
with vertical-flow media (Parker, 1998). These observations are from pilot-scale trick-
ling filter studies, typically with continuous hydraulic application. Recommendations
related to materials are presented in this chapter because they are sound. Full-scale ver-
ification of the performance gradient has not been reported, and additional research is
recommended.
7.6.1 Kinetics and Design Procedures

The trickling filter bioreactor has been described previously as a PFR with large axial
dispersion that allows for no exchange of reactant with the environment outside the
physical system boundaries. Because of complexities in separating bioreactor com-
partments, such as external diffusion and internal diffusion/reaction, during tests,
most design formulations fail to separate compartments. The NTF design models are
based on flux, which is consistent with state-of-the-art biofilm process modeling.
Advanced NTF models based on biofilm kinetics exist and have been referenced in the
section dedicated to design models and formulations. These models are based on
assumptions that may limit their applicability, or require information that is not read-
ily available. However, the models provide process insight well beyond the design for-
mulations presented in this section. The engineer is referred to the literature for deter-
mination of applicability and procedure. Three simplistic NTF design models are
presented in this section:
• Gujer and Boller model (1986),

• Modified Gujer and Boller (1986) model, and
• Albertson and Okey (1988) model.
The NTF (nitrification) kinetic regime changes from zero- to first-order from the entrance
plane of the bioreactor to the exit as the NH3-N concentration decreases. Then NH3-N,
rather than oxygen, becomes the rate-limiting substrate in the first-order regime.
Results presented by Okey and Albertson (1989b), which are illustrated in Figure
13.68, were obtained from five different NTF facilities. These data were not corrected for

FIGURE 13.68 Area ammonium-nitrogen load versus the observed rate of ammonium-
nitrogen removal (g/m2d 0.204 8 lb/d/1000 sq ft).
temperature, and all test trickling filters relied on natural draft ventilation. Therefore,
wastewater characterization, temperature, substrate availability, media type, and
hydraulic application rate may have caused variability in the date. The data suggest
that the NH3-N flux will approach 100% removal for loadings less than 1.2 g/m2 d.
The typical NH3-N profile in the upper portion of an NTF will exhibit a straight-
line reduction of NH3-N at a rate controlled by oxygen availability. The rate of removal
will decrease as the rate-limiting substrate switches from oxygen to NH3-N. Conse-
quently, the rate of nitrification in a NTF is not constant with bioreactor depth.
The concentration of TSS in the secondary effluent has an appreciable effect on ter-
tiary nitrifying biofilm reactors (Parker et al., 1989). The biomass suspended in the bulk
liquid will compete with the biofilm for available substrate, particularly for oxygen.
Andersson et al. (1994) demonstrated that the maximum zero-order nitrification
rate in a pilot-scale NTF apparently decreased from approximately 2.6 g N/d m2 to
approximately 1.8 g N/dm2 when effluent TSS concentration exceeded 15 mg/L. These
findings are illustrated in Figure 13.69. According to the figure, nitrification in NTFs will
approach oxygen-limiting conditions when the bulk liquid TSS is less than 15 mg/L.

4.5
Influent SS ⬎ 15 mg/l
4 Influent SS ⬍ 15 mg/l
Nitrification rate, gN/m2⭈d
3.5
3
SS ⬍ 15 mg/l
2.5
2 SS ⬎ 15 mg/l
1.5
0.5
Ammonia concentration, mg N/l
0
0 3 6 9 12 13 14 21 24 27 30
FIGURE 13.69 Impact of bulk liquid total suspended solids concentration on nitrifica-
tion in a pilot-scale nitrifying trickling filter (Anderson et al., 1994; reprinted from
Water Science and Technology, with permission from the copyright holders, IWA).
There is little research describing the degree of benefit as TSS concentrations are
reduced well below 15 mg/L.
7.6.2 Gujer and Boller Model

The Gujer and Boller NTF model was developed based on stoichiometry, Fick’s law and
Monod-type kinetics. Gujer and Boller (1986) presented Equation 13.57 for NTF design.
SB , N
J N (S, T ) J N ,max (T ) ⋅ ⋅ ek⋅z (13.57)
K N SB , N
Here,
JN(S,T) ammonia-nitrogen flux at SB,N (g N/m2 d);
JN,max(T) maximum ammonia-nitrogen flux at temperature T (g N/m2 d)
J O2 ,max (T )
;
4.3

JO2,max(T) maximum dissolved-oxygen flux at temperature T (g O2/m2 d)

determined from literature or pilot testing;
SB,N bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen concentration (g/m3);
KN half-saturation coefficient for ammonia-nitrogen (g N/m3)
1.0 g N/m3; and
T temperature, °C.
Based on a “line-fit” relationship, JN(z,T) JN(0,T)ekz, the researchers developed two

solutions for the design of NTFs. The first accounts for a change in the rate of nitrifica-
tion with NTF depth (k 0) (Equation 13.58), and the second assumes no decrease in
the rate of nitrification with NTF depth (k 0) (Equation 13.58).
a ⋅ J N ,max (T ) ⎛S ⎞
⋅ (1 ek⋅z ) Sin , N SB , N K N ⋅ ln ⎜ in , N ⎟ (13.58)
k ⋅ h ⎝ SB , N ⎠
Where,
k 0.
z ⋅ a ⋅ J N ,max (T ) ⎛S ⎞
Sin , N SB , N K N ⋅ ln ⎜ in , N ⎟ (13.59)
h ⎝ SB , N ⎠
Where,
a specific surface area (m2/m3);
k empirical parameter describing nitrification rate decrease, 1/m;
0 to 0.16, typical 0.1;
vh NTF hydraulic load (with or without recirculation) (m3/dm2);
z NTF depth (m); and
Sin,N ammonia-nitrogen concentration in NTF influent stream, g/m3.
These equations can be solved directly to size an NTF for a desired SB,N. When recircu-
lation is used, an iterative solution routine that includes Equation 13.60 is required
because of the effect recirculation has on both vh and Sin,N:
S0 , N R ⋅ SB , N ⎫
SN ,i ⎪
1 R
⎪⎪
⎬ (13.60)
S0 , N Sin , N ⎪
R ⎪
Sin , N SB , N ⎪⎭

Where,
S0,N ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the influent stream before being mixed
with the recirculation stream.
The ammonia-nitrogen concentration in NTF influent stream, Sin,N, will be less than S0,N
when recirculation is applied.
7.6.3 Modified Gujer and Boller Model

Parker et al. (1989) modified Equation 13.57 to account for oxygen transfer efficiency
variability among modular plastic media types and operating conditions. The revised
expression follows.
J O2 ,max (T ) SB , N
J N ( z , T ) EO2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ek⋅z (13.61)
4.3 K N SB , N
Where,
EO2 dimensionless NTF media effectiveness factor.
Gujer and Boller (1986) reported, based on their experience, an EO2 value in the range
0.93 to 0.96 for KS,O2 0.2 g O2/m3 and the temperature range 5 to 25°C. Parker et al.
(1989), on the other hand, observed lower EO2 values (in the range 0.7 to 1.0) and
claimed that a departure from EO2 1.0 accounts for wetting inefficiency, biofilm graz-
ing by predatory macro fauna, or competition between autotrophic nitrifying and het-
erotrophic bacteria for dissolved oxygen. The researchers recommended that medium-
density crossflow media be used in NTF applications, and that EO2 may range from 0.7
to 1.0. High-density crossflow media had a corresponding EO2 approximately equal to
J (T )
0.4 (Parker et al. 1995). According to Parker et al. (1995), EO2 O2 ,max is the zero-order
4.3
ammonia-nitrogen flux. The maximum dissolved-oxygen flux reflects the oxygen trans-
fer efficiency of the selected modular plastic media, which was determined by
researchers using the Logan trickling filter model (Logan et al. 1987a). The coefficient
KS,O2 determined for the Central Valley WWTP, Utah, was between 1 and 2 mg/L
(Parker et al., 1989). Additional research is required to establish values for a wide vari-
ety of operating conditions.
7.6.4 Albertson and Okey Model

The empirical design procedure proposed by Albertson and Okey (1988) can be sum-
marized as the sum of the medium-density NTF media for zero-order and first-order
regions. The design procedure includes two steps:

(1) Determine trickling filter media volume based on zero-order kinetics using
medium density (138-m2/m3) media and an NH3-N flux (JN) of 1.2 g/m2 d over
a temperature range of 10 to 30°C. Below 10°C, adjust the rate using 1.045.
(2) Determine trickling filter media volume based on first-order kinetics using a rate
( JN), which equals the following formulation and does not have a temperature
correction between 7 and 30°C:
0.75 0.75
⎛ S ⎞ g ⎛ SN ,e ⎞
J N′ J avg
⋅ ⎜ N ,e ⎟ 1.2
d ⋅ m 2 ⎜⎝ SN ,TRAN ⎟⎠
N (13.62)
⎝ N ,TRAN ⎠
S
Where,
SN,TRAN a transition NH3-N concentration (mg/L) that can be determined from
Figure 13.70.
FIGURE 13.70 Transitional ammonium-nitrogen concentrations as functions of tem-

perature (the transitional region below the 100% saturation line may be either zero
order or first order, depending on the oxygen concentration).

This concentration is dependent on the degree of oxygen saturation and temper-

ature. The designer can determine the total media volume by adding the volume
required for both zero- and first-order kinetic realms. The above design procedure stip-
ulates several conditions be met:
• Ratio of BOD5 to TKN 1.0;

• Filtered BOD5 12 mg/L;
• Q(1 R)/A 0.54 L/m2 s (0.8 gpm/sq ft);
• Carbonaceous BOD5 and TSS 30 mg/L for medium density (138-m2/m3)
(42-sq ft/cu ft) media;
• Power ventilation; and
• Distributor control to provide instantaneous application rate, DR, of 25 to
75 mm/pass and flushing greater than or equal to 300 mm/pass.
7.6.5 Comparison of NTF Models

Wall et al. (2001) found that both the model of Gujer and Boller (1986) and Albertson
and Okey (1988) provide good prediction of general NTF performance under average
NH3-N loading conditions. The designer should note that the comparison performed by
Wall et al. (2001) did not include the modification to the model of Gujer and Boller
(1986) proposed by Parker et al. (1989). For effluent ammonia, however, the models typ-
ically showed more significant peaks and troughs than sample data.
The Gujer and Boller model predicted peaks more exaggerated than the model of
Albertson and Okey (1988). No justification was presented for the models’ inability to
account for peak NH3-N loading conditions. Parker et al. (1995) demonstrated that the
modified Boller and Gujer model (Equation 13.60) effectively predicted NTF effluent
NH3-N loading concentrations under both average and peak conditions. Example
results of the study performed by Parker et al. (1995) are illustrated in Figure 13.71.
7.6.6 Temperature Effects

The effects of temperature are variable in NTFs. It is reported that temperature affects
zero-order (higher) nitrification rates more than first-order (lower) nitrification rates.
Research does not explain if temperature effects are dampened because of liquid vis-
cosity (external diffusion resistance limited) or biochemical reaction. Figure 13.72
summarizes tertiary NTF data from several tests, which indicates significant tempera-
ture effects on nitrification rates. Central Valley data were developed from higher
hydraulic rates than typical and excluded data for effluent NH3-N concentrations less
than 5 mg/L. Okey and Albertson (1989a and 1989b) found little correlation between
nitrification rates and temperature and concluded that rate changes noted by others

20
INFLUENT
AMMONIA ⭈ N4 mg/l
10
ACTUAL
EFFLUENT PREDICTED
EFFLUENT
0
25 1 5 10 15 20 25 30
OCTOBER NOVEMBER
1992
FIGURE 13.71 Actual and predicted effluent form a nitrifying trickling filter (Parker et al.,
1995). Predicted effluent was calculated using the modified Gujer and Boller model.
were attributable to other limiting factors such as oxygen availability, hydraulics, and
NH3-N concentration. Factors that can distort or obscure the effects of temperature and
cause perturbations in test results include oxygen availability, competitive heterotrophic
activity, solids-sloughing cycles, predators, influent and effluent NH3-N concentra-
tions, and wastewater-induced effects (inhibitory). The mixed response of nitrification
rate to temperature changes likely results from a combination of these factors.
7.6.7 Hydraulic Application

Optimal hydraulic requirements for promoting maximum nitrification rates are still
unknown. Okey and Albertson (1989b) and Gullicks and Cleasby (1986 and 1990) pre-
sented data from studies indicating that increasing the application rate (L/m2 s)
increased the rate of NH3-N oxidation. Application rates of more than 1 L/m2 s pro-
duced the best results. Okey and Albertson (1989b) noted that hydraulic effects were
complex and might be interwoven with oxygen availability. The effects of hydraulics
were found to be more significant in the zero-order range and difficult to discern in the
first-order range of less than 4 mg/L NH3-N. Rearranged data taken from the Arizona

FIGURE 13.72 Effect of temperature on nitrification rate of nitrifying trickling filters.
nuclear pilot-plant study illustrate the effect of effluent NH3-N concentration on the
rate of nitrification and hydraulic application (Okey and Albertson, 1989a and 1989b).
The nitrification rate depended on effluent NH3-N concentration and available oxygen.
If effluent NH3-N exceeds 5 mg/L, then rates are high and are consistent with the find-
ings of Parker et al. (1990).

The following sections presents specific information related to selection and construc-
tion of reactors and equipment associated with trickling filters.

7.7.1 Distribution System

Methods of supplying wastewater to the trickling filter distributor include gravity feed,
dosing siphons, and pumping. The conveyance selected depends on the hydraulic gra-
dient available and the distributor. Distributors require piping between conveyance sys-
tems and the trickling filter distribution system. Where the trickling filter is not designed
for continuous dosing, a pump or dosing tank and siphon may precede the distribution
system.
Flow distribution is an important feature in a trickling filter system. Flow must be
applied at a rate that keeps the media wetted and unclogged. Uneven application of
flow and insufficient flow rates for adequate biofilm control will result in poor perfor-
mance. Odors will result as solids build up and clog the trickling filters and growth of
nuisance organisms will increase. Most new trickling filters are circular to accommo-
date a rotary distributor. Rock filters also may use rotary distributors, fixed nozzles,
continuous feed, or periodic dosing with siphons or a sequenced pumping arrange-
ment. New facilities should use rotary distributors, which are discussed in this sec-
tion. If a rectangular unit is upgraded with a rotary distributor, then special provisions
for wetting media outside the diameter of the rotary distributor should be made, or
unwetted media should be removed because the wet-dry area will provide a breeding
area for undesirable fauna such as filter flies. The need for and benefits of providing a
means of controlling the instantaneous application rate, or DR, was reviewed in the
discussion of hydraulics.
7.7.2 Hydraulic Propelled Distributors

The conventional rotary distributor is propelled by thrust from hydraulic discharge as
pumped water contacts splash plates from The trailing side of the distributor arms as
shown on Figure 13.73. Little attention has been paid to the velocity of rotation,
which, in part, dictates the instantaneous dosing (mm/pass of an arm). A typical dos-
ing rate for conventional rotary distributor systems is 2 to 10 mm/passes at 0.2 to
1.5 min/rev. The rotary distributor typically is equipped with two to six arms. The
distributed flow may be staggered for full coverage per arm. That is, each arm may
provide 50 or 100% coverage per revolution. Providing appropriate flushing intensity
is difficult with rock media operating at typical application rates of 0.2 to 0.6 m3/m2 h
(0.08 to 0.25 gpm/sq ft). No minimum speed has been specified for a hydraulically
propelled distributor. To increase flushing, distributor speeds have been reduced
with reverse thrusting jets, as shown in Figure 13.74. Some hydraulically driven units
have stalled or stopped rotating at speeds from 4 to 20 min/rev. Unless trickling fil-
ters with hydraulically propelled distributors receive nearly constant flow, however,
most cannot operate at minimum speed during average to peak diurnal loading. Such

FIGURE 13.73 Hydraulically propelled rotary distributor.
an accommodation would result in the distributor stopping during low flow periods.
Thus, even with reverse jets, conventional hydraulically propelled distributors often
will have unpredictably limited capabilities of maintaining, and especially fluctuat-
ing, the desired DR. Either a mechanical VFD or a hydraulically propelled rotary dis-
tributor with sliding gates controlled by programmable logic control (PLC) can help
avoid these limitations.
7.7.3 Electronic or Mechanically Driven Distributors

Electrically driven rotary distributors may have either a center or peripheral drive. Such
an apparatus can typically be retrofitted easily at low cost. The units can be pro-
grammed to operate at varying DR as required to optimize BOD5 removal, nitrification,
or macrofauna control. The center-driven unit will be anchored to nonrotating parts of
the influent structure, as shown in Figure 13.75. Where no upper steady bearing exists,
support must be installed with a stationary shaft to provide a platform for the drive
unit. This can be located in the mast support for the arm guy wires. Where an upper

FIGURE 13.74 Typical rotary distributor with braking jets and electrical drive.
steady bearing does exist, the stationary shaft into this assembly can be extended to
support the drive assembly.
A peripherally mounted electric drive can be used instead of a center drive. The
traction drive can either use the inside or top of the wall. By spring loading the drive
wheel, it can operate with irregularities in the wall. A rotary union is used to transmit
power. The arrangement is similar to that of a traction drive clarifier. It should be
emphasized that hydraulic motors with equally wide speed ranges may be used instead
of electrically propelled units.
Electrically propelled units with remote variable-speed controllers and timers can
operate independently of flow. This is particularly advantageous for WWTPs without
recycle flow or sufficient recycle flow to minimize the rotational speed. With two units,
optimum DR and biofilm control requirements can be determined. For example, the
flushing would be best conducted during low-flow and loading periods, such as 1:00 A.M.
to 6:00 A.M. coincidentally, this is also when clarification capacity is at a maximum.
Optimum DR can be determined by simultaneously operating trickling filters at differ-
ent operating DR, evaluating rbBOD5 removal, and adjusting individual trickling filter
distribution speed accordingly. Daily high-intensity flushing routines can also be pro-
grammed for the units to define optimum flushing DR and durations to maximize per-
formance. Once these two DR conditions are defined, the units can be controlled to opti-
mize operating conditions. Also, varying the speed as a function of flow may result in
the best performance.

FIGURE 13.75 Electrically driven distributor with overflow (sealless) arrangement (hp
0.745 7 kW) (NPT national pipe thread).
7.7.4 Other Means for Distributor Speed Control

Other distributors maintain hydraulic propulsion without electronic or motor drives.
This drive uses pneumatically controlled gates to open/close to maintain the desired
rotational speed. The hydraulically driven distributor still provides speed control inher-
ent to electric drives. This system has PLC controlled gates installed on the front and
rear orifices of the outer section of each arm that proportionally adjusts the flow
between the forward and reverse direction for speed control.

7.7.5 Trickling Filter Pumping Station or Dosing Siphon

Most trickling filters use recirculation pumps, which are typically constant-speed, low-
head centrifugal units designed to operate with a total head of the trickling filter media
depth, 2.0 to 3.0 m of static head, and friction losses. The VFD controlled motors are
now typical fixtures on process pumps. Both submerged or non-submerged (dry-pit)
vertical pumps have been used extensively. Pump intake screens are typically unnec-
essary because the recirculated flow is typically free of clogging solid materials.
Hydraulic computations are always necessary. Computations for minimum flow are
necessary to ensure adequate head to drive hydraulically driven distributors and com-
putations for maximum flow indicate the head required to ensure adequate discharge
capacity. The net available head at the horizontal center line of the distributor’s arm
and other points may be calculated by deducting the following applicable losses from
the available static head: entrance loss, drop in level in the dosing tank as distributor
pipes are filled (only applicable to dosing siphons), friction losses in the piping to the
distributor, proper allowance for minor head losses, headloss through distributor riser
and center port, friction loss in distributor arms, and velocity head of discharge through
nozzles necessary to start hydraulically driven rotary distributor. Trickling filter distri-
bution head requirements are set by a system’s manufacturer. Despite pumping head
loss, power requirements for the trickling filter process (including distributor, recircu-
lation pumping, and auxiliary powered equipment) are typically less than those for the
activated-sludge process.
7.7.6 Construction of Rotary Distributors

Rotary distributor arms are typically tubular, but may come in other shapes (e.g., rec-
tangular). Galvanized mild steel and aluminum are the most common construction
materials, although stainless steel may be used in more corrosive conditions. A series of
nozzles are positioned in the arm to provide either 50 or 100% coverage of the unit per
pass of the arm. These nozzles are equipped with manually controlled slide gates for
flow and splash plates to wastewater distribution. In many cases, distributors may be
equipped with four arms in a high-low flow arrangement. Two of the arms operate at
flows up to and slightly above average flow. The other two arms operate during peak
flows. This is achieved by interior baffles near the influent feed pipe. This arrangement
provides maximum wastewater distribution and flushing intensity, if practiced. The
hydraulic head required to drive a distributor and provide distribution ranges from
410 to 1 000 mm (16 to 40 in.) of water column.
The head for minimum flow is 300 to 610 mm (12 to 24 in.) above the center line of
the orifices on the distributor arms. Somewhat greater head is needed to accommodate
wide flow ranges. For some distributors, an overflow device that doses using additional

arms during high-flow periods can reduce the head requirement. Maintaining the flow
to the nozzle at the minimum velocity enhances distribution. High velocities will result
in inadequate distribution at higher flows. Units operating at rotational velocities of
1 rev/min can exert centrifugal force; newer trickling filter designs operating at speeds
of 8 to 50 min/rev will exert insignificant centrifugal force. Distributors require a seal
between the fixed influent column and the rotary section. Older designs have various
types of water traps, mercury seals, or packed mechanical seals to prevent water from
leaking between fixed and rotary parts. One type of seal is an overflow arrangement
without a lower seal. This type creates no friction on the mechanism and requires no
maintenance; the head required, however, is higher than the modern mechanical seal.
The modern mechanical seal, with a double neoprene seal with a stainless steel seal
ring, also requires no maintenance and needs less head than the sealless design. When
older units are upgraded, improvements often include one of these arrangements.
7.7.7 Filter Media

As previously described, ideal trickling filter media provides a high specific surface
area, low cost, high durability, and high enough porosity to avoid clogging and promote
ventilation (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003).
7.7.7.1 Media Selection

The design engineer must make an informed decision regarding the selection of media
for specific trickling filter applications, including the construction of new facilities
and retrofit of existing facilities. A common upgrade for rock-media trickling filters
is replacement of existing filter media with a synthetic media. In some cases, the exist-
ing rock media may require vertical wall expansion to contain additional synthetic
media. Drury et al. (1986) demonstrated that existing rock-media trickling filters can be
improved simply by using existing volume and replacing rock with synthetic media.
This is because of increased specific surface area, ability to increase hydraulic loading,
and improved ability to control biofilm growth. Changing the media can help address
problems such as severe odor generation and deterioration of media or to expand
capacity using existing footprint and assets. Table 13.29 provides a list of guidelines for
the best available synthetic trickling filter media for a specific application. Crossflow
media typically will perform better than vertical-flow media in low- to medium-organic
loading scenarios. However, if the TOL becomes substantial, then biofilm accumulation
will be so great that performance in the trickling filter will be hindered by the crossflow
media. Parker (1999) suggested that this efficiency change illustrates the “switchover
effect” in which efficiency switches over from crossflow to vertical-flow media at high
TOLs that is not observed in the other studies.

TABLE 13.29 Applications for trickling filter media.
Carbon
Specific oxidizing
surface area Carbon and Tertiary
Type (m2/m3)* Roughing oxidizing nitrification nitrifying
Rock 40–60 ✓ ✓
Wood 45 ✓ ✓ ✓
Random 85–110 ✓ ✓
130–140 ✓
Vertical Flow 85–110 ✓ ✓ ✓
Crossflow 130–140 ✓
85–110 ✓ ✓
130–140 ✓
* m /m 0.3048 sq ft/cu ft.
2 3
Gullicks and Cleasby (1986) have demonstrated the importance of synthetic media
wetting. Crine et al. (1990) have demonstrated that lava rock and random media wet-
ting effectiveness decreased with increasing specific surface area. The researchers found
that wetting effectiveness was only 0.2 to 0.6. In some cases, media can be combined
such that media efficient in hydraulic distribution are in the upper layers and media less
prone to excessive biofilm accumulation compose the remainder. Upper portions of the
trickling filter will receive higher organic loading and lower layers will receive little
organic loading. Many reports indicate that denser media, such as random and cross-
flow, that are effective for flow redistribution are more prone to solids retention and
fouling (Boller and Gujer, 1986; Crine et al., 1990; Gullicks and Cleasby, 1986 and 1990;
Onda et al., 1968; Parker et al., 1989). Applications such as treating strong wastewaters,
pretreatment with fine screens, and roughing tend to produce thicker biofilms. Vertical
media types are preferred for these applications. Media types may evolve as wetting
and use of the media surface are better understood.
Typically, rock media are not used for new WWTPs; nonetheless, existing units
may often be part of an expansion or upgrade. Performance may be enhanced by mod-
ifying the distributor speed or power ventilation or by adding solids contact or using
the dual biological process as described earlier.
7.7.7.2 Filter Media Depth

In North America, rock-media trickling filters typically are 1- to 2-m deep, but may be
as deep as 2.4 m. This depth limitation is associated with lack of adequate ventilation
produced by natural draft and an increased tendency to pond. In Europe, deeper filters
are common; units in Arnheim, Holland, were constructed at 4.9-m deep but equipped

with power ventilation. Comparative data are lacking for deep, power-ventilated rock
filters and shallow, natural-draft rock-media.
Synthetic-media trickling filters typically are constructed between 5- and 8-m deep,
although units up to 12.8-m deep exist. The limiting depth is because of height aesthet-
ics, serviceability, pumping requirements, and structural design. The increased depth
has no implication on biological treatment efficiency. Increasing the trickling filter
depth is typically worthwhile to reduce the minimum flow required for high wetting
efficiency. In taller filters that have high loadings, oxygen deficiency may occur in the
uppermost layers. However, adequate ventilation and biofilm control measures can
prevent problematic odors.
The effect of trickling filter media depth on bioreactor performance has been
treated as a matter of controversy in previous design manuals. Several investigators sug-
gest that volume, irrespective of depth, controls performance (Bruce and Merkens, 1970,
1973; Galler and Gotaas, 1964; Kincannon and Stover, 1982; NRC, 1946). Recent research
indicates that performance is dependent on specific surface area (which may translate
to bioreactor volume when considering identical media types), and not trickling filter
depth. Essentially, performance is governed by substrate availability. In a combined
carbon oxidation and nitrification trickling filter with a stratified depth, carbon-oxidizing
facultative heterotrophic dominate biofilms near top layer of media. Multispecies
biofilms, including both facultative heterotrophs and autotrophic nitrifiers, live near
the center, and autotrophic nitrifying biofilms may exist in greater numbers in the lower
layers. The facultative heterotrophy-dominated biofilm near the surface exists as a func-
tion of carbon-based substrate and oxygen; the autotrophic nitrifying biofilm exists as
a function of ammonia-nitrogen and oxygen (in addition to the absence of carbon-based
substrates). A given biofilm with a given bacterial density will have a capacity to oxi-
dize a finite mass of carbon-based substrates. Therefore, the “layer” of trickling filter
containing a carbon-oxidizing biofilm will vary as a function of the influent load. This
can theoretically be achieved with a tall or shallow trickling filter. Practical limitations
are based on media wetting and site constraints for shallow trickling filters, and the
aforementioned constraints for tall trickling filters. Most, if not all, of the improved per-
formance with depth noted by some investigators is likely a result of improved
hydraulic distribution. The average hydraulic rate should exceed 0.5 L/m2 s to ensure
maximum performance.
7.7.7.3 Structural Integrity

The choice of rock media often is governed by locally available materials or cost of
transportation. Field stone, gravel, broken stone, blast-furnace slag, and anthracite coal

have been used. Whatever material is chosen, it should be sound, hard, clean, free of
dust, and insoluble in wastewater constituents. There is some difference in opinion as
to the optimum size. A common specification requirement is that 95% or more of the
media pass 2600-mm2 mesh screens and be retained on 1600-mm2 mesh screens. The
pieces typically are specified to be uniform in size, with all three dimensions as nearly
equal as possible. The material should not disintegrate under service conditions. Fre-
quently, the material is specified to be substantially sound as determined by the
sodium-sulfate soundness test. Specifications for placing rock-media include: (a) when
placing trickling filter media, breakage and segregation of differently sized particles
must be prevented; (b) media will be screened and cleaned immediately before placing
to eliminate as many fine sediments, or stone fragments, as possible; (c) media will be
placed by a method that does not require heavy traffic of any type on the top of those
media already placed; (d) placing media by means of belt conveyor, wheelbarrow, or
bucket crane will be acceptable.
Synthetic trickling filter media, specifically the bundle type (0.61 m 0.61 m
1.22 m), are the most common in new WWTPs. Bundle media are manufactured from
PVC and random media are manufactured from polyethylene or polypropylene. Test-
ing procedures herein apply to bundle media, but it is equally important that the ran-
dom media have sufficient strength to resist subsidence because of the combined
weight of media, water, and biomass.
Consideration should be given to long-term (96 hour) and short-term (less than
two hour) test and the ability of either to predict media strength over what will hope-
fully be a minimum 20-year life. The PVC is suitable as a structural material as long as
deformation, or creep, loading is not exceeded. The material fails by deformation,
which can be a slow process that persists if loading is maintained.
New trickling filter media is stronger than 10-year-old trickling filter media
because PVC weakens with time. In addition, the plasticizer dissipates and the media
become brittle. Because of the high initial strength-to-weight ratio, exceptionally thin
media may not be adequate and may shorten useful life. Typically, this is a problem of
not understanding the relationship between short-term testing results and long-term
load capacity. Test temperature is important because PVC loses strength as the tem-
perature exceeds 18 to 21°C. The load testing should be conducted at the maximum
water temperature. The database temperature from media suppliers is 23
1°C (73
2°F); however, this temperature may not satisfy specific duty requirements. Mabbott
(1982) introduced the short-term compression test to assess media strength and
reported that the modulas of elasticity and corresponding media strength dropped
drastically with increasing temperature (see Table 13.30).

TABLE 13.30 Change in plastic media strength with temperature.
Temperature, T (°C) 21 40 49 60
Ratio modules of elasticity at T/T70 (%) 100 85 75 50
Comparable minimum test load (lb/sq ft) 500 425 375 250
When wastewater temperatures exceed 30°C (86°F), all structural testing should
be conducted at the maximum operating temperature of the media. The designer must
carefully consider heat buildup coinciding with trickling filter shut down and its effect
on modular plastic media structural integrity. The issue is amplified when trickling fil-
ters are covered by a dome that may prevent air from easily escaping.
Aerobic biochemical reactions typically proceed within a temperature range of
5 to 40°C, which is the upper limit for growth of mesophilic bacteria (Grady et al.,
1999). These temperatures may be observed in activated sludge systems, but are not
common operational temperatures for trickling filters. Pore (internal biofilm) tem-
perature approaches equilibrium with air temperature inside the trickling filter,
which may be in the range of 10 to 30°C. In addition to ambient conditions, the
amount of biomass present, biomass condition, and mode of ventilation affect trick-
ling filter internal temperatures. Harrison (2007) showed that temperature control is
an important consideration during emergency shutdown or installation of filter
media. When procuring media, a good design practice is to specify a service temper-
ature that exceeds actual water temperature to provide adequate protection during
unplanned conditions. A service temperature of 38 to 49°C (100 to 120°F) would not
be unreasonable for warmer climates, high organic loading rates, or for filters where
partial plugging or temperature concerns exist. An alternative may be to provide
rotary sprinklers within domed trickling filters for heat dissipation during shutdown
periods, emergency, or otherwise.
7.8 Design Examples

The following are examples of trickling filter sizing based on the equations and materials
presented in earlier sections.
7.8.1 Example 13.1: Biofilter Design for Carbonaceous

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Limitations
Determine the size of a trickling filter with plastic filter media for providing secondary
effluent that will provide an average effluent soluble BOD (Se) of 15 mg/L.

Where,
q 6,630 m3/d or 76.7 l/s; R 0.75;
Li 135 mg/L; Si 75 mg/L or 75 g/m3;
Specific surface area 90 K20 0.19 (l/s)0.5/m2; and
m2/m3 (27 sq ft/cu ft);
D 5.49 m (18 ft); Water temperature 14°C.
(1) Determine the size of the trickling filter.

(a) Determine the k20 using Equation 13.55:
0.5 0.5
⎛D ⎞ ⎛L ⎞
k 2 k1 ⋅ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⋅⎜ 1 ⎟
⎝ D2 ⎠ ⎝ L2 ⎠
0.5
⎛ 6.1 m ⎞
0.5
⎛ 150 g/m 3 ⎞
k 2 k1 ⎜
⎝ 5.49 m ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ 135 g/m ⎟⎠
3
k2 (0.19)(1.054)(1.054)
k2 0.21 (l/s))0.5 /m 3
(b) Temperature correct for k2 using Equation 13.49:
kt k20 1.035(T20)
14 1.035(1420)
0.814
(c) Calculate the allowable total hydraulic application rate, THL, using Equation
13.53:
⎡ R 1 ⎤ KsD 1.035(T20)
ln ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Si /Se R ⎦ (THL)n
⎛ 0.75 1 ⎞ (0.21)(5.49 m)(0.814)

ln ⎜
⎝ 75/75 1 ⎟⎠ (THL)0.5
ln(0.292) 1.232
0.938
THL0.5 0.762
1.232

THL 0.580 L/m 2 ⋅ s
Since R 0.75, then
q R (76.7 l/s) 0.75
57.5 l/s
(76.7 57.5)
THL 0.580 L/m 2 ⋅ s
A
then A 231 m 2
(2) Check to see whether the trickling filter BOD loading and size seem reasonable
based on the experience based criteria.
(a) Calculate organic loading rate, TOL, to the trickling filter using Equation
13.32:
BOD applied
TOL
volume of media
(6, 630 m 3/d)(135 g/m 3 ) 1 kg/103 g

TOL
(231 m 2 )(5.49 m)
895 kg/d

1268 m 3
0.706 kg/m 3 ⋅ d (44 lb BOD/d ⋅ 1 000 ft 3 )
Compare modeling results of TOL 0.706 kg/m3 d with experience based values in
Table 13.26. Table 13.26 indicates that effluent of secondary quality standard may be
possible with a TOL as high as 0.96 kg/m3 d. Consider local conditions and other trick-
ling filter case histories in the area where treatment is to occur. It may be that assump-
tions for rational equations were not correct. Reassess assumptions, consider using a
different equation, conduct a pilot test, or defer to actual trickling filter experience.
7.8.2 Example 13.2: Nitrification Trickling Filter Design

Design plastic media trickling filter towers for tertiary nitrification.
Where,
Flow, m3/d 37 840 (438 L/s or 10 mgd); Influent TKN-N 28 mg/L (1060 kg/d);
Influent BOD, Li 20 mg/L (757 kg/d); Influent NH4 -Ni 25 mg/L;

Influent SBOD, Si 8 mg/L (303 kg/d); Effluent TKN-Ne 1.5 mg/L; and
SAA 138 m2/m3; Water temperature 12 °C.
(1) Check whether criteria for tertiary nitrification design are met.
Ratio of BOD5 to TKN 20/28 kg BOD/kg N;

0.71 kg BOD/kg N, which is less than 1.0 kg
BOD/kg N; and
Soluble BOD5 8 mg/L, which is less than 12 mg/L.
(2) Determine media surface area for zero-order nitrification using the first step of
the design procedure with 138-m2/m3 media and kn 1.2 g/m2 d. From Figure
13.70, transitional ammonium-nitrogen (NT) concentration is approximately
3.2 mg/L at 75% saturation and 12 °C.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen [(438 L/s)/(1 000 L/m3)] (86 400 s/d)
[(25 3.2 mg/L)/(1 000 mg/g)] (1 000 L/m3)
825 000 g/d
Media surface area (825 000 g/d)/(1.2 g/m2 d)
687 500 m2
(3) Determine the media surface area for first-order nitrification using the second
step of the design procedure using Equation 13.62.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (438/1 000) (86 400) (3.2 1.5/1 000) (1 000)
64 330 g/d
kn 1.2 (Ne/Nt)0.75
1.2 (1.5/3.2)0.75
0.68 g/m2 d
Media surface area (64 330 g/d)/(0.68 g/m d)
94 600 m2
(4) Determine the total media volume required.
Total media surface area 687 500 94 600

782 100 m2
Total media volume (782 100 m2)/(138 m2/m3)
5 670 m3

(5) Calculate maximum tower surface area based on the minimum flow rate of
0.54 L/m2 s stipulated by the design procedure.
Maximum tower surface area (438 L/s)/(0.54 L/m2 s)

811 m2
Minimum depth 5 670 m3 /811 m2
6.99 m
(6) Determine number and size of towers. Two biotowers operating in parallel with
a total area of 775 m2 (8 330 sq ft) are suggested.
Diameter [(4/
) (775)]0.5
22.2 m
Depth 5 670 m3/775 m2 7.32 m
WHL (438 L/s)/(775 m2)
0.57 L/m2 s
TOL 0.13 kg/m3 d
7.8.3 Example 13.3: Organic and Hydraulic Loading

Determine the TOL, SOL, WHL and THL at an existing trickling filter WWTP.
Where,
Two, 25.9-m (85-ft) diameter plastic media trickling filters have a media depth of
4.27 m (14 ft).
q 15 000 m3/d; r 7 500 m3/d;
Si,total 140 mg/L; Si,soluble 90 mg/L or 90 g/m3; and
Specific surface area 98 m /m
2 3
Si 90 mg/L.
(30 sq ft/cu ft);
(1) Find the influent BOD load to the trickling filter.

(a) Calculate influent total and soluble BOD loads in kg/m3 d.
BOD applied q Li (15 000 m 3/d)(140 g/m 3 ) 1 kg/103 g
= 2 100 kg/d
SBOD applied q Si (15 000 m 3/d)(90 g/m 3 ) 1 kg/103 g
= 1 350 kg/d

(b) Determine trickling filter media area and volume.
Area A1 (dia)2 /4
A1 3.14 (25.9 m)2 /4
A1 526.6 m 2
Total Area (# units)(A1 ) 2(526.6 m 2 )
AT 1053.2 m 3
Total Volume VT AT (D)
(1053.2 m 2 )( 4.27 m)
4 497 m 3
(c) Calculate total and soluble organic loading of the trickling filter (TOL and
SOL, respectively using Equation 13.38.
BOD applied 2 100 kg/d

TOL
VM 4 497 m 3
0.467 kg BOD/d ⋅ m 3
SBOD applied 1 350 kg/d

SOL
VM 4 497 m 3
0.300 kg SBOD/d ⋅ m 3
(2) Determine hydraulic loading rates to the trickling filter system.

(a) Calculate wastewater hydraulic loading to the trickling filter using Equation
13.40.
q(1 000 m 3 /ML)

WHL
A
(15 000 m 3 /d)

WHL
1 053 m 2
14.2 m 3 /d ⋅ m 2

(b) Calculate total hydraulic loading to the trickling filter using Equation 13.39.
total pumped flow q r

THL
A A
(15 000 m 3 /d 7 500 m 3 /d)

THL
1 053 m 2
21.4 m 3 /d ⋅ m 2
(c) Calculate recirculation rate.
r 7 500 m 3 /d
R 0.5
q 15 000 m 3 /d
(d) Determine surface loading rate to the filter using Equation 13.39.
SLR TOL/SSA 0.467 kg/dm3/982/m3 4.76 103 kg/d m2
7.8.4 Example 13.4: Biofilter Classification and Distributor Adjustment

Determine filter classification and adjustment of the distributor speed for the trickling
filters in Example 13.1.
Where,
The distributor is operating at 1.5 rpm (N 0.667 minutes per revolution). The
secondary system has been experiencing extreme sloughing events. The distributor
has four distributor arms.
q 1.1 ML/d or 1100 m3/d; r 0.55 ML/d or 550 m3/d;

Si,total 140 mg/L Si,soluble 90 mg/L or 90 g/m3; and
Specific surface area 98 m2/m3 Si,soluble 90 mg/L.
(30 sq ft/cu ft);
(1) Determining trickling filter classification by comparing actual load values versus
those in Table 13.26.
(a) Organic loading: calculated TOL of 0.467 kg/m3 d falls in the lower range
for carbon oxidizing trickling filters (0.32 to 0.96 kg/m3 d), suggesting that
this is a lightly loaded conventional trickling filter.
(b) Hydraulic loading: calculated THL is 21.4 m3/m2 d, which is in the lower
range of the suggested range of 13.7 to 88 m3/m2 d. To increase the hydraulic
load and rate, one approach would be to increase recirculation. It might also

be good to consider slowing down the distributor or establishing a periodic

flushing cycle. Finally, the manufacture of the filter media or distributor
should be contacted for advice.
(2) Calculate the distributor dosing rate and determine if changes in pumping or dis-
tributor speed should be made.
(a) Calculate existing dosing rate.
( N )(q r )(1 000 mm/m)

DR
A(9)(1 440 min/d)
(0.667 min/rev)(15 000 m 3 /d 7 500 m 3 /d) 1 000

(1 053 m 2 )(2 arms)(1 440)
4.95 mm/pass
(b) Comparing the above dosing rate with recommended values in Table 13.27,
the recommended rates are 50 to 150 mm/pass, which is 10 to 30 times less
than desired. Consideration could be given to adding a mechanically driven
distributor and/or increasing recirculation pumping.
(3) A discussion with suppliers for distributors indicates that the normal rotational
speed would be 10 minutes per revolution for conventional operation and
40 minutes per revolution for flushing. Determine the dosing rate if R 1.0 and
the manufacturers rotational speeds are maintained.
(a) Calculate the existing dosing rate.
(10 min/rev)(15 000 m 3 /d 15,000 m 3 /d) 1 000

DRnormal
(1 053 m 2 )(2 arms)(1 440)
142 mm/pass
An evaluation of these changes indicates that slowing down the arms or increasing recir-
culation could enhance flushing and possibly reduce the magnitude of sloughing events.
8.0 EMERGING BIOFILM REACTORS

This section highlights biofilm processes that are new, emerging, or existing but not
widely used in the United States. The discussion is divided into two topics: (1) membrane
biofilm reactors, a type of fixed-bed biofilm reactor, and (2) suspended-biofilm reactors.

8.1 Membrane Biofilm Reactors

Membranes have long been used for water filtration, gas separation, and gas transfer to
or from liquids. In the late 1980s, researchers found that gas transfer membranes could
be used to deliver a gaseous substrate, such as oxygen, hydrogen, or methane, to a
biofilm naturally forming on the outer surface of the membrane (Timberlake et al., 1988;
Clapp et al., 1999; Lee and Rittmann, 2000). When used to deliver oxygen, some
researchers call them membrane-aerated bioreactors (MABR); more typically they have
been called membrane biofilm reactors (MBfR) (Brindle and Stephenson, 1996a; Lee and
Rittmann, 2000; Nerenberg and Rittmann, 2004; Syron and Casey, 2008). For consis-
tency, in this chapter they will be referred to as MBfRs.
Hollow-fiber membranes typically are used in MBfRs because, with outside diam-
eters as low as 100 m, they can provide specific surface areas as high as 5000 m2/m3
(Pankhania et al., 1999; Adham et al., 2004). Membrane sheets also have been used
(Semmens, 2005). Microporous, hydrophobic materials are well-suited for MBfR appli-
cations because they have high gas transfer rates (Yang and Cussler, 1986). Unlike
membrane bioreactors (MBRs), in which membranes act as water filters, the pores of
MBfRs are filled with gas and, therefore, are unlikely to foul with solids or bacteria.
Under certain conditions, however, pores may become wetted, greatly reducing gas
transfer rates. Also, they must have small pores to prevent bubbling at low gas-supply
pressures (Weiss et al., 1996).
Figure 13.76 shows a schematic bundle of hollow-fiber membranes and a cross-sec-
tion of a single, microporous hollow fiber. The fibers are collected into a gas-supplying
manifold at one end and are sealed at the opposite end. Pressurized gas in the lumen
(interior) of the fiber diffuses through the dry pores and into the biofilm coating the
fiber. When used in this “dead-end” mode, all of the gas supplied to the MBfR passes
into the biofilm, allowing high gas-use efficiencies. The gas flux to the biofilm can be
modulated by controlling the gas pressure inside the membrane.
The MBfR biofilms are subject to substrate counter-diffusion, where one substrate
(electron donor or acceptor) diffuses into the biofilm from the bulk liquid, while the
other diffuses from the attachment surface, or the membrane. The membrane-supplied
gaseous substrate enters the biofilm without traversing a liquid boundary layer, allow-
ing greater fluxes. Also, the liquid diffusion layer at the biofilm-liquid interface helps to
retain the gaseous substrate inside the biofilm. Substrate-rich conditions near the
attachment surface may be beneficial to certain microbial processes, as described below.
A disadvantage of MBfR substrate counter diffusion is that thick biofilms can
decrease substrate fluxes significantly. With thick biofilms, the donor and acceptor can
become rate-limiting on opposite sides of the biofilm, and only the middle section will

FIGURE 13.76 Section of fiber (left) and schematic of hollow-fiber membrane bundle
(right).
be metabolically active (Essila et al., 2000). This means that control of biofilm accumu-
lation is especially important with MBfRs.
Researchers have considered MBfRs for a variety of applications and using differ-
ent gases. For example, methane-based MBfRs have been studied for co-metabolic
reduction of trichloroethylene and trinitrophenol, and air-based MBfRs have been stud-
ied for wastewater nitrification and denitrification (Clapp et al., 1999; Grimberg et al.,
2000; Syron and Casey, 2008). Hydrogen (H2)-based MBfRs have been studied for
reduction of arsenate, bromate, chromate, selenate, and trichloroethane, among others
(Chung et al., 2006a; Downing and Nerenberg 2007a; Chung et al., 2006b; Chung et al.,
2006c; Chung and Rittmann, 2007).
8.1.1 Hydrogen-Based
The H2-based MBfRs initially were developed for drinking water treatment, where
addition of an electron donor was needed for the reduction of nitrate or other oxidized
contaminants (Ergas and Reuss, 2001; Lee and Rittmann 2002; Nerenberg and Rittmann
2004). Advantages of H2 over organic electron donors include
• Lack of human health toxicity.

• Use by indigenous bacteria with no special inocula required.
• Low solubility, which prevents overdosing.
• Low biomass yields (YH2 ⊕ 0.4 Yethanol), which results in less excess biomass.
• Generation of H2 onsite.

Disadvantages include
• Use of a combustible gas.

• Aggregation of individual membranes into a single biofilm when membranes
are packed at high densities.
• Lack of experience at the full scale.
Early pilot-scale tests demonstrated that MBfRs effectively could remove nitrate and
perchlorate from groundwater (Adham et al., 2004; Rittmann et al., 2004). More pilot-
scale testing has focused on removal of nitrate and perchlorate from drinking water
FIGURE 13.77 Small pilot membrane biofilm reactor for groundwater treatment (cour-
tesy of Aptwater, Pleasant Hill, CA).

(Figure 13.77). An ongoing pilot-scale study funded by the WaterReuse Foundation,

Alexandria, Virginia, is researching H2-based MBfRs for tertiary denitrification of
wastewater.
8.1.2 Oxygen-Based
Oxygen-based MBfRs can be used to provide “passive aeration” and have been studied
at the bench and pilot scales since the late 1980s. Bench-scale tests showed these MBfRs
can achieve concurrent COD removal, nitrification, and denitrification (Timberlake
et al., 1988; Suzuki et al., 1993; Brindle and Stephenson, 1996b; Brindle et al., 1998). Nitri-
fication typically occurs in the inner portions of the biofilm, close to the air- or oxygen-
filled membrane, and denitrification and BOD removal occur in the outer portions,
when the bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentrations are low (Schramm et al., 2000;
Semmens et al., 2003).
Also tested at pilot scale are O2-based MBfRs. In one study, an MBfR was found to
be effective in removing COD in high-strength brewery wastewater, with organic
removal rates of 71 g COD/m2 d (Brindle et al., 1999). Other pilot-scale MBfRs were
studied for concurrent removal of COD and total nitrogen using hollow-fiber and sheet
membranes that achieved nitrification rates up to 0.5 gN/m2 d. The COD removal and
nitrification rates, however, decreased with time because of membrane leakage and
biofilm sloughing events (Semmens, 2005).
Bench- and pilot-scale tests also have been carried out on hybrid (HMBP; sus-
pended and attached growth) MBfRs for removal of BOD and nitrogen from waste-
water (Downing and Nerenberg, 2007b). A conceptual drawing of a pilot-scale HMBP
is shown in Figure 13.78. This process is similar to a cord-type IFAS, where, instead of
cords, hollow-fiber membranes are retrofitted into an activated sludge tank. Potential
benefits of this process include:
• Ability to retrofit into existing activated sludge tanks.

• Ability to achieve nitrification at short bulk-liquid solids retention times.
• Maximal use of influent BOD for denitrification.
• Reductions in energy demands, because bubbled aeration is replaced by passive
diffusion, and water recycle is avoided.
• Nitrogen removal via nitrite (Downing and Nerenberg, 2008a; Downing and
Nerenberg, 2008b).
For all MBfRs, research is needed to develop efficient and cost-effective configurations
for full-scale applications. The ideal configuration should have a high specific surface
area, yet allow good mixing and effective management of biofilm accumulation.

FIGURE 13.78 Hybrid membrane biofilm reactor process layout.
8.2 Suspended-Biofilm Reactors

Several emerging suspended-biofilm reactors are presented below, including reactors
based on aerobic granules, Anammox biofilm reactors, biofilm airlift reactors, and inter-
nal circulation reactors.
8.2.1 Reactors Based on Aerobic Granules

Granules are large and dense microbial aggregates, with diameters typically ranging
from 1 to 3 mm (Liu and Tay, 2002). Although granules are not classic biofilms, because
they are not grown on an inert substratum, they behave like them, forming stable aggre-
gates with gradients in their microbial community structure. Granules have much
higher settling velocities than activated sludge flocs, and processes based on granular
sludge have excellent solid-liquid separation, high biomass retention, and high volu-
metric treatment capacity (Morgenroth et al., 1997).
Granules in anaerobic systems were first used in upflow anaerobic sludge blan-
ket (UASB) reactors and the anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (SBR) (Lettinga et al.,
1980; Wirtz and Dague, 1996). The UASB reactors are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 14.

More recently, granules have been found in aerobic reactors, mainly SBRs (Mor-
genroth, et al. 1997; Beun et al., 2002; Liu and Tay, 2007). An important advantage is that
granular sludge systems have a much smaller footprint than conventional activated
sludge systems. Conditions favoring formation of aerobic granules include high shear
conditions, short settling times, and low growth rates (Liu and Tay 2002; Morgenroth
et al., 1997; de Kreuk and van Loosdrecht, 2004). Phosphorus removal conditions favor
the formation of granules, because of the lower growth rates on endogenous polyhy-
droxyalkanoates. Granular sludge systems typically do not meet effluent requirements
for suspended solids without post treatment.
Aerobic granular processes are an area of intense research, and a recent review of
this technology is provided by Adav et al. (2008). Aerobic granule processes can simul-
taneously convert organic substrates, nitrogen compounds, and phosphorus (de Kreuk
and van Loosdrecht 2004; de Kreuk et al. 2005; Yilmaz et al. 2008). Researchers have
studied them for treating municipal, dairy, toxic organic, and actinide-containing
wastewaters (de Kreuk and van Loosdrecht, 2006; Schwarzenbeck et al., 2005; Zhu et al.,
2008; Nancharaiah et al., 2006). To improve effluent suspended solids, researchers
recently proposed combining granular SBR process with a membrane bioreactor (Wang
et al., 2008). Pilot-scale research is being conducted in the Netherlands with funding
from STW (Dutch Foundation for Applied Technology) and STOWA (Dutch Founda-
tion for Applied Water Research). This research is intended to lead towards a full-scale
demonstration project.
8.2.2 Anammox Biofilm Reactors

The anammox process is a novel technology that removes nitrogen from wastewaters
using the unique metabolism of anammox bacteria (Strous et al., 1999a). The Anammox
process can be performed using either flocs or biofilms. The process was developed by
the Technical University of Delft and PAQUES BV, both of the Netherlands. Anammox
bacteria, which are chemolithoautotrophs and members of the order Planctomycetales,
use ammonium as an electron donor and nitrite as an acceptor, producing dinitrogen
gas without the need for a carbon source or electron donor (Strous et al., 1999b).
Nitrate is produced as a byproduct at approximately 12% of the influent N. The
process is ideal for high-strength ammonium wastes (greater than 0.2 g N/l) and low
in organic carbon (C⬊N ratio lower than 0.15), such as digester supernatant. This
process typically is run in tandem with nitrite-producing processes such as SHARON
(van Kempen et al., 2001).
Anammox bacteria are slow growing, with a doubling time of around 11 days, but
high volumetric loadings can be obtained using fixed-film anammox processes (Strous
et al., 1998; Hippen et al., 2001). The anammox process has been studied with MBBRs,

rotating biological contactors (RBCs), anaerobic biological filters, and granular sludge
bioreactors (Abma et al., 2007).
Several full-scale plants have been built and tested in Europe. The first was
installed in 2002 at the WWTP of the Waterboard Hollandse Deltain Rotterdam, Nether-
lands, with a capacity of 500 kg N/d. Other plants are at food processing, tanning, and
semiconductor industries. At the Netherlands WWTP, the effluent from the sludge
digester after dewatering is routed through an existing SHARON reactor, settled, and
routed through the anammox reactor. The digester effluent contains 1 000 to 1 500 mg/L
NH 4 -N, and the effluent of the SHARON reactor contains equal amounts of NH4 and

NO2 (Abma et al., 2007). The configuration is similar to an internal circulation reactor
in which influent is introduced at the bottom and the effluent leaves at the top of a
tower. The influent is mixed at the bottom and then passes through granular sludge
bed, where most of the anammox activity takes place. Internal circulation is created
by the produced nitrogen gas bubbles, which act as a gas lift. Nitrogen bubbles are
removed at the top of the tower. A second compartment further polishes the effluent
from the lower compartment by removing the remaining NH
4 and NO2 . Given the
slow growth rate of anammox bacteria and the lack of seed sludge, the expected startup
time was two years. Because of operational difficulties, including problems with nitrite
toxicity and sulfide inhibition, the actual startup time was 3.5 years. Startup of future
plants should be faster, as existing plants will provide inocula. A key aspect of the
anammox process is the formation of granular biomass, which greatly increases bio-
mass concentration. Loading rates of up to 10 kg N/m2 d were achieved. The effluent
NH
4 concentration was 60 to 130 mg N/L, whereas NO2 was 5 to 10 mg N/L and NO3

was approximately 130 mg N/L (Abma et al., 2007) .

A second type of anammox process, the DEMON process, was developed to carry
out partial nitrification and anammox in a single reactor (Wett, 2007). This process was
tested at full scale in Austria using an SBR process (Wett, 2006). In this system, the dis-
solved oxygen concentration must be controlled carefully to prevent excessive concen-
trations, which can promote increase nitrification rates and lead to NO 2 toxicity.
8.2.3 Biofilm Airlift Reactors

Biofilm airlift reactors were developed in the Netherlands in the late 1980s for aerobic
wastewater treatment, including the oxidation of biochemical oxygen demand, sulfide,
and ammonia (Heijnen et al., 1993). Biofilm airlift reactors are typically in a tower con-
figuration, which is divided vertically into riser and downcomer sections (Figure 13.79).
Air is introduced at the bottom of the riser section, traverses the length of the reactor,
and exits at the top. The upward bubble movement provides mixing and sludge granules
in response to the high upflow velocities, which wash out smaller particles. Commer-

Gas-liquid Gas Gas

separator
Second
riser Settling Annular
Effluent space space
Second Effluent
separator
Downcomer First riser
First Riser
separator
Downcomer
Expanded bed
Distribution
Influent
Influent system Air
FIGURE 13.79 (a) Configuration for biofilm airlift reactor and (b) configurations for
internal circulation reactor (Nicolella, 2000).
cial versions of this process include CIRCOX, which has a high loading capacity (4 to
10 kg COD/m 3 d), short HRTs (0.5 to 4 hours), high biomass settling velocities
(50 m/h), and high biomass concentrations (15 to 30 g/L) (Frijters et al., 2000; Nicolella
et al., 2000). Nitrification is easily achieved with this process. A modified CIRCOX that
was developed to include an anoxic compartment for denitrification, was tested at pilot
and full scale (Frijters et al., 2000). The volumetric loading for nitrogen was 1to 2 kg
N/m3 d. Anaerobic versions of biofilm airlift reactors, called gas-lift reactors, use gases
such as methane, hydrogen, or nitrogen gas instead of air to provide the circulation.
These gases can be degradation byproducts formed in the reactor (e.g., methane).
8.2.4 Internal Circulation Reactor

The internal circulation reactor consists of two sequential UASB processes, one high
rate and the second low rate (Pereboom and Vereijken, 1994). The reactor is in a tower
configuration, where the lower part contains the high-rate reactor and the upper part
the low-rate reactor (Figure 13.79). The low-rate reactor polishes the effluent from the
high-rate reactor. In the lower tower, an expanded bed of granular sludge converts
organic matter to biogas. The gas is collected in a separator and lifts water and sludge
to the upper compartment, where the gas is separated and the sludge is returned via a
down pipe.

9.0 REFERENCES
Abma, W.; Schultz, C. E.; Mulder, J. W.; ven der Star, W. R. L.; Strous, M.; Tokutomi, T.;
van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2007) Full-Scale Granular Anammox Process. Water Sci.
Technol., 55 (8–9), 27–33.
Abwassertechnische Vereinigung (ATV) (1983) German ATV Regulations—A135; Grund-
sätze für die Bemessung von einstufigen Tropfkörpern und Scheibentauchkörpern mit
Anschluwerter über 500 Einwohnergleichwerten, D–5205; St. Augustine, Germany.
Adav, S. S.; Lee, D. J.; Show, K. Y.; Tay, J. H. (2008) Aerobic Granular Sludge: Recent
Advances. Biotechnol. Adv., 26 (5), 411–423.
Adham, S.; Gillogly, T.; Nerenberg, R.; Lehman, G.; Rittmann, B. E. (2004) Membrane
Biofilm Reactor Process for Nitrate and Perchlorate Removal; AWWA Research Founda-
tion: Denver, Colorado.
Æsøy, A.; Ødegaard, H.; Bentzen, G. (1998) The Effect of Sulphide and Organic Matter
on the Nitrification Activity in a Biofilm Process. Water Sci. Technol., 37 (1), 115–122.
Albertson, O. E. (1989a) Slow Down That Trickling Filter! Wat. Env. Tech. (Oper. Forum.)
6 (1), 15–20.
Albertson, O. E. (1989b) Slow Motion Trickling Filters Gain Momentum! Water Environ.
Technol. (Oper. Forum.) 6(8), 28–29.
Albertson, O. E. (1995a) Excess Biofilm Control by Distributor-Speed Modulation. J.
Environ. Eng., 121 (4), 330–336.
Albertson, O. E. (1995b) Is CBOD5 Test Viable for Raw and Settled Wastewater? J. Env-
iron. Eng., 121 (7), 515–520.
Albertson, O. E.; Davies, G. (1984) Analysis of Process Factors Controlling Performance
Plastic Bio–media. Proceedings of the 57th Water Pollution Control Federation Confer-
ence; New Orleans, Louisiana, October; Water Pollution Control Federation: Wash-
ington, D.C.
Albertson, O. E.; Eckenfelder, W. (1984) Analysis of Process Factors Affecting Plastic
Media Trickling Filter Performance; Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Fixed Film Biological Processes; Washington, D.C.
Albertson, O. E.; Okey, R. W. (1988) Design procedure for Tertiary Nitrification. Prepared
for American Surfpac Inc.: West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Andersson, B.; Aspegren, H.; Nyberg, U.; la Cour Jansen, J.; Ødegaard, H. (1998)
Increasing the Capacity of an Extended Nutrient Removal Plant by Using Different
Techniques. Water Sci. Technol., 37 (9), 175–183.

Andersson, B.; Aspregren, H.; Parker, D. S.; Lutz, M. (1994) High Rate Nitrifying Trick-
ling Filters. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 47–52.
Antoine, R. L. (1976) Fixed Biological Surfaces—Wastewater Treatment; CRC Press Inc.:
Cleveland, Ohio.
Aryan, A. F.; Johnson, S. H. (1987) Discussion of a Comparison of Trickling Filter Media.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 59 (915).
Aspegren, H. (1992) Nitrifying Trickling Filters, A Pilot Study of Malmö, Sweden; Malmö
Water and Sewage Works: Malmö, Sweden.
Aspegren, H.; Nyberg, U.; Andersson, B.; Gotthardsson, S.; Jansen, J. (1998) Post Deni-
trification in a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Process. Water Sci. Technol., 38 (1), 31–38.
Atkinson, B.; Busch, A. W.; Dawkins, G. S. (1963) Recirculation, Reaction Kinetics and
Effluent Quality in a Trickling Filter Flow Model. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 35 (1307).
Barnard, J. L. (1974) Cut P and N without Chemicals. Water Waste Eng., 11, 41–44.
Baxter and Woodman Environmental Engineers (1973) Nitrification in Wastewater Treat-
ment: Report of the Pilot Study; Prepared for the Sanitary District of Bloom Township:
Illinois.
Benjes, H. H., Jr. (1977) Small Community Wastewater Treatment Facilities–Biological Treat-
ment Systems; Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technology
Transfer National Seminar Small Wastewater Treatment System; Culp/Wesner/
Culp: El Dorado Hills, California.
Benzie, W. J.; Larkin, H. O.; Moore, A. F. (1963) Effects of Climactic and Loading Factors
on Trickling Filter Performance. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 35 (4), 445–455.
Beun, J. J.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Heijnen, J. J. (2002) Aerobic Granulation in a
Sequencing Batch Airlift Reactor. Water Res., 36 (3), 702–712.
Biesterfeld, S.; Farmer, G.; Figueroa, L.; Parker, D.; Russell.; P. (2003) Quantification of Den-
itrification Potential in Carbonaceous Trickling Filters. Water Res., 37 (16), 4011–4017.
Bill, K.; Bott, C.; Yi, P. H.; Ziobro, C.; Murthy, S. (2008) Evaluation of Alternative Elec-
tron Donors in Anoxic Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBRs) Configured for Post-
Denitrification. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Water Environment Federation Technical
Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Chicago, Illinois; Oct 18–22; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Boessmann, M.; Neu, T. R.; Horn, H.; Hempel, D. C. (2004) Growth, Structure and Oxy-
gen Penetration in Particle Supported Autotrophic Biofilms. Water Sci. Technol., 149
(11–12), 371–377.

Boller, M.; Gujer, W. (1986) Nitrification in Tertiary Trickling Filters Followed by Deep
Filters. Water Res., 20, 1363.
Boltz, J. P; La Motta, E. J. (2007) The Kinetics of Particulate Organic Matter Removal as
a Response to Bioflocculation in Aerobic Biofilm Reactors. Water Environ. Res., 79, 725.
Boltz, J. P.; La Motta, E. J.; Madrigal, J. A. (2006) The Role of Bioflocculation on Sus-
pended Solids and Particulate COD Removal in the Trickling Filter Process. J. Envi-
ron. Eng., 132 (5), 506–513.
Boltz, J. P.; Goodwin, S. G.; Rippon, D.; Daigger, G. T. (2008) A Review of Operational
Control Strategies for Snail and Other Macrofauna Infestations in Trickling Filters.
Water Pract., 2 (4).
Boltz, J. P.; Johnson, B. R.; Daigger, G. T.; Sandino, J. (2009a) Modeling Integrated Fixed
Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Systems I:
Mathematical Treatment and Model Development. Water Environ. Res., 81, 576–586.
Boltz, J. P.; Johnson, B. R.; Daigger, G. T.; Sandino, J.; Elenter, D. (2009b) Modeling Inte-
grated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
Systems II: Evaluation. Water Environ. Res., 81, 555–575.
Boltz, J. P.; Daigger, G. T.; Johnson, B. R.; Hiatt, W.; Grady, Jr., C. P. L. (2009c). Expanded
Process Model Describes Biomass Distribution, Free Ammonia/Nitrous Acid Inhibi-
tion and Competition Between Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria (AOB) and Nitrite Oxi-
dizing Bacteria (NOB) in Submerged Biofilm and Integrated Fixed-Film Activated
Sludge Bioreactors. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Nutrient Removal
Conference [CD-ROM]; Washington, D.C., Jun 28–Jul 1; Water Environment Federa-
tion: Alexandria, Virginia.
Boltz, J. P.; Morgenroth, E.; Sen, D. (2009d) Mathematical Modeling of Biofilms and
Biofilm Reactors for Engineering Design. Water Sci. Technol., (in press).
Bosander, J.; Westlund, A. D. (2000) Operation of Full-Scale Fluidized Bed for Denitri-
fication. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (9), 115–121.
Bosman, J.; Hendricks, F. (1981) The Technologies and Economics of the Treatment of a
Concentrated Industrial Effluent by Biological Denitrification Using a Fluidised-Bed
Reactor. In Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water and Wastewater, Cooper, P. F.,
Atkinson, B; Ellis Horwood for Water Research Laboratory, Stevenage Laboratory:
Chichester, United Kingdom, 222–233.
Bratby, J. R.; Fox, B.; Parker, D. S.; Fisher, R.; Jacobs, T. (1999) Using Process Simulation
Models to Rate Plant Capacity. Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Water Environment Fed-
eration Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct
10–13; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

Brenner, R. C.; Heidman, J. A.; Opatken E. J.; Petrasek A. C. (1984) Design Information on
Rotating Biological Contactors; EPA-600/2-84-106; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency: Washington, D.C.
Brindle, K.; Stephenson, T. (1996a) The Application of Membrane Biological Reactors
for the Treatment of Wastewaters. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 49 (6), 601–610.
Brindle, K.; Stephenson, T. (1996b) Nitrification in a Bubbleless Oxygen Mass Transfer
Membrane Bioreactor. Water Sci. Technol., 34 (9), 261–267.
Brindle, K.; Stephenson, T.; Semmens, M. J. (1998) Nitrification and Oxygen Utilisation
in a Membrane Aeration Bioreactor. J. Membr. Sci., 144 (1–2), 197–209.
Brindle, K.; Stephenson, T.; Semmens, M. J. (1999) Pilot-Plant Treatment of a High-
Strength Brewery Wastewater Using a Membrane–Aeration Bioreactor. Water Envi-
ron. Res., 71 (6), 1197–1204.
Bruce, A. M.; Merkens, J. C. (1970) Recent Studies of High Rate Biological Filtration.
J. Water Pollut. Control, 2, 449.
Bruce, A. M.; Merkens, J. C. (1973) Further Studies of Partial Treatment of Sewage by
High-Rate Biological Filtration. J. Water Pollut. Control, 5, 499.
Bruce, A. M.; Merkens, J. C. (1975) Pilot Studies on the Treatment of Domestic Sewage
by Two-Stage Biological Filtration—With Special Reference to Nitrification. J. Water
Pollut. Control, 80.
Bryan, E. H. (1955) Molded Polystyrene Media for Trickling Filters. Proceedings of the
10th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University: West Lafayette, Indiana;
pp. 164–172.
Bryan, E. H. (1962) Two-Stage Biological Treatment: Industrial Experience. Proceedings of
the 11th South Municipal Industrial Waste Conference; University of North Carolina:
Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 136.
Bryan, E. H.; Moeller, D. H. (1960) Aerobic Biological Oxidation Using Dowpac. Pro-
ceedings of the Conference on Biological Waste Treatment; Manhattan College: New York.
Bryers, J. D. (1984) Biofilm Formation and Chemostat Dynamics: Pure and Mixed Cul-
ture Conditions. Biotech. Bioeng., 26, 948–958.
Callieri, D. A. S.; Núñez, C. G.; Díaz Ricci, J. C.; Scidá, L. (1984) Batch Culture of Can-
dida utilis in a Medium Deprived of a Phosphorus Source. App. Microbiol. Biotech., 19,
267–271.
Cantwell, A.; Mosey, F. (1999) Recent Applications and Developments of the Biobead
System; Proceedings of the BAF3 Conference; Cranfield University: Cranfield, England.

Canziani, R. (1988) Submerged Aerated Filters IV–Aeration Characteristics. Ingegneria

Ambientale, 17 (11/12), 627–636.
CH2M HILL (1984) A Comparison of Trickling Filter Media Internal Project Report; CH2M
HILL: Denver, Colorado.
Cherchi, C.; Onnis-Hayden, A.; Gu, A. Z. (2008) Investigation of MicroCTM as an Alter-
native Carbon Source for Denitrification, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federa-
tion 81st Annual Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Chicago, Illinois;
Oct 18–22; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Chung, J.; Rittmann, B. E. (2007) Bio-reductive Dechlorination of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
and Chloroform Using a Hydrogen-Based Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Biotechnol.
Bioeng., 97 (1), 52–60.
Chung, J.; Li, X. H.; Rittmann, B. E. (2006a) Bioreduction of Arsenate Using a Hydrogen-
Based Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Chemosphere, 65 (1), 24–34.
Chung, J.; Nerenberg, R.; Rittmann, B. E. (2006b) Bioreduction of Soluble Chromate
Using a Hydrogen-Based Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Water Res., 40 (8), 1634–1642.
Chung, J.; Nerenberg, R.; Rittmann, B. E. (2006c) Bioreduction of Selenate Using a
Hydrogen-Based Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (5), 1664–
1671.
Clapp, L. W.; Regan, J. M.; Ali, F.; Newman, J. D.; Park, J. K.; Noguera, D. R. (1999)
Activity, Structure, and Stratification of Membrane-Attached Methanotrophic
Biofilms Cometabolically Degrading Trichloroethylene. Water Sci. Technol., 39 (7),
153–161.
Clark, J. H.; Moseng, E. M., Asano, T. (1978) Performance of a Rotating Biological Con-
tactor under Varying Wastewater Flow. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 50, 896.
Coelhoso, I.; Boaventura, R.; Rodrigues, A. (1992) Biofilm reactors—An Experimental
and Modeling Study of Wastewater Denitrification in Fluidized-Bed Reactors of Acti-
vated Carbon Particles. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 40 (5), 625–633.
Cooper, P. F. (1986) The Two Fluidized Bed Reactor for Wastewater Treatment. In Process
Engineering Aspects of Immobilized Cell Systems; Webb, C., Black, G. M., Atkinson, B.,
Eds.; The Institution of Chemical Engineers: Rugby, United Kingdom, 179–204.
Cooper, P. F.; Wheeldon, D. H. V. (1981) Completer Treatment of Sewage in a Two-
Fluidised Bed System. In Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water and Wastewater;
P. F. Cooper and B. Atkinson. Cooper, P.F., Atkinson, B., Eds; Ellis Horwood for
Water Research Laboratory, Stevenage Laboratory: Chichester, United Kingdom,
pp. 121–144.

Cooper-Smith, G.; Schofield, I. (2004) Submerged Aerated Filters, Coming of Age for
AMP4; Proceedings of the 2nd National CIWEM Conference; September; Wakefield,
United Kingdom; Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management:
London, England.
Copp, J. B.; Dold, P. L. (1998) Comparing Sludge Production under Aerobic and Anoxic
Conditions. Water Sci. Technol., 38 (1), 285–294.
Crine, M.; Schlitz, M.; Vandevenne, L. (1990) Evaluation of the Performances of Ran-
dom Plastic Media in Aerobic Trickling Filters. Water Sci. Technol., 22 (1/2), 227–238.
Culp, G. L. (1963) Direct Recirculation of High-Rate Trickling Filter Effluent. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed., 35 (6), 742–747.
Daigger, G. T.; Heinemann, T. A.; Land, G.; Watson, R. S. (1994) Practical Experience
with Combined Carbon Oxidation and Nitrification in Plastic Media Trickling Filters.
Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 189–196.
Daude, D.; Stephenson T. (2004) Cost-Effective Treatment Solutions for Rural Areas;
Design of a New Package Treatment Plant for Single Households. Water Sci. Technol.,
48 (11), 107–113.
de Kreuk, M. K.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2004) Selection of Slow-Growing Organisms
as a Means for Improving Aerobic Granular Sludge Stability. Water Sci. Technol., 49
(11–12), 9–17.
de Kreuk, M. K.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2006) Formation of Aerobic Granules with
Domestic Sewage. J. Environ. Eng., 132 (6), 694–697.
de Kreuk, M.; Heijnen, J. J.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2005) Simultaneous Cod, Nitro-
gen, and Phosphate Removal by Aerobic Granular Sludge. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 90 (6),
761–769.
deBarbadillo, C.; Rectanus, R.; Canham, R.; Schauer, P. (2006) Tertiary Denitrification
And Low Phosphorus Limits: A Practical Look At Phosphorus Limitations On Deni-
trification Filters. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment Federation Techni-
cal Conference and Exposition [CD-ROM]; Dallas, Texas, Oct 21–25; Water Environment
deBarbadillo, C.; Shaw, A.; Wallis-Lage, C. (2005) Evaluation and Design of Deep-Bed
Denitrification Filters: Empirical Design Parameters vs. Process Modeling. Proceedings
of the 78th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Conference and Exposition,
Washington, D.C., Oct 12–15; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Degremont (2007) Water Treatment Handbook, 7th ed.; Lavoisier SAS: France.

Degremont (2008) E-mail communication providing recommended design loading

ranges for Biofor BAF.
Dempsey, M. J. Nitrification Process, U.S. Patent 6,572,773, 2003.
Dempsey, M. J. Fluid Bed Expansion and Fluidization, U.S. Patent 7,309,433, 2007.
Dempsey, M. J.; Porto, I.; Mustafa, M.; Rowan, A. K.; Brown, A.; Head, I. M. (2006) The
Expanded Bed Biofilter: Combined Nitrification, Solids Destruction, and Removal of
Bacteria. Water Sci. Technol., 54 (8), 37–46.
Dempsey, M. J.; Lannigan, K. C.; Minall, R. J. (2005) Particulate-Biofilm, Expanded-Bed
Technology for High-Rate, Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment: Nitrification. Water
Res., 39 (6), 965–974.
Dold, P. L.; Ekama, G. A.; Marais, G. v. R. (1980) A General Model for the Activated
Sludge Process. Prog. Water Technol., 12 (6) 47–77.
Downing, L.; Nerenberg, R. (2007a) Kinetics of Microbial Bromate Reduction in a
Hydrogen-Oxidizing, Denitrifying Biofilm Reactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 98 (3), 543–550.
Downing, L.; Nerenberg, R. (2007b) Performance and Microbial Ecology of the Hybrid
Membrane Biofilm Process (HMBP) for Concurrent Nitrification and Denitrification
of Wastewater. Water Sci. Technol., 55 (8–9), 355–362.
Downing, L.; Nerenberg, R. (2008a) Effect of Oxygen Gradients on the Activity and
Microbial Community Structure of a Nitrifying, Membrane-Aerated Biofilm. Biotech-
nol. Bioeng., 101 (6), 1193–1204.
Downing, L.; Nerenberg, R. (2008b) Total Nitrogen Removal in a Hybrid, Membrane-
Aerated Activated Sludge Process. Water Res., 42 (14), 3697–3708.
Downing, A. L.; Tomlinson, T. G.; Truesdale, G. A. (1964a) The Effect of Inhibitors on
Nitrification in the Activated Sludge Process. J. Inst. Sewer Purif., 6, 537.
Downing, A. L.; Painter, H. A.; Knowles, G. (1964b) Nitrification in the Activated
Sludge Process, J. Inst. Sewer Purif., 2, 130.
Drury, D. D.; Carmona, J.; Delgadillo, A. (1986) Evaluation of High Density Cross Flow
Media for Rehabilitating and Existing Trickling Filter. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 58
(5) 364–366.
Eckenfelder, W.W, and Barnhart, E. L. (1963) Performance of a High-Rate Trickling
Filter Using Selected Materials. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 35 (12), 1535–1551.
Eckenfelder, W.W. (1961) Trickling Filter Design and Performance. J. San. Eng. Div., Am.
Soc. Civ. Eng., 87, 33–45.

Eckenfelder, W. W. (1963) Performance of a High Rate Trickling Filter Using Selected

Materials. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 35, 1536.
Ergas, S. J.; Reuss, A. F. (2001) Hydrogenotrophic Denitrification of Drinking Water
Using a Hollow Fibre Membrane Bioreactor. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. Aqua, 50 (3),
161–171.
Essila, N. J.; Semmens, M. J.; Voller, V. R. (2000) Modeling Biofilms on Gas-Permeable
Supports: Concentration and Activity Profiles. J. Environ. Eng., 126 (3), 250–257.
Fitzpatrick, C. S. B. (2001) Factors Affecting Efficient Filter Backwashing. Proceeding from
the International Conference on Advances in Rapid Granular Filtration in Water Treatment,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management: London, England.
Francis, C. W.; Hancher, C. W. (1981) Biological Denitrification of High-Nitrate Wastes
Generated in the Nuclear Industry. In Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water and
Wastewater; Cooper, P. F., Atkinson, B., Eds.; Ellis Horwood for Water Research Lab-
oratory, Stevenage Laboratory: Chichester, United Kingdom, pp. 234–250.
Frijters, C.; Vellinga, S.; Jorna, T.; Mulder, R. (2000) Extensive Nitrogen Removal in a
New Type of Airlift Reactor. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5), 469–476.
Frisch, S. (1998a) Biomass Separation Apparatus and Method, U.S. Patent 5,788,842,
1998.
Frisch, S. (1998b) Biomass separation apparatus and method with media return. U.S.
Patent 5,750,028, 1998.
Frössling, N. (1938) Über die Verdunstung Fallender Tropfen (About the Evaporation
of Falling Drops). Gerlands Beiträge zur Geophysik (Gerland’s Contributions to Geo-
physics), 52, 170–215 (article published in German).
Galler, W. S.; Gotaas, H. G. (1964) Analysis of Biological Filter Variables. J. Sanit. Eng.
Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 90 (6), 59.
Germain, J. E. (1966) Economical Treatment of Domestic Waste by Plastic Medium
Trickling Filters. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 38, 192.
German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste [ATV-DVWK] (1997) Biologis-
che und Weitergehende Abwasserreinigung [German], 4th ed.; Ernst & Sohn: Berlin.
German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste [ATV-DVWK] (2000) Standard
ATV-DVWK-A 131 E, Dimensioning of Single-stage Activated Sludge Plants, Ger-
man ATV-DVWK Rules and Standards.
Gonçalves R.; Rogalla, F. (1992) Continuous Biological Phosphorus Removal in a
Biofilm Reactor. Water Sci. Technol., 26 (9–11), 2027–2030.

Goncalves, R. F.; Le Grand, L.; Rogalla, F. (1994a) Biological Phosphorus Uptake in Sub-
merged Biofilters with Nitrogen Removal. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 135–143.
Goncalves, R. F.; Nogueira, F. N.; Le Grand, L.; Rogalla, F. (1994b) Nitrogen and Biolog-
ical Phosphorus Removal in Submerged Biofilters. Water Sci. Technol., 30 (11), 1–12.
Gönenç, I. E.; Harremoës, P. (1985) Nitrification in Rotating Disc Systems-I. Water Res.,
19 (9), 1119–1127.
Grady, L. E.; Daigger, G. T.; Lim, H. (1999) Biological Wastewater Treatment, 2nd ed.; Marcel
Dekker: New York.
Green, M.; Shnitzer, M.; Tarre, S.; Bogdan, B.; Shelef, G.; Sorden, C. J. (1994) Fluidized-
Bed Reactor Operation for Groundwater Denitrification. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11),
509–515.
Grimberg, S. J.; Rury, M. J.; Jimenez, K. M.; Zander, A. K. (2000) Trinitrophenol Treat-
ment in a Hollow Fiber Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5),
235–238.
Gujer, W.; Boller, M. (1983) Operating Experience with Plastic Media Tertiary Trickling
Filters for Nitrification. In Design and Operation of Large Treatment Plants, de Emde, V,
Tench, H. B., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gujer, W.; Boller, M. (1986) Design of a Nitrifying Trickling Filter Based on Theoretical
Concepts. Water Res., 20, 1353.
Gullicks, H. A.; Cleasby, J. L. (1986) Design of Trickling Filter Nitrification Tower.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 58 (1), 60–67.
Gullicks, H. A.; Cleasby, J. L. (1990) Cold–Climate Nitrifying Biofilters: Design and
Operation Considerations. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 62 (1), 50–57.
Halvorson, H. O. (1936) Aero-Filtration of Sewage and Industrial Wastes. Water Works
Sewer., 83, 307–313.
Harremoës, P. (1976) The Significance of Pore Diffusion to Filter Denitrification. J. Water
Harremoës, P. (1978) Biofilm Kinetics in Water Pollution Microbiology, Vol. 2; Michell, R.,
Ed.; Wiley and Sons: New York.
Harremoës, P. (1982) Criteria for Nitrification in Fixed Film Reactors. Water Sci. Technol.,
13, 167.
Harremöes, P.; Wilderer, P. A. (1993) Fundamentals of Nutrient Removal in Biofilters.
Proceedings from the 9th Annual EWPCA-ISWA Symposium; München, Germany, May
11–13; Abwassertechnische Vereinigung e.V.: St. Augustin, Germany.

Harris S. L.; Stephenson, T.; and Pearce, P. (1996) Aeration Investigation of Biological
Aerated Filters using Off-Gas Analysis. Water Sci. Technol., 34, 307.
Harrison, J. R. (2007) Personal Communication. Shutdown of Covered Biofilters.
Harrison, J. R.; Daigger, G. T. (1987) A Comparison of Trickling Filter Media. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed., 59, 679.
Harrison, J. R.; Timpany, P. L. (1988) Design Considerations with the Trickling Filter
Solids Contact Process. Proceedings of the Joint Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers National Conference on Environmental Engineering; Canadian
Society of Civil Engineers: Vancouver, British Columbia.
Hawkes, H. A. (1963) The Ecology of Waste Water Treatment; Pergamon Press: Oxford,
England.
Heijnen, J. J.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Mulder, R.; Weltevrede, R.; Mulder, A. (1993)
Development and Scale-Up of an Aerobic Biofilm Airlift Suspension Reactor. Water
Sci. Technol., 27 (5–6), 253–261.
Hem, L. Nitrification in a Moving Bed Biofilm Process. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 1991.
Hem, L.; Rusten, B.; Ødegaard, H.; (1994) Nitrification in a Moving Bed Reactor. Water
Res., 28 (6), 1425–1433.
Hermanowicz, S. W.; Cheng, Y. W. (1990) Biological Fluidized Bed Reactor: Hydrody-
namics, Biomass Distribution and Performance. Water Sci. Technol., 22 (1–2), 193–202.
Hippen, A.; Helmer, C.; Kunst, S.; Rosenwinkel, K. H.; Seyfried, C. F. (2001) Six Years’
Practical Experience with Aerobic/Anoxic Deammonification in Biofilm Systems.
Hodkinson, B. J.; Williams J. B.; Ha, T. N. (1998) Effects of Plastic Support Media on the
Diffusion of Air into a Submerged Aerated Filter, J. Chart. Inst. Water Environ. Manage.,
12, 188.
Holbrook, R. D.; Hong, S. N.; Heise, S. M.; Andersen, V. R. (1998) Pilot and Full-Scale
Experience with Nutrient Removal in a Fixed-Film System, Proceedings of the 70th
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference Orlando,
Florida; Oct 3–7; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Holmes, J.; Dutt, S., (1999) Coln Bridge (Huddersfield) WWTW Biopur Plant Process
Design and Performance. Proceedings of the BAF3 Conference; Cranfield University:
Cranfield, England.
Horn, H.; Morgenroth, E. (2006) Transport of Oxygen, Sodium Chloride, and Sodium
Nitrate in Biofilms. Chem. Eng. Sci., 61 (5), 1347–1356.

Howland, W. E. (1958) Flow Over Porous Media as in a Trickling Filter. Proceedings of the
12th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University: West Lafayette, Indiana.
Huang, X.; Liang, P.; Qian Y. (2007) Excess Sludge Reduction Induced by Tubifex tubifex
in a Recycled Sludge Reactor. J. Biotechnol., 127 (3), 443–451.
Hultman, B.; Jonsson, K.; Plaza, E. (1994) Combined Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
in a Full-Scale Continuous Upflow Sand Filter. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10/11), 127–134.
Husovitz, K. J.; Gilmore, A.; Delahaye, N. G.; Love, K. R.; Little, J. C. (1999) The Influ-
ence of Upflow Liquid Velocity on Nitrification in a Biological Aerated Filter. Pro-
ceedings of the Water Environment Federation 72nd Annual Water Environment Federation
Technical Conference and Exposition [CD-ROM]; New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct 10–13;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Hydromantis, Inc. (2002) Attached Growth Models. In (unpublished) GPS-X Technical
Reference, pp. 157–185.
Janning, K. F.; Harremoes, P.; Nielsen, M. (1995) Evaluating and Modelling of the Kinet-
ics in a Full-scale Submerged Denitrification Filter. Water Sci. Technol., 32 (8), 115–123.
Janning, K. F.; Mesterton, K.; Harremoës, P. (1997) Hydrolysis and Degradation of
Filtrated Organic Particulates in a Biofilm Reactor under Anoxic and Aerobic Condi-
tions. Water Sci. Technol., 36 (1), 279–286.
Jeris, J. S.; Owens, R. W. (1975) Pilot-Scale, High-Rate Biological Denitrification. J. Water
Jeris, J. S.; Beer, C., et al. (1974) High-Rate Biological Denitrification Using a Granular
Fluidized-Bed. J. Water Poll. Control Fed., 46 (9), 2118–2128.
Jeris, J. S.; Owens, R. W., et al. (1981) Secondary Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
with Fluidized Bed Technology. In Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water and
Wastewater; P. F. Cooper and B. Atkinson. Cooper, P.F., Atkinson, B., Eds; Ellis Hor-
wood for Water Research Laboratory, Stevenage Laboratory: Chichester, United
Kingdom, pp. 112–120.
Jolly, M. (2004) Aberdeen (Nigg) Wastewater Treatment Works-1st Year of Operation.
CIWEM 2nd National Conference, Wakefield.
Kaldate, A.; Holst, T.; Pattarkine, V. (2008) Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Pilot Study for
Tertiary Nitrification of HPOAS Wastewater at Harrisburg AWTF. Proceedings of the
81st Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM];
Chicago, Illinois; Oct 18–22; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Kearney, M. M. (2000) Engineered Fractals Enhance Process Applications. Chem. Eng.
Prog., 96 (12), 61–68.

Kincannon, D. F.; Stover, E. L. (1982) Design Methodology for Fixed-Film Reactors,

RBCs and Trickling Filters. Civ. Eng. Pract. Design, 2, 107.
Kruger (2008) Email correspondence with Michele Kline of Kruger/Veolia regarding
BAF design practices.
Kuenen, J. G.; Jørgensen, B. B.; Revsbech, N. P. (1986) Oxygen Microprofiles of Trickling
Filter Biofilms. Water Res., 20 (12), 1589–1598.
Laurence A.; Spangel A.; Kurtz W.; Pennington R.; Koch C.; Husband, J. (2003) Full-
Scale Biofilter Demonstration Testing in New York City. Proceedings of the 76th Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Los
Angeles, California; Oct 11–13; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Lazarova, V.; Manem, J. (1996) An Innovative Process for Waste Water Treatment: The
Circulating Floating Bed Reactor. Water Sci. Technol., 34 (9), 89–99.
Lazarova, V.; Manem, J. (1994) Advances in Biofilm Aerobic Reactors Ensuring Effective
Biofilm Activity Control. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 319–327.
Le Tallec, X., Zeghal, S., Vidal, A., Lesouef, A. (1997). Effect of Influent Quality Vari-
ability on Biofilter Operation. Water Science & Technology, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 111–117.
Lee, J. S.; Buckley, P. S. (1981) Fluid Mechanics and Aeration Characteristics of Fluidised
Beds. In Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water and Wastewater; P. F. Cooper and
B. Atkinson. Cooper, P.F., Atkinson, B., Eds; Ellis Horwood for Water Research Lab-
oratory, Stevenage Laboratory: Chichester, United Kingdom, pp. 62–74.
Lee, K. M.; Stensel, H. D. (1986) Aeration and Substrate Use in a Sparged Packed-Bed
Biofilm Reactor. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 58, 1066–1072.
Lee, K.-C.; Rittmann, B. E. (2000) A Novel Hollow-Fiber Membrane Biofilm Reactor for
Autohydrogenotrophic Denitrification of Drinking Water. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5),
219–226.
Lee, K.-C.; Rittmann, B. E. (2002) Applying a Novel Autohydrogenotrophic Hollow-
Fiber Membrane Biofilm Reactor for Denitrification of Drinking Water. Water Res., 36
(8), 2040–2052.
Lettinga, G.; Vanvelsen, A. F. M.; Hobma, S. W.; Dezeeuw, W.; Klapwijk, A. (1980) Use
of the Upflow Sludge Blanket (USB) Reactor Concept for Biological Wastewater
Treatment, Especially for Anaerobic Treatment. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 22 (4), 699–734.
Levine, A. D.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Asano, T. (1985) Characterization of the Size Distrib-
ution of Contaminants in Wastewater: Treatment and Reuse Implications. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed., 57, 805–816.

Levine, A. D.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Asano, T. (1991) Size Distribution of Particulate Con-
taminants in Wastewater and Their Effect on Treatability. Water Res., 25 (8), 911–922.
Lewandowski, Z. (2000) Structure and Function of Biofilms. In Biofilms: Recent Advances
in their Study and Control, Evans, L.V., Ed.; Harwood Academic Publishers: Australia.
Liang, P.; X. Huang, et al. (2006) Excess Sludge Reduction in Activated Sludge Process
through Predation of Aeolosoma hemprichi. Biochem, Eng. J., 28 (2), 117–122.
Lin, C. S.; Heck, G. (1987) Design and Performance of the Trickling Filter/Solids Contact
Process for Nitrification in a Cold Climate. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Conference of
the Water Pollution Control Federation; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Water Pollution
Control Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Liu, Y.; Tay, J. H. (2002) The Essential Role of Hydrodynamic Shear Force in the For-
mation of Biofilm and Granular Sludge. Water Res., 36 (7), 1653–1665.
Liu, Y. Q.; Tay, J. H. (2007) Cultivation of Aerobic Granules in a Bubble Column and an
Airlift Reactor with Divided Draft Tubes at Low Aeration Rate. Biochem. Eng. J., 34 (1),
1–7.
Logan, B. E. (1999) Environmental Transport Processes; John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Logan, B. E.; Wagenseller, G. A. (2000) Molecular Size Distributions of Dissolved
Organic Matter in Wastewater Transformed by Treatment in a Full-Scale Trickling
Filter. Water Environ. Res., 72 (3), 277–281.
Logan, B. E.; Hermanowicz, S. W.; Parker, D. S. (1987a) Engineering Implications of a
New Trickling Filter Model. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 59 (12), 1017–1028.
Logan, B. E.; Hermanowicz, S. W.; Parker, D. S. (1987b) A Fundamental Model for Trick-
ling Filter Process Design. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 59 (12), 1029–1042.
Mabbott, J. W. (1982) Structural Engineering of Plastic Media for Wastewater Treatment
by Fixed Film Reactors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Fixed Film
Processes; Kings Island, Ohio; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.
MacDonald, D. V. (1990) Denitrification by Fluidized Biofilm Reactor. Water Sci. Technol.,
22 (1–2), 451–461.
Madoni, P. (1994) A Sludge Biotic Index (SBI) for the Evaluation of the Biological Per-
formance of Activated-Sludge Plants Based on the Microfauna Analysis. Water Res.,
28 (1), 67–75.
McCarty, P. L.; Beck, L.; Amant, P. S. (1969) Biological Denitrification of Wastewaters by
Addition of Organic Materials, Proceedings of the 24th Industrial Waste Conference, Pur-
due University, 1271–1285.

McQuarrie, J.; Maxwell, M. (2003) Pilot-Scale Performance of the MBBR Process at the
Crow Creek WWTP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Water Envi-
ronment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, Oct 12–15; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
McQuarrie, J.; Dempsey, M. J.; Boltz, J. P.; Johnson, B. (2007) The Expanded Bed Biofilm
Reactor (EBBR)—An Innovative Biofilm Approach for Tertiary Nitrification. Proceed-
ings of the 80th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference
[CD-ROM]; San Diego, California, Oct 13–17; Water Environment Federation:
Alexandria, Virginia.
Melcer, H.; Dold, P. L.; Jones, R. M.; Bye, C. M., Takacs, I.; Stensel, H.D.; Wilson, A.W.;
Sun, P.; Bury, S. (2003) Methods for Wastewater Characterization in Activated Sludge Mod-
eling; IWA Publishing: London, England; Water Environment Federation: Alexan-
dria, VA.
Melin E.; Ødegaard, H.; Helness, H.; Kenakkala, T. (2004) High-Rate Wastewater Treat-
ment Based Nitrification MBBRs. In Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment VIII; Hahn,
H., Hoffman, E., Ødegaard, H., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, England, pp. 39–48.
Metcalf, L.; Eddy, H. P. (1916) American Sewerage Practice, Volume III—Disposal of Sewage;
McGraw-Hill: New York.
Michelet, F.; Jolly, M.; Chan, T.; Rogalla, F. (2005) Troubleshooting SAF and BAF Biofilm
Reactors on Full Scale, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 78th
Annual Conference and Exposition, Washington, D.C.
Min, K. N.; Ergas, S. J.; Harrison, J. M. (2002) Hollow-Fiber Membrane Bioreactor for
Nitric Oxide Removal. Environ. Eng. Sci., 19 (6), 575–583.
Mokhayeri, Y.; Nichols, A.; Murthy, S.; Riffat, R.; Dold, P.; Takacs, I. (2006) Examining
the Influence of Substrates and Temperature on Maximum Specific Growth Rate of
Denitrifiers, Water Sci. Technol., 54 (8), 155–162.
Morgenroth, E. (2003) Detachment: An Often Overlooked Phenomenon in Biofilm
Research. In Biofilm in Wastewater Treatment; Wuertz, S., Bishop, P., Wilderer, P., Eds.;
IWA Publishing: London, England
Morgenroth, E. (2008a) Modelling Biofilm Systems. In: Biological Wastewater Treatment—
Principles, Modelling, and Design; Henze, M.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Ekama, G.;
Brdjanovic, D., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, England.
Morgenroth, E. (2008b) Biofilm Reactors. In: Biological Wastewater Treatment—Principles,
Modelling, and Design; Henze, M.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Ekama, G.; Brdjanovic,
D., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, England.

Morgenroth, E.; Sherden, T.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Heijnen, J. J.; Wilderer, P. A. (1997)
Aerobic Granular Sludge in a Sequencing Batch Reactor. Water Res., 31 (12), 3191–3194.
Morgenroth, E. T.; Wilderer, P. A. (2000) Influence of Detachment Mechanisms on Com-
petition in Biofilms. Water Res., 34 (2), 417–426.
Morgenroth, E.; Kommedal, R.; Harremoës, P. (2002) Processes and Modeling of Hydrol-
ysis of Particulate Organic Matter in Aerobic Wastewater Treatment—A Review.
Water Sci. Technol., 45 (6) 25–40.
Motsch, S.; Fetherolf, D.; Guhse, G.; McGettigan, J.; Wilson, T. (2007) MBBR and IFAS
pilot program for denitrification at Fairfax County’s Norman Cole Pollution Control
Plant. Water Pract., 5 (1), 1–11.
Mulbarger, M. C. (1991) Fundamental Secondary Treatment Insights. Proceedings of the
64th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation; Toronto, Canada:
Water Environment Federation: Washington, D.C.
Nancharaiah, Y. V.; Joshi, H. M.; Mohan, T. V. K.; Venugopalan, V. P.; Narasimhan, S. V.
(2006) Aerobic Granular Biomass: A Novel Biomaterial for Efficient Uranium
Removal, Current Sci., 91 (4), 503–509.
National Research Council (1946) Sewage Treatment at Military Installations. Sew.
Works. J., 18, 787.
Neethling, J. B.; Bucher, B.; Smyth, J.; Norton, M.; Willey, B.; Wallis-Lage, C. (2002)
Treatment schemes for multiple reuse objectives. Proceedings of the 75th Annual Water
Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Chicago, Illinois;
Nerenberg, R.; Rittmann, B. E. (2004) Reduction of Oxidized Water Contaminants with
a Hydrogen-Based, Hollow-Fiber Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Water Sci. Technol., 49
(11–12), 223–230.
Newman, J.; Occiano, V.; Appleton, R.; Melcer, H.; Sen, S.; Parker, D.; Langworthy, A.;
Wong, P. (2005) Confirming BAF Performance for Treatment of CEPT Effluent on a
Space Constrained Site. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Water Environment Federation
Technical Conference and Exposition, Washington, D.C., Oct 12–15; Water Environment
Nichols, A.; Hinojosa, J.; Riffat, R.; Dold, P.; Takacs, I.; Bott, C.; Bailey, W.; Murthy, S.
(2007) Maximum Methanol-Utilizer Growth Rate: Impact of Temperature on Deni-
trification, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 80th Annual Technical Expo-
sition and Conference [CD-ROM], San Diego, California; Oct 13–17: Water Environ-
ment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

Nicolavic, B. (2002) Stickstoffelimination in Biofiltern. Wiener Mitteilungen Wasser-

Abwasser-Gewasser, Vol. 172, ISBN 3-85234-063-2.
Nicolella, C.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Heijnen, J. J. (2000) Wastewater Treatment with
Particulate Biofilm Reactors. J. Biotechnol., 80 (1), 1–33.
Ninassi, M. V.; Peladan, G.; Pujol, R. (1998) Pre-Denitrification of Municipal Waste-
water: The Interest of Up-flow Biofiltration, Proceedings of the 70th Annual Water Envi-
ronment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference, Orlando, Florida; Oct 3–7;
Nordeidet, B.; Rusten, B.; Ødegaard, H. (1994) Phosphorus Requirements for Tertiary Nitri-
fication in a Biofilm. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 77–82.
Norris, D. P.; Parker, D. S.; Daniels, M. L. (1980) Efficiencies of Advanced Waste Treatment
Obtained with Upgrading Trickling Filters. J. Environ. Eng., 50 (9), 78–81.
Norris, D. P.; Parker, D. S.; Daniels, M. L.; Owens, E. L. (1982) High Quality Trickling Fil-
ter Treatment without Tertiary Treatment. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 54 (7), 1087–1098.
Ødegaard, H. (2006) Innovations in Wastewater Treatment: The Moving Bed; IWA Publish-
ing: London, England.
Ødegaard, H. (2008) The Use of the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Technology
for Industrial Wastewater Treatment. Proceedings of the International Water Associ-
ation Specialized Conference on Industrial Water Treatment Systems; Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, Oct 2–3; IWA Publishing: London, England.
Ødegaard, H.; Gisvold, B.; Strickland, J. (2000) The Influence of Carrier Size and Shape
in the Moving Bed Biofilm Process. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5), 383–391.
Ødegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Wessman, F. (2004) State of the Art in Europe the Moving
Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Process. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; New Orleans, Louisiana,
Sep 16–18; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Ødegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Westrum, T. (1994) A New Moving Bed Reactor—Applications
and Results. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 157–165.
Ødegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Wessman, F. (2007) Optimization of Nitrogen Removal by
the Use of Combined Pre- and Post-Denitrification. Proceedings of the 10th Nordic/
NORDIWA Wastewater Conference; Hamar, Norway, Nov 12–13; Norwegian Water
and Wastewater BA: Hamar, Norway.
Okey, R. W.; Albertson, O. E. (1989a) Diffusion’s Role in Regulating Rate and Masking
Temperature Effects in Fixed-Film Nitrification. Water Environ. Res., 61 (4), 500–509.

Okey, R. W.; Albertson, O. E. (1989a) Diffusion’s Role in Regulating Rate and Masking
Temperature Effects in Fixed-Film Nitrification. Water Environ. Res., 61 (4), 500–509.
Okey, R. W.; Albertson, O. E. (1989b) Evidence of Oxygen Limiting Conditions During
Tertiary Fixed-Film Nitrification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 61, 510.
Onda, K.; et al. (1968) Mass Transfer Coefficients Between Gas and Liquid Phase in
Packed Columns. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 1 (56).
Opatken, E. J. (1980) Rotating Biological Contactors-Second Order Kinetics. Proceedings
of the 1st National Symposium on Rotating Biological Contactor Technology, Vol. I, EPA-
600/9-80-046a; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.
Oppelt, E. T.; Smith, J. M. (1981) United States Environmental Protection Agency
Research and Current Thinking on Fluidised-Bed Biological Treatment. In Biological
Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water and Wastewater; Cooper, P. F., Atkinson, B.; pp. 165–178.
Pankhania, M.; Brindle, K.; Stephenson, T. (1999) Membrane Aeration Bioreactors for
Wastewater Treatment: Completely Mixed and Plug-Flow Operation. Chem. Eng. J.,
73 (2), 131–136.
Pano, A.; Middlebrooks, E. J. (1983) Kinetics of Carbon and Ammonia Nitrogen
Removal in RBCs. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 55 (7) 956–965.
Parker et al. (1990) New Trickling Filter Applications in the USA. Water Sci. Technol.,
22, 215.
Parker, D. S. (1999) Trickling Filter Mythology. J. Environ. Eng., 125 (7), 618–625.
Parker, D. S. (1998) Establishing Biofilm System Evaluation Protocols. WERF Work-
shop: Formulating a Research Program for Debottlenecking, Optimizing, and Rerat-
ing Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants. Proceedings of the 71st Annual Water Envi-
ronment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Orlando, Florida,
Parker, D. S.; Jacobs, T.; Bower, E.; Stowe, D. W.; Farmer, G. (1997) Maximizing Trick-
ling Filter Nitrification Through Biofilm Control: Research Review and Full Scale
Application. Water Sci. Technol., 36 (1) 255–262.
Parker, D. S.; Lutz, M.; Andersson, B.; Aspegren, H. (1995) Effect of Operating Variables
on Nitrification rates in Trickling Filters. Water Environ. Res., 67 (7), 1111–1118.
Parker, D. S.; Lutz, M.; Dahl, R.; Berkkopf, S. (1989) Enhancing Reaction Rates in Nitrify-
ing Trickling Filters through Biofilm Control. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 61 (5), 618–631.
Parker, D. S.; Richards, T. (1986) Nitrification in Trickling Filters. J. Water Pollut. Control
Fed., 58 (9), 896–902.

Parkson (2004) Email communication with M. Gutierrez regarding loading rates for
DynaSand filters operating for post-denitrification, May.
Pearce, P. A. (1996) Optimisation of Biological Aerated Filters. Proceedings of the BAF2
Conference; Cranfield University: Cranfield: England.
Pearse, L. (1938) Modern Sewage Disposal; Lancaster Press: Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Peladan, J. G.; Lemmel, H.; Tarallo, S.; Tattersall, S.; Pujol, R. (1997) A New Generation
of Upflow Biofilters With High Water Velocities. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advanced Wastewater Treatment Processes; Leeds, United Kingdom;
Aqua Enviro Ltd.: Wakefield, United Kingdom.
Peladan, J.-G.; Lemmel, H.; Pujol, R. (1996) High Nitrification Rate With Upflow Biofil-
tration. Water Sci. Technol., 34 (1–2), 347–353.
Pereboom, J. H. F.; Vereijken, T. (1994) Methanogenic Granule Development in Full-
Scale Internal Circulation Reactors. Water Sci. Technol., 30 (8), 9–21.
Pérez, J.; Picioreanu, C.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2005) Modeling Biofilm and Floc
Diffusion Processes Based on Analytical Solution of Reaction–Diffusion Equations.
Water Res., 39, 1311–1323.
Pham, H.; Viswanathan, S.; Kelly, R. (2008) Evaluation of Plastic Carrier Media on Oxy-
gen Transfer Efficiency with Coarse and Fine Bubble Diffusers. Proceedings of the 81st
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM];
Chicago, Illinois; Oct 18–22; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Phipps, S. D.; Love, N. G. (2001) Quantifying Particle Hydrolysis and Observed Het-
erotrophic Yield for a Full-Scale Biological Aerated Filter. Proceedings of the 74th
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM];
Atlanta, Georgia, Oct 13–17; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Pujol, R.; Hamon, M.; Kandel, X.; Lemmel, H. (1994) Biofilter: Flexible, Reliable Biolog-
ical Filters, Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 33–38.
Pujol, R.; Lemmel, H.; Gousailles, G. (1999) High Denitrification Rates With Fixed Film
Cultures. Proceedings from the Conference on Biofilm Systems, New York, Oct 17–20;
IWAQ: United Kingdom.
Pujol, R.; Tarallo, S. (2000) Total Nitrogen Removal in Two-Step Biofiltration, Water Sci.
Technol., 41 (4–5), 65–68.
Rabah, F. K. J.; Dahab, M. F. (2004a) Biofilm and Biomass Characteristics in High-
Performance Fluidized-Bed Biofilm Reactors. Water Res., 38 (19), 4262–4270.
Rabah, F. K. J.; Dahab, M. F. (2004b) Nitrate Removal Characteristics of High Perfor-
mance Fluidized-Bed Biofilm Reactors. Water Res., 38 (17), 3719–3728.

Ratsak, C. H.; Verkuijlen, J. (2006) Sludge Reduction by Predatory Activity of Aquatic

Oligochaetes in Wastewater Treatment Plants: Science or Fiction? A Review. Hydro-
biologia, 564 (1), 197–211.
Rauch, W.; Vanhooren, H.; Vanrolleghem, P. A. (1999) A Simplified Mixed-Culture
Biofilm Model. Water Res., 33 (9), 2148–2162.
Redmon, D. T.; Boyle, W. C.; Ewing, L. (1983) Oxygen Transfer Efficiency Measure-
ments in Mixed Liquor Using Off-Gas Techniques. J. Water. Pollut. Control Fed., 55,
1338–1347. Rittmann, B. E.; Nerenberg, R.; Stinson, B.; Katehis, D.; Leong, E.; Ander-
son, J. (2004) Hydrogen-Based Membrane Biofilm Reactor for Wastewater Treatment.
Water Sci. Technol. (in press).
Roennefahrt, K. W. (1986) Nitrate Elimination with Heterotrophic Aquatic Microorgan-
isms in Fixed-Bed Systems with Buoyant Carriers. Aqua, 5, 283–285.
Rogalla, F.; Bourbigot, M.-M. (1990) New Developments in Complete Nitrogen
Removal with Innovative Biological Reactors, Water Sci. Technol., 22 (1–2), 273–280.
Rogalla, F.; Sibony, J. (1992) Biocarbone Aerated Filters–Ten Years After: Past, Present
and Plenty of Potential. Water Sci. Technol., 26 (9–11), 2043–2048.
Rogalla, F.; Ravarini, P.; DeLarminat, G.; Courtelle, J. (1990) Large Scale Biological
Nitrate and Ammonia Removal. Water Environ. J., 4 (4), 319–329.
Rother, E. (2005) Optimising Design and Operation of the Biofiltration Process for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Ph.D. dissertation, Schriftenreihe WAR, Band 163,
Darmstadt, ISBN 3-932518-59-4.
Rowe, P. N.; Claxton, K. T.; Lewis, J. B. (1965) Heat and Mass Transfer from a Single
Sphere in an Extensive Flowing Fluid. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 43 (13), 31.
Rundle, H. (2009) Good Practice in Water and Environmental Management: Biological
and Submerged Aerated Filters, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental
Management (CIWEM), Aqua Enviro Technology Transfer, Wakefield, U.K.
Rusten B.; Hellstrom, B. G.; Hellstrom, F.; Sehested O.; Skjelfoss, E.; Svendsen B. (2000)
Pilot Testing and Preliminary Design of MBBRs for Nitrogen Removal at the FREVAR
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5), 13–20.
Rusten B.; Hem L.; Ødegaard, H. (1995a) Nitrification of Municipal Wastewater in
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors. Water Environ. Res., 67 (1), 75–86.
Rusten B.; Hem L.; Ødegaard, H. (1995b) Nitrogen Removal from Dilute Wastewater in
Cold Climate Using Moving-Bed Biofilm Reactors. Water Environ. Res., 67 (2), 65–74.
Rusten, B.; Ødegaard, H. (2007) Design and Operation of Nutrient Removal Plants for
Low Effluent Concentrations. Water Pract., 1 (5), 1–13.

Rusten, B.; Siljudalen, J. G.; Bungun, S. (1995c) Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors for Nitro-
gen Removal: from Initial Pilot Testing to Start-Up of the Lillehammer WWTP. Pro-
ceedings of the 73th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Con-
ference [CD-ROM]; Miami, Florida, Oct 14–17; Water Environment Federation:
Rusten, B.; Wien, A.; Skjefstad, J. (1996) Spent Aircraft Deicing Fluid as External Carbon
Source for Denitrification of Wastewater: from Waste Problem to Beneficial Use. Pro-
ceeding of the 51st Purdue Industrial Waste Conference; Purdue University: West
Lafayette, Indiana.
Rusten, B.; Eikebrokk, B.; Ulgenes, Y.; Lygren, E. (2006) Design and Operations of the
Kaldnes Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors. Aquacult. Eng., 24, 322–331.
Ryhiner, G., Sørenson, K.; Birou, B.; Gros, G. (1993) Biofilm Reactors Configuration for
Advanced Nutrient Removal. Proceedings of the 2nd International Specialized Conference
on Biofilm Reactors, Paris, France; IWAQ: United Kingdom.
Sadick, T.; Semon, J.; Palumbo, D.; Keenan, P.; Daigger, G. (1996) Fluidized-Bed Deni-
trification. Water Environ. Technol., 8 (8), 81–85.
Sagberg, P.; Dauthille, P.; Hamon, M. (1992) Biofilm Reactors; a Compact Solution for
Upgrading of Waste Water Treatment Plants. Water Sci. Technol., 26 (3–4), (733–742).
Savage, E. S. (1983) Biological Denitrification Deep Bed Filters. Paper presented at the
Filtech Conference, Filtration Society, London, England.
Schauer, P.; Rectanus, R.; deBarbadillo, C.; Barton, D.; Gebbia, R.; Boyd, B.; McGehee,
M.; (2006) Pilot Testing of Upflow Continuous Backwash Filters For Tertiary Denitri-
fication and Phosphorus Removal. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Dallas, Texas, Oct 21–25;
Schramm, A.; De Beer, D.; Gieseke, A.; Amann, R. (2000) Microenvironments and Dis-
tribution of Nitrifying Bacteria in a Membrane-Bound Biofilm. Environ. Microbiol., 2
(6), 680–686.
Schroeder, E. D.; Tchobanoglous, G. (1976) Mass Transfer Limitations on Trickling Fil-
ter Design. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 48, 772.
Schulze, K. L. (1960) Load and Efficiency of Trickling Filters. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.,
32, 245.
Schwarzenbeck, N.; Borges, J. M.; Wilderer, P. A. (2005) Treatment of Dairy Effluents in
an Aerobic Granular Sludge Sequencing Batch Reactor. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 66
(6), 711–718.

Semmens, M. I. (2005) Membrane Technology: Pilot Studies of Membrane Aerated Bioreactors;

Water Environment Research Foundation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Semmens, M. J.; Dahm, K.; Shanahan, J.; Christianson, A. (2003) Cod and Nitrogen
Removal by Biofilms Growing on Gas Permeable Membranes. Water Res., 37 (18),
4343–4350.
Semon, J.; Sadick, T.; Palumbo, D.; Santoro, M.; Keenan, P. (1994) Biological Upflow Flu-
idized Bed Denitrification Reactor Demonstration Project-Stamford, CT, USA. Water
Sci. Technol., 36 (1), 139–146.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008a) Improved Computational Model (AQUIFAS) for Activated
Sludge, Integrated Fixed–Film Activated Sludge, and Moving-Bed Biofilm Reactor
Systems, Part I: Semi-Empirical Model Development. Water Environ. Res., 80, 439–453.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008b) Improved Computational Model (AQUIFAS) for Acti-
vated Sludge, Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge, and Moving-Bed Biofilm
Reactor Systems, Part II: Multilayer Biofilm Diffusional Model. Water Environ. Res.,
80, 624–632.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008c) Improved Computational Model (AQUIFAS) for Acti-
vated Sludge, Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge, and Moving-Bed Biofilm
Reactor Systems, Part III: Analysis and Verification. Water Environ. Res., 80, 633–646.
Severn Trent (2004) E-mail correspondence from David Slack of Severn Trent-Tetra
Process Technologies, May.
Severn Trent (2008) E-mail correspondence from Don McCarty of Severn Trent Water
Purification, December.
Shepherd, D.; Young, P., Hobson, J (1997) Biological Aerated Filters and Lamella Sepa-
rators: Evaluation of Current Status, WRc Report No. PT2061; Water Research Com-
mission: Swindon, United Kingdom.
Shieh, W. K.; Keenan, J. D. (1986) Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor for Wastewater Treat-
ment. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol., 33, 133–169.
Siegrist, H.; Gujer, W. (1987) Demonstration of Mass Transfer and pH Effects in a Nitri-
fying Biofilm. Water Res., 20, 971.
Sigmund, T. W. Simulation of Diurnal Operation of the Fluidized Bed System for Waste-
water Treatment, M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1982.
Springer, A.; Green S (2005) Colne Bridge BAFF Process Improvements, Proceedings of
conference on The Design and Operation of Activated Sludge and Biofilm Systems,
Horan, Aqua Enviro Ltd.

Stenquist, R. J.; Parker, D. S.; Dosh, T. J. (1974) Carbon Oxidation-Nitrification in Syn-

thetic Media Trickling Filters. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 46 (10), 2327–2339.
Stensel, H. D.; Brenner, R.C.; Lubin, G. (1984) Aeration Energy Requirements in Sparged
Fixed Film Systems. Proceedings of the International Biological Fixed Film Conference,
Washington, D.C., July; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.
Stenstrom, M. K.; Rosso, D. (2008) Aeration and Mixing. In Biological Wastewater Treat-
ment—Principles, Modelling, and Design; Henze, M., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.,
Ekama, G., Brdjanovic, D., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, England.
Stenstrom, M. K.; Rosso, D.; Melcer, H.; Appleton, R.; Occiano, V.; Langworthy, A.;
Wong, P. (2008) Oxygen Transfer in a Full-Depth Biological Aerated Filter. Water
Environ. Res., 80 (7), 663–671.
Stewart, P. S. (2003) Diffusion in Biofilms. Guest Commentaries. J. Bacteriol., 185 (5),
1485–1491.
Strous, M.; Fuerst, J. A.; Kramer, E. H. M.; Logemann, S.; Muyzer, G.; van de Pas-Schoonen,
K. T.; Webb, R.; Kuenen, J. G.; Jetten, M. S. M. (1999a) Missing Lithotroph Identified
as New Planctomycete. Nature, 400 (6743), 446–449.
Strous, M.; Heijnen, J. J.; Kuenen, J. G.; Jetten, M. S. M. (1998) The Sequencing Batch
Reactor as a Powerful Tool for the Study of Slowly Growing Anaerobic Ammonium-
Oxidizing Microorganisms. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 50 (5), 589–596.
Strous, M.; Kuenen, J. G.; Jetten, M. S. M. (1999b) Key Physiology of Anaerobic Ammo-
nium Oxidation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 65 (7), 3248–3250.
Suidan, M. T.; Rittmann, B. E.; Traegner, U. K. (1987) Criteria Establishing Biofilm-
Kinetic Types. Water Res., 21 (4), 491–498.
Sutton, P. M.; Mishra, P. N. (1994) Activated Carbon-Based Biological Fluidized-Beds
for Contaminated Water and Wastewater Treatment: A State-of-the-art Review.
Sutton, P. M.; Shieh, W. K.; et al. (1981) Dorr-Olivers’ Oxitron SystemTM Fluidised-Bed
Water and Wastewater Treatment Process. In Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of Water
and Wastewater; Cooper, P. F., Atkinson, B., Eds; Ellis Horwood for Water Research
Laboratory, Stevenage Laboratory: Chichester, United Kingdom, pp. 285–305.
Suzuki, Y.; Miyahara, S.; Takeishi, K. (1993) Oxygen-Supply Method Using Gas-
Permeable Film for Wastewater Treatment. Water Sci. Technol., 28 (7), 243–250.
Syron, E.; Casey, E. (2008) Membrane-Aerated Biofilms for High Rate Biotreatment: Per-
formance Appraisal, Engineering Principles, and Development Requirements. Environ.
Sci. Technol., 42 (6), 1833–1844.

Szwerinski, H.; Arvin, E.; Harremoës, P. (1986) pH-Decrease in Nitrifying Biofilms.

Water Res., 20, 971.
Taljemark, K.; Aspegren, H.; Gruvberger, N.; Hanner, N.; Nyberg, U.; Andersson, B.
(2004) 10 Years of Experiences of a Nitrification MBBR Process for Post-Denitrification.
Proceedings of the 77th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and
Conference [CD-ROM]; New Orleans, Louisiana, Sep 16–18; Water Environment Fed-
eration: Alexandria, Virginia.
Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F.; Stensel, H. D. (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment
and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw Hill: New York.
Tchobanoglous Inc.; (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw-
Hill: New York.
Timberlake, D.; Strand, S.; Williamson, K. (1988) Combined Aerobic Heterotrophic
Oxidation, Nitrification and Denitrification in a Permeable-Support Biofilm. Water
Res., 22 (12), 1513–1517.
Toettrup, H.; Rogalla, F.; Vidal, A.; Harremoes, P. (1994) The Treatment Trilogy of Float-
ing Filters: From Pilot to Prototype to Plant. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 23–32.
Tschui, M.; Boller, M.; Gujer, W.; Eugster, J.; Mäder, C. (1993) Tertiary Nitrification in
Aerated Biofilm Reactors. Proceedings of the European Water Filtration Congress, Ostend,
Belgium.
Tschui, M.; Boller, M.; Gujer, W.; Eugster, C.; Mäder, C.; Stengel, C. (1994) Tertiary
Nitrification in Aerated Biofilters. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–11), 53–60.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1975) Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management: Wash-
ington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991) Assessment of Single-Stage Trickling Fil-
ter Nitrification, EPA-430/09-91-005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wastewater Management: Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Nitrogen Control Manual, EPA/625/R-93/
010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management:
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Filter/Envirex. (1997) The Fluid Bed for Denitrification of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater. U.S. Filter/Envirex: Waukesha, Wisconsin.
van Kempen, R.; Mulder, J. W.; Uijterlinde, C. A.; Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2001)
Overview: Full Scale Experience of the Sharon (r) Process for Treatment of Rejection
Water of Digested Sludge Dewatering. Water Sci. Technol., 44 (1), 145–152.

van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Eikelboom, D.; Gjaltema, A.; Mulder, A.; Tijhuis, L.; Heijnen,
J. J. (1995) Biofilm Structures. Water Sci. Technol., 32 (8), 35–43.
Vayenas, D. V.; Lyberatos, G. (1994) A Novel Model for Nitrifying Trickling Filters.
Water Res., 28 (6), 1275–1284.
Vayenas, D. V.; Pavlou, S.; Lyberatos, G. (1997) Development of a Dynamic Model
Describing Nitrification and Nitritification in Trickling Filters. Water Res., 31 (5),
1135–1147.
Velz, C. J. (1948) A Basic Law for the Performance of Biological Filters. Sew. Works J.
20, 607.
Wall, D.; Frodsham, D.; Robinson, D. (2001) Design of Nitrifying Trickling Filters. Pro-
ceedings of the 74th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Con-
ference [CD-ROM]; Atlanta, Georgia, Oct 13–17; Water Environment Federation:
Wang, J. F.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Z. G.; Li, J. W. (2008) Organics and Nitrogen Removal and
Sludge Stability in Aerobic Granular Sludge Membrane Bioreactor. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol., 79 (4), 679–685.
Wanner, O.; Gujer, W. (1984) Competition in Biofilms. Water Sci. Technol., 17, 27–44.
Wanner, O.; Gujer, W. (1985) A Multispecies Biofilm Model. Biotech. Bioeng., 28, 313–328.
Wanner, O.; Reichert, P. (1996) Mathematical-Modeling of Mixed-Culture Biofilms.
Biotech. Bioeng., 49 (2), 172–184.
Wanner, O.; Eberl, H.; Morgenroth, E.; Noguera, D.; Picioreanu, C.; Rittmann, B.; Van
Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2006) Mathematical Modeling of Biofilms, Scientific and Techni-
cal Report No. 18; IWA Publishing: London, England.
Water Environment Federation (1998) Biological and Chemical Systems for Nutrient
Removal, Special Publication; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Water Environment Federation (2005) Clarifier Design, 2nd ed.; Manual of Practice
Number FD-8; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Weiss, P. T.; Oakley, B. T.; Gulliver, J. S.; Semmens, M. J. (1996) Bubbleless Fiber Aera-
tor for Surface Waters. J. Environ. Eng., 122 (7), 631–639.
Welty, J. R.; Wicks, C. E.; Wilson, R. E. (1976) Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Wett, B. (2006) Solved Upscaling Problems for Implementing Deammonification of
Rejection Water. Water Sci. Technol., 53 (12), 121–128.

Wett, B. (2007) Development and Implementation of a Robust Deammonification

Process. Water Sci. Technol., 56 (7), 81–88.
Wik T. (2000) Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of Tertiary Nitrifying Trickling Fil-
ters. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5) 477–485.
Wik, T. On Modelling the Dynamics of Fixed Biofilm Reactors with Focus on Nitrifying
Trickling Filters, Ph.D. Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Goeteborg,
Sweden, 1999.
Wirtz, R.; Dague, R. (1996) Enhancement of Granulation and Startup in the Anaerobic
Sequencing Batch Reactor. Water Environ. Res., 68, 883–892.
Yang, M.-C.; Cussler, E. L. (1986) Designing Hollow-Fiber Contactors. Am. Inst. Chem.
Eng. J., 32 (11), 1910–1916.
Yee, C. J.; Hsu, Y.; et al. (1992) Effects of Microcarrier Pore Characteristics on
Methanogenic Fluidized-Bed Performance. Water Res., 26 (8), 1119–1125.
Yilmaz, G.; Lemaire, R.; Keller, J.; Yuan, Z. (2008) Simultaneous Nitrification, Denitrifi-
cation, and Phosphorus Removal from Nutrient-Rich Industrial Wastewater Using
Granular Sludge. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 100 (3), 529–541.
Zhang, T. C.; Bishop, P. L. (1994) Experimental Determination of the Dissolved Oxygen
Boundary Layer and Mass Transfer Resistance Near the Fluid-Biofilm Interface.
Water Sci. Technol., 30 (11) 47–58.
Zhang, T. C.; Bishop, P. L. (1996) Evaluation of Substrate and pH Effects in a Nitrifying
Biofilm. Water Environ. Res., 68 (7), 1107–1115.
Zhu, L.; Xu, X.; Luo, W.; Cao, D.; Yang, Y. (2008) Formation and Microbial Community
Analysis of Chloroanilines-Degrading Aerobic Granules in the Sequencing Airlift
Bioreactor. J. Appl. Microbiol., 104 (1), 152–160.

View publication stats

Boltzetal 2010MOP8-Chap 13BiofilmReactorTechnologyandDesign

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Boltzetal 2010MOP8-Chap 13BiofilmReactorTechnologyandDesign

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Bioﬁlm Reactor Technology and Design

Chapter · January 2010

Joshua Boltz Eberhard Morgenroth

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christine Debarbadillo Michael John Dempsey

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Biofilm Reactor Modeling View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Formed in 1928, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a not-for-profit technical

For information on membership, publications, and conferences, contact:

Water Environment Federation

For more information on membership, publications, and conferences, contact:

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Prepared by the Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental and Water Resources Institute

New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

1234567890 FGR/FGR 015432109

ISBN: P/N 978-0-07-166359-5 P/N 978-0-07-166360-1 P/N 978-0-07-166361-8

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Terry L. Krause, P.E., BCEE, Chair

Roderick D. Reardon, Jr., P.E., BCEE, Volume 1 Leader

Solomon Abel, P.E. Jeanette Brown, P.E., DEE, D. WRE

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Under the Direction of the Municipal Subcommittee of the

Water Environment Federation American Society of Civil

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Water Environment Federation

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

A manual or report in this series consists of an orderly presentation of facts on a partic-

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Volume 1: Planning and Configuration of Wastewater Treatment Plants

Volume 2: Liquid Treatment Processes

Volume 3: Solids Processing and Management

• Membrane bioreactors replaced conventional secondary treatment processes in

In response to these advancements, this edition includes some significant

Chapter 1 Terry L. Krause, P.E., BCEE

Chapter 2 Julian Sandino, P.E., Ph.D.

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Drury Denver Whitlock

Chapter 3 Alvin C. Firmin, P.E., BCEE

Chapter 4 Jane W. Wheeler

Kimberly R. Drake, RLA

Chapter 5 Ralph B. “Rusty” Schroedel, Jr., P.E., BCEE

Peter V. Cavagnaro, P.E., BCEE

Chapter 6 Joseph C. Reichenberger, P.E., BCEE

Chapter 7 Raymond C. Porter

Petros Dimitriou-Christidis, Ph.D., P.E.

Copyright © 2010 by the Water Environment Federation

Charles M. McGinley, P.E.

Chapter 8 Tim Page-Bottorff

Chris Marlowe, CIH, CSP

Chapter 9 Dave Ubert

Vic Smith, P.E., LEED AP

Chapter 10 Ronald R. Skabo, P.E.

Misti Burkman, P.E.

Chapter 11 Joel C. Rife, P.E.