Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024

2nd International Conference on Sustainable Materials Processing and Manufacturing

2nd International Conference on Sustainable Materials Processing and Manufacturing
(SMPM 2019)
(SMPM 2019)
Municipal wastewater treatment technologies: A review
Municipal wastewater treatment technologies: A review
Mmontshi L. Sikosanaa, Keneiloe Sikhwivhilub, Richard Moutloalic, Daniel M.
Mmontshi L. Sikosanaa, Keneiloe Madyira Sikhwivhilu a
* , Richard Moutloali , Daniel M.
b c

Madyira
Department of Mechanical Engineering Science, University
a
a
*
of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2002, South Africa
a
b
Advanced of
Department Materials Division,
Mechanical DST/Mintek
Engineering Nanotechnology
Science, University ofInnovation Centre,
Johannesburg, Johannesburg,
Johannesburg South
2002, Africa
South Africa
b
c
Department of Applied Chemistry, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Advanced Materials Division, DST/Mintek Nanotechnology Innovation Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa
c
Department of Applied Chemistry, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract
Abstract
Municipal wastewater is the most abundant type of wastewater that falls into the category of low-strength waste streams. It is
characterized
Municipal by low organic
wastewater strength
is the most and high
abundant typeparticulate organic
of wastewater thatmatter content.
falls into Municipal
the category of wastewater
low-strength treatment plants have
waste streams. It is
the potential to
characterized bybecome net producers
low organic of high
strength and renewable energy,
particulate converting
organic matter the chemically
content. bound
Municipal energy content
wastewater in the
treatment organic
plants have
pollutants
the of raw
potential municipal
to become net wastewater
producers ofto arenewable
useful energy carrier
energy, (biogas),the
converting while producing
chemically cleanenergy
bound water for communities
content in the
in the organic
vicinity. This
pollutants of rawpaper presents
municipal a reviewtoofa useful
wastewater the different
energy technologies thatwhile
carrier (biogas), can producing
be deployed in water
clean the treatment of municipal
for communities in the
wastewater.
vicinity. The
This focuspresents
paper is mainlya on bioreactor
review of thetechnologies that are available
different technologies for current
that can and possible
be deployed in the future implementation
treatment of municipal in
the municipal wastewater treatment systems.
wastewater. The focus is mainly on bioreactor technologies that are available for current and possible future implementation in
the municipal wastewater treatment systems.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019 The Authors.
Peer-review Published by
under responsibility ofElsevier B.V. committee of SMPM 2019.
the organizing
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.
Keywords: Municipal Wastewater Treatment; Chemical Organic Demand; Organic Loading Ratio; Hydraulic Retention Time; Anaerobic and
Keywords:
Aerobic Bioreactors, Membrane
Municipal Bioreactors
Wastewater Treatment; Chemical Organic Demand; Organic Loading Ratio; Hydraulic Retention Time; Anaerobic and
Aerobic Bioreactors, Membrane Bioreactors

* Corresponding author.
* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding dmadyira@uj.ac.za
E-mail address: dmadyira@uj.ac.za
2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
2351-9789 ©under
2019responsibility
The Authors. of the organizing
Published committee
by Elsevier B.V. of SMPM 2019.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of SMPM 2019.
10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.051
 Mmontshi L. Sikosana et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024 1019
2 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Technologies to produce clean water and clean energy have received global attention owing to water scarcity,
resource depletion and global warming [1]. Recovered municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents have the
potential to become net producers of renewable energy, converting the chemically bound energy content in the
organic pollutants of raw municipal wastewater to useful energy carrier while producing other recyclable and
reusable products [2]. Municipal wastewater is the most abundant type of wastewater that falls into the category of
low-strength waste streams, characterized by low organic strength and high particulate organic matter content [3].
In order to combat global warming, increasingly various governmental bodies, with focus primarily on waste
reduction, are implementing more strict regulations on pollution discharge. Compliance to environmental
legislations should not necessarily lead to the creation of additional costs, but can instead provide a secondary
source of income. One possible source of increased revenue available to industries is through taking advantage of
the incentives awarded by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol 1997 [4].
Municipal wastewater treatment can be conducted in an aerobic and anaerobic reactor system set-up or the
combination/s thereof.
In general, aerobic systems are suitable for the treatment of low strength wastewaters (biodegradable Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) concentrations less than 1000 mg/L) while anaerobic systems are suitable for the treatment
of high strength wastewaters (biodegradable COD concentrations over 4000mg/L) [4]. The advantages of anaerobic
treatment outweigh the advantages of aerobic treatment when treating influents in higher concentrations than the
cross over values, and generally anaerobic treatment requires less energy with potential bioenergy and nutrient
recovery [5]. However, compared to anaerobic systems, aerobic systems achieve higher removal of soluble
biodegradable organic matter and the produced biomass is generally well flocculated, resulting in lower effluent
suspended solids concentration [6]. As a result, the effluent quality from an aerobic system is generally higher than
the anaerobic system. It is clear that the technology that is to be implemented is highly dependent on the desired
product (effluent, biogas, etc.) and the quality of the feed (influent i.e. municipal wastewater).
The aim of this paper is to review the municipal wastewater treatment technologies that are available for
commercial use. It is envisaged that in-depth knowledge and understanding on these wastewater treatment
technologies could be achieved. This understanding is necessary for the development of an optimized municipal
wastewater treatment system in a case study plant and in the future plant designs.

2. Types of municipal wastewater treatment technologies

Typical conventional anaerobic–aerobic treatment systems that are commercially used are; aerated stabilization
ponds, aerated and non-aerated lagoons, as well as natural and artificial wetland systems. Aerobic treatment occurs
in the upper part of these systems while anaerobic treatment occurs at the bottom end. A typical organic loading is
0.01kg BOD (biochemical oxygen demand)/m3 day and the retention time varies from a few days to 100 days [4, 6].
The conventional treatment plants suffer from problems related to their large space requirements, emissions into
populated environments from large open reactors, low process efficiencies, large surplus sludge production and
high-energy consumption [4]. New technologies viz. high rate bioreactors have been developed over the years to
overcome the disadvantages of conventional anaerobic–aerobic municipal wastewater treatment systems. An
overview of these technologies will be discussed in the following sections with specific attention on the evaluation
of their treatment efficiency in terms of organic removal.

2.1. Anaerobic–aerobic systems using high rate bioreactors

The evaluation is carried-out on single bioreactor systems and their combination/s, and sequence of treatment
methods, which is the key to the successful handling of municipal wastewater.
1020 Mmontshi L. Sikosana et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

2.1.1. Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed (UASB) and Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) system

A schematic diagram of an UASB system is shown in Fig. 1a [4]. It consists of an up flow of wastewater through a
dense sludge bed with high microbial activity [7]. The processes are based on the development of dense granules
(with diameter of 1-4 mm) formed by the natural self-immobilization of the anaerobic bacteria, considered to be an
essential condition for the successful operation of an UASB reactor [4]. Suspended and colloidal components of
wastewaters in the form of fat, protein, and cellulose have adverse impact on the performances of UASB reactors,
preventing the system from operating at high organic loading rates and can cause deterioration of microbial
activities and wash out of active biomass [8]. Generally, UASB reactors are reported to remove more than 60% of
COD from most types of wastewater although their treated effluent usually fails to comply with most of discharge
standards [9].

Activated sludge, which consists of stirred and aerated flocculated suspension of a mixed bacterial population that
comes into contact with wastewater, is the most commonly used process in aerobic treatment [10]. It has high
efficiency with operational flexibility and possibility for nutrient removal [4]. The activated sludge process in this
case is a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). It is reported that operating activated sludge system alone
requires a high level of mechanization, high construction and operational costs, sophisticated operation, and the need
for treating a substantial amount of sludge [4]. It is also reported to have high efficiency with operational flexibility
and possibility for nutrient removal [10].

Balancing the advantages and disadvantages of both systems, a combined technology, consisting of an UASB
reactor for anaerobic pre-treatment, followed by activated sludge for aerobic post treatment has been extensively
employed [9, 11]. A significant feature of this system is the return of the excess aerobic sludge to the UASB reactor
where the solids undergo stabilization, and thus simplify the sludge treatment. The overall sludge production of the
anaerobic–aerobic system is wasted only from the UASB reactor. Since it is already thickened and stabilized, it can
be directly sent for dewatering and final disposal [4]. The UASB-aerobic CSTR system can remove from 83 - 98%
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) with influent COD content in the range of 500 – 20,000 mg/L at a total hydraulic
retention time of 11.4 hours to 6 days [4].

(a) (b) (c)

 Mmontshi L. Sikosana et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024 1021
4 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 1. Typical reactor systems used in anaerobic-aerobic municipal wastewater treatment systems (a) [4]

2.1.2. UASB and aerobic fluidized bed (AFB) system

A schematic of an aerobic fluidized bed (AFB) system is illustrated in Fig. 1b. Fluidized bed reactors are packed
with mobile supports in which particles covered with biofilm are fluidized by the recirculation of liquid. They
eliminate substrate diffusion limitations, which are usually inherent in stationary bed processes. The AFB reactor
exhibits numerous advantages such as a high biomass concentration, high organic loading rate (OLR), short HRT,
no bed clogging, small external mass transfer resistance and large surface area for mass transfer [12]. AFB has
some disadvantages, which inhibit their applicability on a large industrial scale such as control of the bed
expansion, thickness of the biofilm and oxygen distribution system as well as high-energy consumption due to the
very high liquid recirculation ratios [13]. The UASB-AFB system is claimed to be useful in the biological treatment
of medium strength industrial wastewaters due to its high pH tolerance, reduced sludge formation and stable COD
removal performance [4]. The UASB-AFB configuration emerges as an attractive alternative from technical,
economic, and environmental points of view, especially when space is a limiting factor. At the time of this review,
no combination was found that dealt with the municipal wastewater treatment of this kind of combination.

2.1.3. Anaerobic rotating biological contactors (RBC) and aerobic sequencing batch reactor (SBR) system

A schematic of an anaerobic RBC reactor is shown in Fig. 1c. In a rotating biological contactor (RBC) system,
microorganisms attach to an inert support medium and form a biological film. The support medium, with a
sequential disc configuration, is partly or totally submerged and rotates slowly around a horizontal axis in a tank
through which the wastewater flows [4]. When employing anaerobic RBC alone for treating high-strength synthetic
wastewater with COD concentrations between 3248 and 12150 mg/L, the final COD of the RBC effluent is still
considered too high. Thus, a further treatment is required albeit satisfactory efficiencies of overall COD removal
ranging from 74 to 82% are achieved at a HRT of 32h [14]. The aerobic sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is an
improved version of the fill and draw activated sludge system, consisting of one or more tanks, each capable of
waste stabilization and solids separation [4].

The SBR process offers flexibility in the treatment of variable flows, minimum operator interaction, option for
aerobic or anaerobic conditions in the same tank, good oxygen contact with microorganisms and substrate, small
floor space, and good removal efficiency [15]. These advantages justify the recent increase in the implementation of
this process in industrial [16] and municipal [17] wastewater treatment. Since the anaerobic RBC can attain high
methane production rates and the aerobic SBR process can treat dilute wastes efficiently, combining the two
processes result in an efficient bioenergy production and waste treatment system. Generally, this combined system
is able to achieve apparent COD reduction of at least 98% and also produces substantial amounts of methane gas.

Advantages of the RBC system are low energy requirements, short retention time, excellent process control, low
operating costs and that it is capable of handling a wide range of flows. Disadvantages include its process
1022 Mmontshi L. Sikosana et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

performance being susceptible to wastewater characteristics, resulting in limited operational flexibility to varying
loading and operating conditions [4] and frequent maintenance on its shaft bearings and mechanical drive units.

2.1.4. Anaerobic–aerobic fixed film bioreactor (FFB) system

A schematic of FFB is depicted in Fig. 1d. It (anaerobic part of the reactor) is operated in a down flow manner and
the aerobic effluent is recirculated to the anaerobic FFB. COD removal occurs mainly in the anaerobic FFB and this
effect is accentuated when the recirculation ratio rises from 1 to 6 as a result of the increased contribution of
denitrification. It is also reported that the fraction of COD removed in the anaerobic FFB increases when the
volume of the aerobic FFB becomes smaller than anaerobic FFB. It was then concluded that high recirculation in
the anaerobic FFB feed favoured the denitrification to the detriment of the methanogenic process and the production
of biogas [4].

Immobilized cells on the surface (fixed-film) of the media offer some advantages over cultures in suspension such
as a greater variation in population, less sensitivity to environmental variations (temperature, pH, and toxic
substances), higher growth rate and faster utilization of the substrate in relation to free biomass. This is attributed to
physiological modification that the fixed cells undergo, due to either the increase in the local concentration of
nutrients and enzymes, or the selective effect of the extracellular polymeric matrix in relation to inhibitory or toxic
substances [18]. An overall COD removal efficiency of 92% at an organic loading ratio (OLR) of 0.39 kgCOD/m3
day was obtained for treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater [19].

2.1.5. Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) and aerobic biofilm reactor system

Fig. 1e depicts the schematic diagram of EGSB. It comes under the family of UASB reactors as described above.
It has been primarily developed to improve the substrate–biomass contact within the treatment system by means of
expanding the sludge bed with a high upflow liquid velocity (>4m/h) which intensifies hydraulic mixing and results
in better performance and stability than the UASB [4]. The high upflow liquid velocity in the reactor is achieved
through the application of a high effluent recirculation rate, coupled with a high height/diameter ratio of around 20
or more [4]. EGSB is not suitable for the removal of particulate organic matter due to the high upflow liquid
velocity. The influent suspended solids that are not retained by the granular bed will eventually leave the reactor
together with the effluent [4]. It is reported that employing EGSB, high COD removal of 91% was achieved for a
HRT of 48h in the treatment of high organic strength wastewater with feed COD content of 80,000 mg/L [20]. In a
study by Zhang et al. [21] for palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment, a total COD reduction of 95.6% at high
OLR of 10 kg COD/(m3 day) was achieved in a pilot-scale plant composed of an EGSB reactor and aerobic biofilm
reactor. The anaerobic EGSB degraded a large portion of organic matter in POME with 93% COD removal while
the aerobic biofilm reactor broke down the remaining organic matter (22% of COD removal). In this case, the
reported average rate of organic matter transformed into methane in the EGSB was only 43% (based on the data of
biogas measured), although this could be attributed to the high suspended solids and oil in POME.

2.1.6. Anaerobic upflow bed filter (UBF) and aerobic membrane bioreactor (MBR) system

In Fig. 1f, an anaerobic upflow bed filter (UBF) is depicted. This bioreactor system is an anaerobic hybrid reactor,
which combines a UASB and anaerobic FFB. The lower part of the UBF reactor is the UASB, where granular
sludge is developed. With the presence of stationary packing material, the upper part of the UBF serves as a FFB.
The main advantage of the UBF is its ability to eliminate the problems of clogging and biomass washout, which are
commonly encountered in anaerobic FFB’s and UASB’s respectively [4].
Aerobic membrane bioreactors (MBR) combine membrane filtration with biodegradation processes, where solid–
liquid separation occurs through sieving. In a MBR, solid materials, biomass, pathogenic bacteria, and even
macromolecules are retained while allowing water and smaller solution species to pass through the membrane so
that a very high quality effluent is attained [21]. MBRs offer numerous advantages that include the high quality of
the effluent, the separation of solid retention time (SRT) from HRT, the reduced sludge production due to
endogenous respiration in long SRT and low sludge loading rate [22]. The membrane-retained aqueous and
particulate based enzymes which are otherwise lost in the conventional sedimentation–clarification step are also able
 Mmontshi L. Sikosana et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024 1023
6 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

to improve the metabolic rate in the MBR [23].

While there are numerous advantages, one of the major obstacles in the application of MBR’s is membrane fouling,
with cross-flow filtration being most commonly used to alleviate this problem. Ahn et al. [24] reported an apparent
COD removal of 99% in the treatment of high-strength wastewater with COD content in the range of 6000–
14,500mg/L by the use of an anaerobic UBF-aerobic MBR system at a relatively short HRT of 24h.

3. Conclusion

Different types of anaerobic/aerobic bioreactors have been widely investigated as briefly reviewed. It is clear from
the different wastewater treatment technology combinations that there is still a lot of research in terms of the most
optimal process configuration/s, i.e. anaerobic/aerobic bioreactor types and the coupling of the bioreactors with the
membrane modules, that need/s to be investigated. This includes process conditions, material of construction,
prevention/reduction of fouling in membranes and others.

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the support received from the Department of Mechanical Engineering Science and
Chemical Engineering Sciences of the University of Johannesburg. The financial support of the Mintek for bursary
awarded to the main author is also appreciated.

References
[1] T. S. Chung, X. Li, R. C. Ong, Q. Ge, H. Wang, Han, Emerging Forward Osmosis (FO) Technologies and Challenges Ahead for Clean Water
of Energy Application, Current Opinion in Chem. Eng, 1(2012) 246–257.
[2] I. Shizas, D. M. Bagley, Experimental determination of energy content of unknown organics in municipal wastewater streams, J. Energy Eng.
130 (2004) 45–53.
[3] J. B. Van Lier, High-rate anaerobic wastewater treatment: diversifying from end-of-the-pipe treatment to resource-oriented conversion
techniques, Water Sci. Technol. 57 (2008) 1137–1148.
[4] Y. J. Chan, M. F. Chong, C. L. Law, D.G. Hassell, A review on anaerobic–aerobic treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater, Chem.
Eng. J. 155 (2009) 1 – 18.
[5] F. Y. Cakir, M. K. Stenstrom, Greenhouse gas production: a comparison between aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technology,
Water Research 39 (2005) 4197–4203.
[6] L. K. Wang, Waste Treatment in the Process Industries, CRC Press, 2005.
[7] A. Vlyssides, E. M. Barampouti, S. Mai, Influence of ferrous iron on the granularity of a UASB reactor, Chem. Eng. J. 146 (2009) 49–56. [8]
A. Torkian, A. Eqbali, S. J. Hashemian, The effect of organic loading rate on the performance of UASB reactor treating slaughterhouse
effluent, Resources Conservation and Recycling 40 (2003) 1–11.
[9] M. von Sperling, V. H. Freire, C. A. de Lemos Chernicharo, Performance evaluation of a UASB-activated sludge system treating municipal
wastewater, Water Sci. and Technol. 43 (2001) 323–328.
[10] G. P. Sheng, H. Q. Yu, H. Cui, Model-evaluation of the erosion behaviour of activated sludge under shear conditions using a
chemicalequilibrium-based model, Chem. Eng. J. 140 (2008) 241–246.
[11] V. Sklyar, A. Epov, M. Gladchenko, D. Danilovich, S. Kalyuzhnyi, Combined biologic (anaerobic–aerobic) and chemical treatment of
starch industry wastewater, Appl. Biochem. and Biotechnol. 109 (2003) 253– 262.
[12] J. J. Heijnen, A. Mulder, W. Enger, F. Hoeks, Review on the application of anaerobic fluidized bed reactors in waste-water treatment, The
Chem. Eng. J. 41 (1989) 37–50.
[13] V. Lazarova, J. Manem, Advances in biofilm aerobic reactors ensuring effective biofilm activity control, Water Sci. and Technol. 29 (1994)
319– 327.
[14] A. C.Yeh, C. Lu, M. Lin, Performance of an anaerobic rotating biological contactor: effects of flow rate and influent organic strength, Water
Research 31 (1997) 1251–1260.
[15] Y. H. Kim, C. Yoo, I.B. Lee, Optimization of biological nutrient removal in a SBR using simulation-based iterative dynamic programming,
Chem. Eng. J. 139 (2008) 11–19.
[16] S. V. Mohan, N.C. Rao, K. K. Prasad, B. T. V. Madhavi, P. N. Sharma, Treatment of complex chemical wastewater in a sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) with an aerobic suspended growth configuration, Pr. Biochem. 40 (2005) 1501–1508.
[17] B. Ni, W. Xie, S. Liu, H. Yu, Y. Wang, G. Wang, X. Dai, Granulation of activated sludge in a pilot-scale sequencing batch reactor for the
treatment of low-strength municipal wastewater, Water Research 43 (2009) 751–761.
[18] P. L. Bishop, Biofilm structure and kinetics, Water Science and Technol. 36 (1997) 287–294.
1024 Mmontshi L. Sikosana et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 35 (2019) 1018–1024
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

[19] R. Del Pozo, V. Diez, Organic matter removal in combined anaerobic–aerobic fixed-film bioreactors, Water Research 37 (2003) 3561–
3568. [20] Y. Zhang, L. Yan, X. Qiao, L. Chi, X. Niu, Z. Mei, Z. Zhang, Integration of biological method and membrane technology in
treating palm oil mill effluent, J. of Environ. Sci. 20 (2008) 558–564.
[21] T. Ueda, N. J. Horan, Fate of indigenous bacteriophage in a membrane bioreactor, Water Research 34 (2000) 2151–2159.
[22] Z. Wang, Z. Wu, Distribution and transformation of molecular weight of organic matters in membrane bioreactor and conventional activated
sludge process, Chem. Eng. J. 150 (2009) 396–402.
[23] N. Cicek, H. Winnen, M. T. Suidan, B. E. Wrenn, V. Urbain, J. Manem, Effectiveness of the membrane bioreactor in the biodegradation of
high molecular weight compounds, Water Research 32 (1998) 1553–1563.
[24] Y. T. Ahn, S. T. Kang, S. R. Chae, C. Y. Lee, B. U. Bae, H. S. Shin, Simultaneous high-strength organic and nitrogen removal with
combined anaerobic upflow bed filter and aerobic membrane bioreactor, Desal. 202 (2007) 114 – 21.