PERFORMANCE AND BIOKINETIC MODELING OF

MODIFIED UPFLOW ANAEROBIC SLUDGE BLANKET

UNIT IN TREATING PALM OIL MILL EFFLUENT

ALIYAH BAIDA WIWIYANTI

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
IPB UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2023
 DECLARATION OF THE UNDERGRADUATE THESIS’
INFORMATION SOURCES AND COPYRIGHTS TRANSFER
I hereby declare that the undergraduate student thesis entitled “Performance
and Biokinetic Modeling of Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Unit in
Treating Palm Oil Mill Effluent” is my own work under the guidance of my
supervisors and has not been published or submitted to any university in any form.
Source of information derived or quoted from unpublished or published document
by any other authors have been mentioned in the text and has also been included in
the bibliography at the end of this thesis.
Hereby, I assign the copyright of this undergraduate thesis to the IPB
University.
Bogor, July 2023
Aliyah Baida Wiwiyanti
F44190108
 i

ABSTRACT
ALIYAH BAIDA WIWIYANTI. Performance and Biokinetic Modeling of
Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Unit in Treating Palm Oil Mill
Effluent. Supervised by ALLEN KURNIAWAN and MARK LARRACAS SIBAG.
The high levels of contaminants in Palm Mill Oil Effluent need to be processed with
a high-rate anaerobic digestion reactor, such as the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket (UASB). Manual performance measurement of the UASB unit can be
laborious and resource-intensive. Therefore, this research aims to analyze the
performance of the UASB unit by implementing variations in Hydraulic Retention
Time (HRT), comparing the effluent estimation using the Monod Model and the
Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and estimating the biokinetic parameters of the
UASB unit under unsteady-state conditions. The research used a laboratory-scale
reactor from November 2022 to June 2023. It was determined that an HRT of 2
days in the UASB unit proved to be the optimal operational HRT, achieving 68%
removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand and 93% removal of Total Suspended
Solids. Comparing the effluent estimation models, the ANN provided the most
suitable estimation with a MAPE value of 17%. Furthermore, the biokinetic
parameters of the UASB unit were estimated using the Monod Model and obtained
values as follows: 𝐾e =0.1593 d-1, 𝜇max =1.887 d-1, 𝐾s =3459 mgCODs/L, 𝑌=0.98
mgTSS/mgCODs, 𝐾h =0.58 d-1, and 𝑘=0.0004 d-1.
Keywords : ACSt, ANN, Monod, POME, UASB

ABSTRAK

ALIYAH BAIDA WIWIYANTI. Performance and Biokinetic Modeling of

Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Unit in Treating Palm Oil Mill
Effluent. Dibimbing oleh ALLEN KURNIAWAN and MARK L SIBAG.
Tingginya kadar kontaminan pada Limbah Cair Pabrik Kelapa Sawit perlu diolah
dengan reaktor digester anaerobik tingkat tinggi, seperti Upflow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket (UASB). Pengukuran kinerja unit UASB secara manual dapat
menghabiskan banyak sumber daya. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan
menganalisis kinerja unit UASB dengan mengimplementasikan variasi Hydraulic
Retention Time (HRT), membandingkan estimasi efluen menggunakan Model
Monod dan Jaringan Syaraf Tiruan (JST), dan memperkirakan parameter biokinetik
unit UASB dalam kondisi unsteady-state. Penelitian dilakukan dengan
menggunakan reaktor skala laboratorium dari November 2022 hingga Juni 2023.
Dihasilkan bahwa HRT selama 2 hari di unit UASB terbukti merupakan HRT
operasional yang optimal, mencapai 68% penyisihan Chemical Oxygen Demand
dan 93% penyisihan Total Suspended Solids. Berdasarkan perbandingan model
estimasi efluen, ANN memberikan estimasi yang paling sesuai dengan nilai MAPE
sebesar 17%. Selanjutnya parameter biokinetik unit UASB diestimasi
menggunakan Model Monod dan diperoleh nilai sebagai berikut: 𝐾e =0.1593 d-1,
𝜇max =1.887 d-1, 𝐾s =3459 mgCODs/L, 𝑌=0.98 mgTSS/mgCODs, 𝐾h =0.58 d-1, dan
𝑘=0.0004 d-1.
Kata Kunci : ACSt, ANN, Monod, POME, UASB
ii

© Copyrighted by IPB University, 2023

Copyright is protected by Law
It is prohibited to quote parts or all of this paper without acknowledging or
citing the source. Citation is only for the purposes of education, research, writing
scientific papers, compiling report, writing criticism, or reviewing a problem, and
the citation is not detrimental to IPB University interests.
It is prohibited to publish and reproduce parts or all of this paper without
IPB University’s permission.
 iii

PERFORMANCE AND BIOKINETIC MODELING OF

MODIFIED UPFLOW ANAEROBIC SLUDGE BLANKET
UNIT IN TREATING PALM OIL MILL EFFLUENT

ALIYAH BAIDA WIWIYANTI

undergraduate thesis
as the requirement to obtain Bachelor’s Degree in
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
IPB UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2023
iv

Examiner on Undergraduate Thesis Exam:

Prof. Dr. Ir. Budi Indra Setiawan, M.Agr.
 v

Title : Performance and Biokinetic Modeling of Modified Upflow

Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Unit in Treating Palm Oil Mill Effluent
Name : Aliyah Baida Wiwiyanti
Student ID : F44190108

Approved by
Supervisor:
Dr. Eng. Allen Kurniawan, S.T., M.T.
NIP. 19820729 201012 1 005

Co-supervisor:
Mark L. Sibag, Ph.D.

Known by
Head of Department:
Dr. Ir. Erizal, M.Agr. IPM
NIP. 19650106 199002 1 001

Exam Date: 13th of July 2023 Graduate Date:

vi
 vii

PREFACE

The author prays the praise and gratitude to the Almighty, Allah swt., who
has given the author health and blessing to properly complete the undergraduate
thesis entitled "Performance and Biokinetic Modeling of Modified Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Unit in Treating Palm Oil Mill Effluent" right on time.
The thesis was created and submitted to fullfil the requirement for a bachelor’s
degree in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IPB University.
On this occasion, the author would like to thank all associates who gave their
support in the undergraduate thesis preparation, particularly to:
1. Allah SWT for all the blessing, grace, and mercy.
2. Aida Abbas and Siti Fatimah Dina as parents who have given unconditional and
unlimited love, support, and prayers.
3. Dr. Eng. Allen Kurniawan, S.T., M.T. and Mark L. Sibag, Ph.D., as supervisors
who have given suggestions and guidance from the beginning until the
completion of this thesis.
4. Maryam Abbas, Nur Fadillah Rahman, Siti Aisyah Abbas, Eka Audia Tiasa,
Muhammad Hakam Asy Syifa, Muhammad Habibi Ar Rayhan, and the entire
family for all the prayers, support, and encouragement.
5. Kadek Yulia Prameswasti, Dzaki Nauval, Kenannita, Oktavian Wahyu Pratama
Ajie, and Muhammad Faiz Kahendran as the ACSt teammate for all the
company, assistance, and advice.
6. Allifiya Salsabil Nugrohoputri, Dzaki Nauval, Rais Rahmadi, and Ahmad Rijani
Hasby whom have provided home during the most exhausting time of the
undergraduate period.
7. Owen Jacob Notonugroho, Fatihaturrizky Amelia, Mayandra Salsabhila Adam,
Humaira Amirani, Fauzan Fadhlurrahman, and friends from Allen's Supervised
team for all the helps in the completion of this thesis.
8. Chintia Dwiyundani Suharto, Nahda Kamila Assyifa, Maharani Bilqist Caroline,
Imma Nur Izzati Adzkia, Zayyaan Nabiila Khairunnisa, Gaizca Betha Bianca,
Aisyah, Alvian Setyo Nugroho, Hardiyan Yulianto, and all friends from
Navillera Atiharsa for the contributions during the lectures and the thesis
completion.
9. Lastly, all other friends and associates who can not be mentioned individually
for the help and support.
The author has contrived the thesis as best as possible, but the author is also
aware of many imperfections in both content and grammar. Consequently, the
author welcomes any suggestions and constructive corrections to improve. The
author wishes this thesis would be helpful in enriching readers’ knowledge.

Bogor, July 2023

Aliyah Baida Wiwiyanti
viii
 ix

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF APPENDIX x
LIST OF NOTATIONS xi
I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problems Formulation 3
1.3 Main Objectives of The Research 3
1.4 Significance of The Research 3
1.5 Scope of The Research 3
II METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 Research Site and Timeline 4
2.2 Research Operation Procedure 4
III RESULT AND DISCUSSION 14
3.1 POME Characteristic Analysis and The UASB Unit Design 14
3.2 Biomass Seeding and Acclimatization 16
3.3 Performance Evaluation of the ACSt Reactor 17
3.4 The UASB Unit Performance Evaluation 20
3.5 The Effluent Concentration Estimation Modeling 23
3.6 Biokinetic Coefficient Parameter on The Monod Model 24
CONCLUSION 29
REFERENCES 30
APPENDIX 37
BIOGRAPHY 57
x

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 POME characteristics and Indonesian standard comparison 1

2.1 The detailed timeline for the research 4
2.2 Variations of Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) in ACSt reactor 7
2.3 The instruments and chemicals for measurement of the research 8
3.1 PTPN VIII’s POME characteristics value 14
3.2 Effluent measurement and average removal of the ACSt reactor 19
3.3 The CODs and TSS removal efficiency 22
3.4 The interpretation of MAPE value 24
3.5 The biokinetic parameter of Monod Model in UASB unit 24
3.6 The reference biokinetic parameter 25

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Configuration of ACSt reactor 5

2.2 Flowchart of the research 6
2.3 Configuration and sampling point of ACSt reactor 7
2.4 Excel interface for UASB’s Monod Model 10
2.5 Excel interface for UASB’s Monod Model (continuation) 10
2.6 Excel interface for UASB’s ANN Model 11
2.7 Goldsim Expression Properties interface for sensitivity analysis 12
2.8 Goldsim Sensitivity Analysis interface 13
3.1 Design of UASB unit 15
3.2 Biomass seeding and acclimatization data 16
3.3 The pH data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor 17
3.4 The TSS data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor 18
3.5 The CODs data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor 18
3.6 The pH and ammonia measurement data of UASB Unit 20
3.7 The TDS and temperature measurement data of UASB Unit 21
3.8 The TSS measurement data of UASB Unit 21
3.9 The CODs measurement data of UASB Unit 22
3.10 The comparison of experiment data, Monod Model, and ANN 23
3.11 Significance of biokinetic parameter to 𝑆an estimation 26
3.12 Influence of biokinetic parameter on 𝑆an estimation 27

LIST OF APPENDIX

1 Seeding and acclimatization laboratory measurement data 38

2 Summary of measurement data of the ACSt reactor 39
3 ACSt reactor laboratory measurement data 40
4 The UASB Unit conventional modeling equations 47
 xi

5 The coding for the Monod Model 49

6 The coding for ANN 51
7 ANN’s data training for UASB effluent estimation 55
8 The UASB’s effluent measurement data, Monod Model, and ANN 56

LIST OF NOTATIONS

𝜃i an = HRT of UASB (d)

𝜇 = Specific growth rate (d-1)
𝜇max = Maximum specific growth rate (d−1)
𝜂 = Learning rate
𝛿 = Difference between the predicted output and the actual target value
𝐴t = the actual value from the laboratory measurement data
𝐹t = the Forecast value from the estimation models
Hi = Hidden layer
𝑘 = Hydrolyzed substrate transport rate coefficient (L g-1 d-1)
𝐾e = Constant of death rate (d-1)
𝐾h = Hydrolysis rate coefficient (d−1)
𝐾s = Half saturation concentration (g CODs L−1)
𝑂t = Target result
𝑆an = Effluent substrate concentration of UASB unit (g CODs L-1)
𝑆cr = Effluent substrate concentration of clarifier unit (g CODs L-1)
𝑆ct = Effluent substrate concentration of IFAS unit (g CODs L-1)
𝑆in = Influent substrate concentration of ACSt reactor (g CODs L-1)
𝑆out = Effluent substrate concentration of ACSt reactor (g CODs L-1)
𝑆st = Effluent substrate concentration of stabilization reactor (g CODs L-1)
𝑡 = Day of the experiment (day)
𝑉an = Volume of UASB unit (L)
𝑉ct = Volume of IFAS unit (L)
𝑉cr = Volume of clarifier unit (L)
𝑉st = Volume of stabilization unit (L)
𝑉ij = Improved weighting
𝑊j = Weighted correction
𝑋an = Biomass concentrations in the UASB unit (g TSS L-1)
𝑋an eff = Effluent biomass concentrations of UASB unit (g TSS L-1)
𝑋cr = Effluent biomass concentrations of clarifier unit (g TSS L-1)
𝑋ct = Effluent biomass concentrations of contact unit (g TSS L-1)
𝑋st = Effluent biomass concentrations of stabilization unit (g TSS L-1)
𝑋t = Signal input
𝑌 = Yield coefficient (g TSS g CODs−1)
𝑌t = Prediction result
 1

1 I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Biological process units are the relatively low operational cost technology
used at most wastewater treatment facilities, compared to chemical and physical
treatment units. The biological process is primarily used to remove nutrients in
wastewater, such as dissolved organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus, using a
variety of microorganisms (Santos et al. 2020; Asadi and McPhedran 2021). The
aerobic biological process has been used over 60 years to remove organics from
wastewater (Nam et al. 2004). Hence, almost half of the electricity cost in
wastewater treatment facilities is caused by the aeration process in an aerobic
process (Liao et al. 2022). Moreover, the aerobic process is just commonly used to
treat less than 1.000 mg CODs/L wastewater (Amin Goli et al. 2019).
On the other hand, anaerobic process technology has been widely proven to
give valuable advantages rather to conventional aerobic treatment (Perendeci et al.
2012). High contaminants removal efficiency (for more than 4.000 mg CODs/L) in
low or high loading rates, low energy consumption, low requirement of nutrients
and chemicals, energy production (methane gas), and low clogging occurrences
become advantages of the anaerobic process (Anijiofor et al. 2017). However,
combined anaerobic-aerobic treatment gives many advantages, such as improving
sludge dewatering properties, providing additional solids reduction, reducing
nitrogen, and effectively removing organic matter from high-strength wastewater
(Zhou et al. 2006; Novak et al. 2011). The benefits of using a combined treatment
approach encouraged the adoption of an anaerobic process as the primary stage in
the treatment of highly organic wastewater. The effluent will be treated under
aerobic conditions to guarantee compliance with the required wastewater standards.
This strategy is recommended because of its increased efficiency and cost-
effectiveness in controlling concentrated wastewater, particularly in settings such
as rubber industry wastewater, pulp and paper industry wastewater, and Palm Oil
Mill Effluent (POME) (Mamińska 2017; Chung et al. 2018; Nasir et al. 2018).
Table 1.1 POME characteristics and Indonesian standard comparison
Parameter Unit Characteristic Standard
pH - 4-5 6-9
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/L 25000-65714 100
Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand (CODs) mg/L 44300-102696 350
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 18000-46011 250
Oil and Grease (OG) mg/L 4000-9341 25
Total Nitrogen (TN) mg/L 750-770 50

The POME itself has been one of the significant wastewater problems in
Indonesia. The total of 15.08 M hectares of palm oil plantations in 2021 makes
Indonesia the world's biggest palm oil producer (Rizaty 2022). Estimated 5 to 7.5
tons of water will end up as POME for each ton of crude palm oil produced
(Fairuzah and Asnawi 2012). POME is characterized as a brownish, acidic, hot, and
viscous liquid with a high value of contaminant. The significant differences
between the raw POME characteristics and the effluent standard of POME from
Indonesian Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 5/2014 are nearly 300 times
different for the CODs parameter, as shown in Table 1.1 (KemenLH 2014; Zulkifli
2

2017). Therefore, further processing on POME is required before being discharged

into the environment. The anaerobic ponding system, the most common
conventional wastewater treatment facility used for POME, requires a large area
and a long detention time. One of the industries that use the anaerobic ponding
system is PT Perkebunan Nusantara (PTPN) VIII in Cigudeg, Bogor. Hence, high-
rate anaerobic digestion reactors will be suitable for treating POME effectively.
However, due to the high level of viscosity and solid in POME, some operational
trouble (clogging, foaming, and scum formation) may happen in most high-rate
anaerobic digestion reactors (Poh and Chong 2014; Chan et al. 2015).
One of the high-rate anaerobic digestion reactors with a low opportunity of
operational trouble occurrence on POME is the modification of the Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) unit (Poh and Chong 2014). The UASB unit,
the most popular high-rate anaerobic system worldwide, proved to remove nearly
96% CODs in POME using the UASB unit (Borja and Banks 1994). In comparison,
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge-Fixed Film (UASFF), anaerobic filters, and fluidized
bed can remove 90%, 94%, and 78% of POME’s CODs. The UASB unit could
achieve high CODs removal efficiencies with low acidity and Hydraulic Retention
Time (HRT) fluctuations sensitivity because of the sludge blanket (Chong et al.
2012; Mahmod et al. 2019). The sludge blanket in the UASB retains an outstanding
amount of active and settleable biomass with low Sludge Volume Index (SVI) and
high sludge-effluent separation, preventing POME from clogging (Mainardis et al.
2020).
The UASB has gained widespread usage due to its ability to maintain high
biomass concentrations, enabling it to operate efficiently at high Organic Loading
Rate (OLR) and short HRT (López-Gutiérrez et al. 2021). However, to achieve the
desired effluent value, the UASB unit must adjust its HRT based on the intended
OLR for treatment (Cárdenas-Medina et al. 2020). Thereafter, several variations of
the UASB’s HRT value are needed to be tested to know the most efficient HRT
value in treating the high OLR value of POME. Even so, the UASB process cannot
fullfil the effluent standards for POME in Indonesia. The secondary treatment of
the Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS) contact-sedimentation-
stabilization unit needs to be combined with the UASB to achieve a lower
contaminant value in POME. The combination of UASB, IFAS, sedimentation, and
stabilization unit operates under unsteady-state operation in the Anaerobic-Contact-
Stabilization (ACSt) process. This unsteady-state operation is described as one of
the model design approaches for wastewater treatment facilities with unsteady
variations of the discharge and the concentration of the contaminants (Irvine et al.
1997).
Furthermore, the effluent of the UASB unit needs to be measured due to the
unsteady-state condition with high discharge fluctuation and contaminants in
POME. Manual measurements are impractical due to the inefficiency of time and
resources. To address this issue, mathematical models can be used to predict
effluent quality using biokinetic models (Neba et al. 2020). The Monod Model is
one of the most commonly used biokinetic models (Wen et al. 1994). The kinetic
coefficients of the Monod model provide insights into the biological and transport
mechanisms in the UASB unit using the substrate utilization rate, the kinetic growth
rate of microorganisms, the death rate of microorganisms, and the factors limiting
cell growth (Faekah et al. 2020). However, an alternative approach to effluent
 3

prediction is the Artificial Neural Network (ANN), which offers an effective

modelling technique without requiring direct mathematical equations (Le et al.
2022). ANN is considered more effective in processing unorganized or incomplete
data.
The effluent prediction methods utilizing the conventional biokinetic model
and ANN was compared to determine the optimal option for the UASB modelling.
This comparison was analyzed with statistical analysis to determine the difference
between each model and experiment data. Sensitivity analysis was also analyzed to
evaluate the significance of each biokinetic parameter on the final data results. The
sensitivity analysis conducts a probabilistic simulation involving repeated random
sampling to derive specific outcomes.

1.2 Problems Formulation

The high contaminant in POME needs to be processed by a high-rate
anaerobic digestion reactor with a low opportunity of clogging, such as UASB. The
performance of the UASB unit under the unsteady-state condition with several
variations of HRT needs to be measured due to the high fluctuation of discharge
and contaminants. However, manual measurement will be inefficient due to the use
of time and resources. Consequently, estimation modelling of the effluent
concentration in the UASB unit under unsteady-state conditions is used in this study
with the Monod Model and the ANN approaches.

1.3 Main Objectives of The Research

This research aims to:
a. Analyze the UASB unit performance in the ACSt process under unsteady-state
conditions by using the variations of HRT.
b. Compare the UASB unit effluent estimation using the Monod Model and the
ANN under unsteady-state conditions.
c. Estimate the biokinetic parameter of the UASB unit using the Monod Model
under unsteady-state conditions.

1.4 Significance of The Research

This research aims to provide information and assessments regarding the
performance of the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) unit and the
utilization of biokinetic modelling in predicting the concentration of effluent within
the Anaerobic-Contact-Stabilization (ACSt) process for treating Palm Oil Mill
Effluent (POME).

1.5 Scope of The Research

The ACSt process is included the UASB unit, IFAS unit, sedimentation unit,
and stabilization unit. However, in this research, the UASB unit was the main focus
for the biokinetic modelling.
4

2 II METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research Site and Timeline

The research of “Performance and Biokinetic Modeling of Modified Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Unit in Treating Palm Oil Mill Effluent” was conducted
from November 2022 until July 2023, with a timeline detailed in Table 2.1. The
biomass seeding and acclimatization period was conducted for 59 days on January-
March 2023, while the measurement data in ACSt reactor was collected in April-
July 2023 for 70 days. The ACSt reactor is located in the Laboratory of Water
Quality in The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IPB
University, Dramaga, Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. The sample of POME is
collected from PT. PTPN VIII in Cigudeg, Bogor. The wastewater quality analysis
of pH, Temperature, Total Dissolve Solid (TDS), Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand (CODs), and Ammonia were measured in The
Solid & Hazardous Waste Laboratory in The Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, IPB University. The analysis of Oil & Grease (OG)
and Total Nitrogen (TN) quality were measured in The Preparatory Laboratory in
The Department of Agroindustrial Engineering, IPB University.
Table 2.1 The detailed timeline for the research
Activities Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Literature studies
POME characteristics analysis
Reactor design & manufacture
Seeding & acclimatization
Measurement data collection
Reactor performance evaluation
The Monod & ANN modeling
Statistic & sensitivity analysis
Thesis writing

2.2 Research Operation Procedure

The research focused on evaluating the performance of ACSt generally and
the performance of UASB specifically. Moreover, the UASB unit performance
result was also the main focus for modeling in this research. The ACSt reactor
consisted of a UASB unit with 80 L capacity, an Integrated Fixed-film Activated
Sludge (IFAS) unit with 27 L capacity, a stabilization unit with 16 L capacity, and
a clarifier unit with 13.25 L capacity (Figure 2.1). Electrical components to
distribute electricity, pumps to flow wastewater, and aerators to supply O2 were also
used in the reactor. The primary material used for treatment in ACSt was POME.
The operational procedure of this research is presented in the flowchart in
Figure 2.2. Firstly, literature studies had been conducted to find the urge to use
POME in this research and to know which system, configuration, and unit are the
most suitable to treat POME. Then, POME have been testing in the laboratory to
analyze the characteristics using several parameters, such as pH, CODs, TSS, OG,
and TN. The POME’s characteristics compared to the effluent standard of POME
in Indonesia from Indonesian Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 5/2014
about the Wastewater Standard Value. Moreover, the laboratory-size reactor was
designed according to the desired Organic Loading Rate (OLR), HRT, and
 5

discharge of the POME. The UASB unit was designed using the OLR of 60000
mg/l/day, the HRT of 48 hours, and the discharge of 40 L/day for the dimensional
design calculations. As a result, the UASB’s volume of 80 L was obtained.

UASB IFAS Stabilization Clarifier

Figure 2.1 Configuration of ACSt reactor

The biomass mixed cultures microorganism for the UASB unit obtained from
Wastewater Treatment Plant II (WWTP II) Jababeka in the Oxidation Ditch (OD)
unit mixed with microbial starter. The microbial starter contained probiotic
anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms culture that stimulates the growth of
beneficial microorganisms in the form of suspended biofilm and degrades organic
compounds (Rahadi et al. 2018; Suryawan et al. 2023). The combination of existing
sludge and the microbial starter was chosen due to the previous study from
Kullavanijaya et al. (2022), who stated that the result of a rapid start-up, well
microbial activity, and high removal efficiency from co-inoculation of the Waste
Activated Sludge (WAS) mixed with an alternative source of a surplus supply of
mixed microbial cultures.
The seeding and acclimatization processes were necessary to increase and
prepare the biomass to become accustomed to utilize POME as the primary
substrate. These processes were conducted in a closed tank outside the reactor with
a capacity of 80 L. Monitoring of the TSS and CODs concentration was carried out
during the processes to measure the increase of biomass and the decrease of organic
compound pollutant in the form of CODs value (Budiastuti et al. 2023). The TSS
and CODs parameter sample was taken from the homogenous biomass inside the
tank after manual stirring. During seeding, glucose (C6H12O6) was given to the
biomass as the initial substrate using the food per microorganism (F/M) ratio of 0.2
(Jaouad et al. 2020). The assumption of substrate conversion between glucose and
6

CODs is 1 gram of glucose equal to 1.067 grams of CODs (Bjerre et al. 1996).
While for the acclimatization process, glucose was gradually replaced by POME
using the ratio of 0.25 POME; 0.5 POME; 0.75 POME; and completely using
POME at the end of the acclimatization process as the primary substrate source.
Hence, these processes also needed additional micronutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphate in the form of CH4N2O and P2O5 for biomass with the scale of 700:5:1
compared to the CODs value (Gutiérrez et al. 1999). After completing these
processes, the biomass was introduced into the reactor for the primary POME
treatment process in the ACSt reactor.

Start

Literature studies

POME characteristics analysis

Reactor dimensional design

Biomass seeding & acclimatization

Treatment of POME in the ACSt reactor

Parameters measurement and analysis

The ACSt reactor performance evaluation

The UASB Monod & ANN modeling using VBA

Modeling
inaccurate
Statistic analysis

Modeling accurate

Sensitivity analysis for biokinetical parameters

Finish

Figure 2.2 Flowchart of the research

 7

The ACSt reactor was fully operated to treat POME on April-July 2023 at
ambient room temperature. The reactor treatment process used ten days of
operational time for each Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) variation under
unsteady state conditions. HRT variations in ACSt can be seen in Table 2.2. The
UASB unit uses HRT of 8, 4, and 2 days. The total of 7 sampling points in ACSt
reactor presented in Figure 2.3 with the sampling points of the influent of ACSt
reactor (and UASB unit), the effluent of UASB unit, the effluent of contact unit, the
effluent of ACSt Recator (and Sedimentation unit), the sludge underflow of
sedimentation unit, the effluent recirculating flow from stabilization unit, and the
settled biomass of UASB respectively. The measurements of the ACSt reactor used
the parameters of pH, Temperature, TDS, TSS, CODs, Ammonia, OG, and TN
concentrations. Table 2.3 details the measurement instruments and chemicals for
each parameter on ACSt measurements. Each parameter referred to SNI
6989.2:2009 for CODs Measurements with Closed Reflux Spectrophotometrically,
SNI 06-6989.30-2005 in Phenate Spectrophotometric Measurements for Ammonia,
SNI 06-6989.26-2005 in Gravimetric Measurement Method for Total Solids
Content, SNI 06-6989.10-2004 in Gravimetric Measurement Method for Oil and
Grease, and SNI 06-6989.52:2005 for Organic Nitrogen Measurements with Macro
Kjeldahl and Titration Method. The measurement result was then compared to the
POME effluent standard in Indonesia from Indonesian Ministry of Environment
Regulation No. 5/2014 to obtain the ACSt and UASB performance evaluation.
Table 2.2 Variations of Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) in ACSt reactor
Variation UASB (d) IFAS (d) Stabilization (d) Clarifier (d)
1 8 0.67 0.25 0.21
2 8 0.67 0.21 0.21
3 8 0.67 0.17 0.21
4 8 0.50 0.17 0.21
5 8 0.33 0.17 0.21
6 4 0.33 0.17 0.21
7 2 0.33 0.17 0.21

Figure 2.3 Configuration and sampling point of ACSt reactor

8

Table 2.3 The instruments and chemicals for conducting of the research
Parameters Instruments Chemicals
pH pH meter Solution pH 4.01 and 6.86
Temp. TDS and Temperature Meter
TDS TDS and Temperature Meter
TSS - Analytical Balance - Whatman Ashless Filter Paper
- Porcelain Cup 42 Diameter 55 mm
- Desiccator - Distilled Water
- Oven
- Filter Paper Clamp
- Filter Tool
- Suction Pump
CODs - Spectrophotometer - Distilled water
- Cuvette - K2Cr2O7
- Digestion Vessels - H2SO4
- Block Heater - Ag2SO4
- Burette - NH2SO3H
- Volumetric Flask - HOOCC6H4COOK
- Volumetric Pipette
- Beaker Glass
- Magnetic Stirrer
- Analytical Balance
Ammonia - Spectrophotometer - Distilled Water
- Cuvette - NH4Cl
- Analytical Balance - C6H5OH
- Erlenmeyer - C5FeN6Na2O
- Volumetric Flask - C6H5Na3O7
- Volumetric Pipette - NaClO
- Measuring Pipettes
- Beaker Glass
OG - Analytical Balance - Distilled Water
- Separatory Funnel - HCl or H2SO4
- Distillation Flask - Organic Solvents
- Glass Funnel - n-Heaxane
- Filter Paper - Methyl Tert Buthyl Ether
- Centrifugal Device (MTBE)
- Vacuum Pump - Na2SO4 Anhidrat
- Distillation Adapter - Dichloro Methane (DMC)
- Water Bath
- Desiccator
TN - Kjeldahl Apparatus - Distilled Water
- Heater - K2SO4
- Distillation Equipment - CuSO4
- Glassware - NaOH
- pH Meter - Na2B4O7
- Analytical Balance - H3BO3
- Ovens - Methyl Orange
- H2SO4
- Na2CO3

In this research, Monod Model was used as unsteady state biokinetic

modeling without considering the effects of inhibitors. Monod (1949) expresses the
Monod Equation in Eq. (1) as the relation of exponential growth rate and essential
nutrient concentration.
𝑆an
𝜇 = 𝜇max 𝐾 +𝑆 (1)
s an
 9

Where 𝜇 is the specific growth rate (d-1), 𝜇max is the maximum specific growth rate
or the increasing concentrations rate limit (d−1), 𝐾s is the Monod saturation constant
or the substrate effluent concentration at half of the maximum rate (g CODs L−1),
and 𝑆an is the concentration of substrate effluent (g CODs l-1).
Furthermore, the Monod Equation needs to be combined and modified with
other equations to predict the effluent of the UASB unit. Firstly, the rate of change
in biomass from Eq. (2) was firstly modified into Eq. (3) to find the specific growth
rate (𝜇) from the biomass balance approach. While the sludge production equation
from Eq. (4) was modified into Eq. (5) to estimate biomass concentration inside the
reactor (𝑋an ).
𝑑𝑋an 𝑉an = 𝑉an 𝑋an 𝜇 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑉an 𝐾e 𝑋an 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑄an 𝑋an eff 𝑑𝑡 (2)
𝑋an (t1)
ln
𝑋an (t0) 𝑋an eff
𝜇= (𝑡1 −𝑡0 )
+ 𝐾e + 𝑋 (3)
an (t1) 𝜃i an
𝑑𝑋 𝑑𝑆
= 𝑌 𝑑𝑡 (4)
𝑑𝑡
𝑋an = 𝑌 (𝑆in − 𝑆an ) + 𝑋an eff (5)
-1 −1
Where 𝐾e is the constant of death rate (d ), 𝑌 is yield coefficient (g TSS g CODs ),
𝑡 is the day of the experiment (d), 𝑆in is the concentration of substrate influent (g
CODs l-1), 𝑋an & 𝑋an eff are biomass concentrations in the UASB and the effluent
of UASB respectively (g TSS l-1), and 𝜃i an is the HRT of UASB (d).
Considering the UASB unit as an anaerobic process, Eq. (6) with hydrolysis
rate coefficient and Eq. (7) with hydrolyzed substrate transport rate coefficient will
be linearized to find Eq. (8).
−𝑑𝑆h
= 𝐾h (𝑆an − 𝑆h ) (6)
𝑑𝑡
−𝑑𝑆h
= 𝑘𝑆h 𝑋an (7)
𝑑𝑡
an𝐾 𝑆
𝑆h = 𝑘𝑋 h +𝐾 (8)
an h
Where 𝐾h is the hydrolysis rate coefficient (d−1) and 𝑘 is the hydrolyzed substrate
transport rate coefficient (L g-1 d-1).
Then, Eq. (1), Eq. (8), and Eq. (5) are combined to form Eq. (9). The Eq. (9)
was then modified and combined with Eq. (3) to form the final equation for effluent
estimation of the UASB unit (𝑆an Est). The detailed derivation of the 𝑆an Est
equations is detailed in Appendix 4.
𝜇max 𝐾 (𝑘(𝑌 (𝑆in −𝑆an )+𝑋an eff )+𝐾h )
= s +1 (9)
𝜇 𝐾 𝑆 h an
𝑘𝑌 𝑆in + 𝑘𝑋an eff + 𝐾h
𝑆an (Est) = (10)
𝐾h 𝜇max
𝑋an (t1) −1 +𝑘𝑌
𝐾s
ln
𝑋an (t0) 𝑋an eff
+𝐾e +
( (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) 𝑋an (t1) 𝜃i an )
The effluent testing results in the UASB unit were used to create effluent
estimation models for 30 days from the last three variations. The effluent estimation
and the biokinetic value of the Monod Model were obtained from VBA Solver
coding in Microsoft Excel 2019 using the coding in Appendix 5. The VBA Solver
coding was modified from the previous research of Amelia (2022).
Firstly, the initial measurement data such as 𝑆an , 𝑆in , 𝑋an eff , 𝑋an , 𝜃i an , and t
were inputted into Excel to obtain an estimation model of UASB effluent.
10

Subsequently, typical parameter values for biokinetics such as 𝐾e , 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾s , 𝑌, 𝐾h ,

and 𝑘 determined based on previous research references that utilized UASB as a
treatment unit or POME as the wastewater. The typical values obtained from these
references are then used to establish minimum and maximum limits in Excel, which
serve as constraints in the Solver coding using VBA. One value within this range is
selected as the start value before running the Solver. Next, the μ value from Eq. (3)
and the left & right sides of Eq. (9) are inputted into Excel using the initial
measurement data and the start value for the biokinetic parameters. The error value,
representing the difference between the left & right sides of Eq. (9) for each day, is
used as the target cell for the Solver to minimize, ensuring the slightest possible
error between the left & right sides.
The Solver was then executed by clicking the “Run Model” button created in
VBA coding, allowing it to minimize the error value by adjusting the biokinetic
parameters within the predetermined range. The resulting values of the biokinetic
parameters after Solver for each day were then copied into the adjacent table, as
shown in Figure 2.4. Moreover, these obtained biokinetic parameter values are used
to calculate the estimation of UASB effluent using Eq. (10). The estimated and
measured effluent values were compared using the Sum Square Difference (SSD).
The SSD value was minimized using the “Run SSD” button in the Solver, which
adjusts the biokinetic parameters and copies the values into the adjacent table, as
shown in Figure 2.5. Finally, the smallest biokinetic parameter values were selected
and used to estimate the UASB effluent value.

Figure 2.4 Excel interface for UASB’s Monod Model

Figure 2.5 Excel interface for UASB’s Monod Model (continuation)

Besides the Monod Biokinetic Model as the UASB unit effluent estimation
model, the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was also programmed to predict the
effluent concentration of UASB using VBA Solver in Microsoft Excel. The ANN
operated in the backpropagation program with VBA coding in Appendix 6 from the
ANN coding of Arif (2021). The backpropagation program is a multilayer learning
algorithm to minimize errors by adjusting the weights based on the difference in
output and the desired target (Supriyanto et al. 2022). The ANN for UASB effluent
 11

estimation used three layers of the calculation process, which are the input layer,
hidden layer, and output layer. Figure 2.6 presented the formation of four nodes of
the input layer, ten nodes of hidden layers, and one node of the output layer were
used to obtain the effluent estimation value. The number of nodes in the input and
output layers was adjusted to the availability of input data and the desired output
data. However, to produce high-accuracy forecasts in this study, more than one
hidden layer node was used in the model (Suhermi et al. 2018). Therefore, ten nodes
of the hidden layer were chosen to estimate the effluent of UASB in this research.

Figure 2.6 Excel interface for UASB’s ANN Model

The steps involved in an ANN process are divided into the initiation, the
feedforward & backpropagation training, and the model fine-tuning process.
Firstly, random weights and biases were initiated to avoid networks stuck using
random values from the normal or uniform distribution. Then, the training process
was conducted to find the best function for the hidden layer and to create the
accurate estimation for the output layer (Fard et al. 2020). The training parameter
of 𝑆in , 𝑋an , 𝑋an eff, and 𝜃i an inserted in the ANN program as the input parameters,
while the 𝑆an inserted as the output parameter. The training data for each parameter
is attached in Appendix 7. The training process was calculated using feedforward
propagation to calculate the output target using the weights, biases, and activation
function. In the feedforward propagation, each input parameters forwarded signals
to all hidden layer unit. Then, the hidden layer (hi) accumulated all the input’s signal
using Eq. (11). The hidden layer obtained by combining the Eq. (11) with Sigmoid
Function in Eq. (12). Then, Eq. (13) used to sum up the weight input signals.
ℎinj = ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑋t ∙ 𝑉ij (11)
1
ℎinj = 𝑓 (ℎinj ) = −ℎin (12)
1+𝑒 j
ℎinj = ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝐻t ∙ 𝑊ij (13)
Furthermore, the backpropagation algorithm was used to compute the error
gradients and adjust the weights and biases in the network using Eq. (14). The
hidden layer and output layer was calculated to determine the value of the weighted
correction (Wj) using Eq. (15) and Eq. (16).
1
Error = 2 (𝑂t − 𝑌t )2 (14)
∆𝑊j = 𝜂 ∙ 𝛿i ∙ 𝑋i (15)
𝛿k = (𝑂t − 𝑌t ) ∙ 𝑌 ∙ (1 − 𝑌t ) (16)
12

Improved weighting (Vij) was determined from the value of the hidden layer
with the input layer using the Eq. (17) and Eq. (18). New weights from Eq. (19) and
Eq. (20) was then obtained with the influence of old weights.
∆𝑉ij = 𝜂 ∙ 𝛿j ∙ 𝑋i (17)
𝛿j = 𝐻j ∙ (1 − 𝐻j ) ∙ ∑ 𝑊j ∙ 𝛿𝑘 (18)
𝑊j (new) = 𝑊j (old) + ∆𝑊j (19)
𝑉ij (new) = 𝑉ij (old) + ∆𝑉ij (20)
During training, model Fine-Tuning also proceeded to optimized the
parameter to find weight and bias values that produce network outputs that closely
match the targets. Then, the network’s performance is evaluated using validation
data to monitor progress and prevent overfitting. If performance meets
requirements, the network can be used for data modeling and prediction by inserting
the input values into the program.
The statistical analysis for the effluent estimation of UASB was evaluated
using the Analysis of Variance (Anova), t-Test, and the Mean Average Percentage
Error (MAPE). The Anova was carried out for effluent concentration data and
effluent estimation model data using Data Analysis of Anova : Single Factor in
Microsoft Excel 2019. However, one way Anova could also be used to assess the
effects of the HRT changes on effluent concentrations (Putri et al. 2021). The t-Test
was conducted to compare the effluent concentration value of the UASB with the
estimation value using the Data Analysis of t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
in Microsoft Excel 2019. The t-Test is suitable for the test for effluent value with
independent one-treatment method data (Bourget 2023). The statistic analysis was
also conducted using MAPE for the UASB unit’s effluent estimation models to
choose the best model between the Monod Model & the ANN. The MAPE was
carried out to investigate the accuracy of the model using the absolute average from
the difference of effluent estimation and effluent experiment data. The accepted and
the best model is chosen by the lowest value of MAPE (Maziya et al. 2016). The
MAPE equation is presented in Eq. (11).
1 𝐴 −𝐹
MAPE = 𝑛 ∑𝑛𝑡=1 | t𝐴 t| (11)
t

Where, 𝐴t is the actual value from the laboratory measurement data and 𝐹t is the
Forecast value from the estimation models.

Figure 2.7 Goldsim Pro 14.0 properties interface for sensitivity analysis
 13

Lastly, sensitivity analysis was analyzed to find the significance of each

biokinetic parameter to the effluent prediction of the Monod Model using the
GoldSim Pro 14.0 application. The selected biokinetic parameter values for 𝐾e ,
𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾s , 𝑌, 𝐾h , and 𝑘 entered into the GoldSim application using the “Data” menu
in the “Insert an input element” section. Once all the biokinetic parameter values
were inputted, Eq. (10) was then entered into the “Expression” section in the “Insert
a function element” part. In this section, the variable values other than the biokinetic
parameters were inputted by selecting the testing data set for a specific day. In this
case, the testing data set for the third day was used, as shown in Figure 2.7. Next,
in the sensitivity analysis section, the estimation function for UASB effluent was
inputted in the “Result to analyze” part, and the biokinetic parameters were inputted
in the “Independent Variables” part. The “Lower Bound” and “Upper Bound” for
each biokinetic parameter are adjusted by adding and subtracting 10% from the
selected biokinetic parameter value in the “Central Value” section, as shown in
Figure 2.8, to obtain a range of values for the sensitivity analysis calculation.
Finally, the results of the sensitivity analysis can be obtained in the “Result Data”,
“Tornado Chart”, and “X-Y Function Chart” sections. Moreover, the influence of
biokinetic parameters value change on effluent estimation using HRT variations
was visualized on the graphical image in OriginPro 2023.

Figure 2.8 Goldsim Pro 14.0’s sensitivity analysis interface

14

3 III RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 POME Characteristic Analysis and The UASB Unit Design

The initial characteristic of the POME from PTPN VIII was subjected to
comprehensive testing and measurement for various parameters, such as pH, TSS,
CODs, OG, and TN. Table 3.1 presents the measured characteristic values of
POME, revealing a notably high acidity level within the pH range of 3.13 to 4.28
compared to the standard effluent value of pH 6-9, according to Indonesian Ministry
of Environment Regulation No. 5/2014. Furthermore, the TSS content was
significantly higher than the regulation standard of of 250 mg/L ranging from 3800
to 125000 mg/L, indicating that the POME possesses a dense and viscous
characteristic. These findings align with a previous study conducted by Wongfaed
et al. (2020), which described POME as a brown, acidic, and viscous liquid waste
with a pH range of 3.4 to 5.2 and TSS content ranging from 5000 to 54000 mg/L.
The pollutant content represented by CODs was found to be significantly high,
almost 30000 mg/L, in contrast to the Indonesian Ministry of Environment
Regulation No. 5/2014 standard of 350 mg/L. The CODs parameter was chosen to
represent the presence of organic and inorganic pollutants, including nutrients such
as nitrate or ammonia (Budiastuti et al. 2023). On the other hand, BOD was not
measured in this study due to the presence of many organic substances that can be
oxidized chemically but not biologically (Royani et al. 2021). Therefore, the COD
value is always greater than the BOD value, with a general comparison of the
BOD/COD value of 0.2-0.5 (Samudro dan Mangkoedihardjo 2010). Additionally,
the OG value of POME in PTPN measured at 4217.2 mg/L was relatively similar
to the findings of Ahmad et al. (2017), who reported a value of 4000 mg/L.
However, it is essential to note that this OG value exceeds the 25 mg/L effluent
standard set by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 5/2014.
Conversely, the TN value for POME in PTPN had measured at 67.5 mg/L, slightly
surpassing the effluent standard of 50 mg/L from Indonesian Ministry of
Environment Regulation No. 5/2014. Comparatively, Ahmad et al. (2017) reported
a TN value of 750 mg/L, which was significantly higher. These characteristic values
align with the POME characteristic on the background above from the study
conducted by Zulkifli (2017).
Table 3.1 PTPN VIII’s POME characteristics value
Parameter Unit Characteristic Standard
pH - 3.13-4.28 6-9
CODs mg/L 3144-29676 350
TSS mg/L 3800-125000 250
OG mg/L 4217.2 25
TN mg/L 67.5 50

The ACSt system employed in this study comprises several units: an

anaerobic UASB unit, an aerobic IFAS unit, a clarifier unit, and a stabilization unit.
The ACSt system operates in an unsteady-state operation. The design of the UASB
unit is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 (b) displayed the dimensional size of the
UASB unit of 35 cm in length, 35 cm in width, and 125 cm in height. Figure 3.1 (a)
displayed the UASB unit equipped with an inlet and an outlet valve, two check
 15

valves for supernatant and biomass, sludge controlling valves, and a gas outlet
valve. The UASB unit is divided into three distinct zones: digestion, transition, and
settling zone (Rajagopal et al. 2019). Firstly, POME enters through the inlet at the
bottom of the unit in the digestion zone. The POME then uniformly flows upward
between the anaerobic sludge blanket that contains the flocculent sludge in the
digestion zone. Anaerobic decomposition occurs due to the digestion of POME
dissolved substrate by the sludge (Elmitwalli 2000). The POME then flows into the
transition zone. While most of the sludge remains in the digestion zone, some
sludge particles are carried upward. The settling zone allows the sludge particles to
settle back into the digestion zone while the liquid effluent flows out to the IFAS
unit (Hickey et al. 1991; Lettinga and Hulshoff Pol 1991; Tauseef et al. 2013).

(a) (b)
Figure 3.1 Design of UASB unit (a) front view (b) left side view

Following the treatment process in the UASB, the partially treated POME
was directed to the IFAS unit, which incorporates a combination of attached and
suspended growth biomass. Subsequently, the clarifier unit settled the suspended
solid, including biomass that may have been washed out from the system, allowing
the clarified effluent to be discharged (Qasim and Zhu 2018). The biomass is then
transferred to the stabilization unit, where the microorganisms present in the
biomass experience a period of nutrient starvation due to the absence of substrate.
The biomass was subsequently recirculated back to the IFAS unit under these
starving conditions, expecting to exhibit increased capability for organic matter
reduction (Amelia 2022).
16

3.2 Biomass Seeding and Acclimatization

The biomass seeding and acclimatization process plays a critical role in
determining the long-term operational success and stability of the UASB unit
(Kullavanijaya et al. 2022). In this study, the seeding process was carried out for
22 days to optimize biomass growth, followed by an acclimatization period of 37
days to adapt biomass to processing POME. The total 59 days of the seeding and
acclimatization periods were slightly faster than the previous research of Maulani
et al. (2019), which used a total of 75 days of seeding and acclimatization process
of POME using the rumen of a cow. The rapid start-up result was due to the usage
of existing sludge of mixed cultures of microorganisms from an anaerobic unit in
WWTP combined with microbial starter (Kullavanijaya et al. 2022).
Figure 3.2 illustrates the data obtained during the seeding and acclimatization
stages. Based on Figure 3.2, the substrate concentration (𝑆an ), represented by the
CODs value, exhibited increase and decrease trend throughout the seeding and
acclimatization period ranging from 1619 to 49 mg/L. The increased value of CODs
concentrations in the seeding and acclimatization process resulted from the
substrate added to the biomass, either in the form of glucose or POME. In contrast,
the decrease in CODs concentrations during the acclimatization process indicates
that the biomass has adapted to utilizing POME as a substrate (Semarta et al. 2020).
For more detailed information on substrate and biomass concentrations, as well as
the timing of substrate addition, please refer to Appendix 1.

Figure 3.2 Biomass seeding and acclimatization data

The biomass concentration (𝑋an ), represented by the TSS value, exhibited

fluctuations during the seeding and acclimatization process, ranging from 2415 to
8013 mg/L. The fluctuation can be attributed to the adaptation phase of
microorganisms to the substrate and the UASB unit environment (Syahrin et al.
2016). Moreover, during the transition period from seeding to acclimatization, the
TSS value at 25% POME immensely fluctuates, attributed to the adaptation period
of microorganisms to the added POME (Maulani et al. 2019). However, the overall
TSS value has an increased trendline in Figure 3.2 during this process. The treadline
formed a positive slope with value of 15.793, which validate the overall increase in
TSS Value. According to the research of Budiastuti et al. (2023), an increase in TSS
 17

value indicates the healthy growth of microorganisms during the seeding and
acclimatization process, as TSS serves as an estimation approach to assess
microorganism concentrations involved in substrate degradation. The seeding and
acclimatization process is considered complete when biomass concentrations
exceed 4000 mg/L (Syahrin et al. 2016).

3.3 Performance Evaluation of the ACSt Reactor

The treatment for POME in the ACSt process was conducted for 70 days,
encompassing all seven variations of the ACSt reactor. Throughout the treatment
process, the effluent of the ACSt reactor demonstrated a promising result of its
ability to decrease the pollutant in POME. However, the performance of the ACSt
reactor to degrade the pollutant in the POME fluctuates for all the measurement
parameters during 70 operational days. The fluctuation can be attributed to several
factors, including the reactor configuration, HRT, OLR, pH, temperature,
concentration of the inhibitors, Total Volatile Fatty Acid (TVFA), and substrate
composition. These factors collectively impact the stability of the treatment process
(Trisakti et al. 2019). It is crucial to carefully manage and optimize these variables
to ensure consistent and efficient pollutant degradation throughout the treatment.

Figure 3.3 The pH data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor

Figure 3.3 compare the pH data of the influent and effluent of the ACSt
reactor with allowable pH standard for POME from Indonesian Ministry of
Environment Regulation No. 5/2014. Based on the graphic, the pH of raw POME
in the influent of ACSt reactor was relatively low with pH 3-5 range, which does
not meet the standard pH range of 6-9. However, the effluent of the ACSt reactor
falls around the pH range of 6-9. Notably, only the first and sixth variations of the
HRT achieve this standard. Moreover, the fluctuation of pH in the graphic formed
a trendline of decreased pH during the first four HRT variations. However, the last
three HRT variations formed an increased trendline of pH. This result was due to
the HRT change of units in ACSt reactors.
Figure 3.4 compared the TSS data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor
with the standard value of 250 mg/L from Indonesian Ministry of Environment
18

Regulation No. 5/2014. The influent of ACSt reactors also has a high amount of
TSS, which was successfully degraded into the standard value of 250 mg/L by the
Reactor in the first third HRT variations. While for the other variations, the effluent
TSS value highly fluctuated above 250 mg/L as the HRT variations became faster
for each unit. This result caused by the utilization time of microorganisms became
lesser. The high TSS content in POME is attributed to the presence of fine fruit
fibers that pass through the process and become flow to the wastewater as
suspended solids (Wahyuni 2017). Moreover, the CODs value of POME in the
influent and effluent of the ACSt reactor was compared in Figure 3.5 with the
standard value of 350 mg/L from Indonesian Ministry of Environment Regulation
No. 5/2014. The graph reveals that only the first and second HRT variations were
able to effectively degrade the CODs below the standard value of 350 mg/L. The
five other HRT variations fluctuated above the standard criteria of 350 mg/L CODs.

Figure 3.4 The TSS data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor

Figure 3.5 The CODs data of influent and effluent of ACSt reactor
 19

Based on the comparison of the measured pH, TSS, and CODs value with the
effluent standard, the first variation with the HRT of 8, 0.67, and 0.25 days for
UASB, IFAS, and Stabilization unit, respectively, proves to be the most successful
in achieving all the standard criteria for POME treatment. This result was attributed
to the longest HRT duration from the variations of this research. The low HRT
resulted in limited contact time between the biomass and the substrate, reducing the
opportunity for substrate degradation. The result was connected with the research
from Rekoyoso et al. (2014), which stated that the prolonged duration of HRT
results in an increased contact time between microorganisms and the substrate.
Consequently, substrate utilization time is extended and gives a greater removal
efficiency.
However, even after proving to be the most successful variation in meeting
all the standard criteria for POME treatment, the first variation of ACSt was not the
best in the removal efficiency for any parameter, as presented in Table 3.2. The best
average removal of TDS and ammonia parameters were the third variation, with
88.50% TDS removal and 99.89% ammonia removal. Then, the best average
removal of the TSS parameter was the second variation of 99.67% TSS removal.
Lastly, 99.88% of COD’s average removal was obtained from the fifth HRT
variation. This result is due to the fluctuation of Influent and effluent of POME in
the ACSt reactor, which caused the average removal for each HRT variation to
become not representative. By then, the average removal efficiency data of the
ACSt reactor cannot be used before the data is smoothed or more data sets are
obtained.
Table 3.2 Effluent measurement and average removal of the ACSt reactor
Varia- Effluent Range Average Removal (%)
tion pH Temp (oC) TDS TSS COD Ammonia OG TN
1 7.16-8.21 22.8-31.1 69.39 99.38 99.62 83.68
2 5.74-8.35 25.9-30.8 65.04 99.67 99.81 78.62
3 5.23-8.05 26.6-30.6 88.50 99.53 99.26 99.89
4 4.83-7.19 26.6-31.4 78.06 97.19 99.72 33.50 99.74 96.73
5 5.09-7.88 22.9-31.9 69.78 96.86 99.88 77.17
6 7.16-8.28 24.5-32.4 41.83 99.34 95.73 99.78
7 7.93-9.18 25.7-29.7 26.63 98.93 94.96 93.29

Appendix 2 summarizes overall measurement data for all variations of the

ACSt reactor, derived from the complete laboratory measurements detailed in
Appendix 3. Table 3.2 presented the temperature value between 20.1-33.9 oC due
to the operating condition at the ambient temperature in Dramaga, Bogor,
Indonesia. Based on the research of (Schiraldi and Rosa 2015), the 20-45 oC
temperatures are suitable for mesophilic microorganism such as the kingdom of
Archaea, Eukarya, and Bacteria to grow in the water environment. Appendix 2
showed the 4217 mg/L OG value of raw POME, 169 times higher than the
allowable effluent standard of 25 mg/L by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment
Regulation No. 5/2014. This finding aligns with the study by Harmawan (2022),
which indicates that the characteristics of OG in the POME were relatively high,
ranging from 190-14720 mg/L, thus categorizing it as a highly significant
environmental pollutant. However, after undergoing treatment in the ACSt reactor,
20

the OG value significantly decreases by 99.74% and complies with the standards,
reaching a value of 10.99 mg/L. At the same time, the TN value was 67.5 mg/L,
slightly above the allowable standard of 50 mg/L by the Indonesian Ministry of
Environment Regulation No. 5/2014. This TN value then became 2.21 mg/L after
being processed in the ACSt reactor with the removal of 96.73%. The total nitrogen
represented the total amount of nitrogen in the water and not in the microorganisms,
which include nitrate, ammonia, free amino acids, and other macromolecules of
dissolved organic nitrogen (Broch 2015).
3.4 The UASB Unit Performance Evaluation
As the first unit of the ACSt reactor, the UASB unit plays a crucial role in
significantly degrading high-strength pollutants present in the POME. In order to
assess the degradation efficiency of the UASB on 8, 4, and 2 days HRT variations,
the POME treatment had measured for the 40th until 70th days of the experiment
with ten days each for every HRT variation. The measurement results for the
influent and effluent of the UASB for pH parameter in Figure 3.6 seems to have
insignificant change with the acidic range of pH 3.44 – 4.93 due to the uncontrolled
pH conditioning. These pH values do not achieve the effluent pH standard of pH 6-
9 for POME by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 5/2014.
Furthermore, the trend of pH is not significantly different from each HRT variation,
which explains that HRT change in UASB did not influence the pH change in the
treatment process of POME.
As a consequence of the acidic pH conditions, methane gas production was
not measured in this research, as methanogenic bacteria are highly sensitive to pH
changes and require an optimum pH range of 6.5-7.5 for their activity (Ikbal and
Nugroho 2006). Thus, it can be assumed that the reactor's bacteria are
predominantly acid-forming rather than methane-producing bacteria, as the former
has a wider pH tolerance range compared to the latter. With the presence of acid-
forming bacteria, acidogenesis reactions occur within the UASB unit. This
acidogenesis reaction is characterized by the high acidity in the reactor, as indicated
by the pH data (Rambe 2016).

Figure 3.6 The pH and ammonia measurement data of UASB Unit

 21

Ammonia concentrations of both influent and effluent of the UASB unit were
also shown in Figure 3.6, with the range of 5.75-80.56 mg/L. Based on the graphic,
the UASB’s effluent ammonia value changed with the HRT variations in the
reactor. In this case, the HRT of two days has the lowest overall ammonia value,
while the HRT of four days has the highest value. The nonlinear correlation between
effluent ammonia in UASB and HRT changes resulted from ammonia fluctuation
in POME. The concentration of ammonia in wastewater can influence the ability of
microorganisms to degrade organic matter (Indradewi et al. 2015). Ammonia
concentrations ranging from 50-200 mg/l are supportive to microorganisms,
concentrations of 200-1000 mg/l do not have an impact on microorganisms,
concentrations of 1500-3000 mg/l act as inhibitors or impair the performance of
microorganisms at specific pH levels, and concentrations exceeding 3000 mg/L are
toxic to microorganisms (Rajagopal et al. 2013). In this study’s case of the UASB
unit, the range of ammonia concentrations observed 5.75-80.56 mg/L falls within
the supportive range for the microorganisms’ activity.

Figure 3.7 The TDS and temperature measurement data of UASB Unit

Figure 3.8 The TSS measurement data of UASB Unit

22

Figure 3.7 presented the temperature value ranging from 20.1 to 33.4 oC and
the TDS value ranging from 131 to 2490 ppm. The measurement result for the
influent and effluent of the UASB for temperature parameter indicate insignificant
changes, which can be attributed to the ambient atmospheric conditions. Anaerobic
treatment under mesophilic microorganism conditions can be effectively conducted
at ambient temperatures without needing external heat input in tropical regions
where temperatures are relatively stable and range from 28 to 33 ℃, like Indonesia
(Ikbal and Nugroho 2006).
The TSS value from influent and effluent of the UASB exhibit a significant
reduction, decreasing from 1800-98200 mg/L to 143-6600 mg/L, as shown in
Figure 3.8. This substantial degradation can be attributed to the upflow concept of
UASB that settles most of POME’s suspended solid. Consequently, the sludge bed
increases within the UASB unit (Utami et al. 2016). Regarding the CODs value in
Figure 3.9, a significant removal was observed from the range of 15592-39075
mg/L to 1553-24688 mg/L. However, both TSS and CODs parameters from
UASB’s influent and effluent have not achieved the standard value of POME from
the Indonesian Ministry of Environment Regulation No. 5/2014, which are 250
mg/L for TSS and 350 mg/L for CODs.

Figure 3.9 The CODs measurement data of UASB Unit

Table 3.3 The CODs and TSS removal efficiency

Average Removal Effluent Standard Effluent
(%) Anova Concentration (mg/L) Value (mg/L)
HRT (d) Day
Variance TSS
CODs TSS CODs TSS CODs
8 41-50 52 88 362.97 6375-24688 200-5400
4 51-60 35 82 340.07 6671-23625 800-4600 350 250
2 61-70 68 93 161.90 1553-10463 143-6600

Table 3.3 provides the removal efficiencies of CODs and TSS, indicating that
the two days HRT variation demonstrates the highest removal efficiency, with 68%
for CODs and 93% for TSS in POME. Additionally, the two days HRT has the
smallest variance (161.9) compared to the other HRT values. However, it is
 23

important to note that the CODs and TSS values from the UASB unit still need to
achieve the effluent standard regulation in Indonesia. Further processing within the
IFAS, sedimentation, and stabilization units on the ACSt reactor, as described in
the previous subsection, aims to further treat the effluent from UASB to comply
with the standard value of POME from the Indonesian Ministry of Environment
Regulation No. 5/2014 before being released into the environment.
3.5 The Effluent Concentration Estimation Modeling
The estimation of effluent concentrations in the UASB unit under unsteady
state conditions was performed using the Monod Model and the ANN. The graphic
from Figure 3.10 and the table from Appendix 8 compared these estimation models
with laboratory experiment data, revealing a fluctuating result of measurement and
model. However, the experiment data is closer to the ANN model estimation than
the Monod Model. This result can be attributed to the capability of ANN to predict
complex & non-linear relationships and create a generalized structure for all
datasets, unlike conventional models such as the Monod Model (Elnekave et al.
2012). Additionally, the Monod Model predicts effluent concentration without
considering the presence of inhibitors, resulting in a highly simplified estimation.
Statistical analysis had to be conducted to validate this hypothesis.

Figure 3.10 The comparison of experiment data, Monod Model, and ANN

Statistical analysis of Anova, T-Test, and MAPE was conducted to validate

the estimation of each model. Anova analysis for Monod Model and ANN
generated the F value of F (0.0212) < Fcrit (4.0069) for the Monod Model and F
(0.0004) < Fcrit (4.0069) for ANN. Moreover, the t-Test for the Monod Model
yielded the result of T stat (0.158) < Tcritical (1.699). The same result is also given
for the t-Test value of T stat (0.069) < Tcritical (1.699) for ANN. Based on the F
and T value, Monod Model and ANN estimation were not significantly different
from the experiment data, indicating their compatibility with the UASB unit’s
effluent estimation.
However, the Monod Model and ANN achieved 48% and 17% error values
on the statistical analysis from the MAPE test. Based on the interpretation of MAPE
24

value from Lewis (1982) in Table 3.4, the Monod Model is reasonable to be used
for effluent estimation in the UASB unit. Nevertheless, the MAPE value from the
ANN model appears to be more promising for effluent estimation in UASB unit
due to the well accuracy level. Thus, the results of ANN effluent estimation on the
UASB unit provide sufficiently precise results with laboratory experiment results.
In future field-scale processing of UASB on POME, the trained ANN model from
this research could be applied to predict substrate concentrations in the effluent.
While ANN has demonstrated accurate estimations, the Monod Model remains
necessary to obtain estimations of biokinetic coefficients.
Table 3.4 The interpretation of MAPE value
MAPE Value (%) Interpretation
<10 Highly accurate
10-20 Moderate
20-50 Reasonable
>50 Inaccurate

3.6 Biokinetic Coefficient Parameter on The Monod Model

In addition to estimating effluent concentration, Monod Model is also utilized
to determine the biokinetic parameters of the UASB unit. These parameters include
the maximum specific growth rate or the increasing concentrations rate limit
(𝜇max), the Monod saturation constant or the substrate effluent concentration at half
of the maximum rate (𝐾s ), the constant of death rate (𝐾e ), the yield coefficient (𝑌),
the hydrolysis rate coefficient (𝐾h ), and the hydrolyzed substrate transport rate
coefficient (𝑘). The obtained parameter from The monod Model is displayed in
Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 The biokinetic parameter of Monod Model in UASB unit
Variable Unit Value
𝑲𝐞 d -1
0.1593
𝝁𝐦𝐚𝐱 d-1 1.887
𝑲𝐬 mg CODs/L 3459
𝒀 mg TSS/mg CODs 0.98
𝑲𝐡 d-1 0.58
𝒌 d-1 0.0004

The 𝐾e value represents the microorganism’s endogenous decay, and the

𝜇max value represents the microorganism’s growth. These values indicate the
effectiveness of substrate degradation by the biomass in the UASB unit. The 𝐾e
value of 0.1593 d-1 falls within the range of 0.002 to 0.233 d-1 from the 𝐾e reference
value presented in Table 3.6. However, the 𝜇max value of 1.887 d-1 was slightly
above the range of 0.103 to 1.861 d-1 from the 𝜇max reference in Table 3.6. The
𝜇max value was relatively similar to the 𝜇max value of 1.861 d-1 from the research
of Ibrahim et al. (2021).
Furthermore, the 𝐾s value represents the substrate concentration required for
efficient degradation by biomass. The 𝐾s value was obtained within the range of
203 until 8168 mg CODs/L from the 𝐾s reference value in Table 3.6. The 𝐾s value
of 3459 d-1 was also exactly similar to the research of Ibrahim et al. (2021) which
 25

used the UASB unit as treatment process for the POME, similar to this research.
The 𝑌 value represents the capability of the microorganism to synthesize new cells
for biomass growth. The 𝑌 value of 0.98 mg TSS/mg CODs was also inside the
range of 0.052 until 3.906 mg TSS/mg CODs from Table 3.6.
The 𝐾h value of 0.58 d-1 was also inside the range of 0.21-0.66 d-1 from the
research of Nakhla et al. (2006). This value represented substrate transports as the
intracellular and extracellular hydrolysis process accumulated inside the
microorganism, which also acted as rate-limiting phase during the anaerobic
biodegradation of particulate matter (Kurniawan et al. 2021). Lastly, the 𝑘 value of
0.0004 d-1 represents a very small value of the rate of substrate transport inside the
biomass. Overall, the biokinetic parameters obtained from the Monod Model
provide valuable information about the efficiency of substrate degradation and
microbial growth within the UASB unit. These parameters are crucial for
understanding and optimizing the performance of the reactor in treating POME.
Table 3.6 The reference biokinetic parameter
Unit Wastewater 𝑲𝐬 𝝁𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝑲𝐞 𝒀 Ref.
UASB POME 3459 1.861 0.233 3.906 (Ibrahim et al. 2021)
UASFF POME 6000 0.568 0.002 0.786
(Akhbari et al. 2020)
UASB COD 3180 0.840 0.009 0.125
UASFF POME 982 0.207 - 0.174 (Zinatizadeh et al. 2006)
UASB Syntetic 560 0.213 0.093 0.780 (Sponza and Uluköy 2008)
UASB Textile 4000 0.105 0.006 0.125 (Isik and Sponza 2005)
CD POME 270 0.117 0.020 0.052 (Yeoh 1986)
IAAB POME 8168 0.103 0.038 0.196 (Chan et al. 2017)
ABSR POME 203 0.524 0.024 0.990 (Wong et al. 2009)
MABR POME 313 0.304 - - (Faisal et al. 2001)
Min 203 0.103 0.002 0.0520
Max 8168 1.861 0.233 3.9060

Indeed, the biokinetic parameters of the UASB unit influence the effluent
estimation using Monod Model. Sensitivity analysis is performed to evaluate the
influence of each biokinetic parameter on the effluent estimation of the UASB unit.
The largest significant influence of each biokinetic parameter was from the 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥
with 29,55%. Followed by the 𝐾s , 𝑘, 𝐾h , 𝑌, and 𝐾e with the value of 19.38%,
16.39%, 16.39%, 11.04%, and 7.26% (Figure 3.11). The largest significance by
𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 was caused by the change of microorganisms value as the main processing
component of POME in the UASB. This result was aligned with the Figure 3.12
(b), which presented a largest change in effluent estimation (San) for up to 1262
mg/L, due to the change of 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 value into 1.698 and 2.076 d-1 as the ± 10% values
of selected 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 (1.887 d-1). Moreover, the second largest significance was due to
the 𝐾s parameter. It obtained effluent estimation (San) change for up to 1007 mg/L
by the change of 𝐾s value into 3113 and 3805 mg CODs/L as the ± 10% values of
selected 𝐾s (1.887 mg CODs/L) (Figure 3.12 (c)).
In contrast, the smallest significance of the Ke parameter indicates that
microorganism decay does not substantially impact the effluent estimation in the
same magnitude as the microbial maximum growth rate. This result was also
aligned with the Figure 3.12 (a), which presented a smallest change in San to the
26

maximum value of 570 mg/L, due to the change of Ke value into 0.1434 and 0.1752
d-1 as the ±10% values of Ke (0.1593 d-1). These findings align with the study
conducted by Mardani et al. (2011), which revealed that the parameter 𝜇max is more
sensitive to effluent concentration compared to 𝐾s and 𝐾e . This sensitivity analysis
highlights the importance of accurately determining and estimating the biokinetic
parameters, particularly the 𝜇max and 𝐾s values, as they have the greatest influence
on the effluent estimation of the UASB unit. Proper calibration and optimization of
these parameters can enhance the accuracy and reliability of the Monod Model for
predicting effluent concentrations in the UASB unit treating POME.

Figure 3.11 Significance of biokinetic parameter to 𝑆an estimation

The biokinetic parameters of the Monod Model have various effects on the
effluent estimation in UASB. The graphics in Figure 3.12 display the influence of
each biokinetic parameter on the estimation of 𝑆an for HRT variations from 0,5 -
15 days. Based on the graph, the 𝑆an estimation value tends to decrease during the
longer HRT days of the UASB unit. However, beyond an HRT of more than two
days, the slope of the 𝑆an estimation in the graphic becomes flatter. This result
aligns with the previous finding that two days HRT was the most efficient for
POME degradation in the UASB unit. The longest HRT duration is not feasible for
real-scale wastewater treatment due to the high volume of wastewater that needs to
be treated. Thus, the HRT of two days is the most efficient HRT to degrade POME
with the most efficient time consideration.
Furthermore, Figure 3.12 also displays the effect of biokinetic value on the
effluent estimation. The value of 𝐾e and 𝜇max from Figure 3.12 (a) and Figure 3.12
(b) are inversely related. A higher 𝐾e value leads to higher effluent estimation,
whereas a higher 𝜇max value results in lower effluent estimation. Consequently, the
Ke value represents the endogenous decay of microorganisms, while the 𝜇max value
represents their growth. Similarly, the value of 𝜇max and 𝐾s from Figure 3.12 (b)
and Figure 3.12 (c) also has an inverse correlation. The higher the 𝐾s is, the lower
the 𝜇max will be. Moreover, the biological treatment efficiency will decrease and
 27

vice versa (Mousavian et al. 2019). The 𝑌 from Figure 3.12 (d) estimates the total
of sludge produced inside the unit (Enitan and Adeyemo 2014). Therefore, the
bigger 𝑌 value results in less efficiency in the treatment. The value of 𝐾h and 𝑘
from Figure 3.12 (e) and Figure 3.12 (f) also has an inverse relation. When the 𝐾h
value is high, the substrate removal efficiency is also high. However, when the 𝑘
value is high, the substrate processing efficiency becomes low because the 𝐾h
coefficient represents the hydrolysis rate coefficient, which acts as the limiting rate
for anaerobic biodegradation processes. In contrast, the 𝑘 coefficient represents the
transport rate coefficient of substrate hydrolysis (Ebner et al. 2016).

Figure 3.12 Influence of biokinetic parameter on 𝑆an estimation

(a) 𝐾e (b) 𝜇max (c) 𝐾s (d) 𝑌 (e) 𝐾h (f) 𝑘

Based on the research, the combination of anaerobic and aerobic processes in

the ACSt reactor shows promising results in treating POME to achieve quality
28

standards and safely discharge the POME’s effluent into the environment. Based
on this research, the ACSt reactor can be scaled up and utilized for on-field POME
treatment. However, further research is needed to adapt and optimize the
application of this technology on a larger field scale. Moreover, these findings
provide valuable insights for the design and operation of ACSt reactor in general
and the UASB Unit in particular for treating POME, potentially leading to improved
wastewater treatment efficiency in the industry. The research also introduces ANN
as a tool for estimating effluent from the UASB unit. Manual performance
measurement and estimation efforts can be reduced significantly by utilizing ANN.
The result can lead to more efficient monitoring and control of the UASB unit,
saving labor and resources. Estimations for biokinetic parameters of the UASB unit
under unsteady-state conditions were also obtained. These parameters, such as 𝐾e ,
𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾s , 𝑌, 𝐾h , and 𝑘, are crucial for understanding the microbial processes
involved in treating POME. Understanding the effects of these parameters allows
for better optimization and control of the UASB system to achieve desired treatment
outcomes for POME. In summary, this research contributes to advancing
sustainable wastewater treatment practices in the Palm Mill Oil industry and
provides practical solutions to address the challenges of treating high-contaminant
effluents. The findings can have real-world applications in improving treatment
efficiency, reducing manual efforts, and promoting environmentally friendly
practices in the industry.
 29

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the ACSt reactor has demonstrated its ability to significantly

degrade pollutants and achieve the effluent standards, particularly in the first
variation with an HRT of 8, 0.67, and 0.25 days for the UASB, IFAS, and
Stabilization units, respectively. The HRT value of 2 days in the UASB unit has
been identified as the best operational parameter. The UASB unit was capable of
degrading the CODs value of 68% and the TSS value of 93% on this HRT.
Effluent concentration estimation in the UASB unit using the Monod Model
and ANN under unsteady-state conditions indicates that ANN provides the most
suitable estimation for 𝑆an in UASB unit, with the MAPE value of 17%. However,
the Monod Model was used to predict the biokinetic coefficient under the unsteady
state operational of the UASB. The value of 𝐾e , 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾s , 𝑌, 𝐾h , and 𝑘 are 0.1593
d-1, 1.887 d-1, 3459 mg CODs/L, 0.98 mg TSS/mgCODs, 0.58 d-1, 0.0004 d-1. Based
on the sensitivity analysis, the most influence from biokinetic parameters to 𝑆an are
from the 𝜇max with 29.55%. Followed by the 𝐾s , 𝑘, 𝐾ℎ , 𝑌, and 𝐾e with the value of
19.38%, 16.39%, 16.39%, 11.04%, and 7.26%, respectively.
The models can be optimized by excluding data with high variance. The
trendline of the estimated effluent value for each HRT variations over a ten days is
inconclusive, indicating the need for additional datasets for each variation. In this
research, the Monod Model is employed as a simplified equation for effluent
estimation, neglecting the estimation of inhibitor factors. Further analysis is
required to incorporate inhibitor factors into the model estimation. Additionally,
exploring non-conventional models can enhance accuracy and capture the complex
relationships involved in POME treatment. Overall, further analysis and refinement
of the models are needed to improve their performance and ensure more reliable
predictions of effluent concentrations in the ACSt reactor.
30

REFERENCES

Ahmad AL, Sithamparam K, Zulkali MMD, Ismail S. 2017. Extraction of Residue

Oil from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) Using Organic Solvent. ASEAN J Sci
Technol Dev. 20(3&4):385–394. doi:10.29037/ajstd.363.
Akhbari A, Chuen OC, Zinatizadeh AA, Ibrahim S. 2020. Start-up study on
biohydrogen from Palm Oil Mill Effluent in a pilot-scale reactor. Clean - Soil,
Air, Water. 48(7–8):1–18. doi:10.1002/clen.202000192.
Amelia F. 2022. Hydraulic retention time effect of stabilization unit in treating
leachate using contact stabilization process. Bogor: IPB University. [diakses
2023 Jan 11]. http://repository.ipb.ac.id/handle/123456789/113879.
Amin Goli, Ahmad Shamiri, Susan Khosroyar, Amirreza Talaiekhozani, Reza
Sanaye, Kourosh Azizi. 2019. A review on different aerobic and anaerobic
treatment methods in dairy industry wastewater. J Environ Treat Tech.
7(1):113–141. [diakses 2022 Des 28].
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3984721.
Anijiofor SC, Azreen N, Jamil M, Jabbar S, Sakyat S, Gomes C. 2017. Aerobic and
anaerobic sewage biodegradable processes: the gap analysis. Int J Res Environ
Sci. 3(3):9–19. doi:10.20431/2454-9444.0303002.
Arif C. 2021. Aplikasi Kecerdasan Buatan dalam Bidang Pengelolaan Air dan
Lingkungan. Bogor: IPB Press.
Asadi M, McPhedran K. 2021. Estimation of greenhouse gas and odour emissions
from a cold region municipal biological nutrient removal wastewater treatment
plant. J Environ Manage. 281:111864.
doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2020.111864.
Bjerre AB, Olesen AB, Fernqvist T, Plöger A, Schmidt AS. 1996. Pretreatment of
wheat straw using combined wet oxidation and alkaline hydrolysis resulting
in convertible cellulose and hemicellulose. Biotechnol Bioeng. 49(5):568–577.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0290(19960305)49:5%3C568::AID-BIT10%3E3.0.CO;2-6.
Borja R, Banks CJ. 1994. Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent using an up-
flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biomass and Bioenergy. 6(5):381–389.
doi:10.1016/0961-9534(94)E0028-Q.
Bourget G. 2023. Statistical analysis of wastewater treatment plant data. SN Appl
Sci. 5(5). doi:10.1007/s42452-023-05357-0.
Broch C. 2015. Predator-prey dynamics in a rotifer-algal microcosm and the
emergence of defensive traits in the prey [Thesis]. University of OSlo.
Budiastuti H, Ramadhani LI, Abdulloh SH, Maharani AD, Melina M, Sudarman R.
2023. Seeding and Acclimatization for Aerobic Processing of Restaurant
Wastewater with Sequencing Batch Reactor. Fluida. 16(1):11–17.
doi:10.35313/FLUIDA.V16I1.4521.
Cárdenas-Medina KN, Fajardo-Ortiz MC, Schettino-Bermúdez BS, Meraz-
Rodríguez MA, Castilla-Hernández P. 2020. Acidogenesis/methanogenesis
from acid cheese whey in hybrid-UASB reactors. Rev Mex Ing Quim. 19:17–
27. doi:10.24275/rmiq/IA1420.
Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL. 2017. Performance and kinetic evaluation of an
integrated anaerobic–aerobic bioreactor in the treatment of palm oil mill
effluent. Environ Technol (United Kingdom). 38(8):1005–1021.
 31

doi:10.1080/09593330.2016.1217053.
Chan YJ, Tan WJR, How BS, Lee JJ, Lau VY. 2015. Fuzzy optimisation approach
on the treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) via up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket–hollow centered packed bed (UASB–HCPB) reactor. J Water
Process Eng. 5:112–117. doi:10.1016/J.JWPE.2015.01.005.
Chong S, Sen TK, Kayaalp A, Ang HM. 2012. The performance enhancements of
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge
treatment – A State-of-the-art review. Water Res. 46(11):3434–3470.
doi:10.1016/J.WATRES.2012.03.066.
Chung CY, Selvarajoo A, Sethu V, Koyande AK, Arputhan A, Lim ZC. 2018.
Treatment of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) by coagulation flocculation
process using peanut–okra and wheat germ–okra. Clean Technol Environ
Policy. 20(9):1951–1970. doi:10.1007/S10098-018-1619-Y/METRICS.
Ebner JH, Labatut RA, Lodge JS, Williamson AA, Trabold TA. 2016. Anaerobic
co-digestion of commercial food waste and dairy manure: Characterizing
biochemical parameters and synergistic effects. Waste Manag. 52:286–294.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.046.
Elmitwalli TA. 2000. Anaerobic Treatment of Domestic Sewage at Low
Temperature. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Elnekave M, Celik SO, Tatlier M, Tufekci N. 2012. Artificial neural network
predictions of up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor performance
in the treatment of citrus juice wastewater. Polish J Environ Stud. 21(1):49–
56.
Enitan AM, Adeyemo J. 2014. Estimation of bio-kinetic coefficients for treatment
of brewery wastewater. Int J Environ Ecol Eng. 8(6):527–531.
Faekah IN, Fatihah S, Mohamed ZS. 2020. Kinetic evaluation of a partially packed
upflow anaerobic fixed film reactor treating low-strength synthetic rubber
wastewater. Heliyon. 6(3):e03594. doi:10.1016/J.HELIYON.2020.E03594.
Fairuzah N, Asnawi M. 2012. Biological nutrient removal of Palm Oil Mill Effluent
(POME) Hybrid Sequencing Batch Reactor (H-SBR). Johor Bahru: Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
Faisal M, Unno, Hajime. 2001. Kinetic analysis of palm oil mill wastewater
treatment by a modified anaerobic baffled reactor. Biochem Eng J. 9:25–31.
Fard MB, Mirbagheri SA, Pendashteh A, Alavi J. 2020. Estimation of effluent
parameters of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment with artificial neural
network and B-spline quasi interpolation. Int J Environ Res. 14(5):527–539.
doi:10.1007/S41742-020-00274-1/METRICS.
Gutiérrez S, Hernández A, Viñas M. 1999. Mechanism of degradation of wool wax
in the anaerobic treatment of woolscouring wastewater. Water Sci Technol.
40(8):17–23. doi:10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00604-6.
Harmawan T. 2022. Analisis Kandungan Minyak dan Lemak pada Limbah Outlet
Pabrik Kelapa Sawit di Aceh Tamiang. Quim J Kim Sains dan Terap. 4(1):15–
19. doi:10.33059/jq.v4i1.4318.
Hickey RF, Wu WM, Veiga MC, Jones R. 1991. Start-up, operation, monitoring
and control of high-rate anaerobic treatment systems. Water Sci Technol
Technol. 24:207–255.
Ibrahim MM, Jemaat Z, Nour AH. 2021. Performance and kinetic evaluation of
Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) digestion in a continuous high rate Up-Flow
32

Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) bioreactor. Mater Sci Forum. 1025:141–

149.
Ikbal I, Nugroho R. 2006. Pengolahan Sludge Dengan Proses Biologi Anaerobik. J
Tek Lingkung. 7(1):80–89.
Indradewi N, Purnobasuki H, Prasetyo K. E, Zulfikar P. A, Purnamasari I, Rosita
M. 2015. Kajian Hubungan Konsentrasi Ammonia Dan Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) Dalam Pengolahan Air Limbah Secara Anaerob. J Purifikasi.
15(2):108–113. doi:10.12962/j25983806.v15.i2.30.
Irvine RL, Wilderer PA, Flemming HC. 1997. Controlled unsteady state processes
and technologies - An overview. Water Sci Technol. 35(1):1–10.
doi:10.1016/S0273-1223(96)00872-4.
Isik M, Sponza D. 2005. Substrate removal kinetics in an upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor decolorising simulated textile wastewater. Process Biochem.
40:1189–1198.
Jaouad Y, Villain-Gambier M, Mandi L, Marrot B, Ouazzani N. 2020. Comparison
of aerobic processes for olive mill wastewater treatment. Water Sci Technol.
81(9):1914–1926. doi:10.2166/WST.2020.247.
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup. 2014. Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup
Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 tentang Baku Mutu Air Limbah.
Jakarta: KemenLH.
Kullavanijaya P, Thongduang P, Boonapatcharoen N, Sillberg CV. 2022. The
methanogenic archaea characteristics and efficacy of aerobic waste sludge in
the start-up of anaerobic hybrid reactors treating cassava wastewater. Environ
Eng Res. 27(4):1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2021.162.
Kurniawan A, Amelia F, Wirayudhatama A, Prawira SY. 2021. Model Estimasi
Biokinetika Untuk Proses Post-Denitrifikasi Air Limbah Domestik Pada Unit
Anaerobic Baffled Reactor. J Sumber Daya Air. 17(2):69–82.
doi:10.32679/jsda.v17i2.701.
Le TH, Thakur D, Nguyen PKT. 2022. Modeling and optimization of direct urea-
hydrogen peroxide fuel cell using the integration of artificial neural network
and bio-inspired algorithms. J Electroanal Chem. 922:116783.
doi:10.1016/J.JELECHEM.2022.116783.
Lettinga G, Hulshoff Pol L. 1991. UASB-Process design for various types of
wastewates. Water Sci Technol. 24:87–107.
Lewis CD. 1982. Industrial and Business Forecasting Methods. London:
Butterworths.
Liao K, Ma S, Liu C, Hu H, Wang J, Wu B, Ren H. 2022. High concentrations of
dissolved organic nitrogen and N-nitrosodimethylamine precursors in effluent
from biological nutrient removal process with low dissolved oxygen
conditions. Water Res. 216:118336. doi:10.1016/J.WATRES.2022.118336.
López-Gutiérrez I, Montiel-Corona V, Calderón-Soto LF, Palomo-Briones R,
Méndez-Acosta HO, Razo-Flores E, Ontiveros-Valencia A, Alatriste-
Mondragón F. 2021. Evaluation of the continuous methane production from
an enzymatic agave bagasse hydrolysate in suspended (CSTR) and granular
biomass systems (UASB). Fuel. 304:1–10. doi:10.1016/J.FUEL.2021.121406.
Mahmod SS, Azahar AM, Tan JP, Jahim JM, Abdul PM, Mastar MS, Anuar N,
Mohammed Yunus MF, Asis AJ, Wu SY. 2019. Operation performance of up-
flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) bioreactor for biohydrogen production
 33

by self-granulated sludge using pre-treated palm oil mill effluent (POME) as

carbon source. Renew Energy. 134:1262–1272.
doi:10.1016/J.RENENE.2018.09.062.
Mainardis M, Buttazzoni M, Goi D. 2020. Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) technology for energy recovery: a review on state-of-the-art and
recent technological advances. Bioengineering. 7(2):1–29.
doi:10.3390/BIOENGINEERING7020043.
Mamińska RT. 2017. Limits and perspectives of pulp and paper industry
wastewater treatment – A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 78:764–772.
doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2017.05.021.
Mardani S, Mirbagheri A, Amin MM, Ghasemian M. 2011. Determination of
Biokinetic Coefficients for. Iran J Environ Heal Sci Eng. 8(1):25–34.
Maulani A, Andrio D, Evelyn. 2019. Aklimatisasi Bakteri Rumen Sapi pada
Pengolahan Palm Oil Mill Effluent. JOM FTEKNIK. 6(1):1–5.
Maziya FB, Hendriarianti E, Karnaningroem N. 2016. Studi Optimasi IPAL
Komunal Kota Malang dengan Pendekatan Model Stella. J Purifikasi.
16(1):11–21.
Monod J. 1949. The growth of bacterial cultures. Annu Rev Microbiol. 3(1):371–
394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103.
Mousavian S, Seyedsalehi M, Paladino O, Sharifi P, Kyzas GZ, Dionisi D,
Takdastan A. 2019. Determining biokinetic coefficients for the upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating sugarcane wastewater in hot climate
conditions. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 16(5):2231–2238. doi:10.1007/s13762-
017-1631-5.
Nakhla G, Liu V, Bassi A. 2006. Kinetic modeling of aerobic biodegradation of
high oil and grease rendering wastewater. Bioresour Technol. 97(1):131–139.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.02.003.
Nam HU, Lee TH, Kim YO, Park SH, Park TJ. 2004. The characteristics of
microbial ecosystem response with the changes of hydrolic retention time on
an aerobic fixed-biofilm biological nutrient removal system. Korean J Chem
Eng. 21(3):635–639. doi:10.1007/BF02705498/METRICS.
Nasir N, Daud Z, Awang H, Adila N, Aziz A, Ahmad B, Ridzuan MB, Hijab
Abubakar M, Tajarudin HA. 2018. Utilization of Empty Fruit Bunch as
Potential Adsorbent for Ammonia Nitrogen Removal in Natural Rubber
Wastewater. Int J Integr Eng. 10(8):27–32. doi:10.30880/ijie.2018.10.08.009.
Neba FA, Tornyeviadzi HM, Østerhus SW, Seidu R. 2020. Self-optimizing
attainable regions of the anaerobic treatment process: Modeling performance
targets under kinetic uncertainty. Water Res. 171:1–16.
doi:10.1016/J.WATRES.2019.115377.
Novak JT, Banjade S, Murthy SN. 2011. Combined anaerobic and aerobic digestion
for increased solids reduction and nitrogen removal. Water Res. 45(2):618–
624. doi:10.1016/J.WATRES.2010.08.014.
Perendeci NA, Tanyolaç A, Serdar Çelebi S. 2012. A simplified kinetic model for
a full scale anaerobic wastewater treatment plant of a sugar factory under
unsteady conditions. Desalin Water Treat. 40(1):118–128.
doi:10.1080/19443994.2012.671155.
Poh PE, Chong MF. 2014. Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-hollow centered
packed bed (UASB-HCPB) reactor for thermophilic palm oil mill effluent
34

(POME) treatment. Biomass and Bioenergy. 67:231–242.

doi:10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2014.05.007.
Putri KFC, Faradiba AU, Ali M. 2021. Pengolahan Air Limbah Laundry
Menggunakan Proses Bioreaktor Down-Flow Hanging Sponge. Di dalam:
Rosariawari F, Sitogasa PSA, Putro RKH, Purnomo IYS, editor.
Environmental Science and Engineering Conference. Volume ke-2. Surabaya:
University of Pembangunan Nasional Veteran East Java. hlm 110–116.
http://esec.upnvjt.com/index.php/prosiding/article/view/80%0Ahttp://esec.up
nvjt.com/index.php/prosiding/article/download/80/90.
Qasim SR, Zhu G. 2018. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: Theory and Design
Examples (Volume 1: Principles and Basic Treatment). Dallas (TX): CRC
Press.
Rahadi B, Wirosoedarmo R, Harera A. 2018. Sistem anaerobik-aerobik pada
pengolahan limbah industri tahu untuk menurunkan kadar BOD5, COD, dan
TSS. J Sumberd Alam dan Lingkung. 5(1):17–26.
doi:10.21776/UB.JSAL.2018.005.01.3.
Rajagopal R, Choudhury MR, Anwar N, Goyette B, Rahaman MS. 2019. Influence
of Pre-Hydrolysis on Sewage Treatment in an Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge
BLANKET (UASB) Reactor: A Review. Water . 11(2):399.
doi:10.3390/W11020372.
Rajagopal R, Massé DI, Singh G. 2013. A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic
digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour Technol. 143:632–641.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.030.
Rekoyoso B, Syafrudin, Sudarno. 2014. Pengaruh Hydraulic Retention Time
(HRT) dan konsentrasi influen terhadap penyisihan parameter BOD dan COD
pada pengolahan limbah domestik greywater artificial menggunakan reaktor
UASB. J Tek Lingkung. 3(1):1–7.
Rizaty MA. 2022 Jan 31. Luas Perkebunan Minyak Kelapa Sawit Nasional Capai
15,08 Juta Ha pada 2021. [diakses 2022 Des 28].
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2022/01/31/luas-perkebunan-
minyak-kelapa-sawit-nasional-capai-1508-juta-ha-pada-2021.
Royani S, Fitriana AS, Enarga ABP, Bagaskara HZ. 2021. Kajian COD dan BOD
dalam air di lingkungan Tempat Pemrosesan Akhir (TPA) sampah Kaliori
Kabupaten Banyumas. J Sains &Teknologi Lingkung. 13(1):40–49.
doi:10.20885/jstl.vol13.iss1.art4.
Samudro G, Mangkoedihardjo S. 2010. Review on BOD, COD, and BOD/COD
ratio : a triangle zone for toxic, biodegradable and stable levels. Int J Acad Res.
2(4):235–239.
Santos JMM, Rieger L, Lanham AB, Carvalheira M, Reis MAM, Oehmen A. 2020.
A novel metabolic-ASM model for full-scale biological nutrient removal
systems. Water Res. 171:115373. doi:10.1016/J.WATRES.2019.115373.
Schiraldi C, Rosa M De. 2015. Encyclopedia of Membranes. Berlin.
Semarta IWWA, Hartati E, Salafudin. 2020. Proses seeding dan aklimatisasi pada
anaerobic trickling reactor. J Inst Teknol Nas. 8(1):1–12.
SNI] Standar Nasional Indonesia 06-6989.10-2004 in Gravimetric Measurement
Method for Oil and Grease. 2004.
SNI] Standar Nasional Indonesia 06-6989.26-2005 in Gravimetric Measurement
Method for Total Solids Content. 2005.
 35

SNI] Standar Nasional Indonesia 06-6989.30-2005 in Phenate Spectrophotometric

Measurements for Ammonia. 2005.
SNI] Standar Nasional Indonesia 06-6989.52:2005 in Organic Nitrogen
Measurements with Macro Kjeldahl and Titration Method. 2005.
SNI] Standar Nasional Indonesia 6989.2:2009 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Measurements with Closed Reflux Spectrophotometrically. 2009.
Sponza D, Uluköy A. 2008. Kinetic of carbonaceous substrate in an upflow
anaerobic sludge sludge blanket (UASB) reactor treating 2,4 dichlorophenol
(2,4 DCP). J Env Manag. 86:121–131.
Suhermi N, Suhartono S, Dana IMGM, Prastyo DD. 2018. Pemilihan arsitektur
terbaik pada Model Deep Learning melalui pendekatan desain eksperimen
untuk peramalan deret waktu nonlinier. Stat J Theor Stat Its Appl. 18(2):153–
159. doi:10.29313/jstat.v18i2.4545.
Supriyanto S, Sunardi S, Riadi I. 2022. Pengaruh nilai hidden layer dan learning
rate terhadap kecepatan pelatihan Jaringan Saraf Tiruan Backpropagation.
JIKO (Jurnal Inform dan Komputer). 6(1):27. doi:10.26798/jiko.v6i1.508.
Suryawan IWK, Prajati G, Afifah AS, Apritama MR, Adicita Y. 2023. Continuous
piggery wastewater treatment with Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) by bio-
activator Effective Microorganisms (EM4). Indones J Urban Enviromental
Technol. 3(1):1–12.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/urbanenvirotech.v3i1.5095.
Syahrin A, Andrio D, Veronika N. 2016. Proses seeding dan aklimatisasi untuk
pengolahan anaerob limbah cair produksi minyak sawit. Jom F Tek. 3(2):1–5.
Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. 2013. Energy recovery from wastewaters with
high-rate anaerobic digesters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 19:704–741.
doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2012.11.056.
Trisakti B, Taufan Anantama M, Zusri AS, Lubis AH, Cahyani E. 2019. The effect
of recycle ratio on biogas production using continuous stirred tank reactor with
ultrafiltration membrane assistance at transition condition (45 C). J Tek Kim
USU. 8(1):37–41.
Utami I, Redjeki S, Astuti DH, Sani. 2016. Biogas production and removal COD -
BOD and TSS from wastewater industrial alcohol (vinasse) by modified
UASB bioreactor. MATEC Web Conf. 58.
doi:10.1051/matecconf/20165801005.
Wahyuni S. 2017. Formulasi Komposisi Membran Kitosan dan Optimasi
Pengadukan dalam Penurunan Kandungan Padatan Limbah Cair Kelapa
Sawit. Widyariset. 3(1).
Wen T-C, Cheng S-S, Lay J-J. 1994. A kinetic model of a recirculated upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket treating phenolic wastewater. Water Environ Res.
66(6):794–799. doi:10.2175/WER.66.6.5.
Wong YS, Kadir MOAB, Teng TT. 2009. Biological kinetics evaluation of
anaerobic stabilization pond treatment of palm oil mill effluent. Bioresour
Technol. 100(21):4969–4975. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.074.
Wongfaed N, Kongjan P, Prasertsan P, O-Thong S. 2020. Effect of oil and
derivative in palm oil mill effluent on the process imbalance of biogas
production. J Clean Prod. 247:119110.
doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.119110.
Yeoh B. 1986. A kinetic-based design for thermophilic anaeroobic treatment of a
36

high-strength agro industrial wasteowater. Env Technol. 7(509–518).

Zhou P, Su C, Li B, Qian Y. 2006. Treatment of high-strength pharmaceutical
wastewater and removal of antibiotics in anaerobic and aerobic biological
treatment processes. J Environ Eng. 132(1):129–136.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:1(129).
Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohamed AR, Najafpour GD, Hasnain Isa M, Nasrollahzadeh
H. 2006. Kinetic evaluation of palm oil mill effluent digestion in a high rate
up-flow anaerobic sludge fixed film bioreactor. Process Biochem. 41(5):1038–
1046. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2005.11.011.
Zulkifli A. 2017. Analisis kelayakan potensi pembangunan PLTBg POME di
wilayah perkebunan sawit. J PASTI. 10(2):192–207. [diakses 2023 Jan 5].
https://publikasi.mercubuana.ac.id/files/journals/3/articles/1588/submission/c
opyedit/1588-3562-1-CE.pdf.
 37

APPENDIX
38

Appendix 1 Seeding and acclimatization laboratory measurement data

Process t 𝑿𝐚𝐧 (mg TSS/L) 𝑺𝐚𝐧 (mg CODs/L) Feeding
Seeding (100% 1 4506 190
Glucose) 2 4872 144
3 5466 508 Yes
4 5352 366
6 3318 265
7 4683 947 Yes
8 4716 571
9 5352 544
10 6000 438
11 5853 378
12 5198 365
13 4353 271
14 2898 132
15 4485 567 Yes
16 4638 289
17 4579 144
18 4314 69
19 4587 517 Yes
20 3495 235
21 4428 235
22 2709 95
Acclimatization 23 2619 605 Yes
(75% Glucose & 24 5070 159
25% POME) 25 5676 70
26 2415 49
27 6138 580 Yes
28 3030 193
29 7518 67
Acclimatization 30 7239 1619 Yes
(50% Glucose & 31 4095 806
50% POME) 32 3648 417
33 4023 229
34 4852 96
35 5595 425 Yes
36 5319 325
39 4609 646 Yes
40 4876 453
Acclimatization 45 5129 520 Yes
(25% Glucose & 46 4353 504
75% POME) 47 3997 392
48 4485 265
49 4638 199
50 5872 150
51 6541 69
52 7145 100
53 8013 52
Acclimatization 55 6310 862 Yes
(100% POME) 56 4481 826
57 4039 625
58 4873 340
59 5067 266
 39

Appendix 2 Summary of measurement data of the ACSt reactor

Sampl. Variation
Standard
Point 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
pH
1st 3.13-4.28 3.04-5.47 3.93-4.9 3.07-4.41 3.44-4.63 4-4.93 3.79-4.63
2nd 2.27-5.7 3.19-5.59 4.22-7.14 3.05-6.3 3.63-4.34 3.87-4.41 3.56-4.52
3rd 6.89-7.91 5.74-8.19 4.78-8.09 4.2-7.73 4.26-7.78 6.18-8.49 7.44-9.09
6-9
4th 7.16-8.21 5.74-8.35 5.23-8.05 4.83-7.19 5.09-7.88 7.16-8.28 7.93-9.18
5th 7.19-8.6 6.17-8.32 4.78-8.2 3.82-7.32 5.36-7.89 6.48-8.5 8.26-9.21
6th 7.43-8.24 6.96-8.47 5.8-8.12 3.97-7.72 5.74-8.03 6.81-8.71 8.37-9.28
7th 1.26-4.5 3.39-5.08 4.09-5.97 3.08-5.6 3.89-4.71 3.83-4.59 4-4.74
Temperature (oC)
1st 23.7-29.8 25-31 25.9-30.3 24.2-33.9 24.2-32.6 24.9-31.6 26.6-30
2nd 24-30.2 24.7-31.1 26.4-30.5 27.5-33 24.7-33.4 20.1-32.6 24.3-31.4
3rd 23.5-30.7 26.3-30.1 26.4-30.7 24.2-32.2 25.7-32.2 24.7-32.8 26.8-30.6
4th 22.8-31.1 25.9-30.8 26.6-30.6 26.6-31.4 22.9-31.9 24.5-32.4 25.7-29.7 -
5th 24-30.2 25.7-30.3 26.6-30.5 25.3-31.1 25.9-31.3 24.6-33.1 25.3-30
6th 24-30.7 25.5-31.2 26.6-30.4 26-31 25.9-31.4 24.3-32 26-30.4
7th 23.5-27.2 25.3-277 26.6-30.3 25.5-31.8 26-32 24.2-32.6 26.6-30
TDS (PPM)
1st 1630-2280 863-2140 1040-1690 707-1990 830-2290 1200-2490 210-2350
2nd 477-1120 288-1490 453-1530 124-1660 1190-2090 131-2100 374-1380
3rd 497-699 439-1070 304-1160 358-1370 540-1370 105-1410 140-1450
4th 499-686 400-1040 105-768 362-1130 106-1250 120-1410 114-1460 -
5th 462-821 453-1100 302-1140 356-1290 560-1250 1020-1410 1010-1550
6th 527-752 438-1090 429-1130 376-1200 500-1250 130-1410 1010-1550
7th 1220-2000 602-1450 463-1430 914-1760 1510-1910 1560-2080 1110-1740
TSS (g/L)
20600- 25640- 20760- 4200- 1800- 3000- 12000-
1st
135200 76900 52200 109800 98200 61200 61333
2nd 360-4660 110-4740 220-31900 200-6400 200-5400 800-4600 143-6600
3820- 3340- 3680- 3400- 5400- 5200- 3200-
3rd
7200 10220 12060 15200 16000 16200 7400
4th 36-240 16-196 110-180 100-820 100-1000 100-1400 20-900
250
6520- 5760- 3420- 10600- 2400- 800- 3400-
5th
14420 24780 9020 8200 31000 21200 11400
4600- 3160- 3100- 6800- 4200- 1600- 2000-
6th
9340 19980 8460 58000 20600 17400 9000
1680- 11600- 26000- 9000- 37000- 44000- 33500-67000
7th
167000 171000 154500 560000 100000 69800
CODs (g/L)
13161- 18801- 16757- 5803- 17166- 15592- 16430-
1st
30082 31717 28202 28284 39075 27058 27385
2nd 441-4561 359-9793 3515-3788 3433-6881 6375-4688 6670-3625 1553-10463
3rd 74-237 105-974 34-1140 39-942 10-1389 316-1094 293-943 350
4th 85-244 38-389 31-1020 52-956 26 -996 325-969 298-827
5th 103-337 96 -3352 33-1133 49-991 47-996 320-1053 296-958
6th 87-257 67-3188 26-947 42-587 40-963 304-1123 299-936
Ammonia (mg/L)
1st 0-13.8 2.2-61.1 7.0-42.6 3.4-14.0 16.9-72.9 12.6-58.3 25.9-80.6
2nd 0-14.4 0-11.4 8.7-37.3 2.4-64.1 19.8-46.7 17.0-60.7 5.8-46.0
3rd 0-1.0 0-3.4 0-3.1 0.1-35.6 0.3-5.4 0.1-2.9 0-73.4
-
4th 0-31.8 0-4.5 0-2.3 0-28.9 0-13.0 0-12.8 0-59.4
5th 0-7.6 0-15.5 0-8.5 0.1-33.0 0-29.1 0-2.1 0-79.6
6th 0-0.5 0-3.6 0-1.4 1.3-34.5 0-3.3 0.1-1.7 0-75.7
OG (mg/L)
1st - - 4217 - - - - 25
4th - - 10.99 - - - -
TN (mg/L)
1st - - 67.5 - - - - 50
4th - - 2.21 - - - -
40

Appendix 3 ACSt reactor laboratory measurement data

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
pH
1 1 3.59 5.7 7.84 8.21 8.6 8.1 3.94
2 4.2 5.02 7.85 8.07 7.76 8.24 4.37
3 4.28 5.45 7.78 8.01 7.19 7.75 4.26
4 3.13 3.79 7.32 7.6 7.41 7.75 3.49
5 3.72 2.27 7.68 7.88 7.26 7.95 1.26
6 3.64 2.59 7.91 7.92 7.78 8.13 4.5
7 3.64 4.07 7.23 7.54 7.58 7.84 3.81
8 4.01 3.78 6.89 7.16 7.34 7.43 3.82
9 3.94 3.82 7.03 7.23 7.35 7.58 3.79
10 3.82 3.76 6.93 7.19 7.31 7.82 3.83
2 11 4.17 4.92 7.86 8.12 8.05 8.32 3.54
12 3.48 4.75 7.81 7.99 7.73 7.87 3.81
13 3.3 3.68 6.47 7.35 6.79 7.56 3.59
14 3.58 3.53 6.98 7.32 7.19 7.34 3.7
15 3.68 3.56 6.37 6.76 6.72 6.96 3.64
16 3.04 3.19 5.74 5.74 6.17 7.18 3.45
17 3.07 3.33 6.98 7.34 7.08 7.19 3.39
18 3.26 3.89 7.11 7.36 7.38 7.38 3.58
19 5.47 5.59 6.88 7.22 7.39 7.17 5.08
20 5.02 4.56 8.19 8.35 8.32 8.47 4.78
3 21 4.38 4.46 7.12 6.77 7.73 7.84 4.67
22 4.28 4.33 6.93 6.74 6.62 7.94 4.46
23 4.28 4.25 4.78 5.86 5.14 6.78 4.34
24 4.13 6.3 6.52 6.77 6.86 6.91 4.21
25 4.43 4.27 8.09 7.91 7.75 7.84 4.49
26 3.93 4.39 7.2 7.32 7.51 7.6 4.54
27 4.19 4.22 7.06 5.23 4.78 6.73 5.97
28 4.9 4.81 7.93 8.05 8.2 8.12 4.42
29 4.35 7.14 6.73 6.63 5.97 5.83 4.19
30 4.2 6.16 6.91 7 7.04 5.8 4.09
4 31 4.13 6.3 6.52 6.77 6.86 6.91 5.6
32 4.1 5.55 7.16 7.12 7.06 7 5.2
33 4.29 4.84 6.61 6.71 7.32 7.37 4.82
34 4.15 4.63 7.04 7.19 7.01 7.32 4.65
35 3.73 4.21 7.07 7.06 6.66 7.07 4.15
36 4.23 4.79 7.73 6.76 6.65 7.01 4.73
37 4.15 4.33 7.21 5.64 5.75 7.38 4.17
38 4.41 4.6 6.63 7 7.09 7.47 4.77
39 4 4.17 5.57 6.59 6.54 7.72 4.64
40 3.07 3.05 4.2 4.83 3.82 3.97 3.08
5 41 4.43 4.24 6.54 6.63 6.72 7.18 4.71
42 4.48 4.14 7.45 7.15 6.89 7.12 4.34
43 4.63 4.34 7.78 6.66 6.33 7.06 4.67
44 3.44 3.63 4.26 5.09 5.36 5.74 3.89
45 4.12 4.06 6.59 6.57 6.16 6.59 4.44
46 4.12 4.09 7.34 7.08 6.75 7.3 4
47 3.83 3.81 6.95 6.98 6.25 7.46 4.01
48 4.19 4.2 7.69 7.12 7.76 8.03 4.27
49 3.95 3.9 6.4 6.84 7.04 7.09 4
50 4.11 4.17 7.59 7.88 7.89 7.94 4.7
6 51 4.01 3.95 6.81 7.6 7.18 8.02 4.14
52 4.24 4.37 7.29 7.27 7.33 7.54 4.59
53 4.1 4.06 7.5 7.75 7.9 8.1 4.33
54 4.06 4.02 7.47 8.2 8.25 8.4 4.25
55 4.04 4.12 7.78 8.28 8.5 8.71 4.24
56 4 3.95 6.18 7.16 6.48 6.81 4.1
57 4.93 3.87 7.81 7.7 7.63 7.66 3.83
58 4.2 4.29 8.16 8.2 8.44 8.57 4.5
59 4.23 4.41 8.49 8.28 7.84 7.51 4.49
60 4.25 4.27 7.74 8.17 8.19 8.46 4.43
7 61 4.17 4.52 8.43 8.83 8.73 8.67 4.42
 41

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

62 4.05 4.15 8.38 7.93 8.56 8.89 4.23
63 4.63 3.56 8.05 8.41 9.04 9.08 4.74
64 4.56 4.31 9.06 9.06 9.02 9.28 4.44
65 3.79 3.85 8.2 8.5 8.58 9.01 4
66 4.32 4.46 9.09 9.18 9.21 9.15 4.15
67 4.12 4.28 9.09 9.08 8.86 9.08 4.23
68 4.09 4.33 8.35 8.7 8.96 9.04 4.45
69 3.99 4.2 7.79 8.25 8.51 8.67 4.44
70 4.21 4.37 7.44 8.11 8.26 8.37 4.69
Temperature (oC)
1 1 25.7 27.5 26.8 26.3 25.7 26 25.3
2 29.8 30.2 30.7 31.1 30.2 30.7 25.2
3 26 26.8 26.6 27 26.2 26 25.7
4 27.9 27.8 26.6 26.6 27.6 27.7 27.2
5 25.3 25.3 25.2 25 25.1 25.1 24.9
6 23.7 24 23.5 22.8 24 24 23.5
7 26.2 26.2 25.9 25.7 25.5 26.1 24.5
8 25.7 25.9 25.4 25.4 25.2 25.8 24.5
9 26.4 26.9 25.9 25.8 25.4 26.2 25.1
10 25.8 26.4 26.2 26.2 25.9 26.4 24.9
2 11 29.2 29.6 29.8 30.1 30.3 30.6 28.6
12 30 30.4 29.9 30.5 30 31.2 31.1
13 31 31.1 30.1 30.8 30.2 30.5 30.2
14 26.8 26.8 27.3 26.6 27.7 27.8 277
15 26.9 27.2 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 30.2
16 27.5 27.2 26.6 26.9 26.9 26.1 26.2
17 30.2 30.3 30 30.2 30.3 30.2 30.2
18 25 24.7 26.3 25.9 25.7 25.5 25.3
19 26.7 27.2 26.8 27.2 26.9 26.9 26.3
20 29.2 29.8 30 29.9 29.4 29.8 29.1
3 21 30.3 30.5 30.4 30.1 29.5 30 30.2
22 25.9 26.4 26.4 26.6 27.2 27.3 26.6
23 26.2 27.2 27.4 27.2 26.8 26.8 29.6
24 28 27.7 27.2 26.9 26.6 26.6 27.4
25 30.3 30.3 30.7 30.6 30.5 30.4 30.3
26 26.6 29 28.4 29.9 29.6 29.6 29.4
27 26.8 26.7 26.9 26.9 26.8 26.8 26.7
28 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.8 26.6 26.6 26.7
29 29.2 28.8 28.3 29.1 28.9 28.5 27.3
30 27.9 28 28.2 28 27.7 27.7 28.2
4 31 28 27.7 27.2 26.9 26.6 26.6 26.4
32 28.7 28.5 28.8 28.4 28.7 27.9 28.4
33 30.8 30.2 30.6 30.8 31.1 30.5 31.8
34 30.2 30.1 30.1 29.8 29.9 29.6 29.6
35 30.4 29.6 30 29.8 26.8 29 28.8
36 24.2 27.5 28.1 26.6 25.3 26 25.5
37 28.8 28.8 29.1 29.1 29.1 28.7 28.8
38 29.1 30.3 29.4 29.8 30.8 31 29.7
39 27.7 27.7 24.2 27.6 28.1 27.9 27.9
40 33.9 33 32.2 31.4 30.5 30.4 30.4
5 41 31.7 31.5 31.3 31.4 31.2 31.4 32
42 26.3 26 26.6 26.6 27 27.2 26.5
43 26.8 25.9 27.7 27.2 28.4 28.8 27.9
44 27.2 27.2 27.5 22.9 27.5 27.6 27.2
45 24.2 24.7 25.7 26 26 26.2 26
46 26.7 26.6 26.1 26.3 25.9 25.9 26.7
47 31.1 30.3 26.6 26.6 29.3 29.4 30.1
48 32.3 32.6 30.6 30.2 29.8 30 30.3
49 31.4 31.4 30.8 30.8 30.7 31.4 31.2
50 32.6 33.4 32.2 31.9 31.3 31.4 31.4
6 51 31.6 32.6 32.8 32.2 32 31.7 31.5
52 29.3 29.6 29.2 29.6 29.4 29.5 29.2
53 31.4 31.7 32 32.4 33.1 32 32.6
42

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

54 24.9 20.1 25 25.3 24.9 25.5 25
55 26 26 25.6 25.6 25.2 24.9 24.9
56 28.6 30.3 29.9 29.6 28.4 29 29.2
57 27.4 28.5 27.6 27.4 27.7 28.3 28.1
58 25.1 24.6 24.7 24.5 24.6 24.3 24.2
59 27.6 26.7 26.6 26.6 27.3 27.8 27.7
60 28.7 28.5 28.4 28.8 28.3 28.4 28.3
7 61 30 31.4 29.6 29 29.8 30.3 30
62 29.7 30 29.8 27.7 28.1 27.9 28.6
63 28.5 27.2 28.3 28.6 27.9 28.7 28.3
64 29.4 29.8 29.6 29.7 30 30.4 29.4
65 27.6 29 28.3 27.9 28.1 27.7 27.3
66 28.2 30.5 29.9 28.2 29 26.8 29.9
67 29.7 30.1 30.6 29.7 25.3 28.1 28.4
68 27.6 27.3 29.5 27.5 28.2 28.7 28.5
69 29.4 24.3 28.4 29 29.3 29 29.1
70 26.6 26.7 26.8 25.7 26.6 26 26.6
TDS (ppm)
1 1 1630 477 497 499 462 561 1450
2 1990 625 526 513 529 527 1220
3 2280 631 555 535 580 537 2000
4 1810 844 535 540 537 532 1330
5 1830 855 586 584 749 585 1540
6 2100 895 660 604 639 609 1690
7 2240 966 666 635 675 649 1550
8 2050 1090 687 655 787 681 1420
9 1920 1120 699 634 798 731 1590
10 1990 934 684 686 821 752 1640
2 11 1250 299 439 437 453 440 1120
12 1730 390 444 439 461 438 1420
13 895 1070 652 454 621 499 1450
14 863 1230 715 517 701 512 1250
15 1120 1490 853 560 843 572 1370
16 1330 535 1000 400 969 751 1280
17 1540 288 896 686 911 740 602
18 2140 306 1060 1040 1040 916 1290
19 1430 421 1070 1030 1100 1090 1380
20 1280 737 817 748 839 741 1100
3 21 1470 1000 583 169 460 462 1130
22 1690 1320 834 745 773 695 1160
23 1610 1530 1140 768 873 708 1110
24 1430 1020 522 413 440 549 1370
25 1440 1000 551 313 440 549 1370
26 1040 1120 597 276 382 479 1090
27 1690 1440 1160 105 1140 1130 1140
28 1410 1410 585 353 601 610 463
29 1470 453 304 296 415 429 486
30 1510 472 322 299 302 456 1430
4 31 1650 587 358 362 356 376 971
32 1460 924 423 363 392 388 945
33 1410 1090 552 410 533 460 914
34 1590 1220 723 597 630 506 1570
35 707 124 678 641 700 539 1310
36 1990 1310 657 636 737 634 1760
37 1690 1590 917 1010 1010 937 1600
38 1740 192 1110 977 955 876 1660
39 1450 1600 1230 1130 1120 948 1420
40 763 1660 1370 1010 1290 1200 1640
5 41 1800 1330 540 544 564 520 1510
42 830 1210 550 490 560 500 1550
43 968 1190 580 551 608 545 1600
44 1050 1420 1130 770 728 513 1720
45 1820 1770 973 964 1030 1090 1770
 43

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

46 2160 1530 1200 106 1060 961 1740
47 2290 2090 1150 1050 1130 1090 1830
48 1650 1830 1100 1100 1110 1100 1910
49 1870 1880 1370 1250 1250 1250 1690
50 2230 1920 1170 400 1220 1210 1820
6 51 2080 1300 1060 1210 1130 1240 1870
52 1870 191 1200 120 1280 130 1760
53 2040 1870 105 1020 1020 1010 1600
54 2300 1800 1160 1160 1190 1150 1850
55 2450 2010 1170 1160 1160 1160 2080
56 1960 2100 1380 1280 1410 1290 1560
57 1810 1990 1240 1220 1330 1290 1650
58 2490 208 1310 1390 1390 1300 1900
59 2190 131 1310 143 1040 1400 1790
60 1200 2100 1410 1410 1410 1410 1970
7 61 1990 374 1450 1460 1450 1440 1740
62 2350 908 1370 1440 1430 1460 1559
63 1930 1140 140 1320 1430 1410 1630
64 1760 1280 1360 1370 1330 1470 1730
65 1810 1200 1140 1150 1220 1320 1610
66 1370 1160 1160 1160 1120 1330 1110
67 1600 1050 958 1040 1070 1080 1330
68 1660 1120 1020 999 1010 1010 1190
69 2100 1380 1230 1200 1190 1280 1650
70 210 1340 1140 114 1550 1550 1430
TSS (mg/L)
1 1 20600 360 3820 128 6680 4600 4600
2 86000 750 5240 193 6520 7340 1680
3 104600 3180 4600 156 10700 6180 167000
4 105400 4660 7200 148 11820 6500 155800
5 102850 1060 4280 240 9820 7160 38000
6 105250 2480 4220 140 9920 8160 44000
7 135200 2220 4880 208 7960 7640 55000
8 109900 2080 6120 44 14420 7820 164000
9 125000 1440 6640 80 9740 9340 108000
10 118800 4620 6320 36 13600 5020 70000
2 11 60300 1150 5950 196 8520 9680 65000
12 62550 110 6570 60 7580 7500 28000
13 76200 1140 5290 116 7980 3160 57450
14 76900 1380 6160 152 5760 9680 59400
15 55700 190 3340 16 9460 8960 60500
16 72933 1590 9840 24 24780 9240 171000
17 72300 4740 4827 120 17840 11020 26500
18 71300 3080 7220 150 21620 19980 25500
19 25640 200 10220 100 17920 9860 11600
20 61150 330 7180 100 13820 9460 51400
3 21 35600 540 5540 168 7180 5860 50450
22 20760 360 4800 120 5500 6360 32820
23 23080 880 6360 150 7080 8460 48180
24 25080 220 9220 110 7200 6620 154500
25 52200 20140 3680 170 8540 3100 50820
26 42800 31900 4767 110 4033 3820 26000
27 28150 12260 5480 140 3420 6100 52340
28 44100 18520 8560 180 8160 6620 63567
29 34200 2960 12060 120 6900 3940 39800
30 23980 360 9360 180 9020 8100 48880
4 31 29200 1200 14200 820 11600 26600 26400
32 5500 200 15200 120 12700 14400 37500
33 65600 1200 13600 500 12400 11000 151500
34 38400 2000 11000 100 26000 15600 9000
35 109800 6400 4800 500 28200 12800 57500
36 4200 200 3400 200 19200 58000 16000
37 105400 3000 5000 100 10600 6800 53000
44

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

38 26800 800 10400 100 25600 19200 115000
39 90800 3600 3800 200 12600 7000 59500
40 23200 3200 5600 100 11200 12600 560000
5 41 31800 5400 16000 1000 2400 9000 46200
42 58600 4200 10400 720 14000 12000 61600
43 60200 2600 7000 700 27000 13400 100000
44 60600 1000 5400 100 20800 14200 67000
45 98200 1800 7200 220 19000 20600 84600
46 1800 200 10800 700 25200 20200 44000
47 32400 2400 13800 500 31000 13200 75600
48 49000 1600 14600 200 20200 13400 49000
49 52600 800 12400 500 19800 16400 37000
50 5600 3600 13000 100 10400 4200 98400
6 51 15200 1000 5800 100 11600 10800 57200
52 61200 2400 8600 1400 1800 1600 58600
53 17800 800 16200 400 11600 11600 56200
54 7800 1800 6400 1400 6600 2400 53800
55 3000 2800 5200 400 800 5400 58600
56 54800 1000 8000 200 3800 6400 51200
57 52400 4600 10200 1100 9000 7200 69800
58 14400 3000 7000 1000 1200 7800 56600
59 51000 3800 10400 800 21200 17400 52600
60 10000 1200 7400 100 13000 6200 44000
7 61 37400 6600 7200 400 8200 9000 58600
62 52000 2200 6400 240 4800 7800 51400
63 43667 400 7400 300 3400 2000 50400
64 61333 800 4800 20 8600 6200 64333
65 25000 1400 4400 500 11400 2600 48200
66 15000 143 5000 200 6300 5700 33500
67 14000 2800 3400 900 3600 4800 54800
68 12000 400 3200 300 3400 5400 67000
69 38000 800 5400 100 8400 7200 54667
70 28000 2800 4400 200 4600 8400 46000
CODs (mg/L)
1 1 25996 948 95 98 114 87
2 23461 981 131 101 116 124
3 29837 1439 121 85 337 123
4 23134 3155 88 88 103 96
5 23297 1226 111 98 108 93
6 21254 3139 128 114 154 108
7 19537 441 74 105 185 111
8 30082 3008 198 183 114 106
9 17493 1994 237 244 281 257
10 13161 4561 167 88 157 105
2 11 19537 376 183 38 96 67
12 23134 605 343 129 160 111
13 23216 359 105 150 173 137
14 25750 670 145 134 209 183
15 28121 6245 974 248 242 201
16 24278 9793 329 177 435 168
17 31717 9793 597 213 170 69
18 18801 2747 215 170 3352 3188
19 20273 1177 662 262 747 253
20 20027 1422 432 389 330 263
3 21 24033 7112 397 178 121 95
22 22235 9581 958 984 983 747
23 26567 23747 1012 999 965 932
24 22807 8011 119 46 74 49
25 16757 17902 92 51 145 82
26 23706 12711 142 87 154 144
27 28202 23788 1140 1020 1133 947
28 24687 3515 162 85 155 154
29 21090 19129 39 31 33 26
 45

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

30 22398 21295 34 39 34 29
4 31 28284 3433 39 78 49 54
32 21662 6621 57 52 51 42
33 22235 6017 221 110 203 121
34 26404 6327 688 463 505 482
35 17248 3678 203 546 572 80
36 24851 3629 422 410 469 155
37 19292 9237 662 938 927 587
38 19210 9385 942 956 937 384
39 23379 9417 773 930 991 217
40 5803 16881 464 154 265 155
5 41 21499 6580 10 26 47 231
42 19210 18475 657 700 701 181
43 17166 6375 1389 653 449 40
44 22807 9303 1048 940 956 64
45 21008 9107 968 935 956 963
46 39075 24688 956 932 690 665
47 19210 10039 935 960 963 932
48 24687 9990 891 996 955 956
49 21908 9352 966 979 965 960
50 26077 9663 950 960 996 955
6 51 22153 9523 979 947 947 732
52 24442 19292 979 945 989 952
53 21908 16962 878 965 1033 989
54 24360 23625 611 541 446 383
55 21989 14551 316 325 320 304
56 19292 14142 932 953 948 942
57 27058 17902 1094 970 1053 1123
58 25341 16676 450 680 705 567
59 23870 9483 942 932 948 965
60 15592 6671 528 520 543 613
7 61 16430 1553 943 827 958 937
62 24605 5722 386 674 351 402
63 21989 6458 348 347 373 379
64 18965 7766 294 298 296 338
65 22071 9360 293 337 347 347
66 26649 4087 327 327 302 309
67 24524 10463 437 476 551 440
68 27385 10431 665 417 394 378
69 21172 10039 438 342 355 343
70 25586 9107 458 302 307 299
Ammonia (mg/L)
1 1 4.73 3.83 0.21 0.77 0.48 0.19
2 3.14 1.39 0.09 0.00 0.70 0.09
3 1.22 4.44 0.63 0.51 3.37 0.54
4 0.85 3.91 0.02 0.81 0.07 0.02
5 13.85 3.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 4.83 12.11 0.00 3.91 0.16 0.13
8 1.95 14.36 0.17 31.82 7.59 0.00
9 0.92 9.27 0.05 21.20 5.32 0.00
10 3.00 3.58 1.01 5.02 1.28 0.11
2 11 12.01 0.84 2.34 2.57 2.57 1.80
12 61.06 4.96 1.74 4.38 3.86 2.42
13 11.75 8.17 3.41 4.52 15.52 3.58
14 2.16 11.39 0.05 0.22 0.13 0.00
15 4.65 3.36 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.05
16 10.67 1.08 1.84 2.12 1.94 1.09
17 11.21 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18 9.18 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.82 0.32
19 11.38 1.10 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00
20 10.78 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 21 21.98 20.21 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02
46

Variation Day 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

22 18.45 29.61 0.00 0.54 0.58 0.12
23 42.56 33.81 3.10 1.50 3.18 0.37
24 6.97 28.34 0.47 0.30 2.85 0.02
25 13.59 8.69 0.73 0.50 5.57 0.85
26 23.29 10.09 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.04
27 32.28 17.03 0.70 2.30 8.46 1.35
28 15.19 35.23 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.09
29 14.59 19.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30 19.49 37.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 31 6.97 2.42 0.96 4.64 1.73 1.06
32 12.27 64.12 0.06 0.35 0.10 0.02
33 14.02 59.22 4.46 1.70 5.06 0.89
34 3.45 6.31 0.14 0.05 0.41 0.61
35 13.39 37.72 0.08 2.99 4.17 0.13
36 13.42 32.63 0.11 4.49 13.39 3.77
37 5.08 36.50 2.45 16.23 17.20 0.72
38 6.00 17.91 10.05 5.02 6.39 1.09
39 13.59 8.77 14.35 14.86 22.40 0.41
40 8.58 61.15 35.57 28.88 32.95 34.51
5 41 47.63 19.83 2.13 10.87 11.32 2.20
42 28.45 25.38 1.44 3.57 16.01 3.27
43 16.99 20.12 0.58 5.49 14.09 2.08
44 53.10 44.25 4.22 12.96 17.46 0.15
45 72.91 44.42 0.54 0.31 11.42 0.43
46 52.87 27.04 5.41 0.05 0.00 0.00
47 51.90 38.84 0.63 6.33 29.10 0.60
48 45.43 43.88 0.70 3.81 2.55 0.35
49 40.50 46.74 0.69 0.24 0.34 0.72
50 32.08 44.71 0.28 2.38 0.35 0.26
6 51 21.98 26.51 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.10
52 58.34 22.84 0.18 0.71 1.43 0.34
53 51.75 50.15 0.44 0.46 0.34 0.43
54 26.36 46.08 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.10
55 20.20 16.99 0.37 0.35 0.29 0.22
56 35.12 40.64 2.85 8.02 2.08 1.72
57 12.56 36.58 0.09 12.76 0.27 0.09
58 54.33 52.13 0.07 0.18 0.02 0.20
59 50.95 60.66 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.13
60 23.55 30.86 0.22 0.16 0.12 0.47
7 61 59.11 5.75 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00
62 80.56 15.96 2.23 4.32 0.00 0.00
63 30.91 12.01 0.00 0.00 3.10 3.04
64 29.45 25.30 16.19 18.83 16.42 18.54
65 38.44 30.17 16.98 16.98 16.98 16.98
66 25.93 31.05 73.38 59.43 79.62 75.67
67 51.41 46.03 25.61 14.88 23.32 9.61
68 49.29 32.40 1.37 18.80 0.05 0.00
69 44.14 36.91 0.09 16.78 0.00 0.00
70 31.34 25.53 0.00 10.85 0.00 0.00
OG (mg/L)
3 30 4217.2 10.99
TN (mg/L)
3 30 67.5 2.21
 47

Appendix 4 The UASB Unit conventional modeling equations

Discharge Balance Equations
𝑄in = 𝑄an (1)

Biomass Balance Equations

[Accumulation] = [Increase due to growth] – [Decrease due to endogenous decay] – [Output]
𝑑𝑋an 𝑉an = 𝑉an 𝑋an 𝜇 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑉an 𝐾e 𝑋an 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑄an 𝑋an eff 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑋an 𝑄an 𝑋an eff
= 𝜇 𝑑𝑡 − 𝐾e 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑑𝑡
𝑋an 𝑉an 𝑋an
𝑑𝑋an 𝑋an eff
= 𝜇 𝑑𝑡 − 𝐾e 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑑𝑡
𝑋an 𝜃i an 𝑋an
𝑋an (t1) 𝑑𝑋an 𝑡 𝑡 𝑡 𝑋an eff
∫𝑋 = ∫0 𝜇 𝑑𝑡 − ∫0 𝐾e 𝑑𝑡 − ∫0 𝑑𝑡
an (t0) 𝑋an 𝜃i an 𝑋an
𝑋an (𝑡1) 𝑋an eff (𝑡1 −𝑡0 )
ln = 𝜇 (𝑡1 − 𝑡0 ) − 𝐾e (𝑡1 − 𝑡0 ) −
𝑋an (𝑡0) 𝜃i an 𝑋an (𝑡1)
𝑋an (𝑡1)
ln
𝑋an (𝑡0) 𝑋an eff
𝜇= (𝑡1 −𝑡0 )
+ 𝐾e + (2)
𝑋an (t1) 𝜃i an

Substrate Balance Equations

[Accumulation] = [Input] – [Output] – [Decrease due to growth]
𝑑𝑆an 𝑉an = 𝑄in 𝑆in 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑄an 𝑆an 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑉an (𝑑𝑆an )growth
𝜇
𝑑𝑆an 𝑉an = 𝑄in 𝑆in 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑄an 𝑆an 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑉an 𝑋an 𝑑𝑡
𝑌
𝑑𝑆an 𝑄in 𝑆in 𝑄an 𝜇 𝑋an
= 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑑𝑡
𝑆an 𝑉an 𝑆an 𝑉an 𝑌 𝑆an
𝑑𝑆an 𝑆in 1 𝜇 𝑋an
= 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑑𝑡
𝑆an 𝜃i an 𝑆an 𝜃i an 𝑌 𝑆an
𝑆an (t1) 𝑑𝑆an 𝑡 𝑆 𝑡 1 𝑡 𝜇 𝑋an
∫𝑆 = ∫0 in 𝑑𝑡 − ∫0 𝑑𝑡 − ∫0 𝑑𝑡
an (t0) 𝑆an 𝜃i an 𝑆an 𝜃i an 𝑌 𝑆an
𝑆an (t1) 𝑆in (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) 𝜇 𝑋an
ln = − − (𝑡1 − 𝑡0 )
𝑆an (t0) 𝜃i an 𝑆an (t1) 𝜃i an 𝑌 𝑆an (t1)
𝜇 𝑋an 𝑆in (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) 𝑆an (t1)
(𝑡1 − 𝑡0 ) = − − ln
𝑌 𝑆an (t1) 𝜃i an 𝑆an (t1) 𝜃i an 𝑆an (t0)
𝑌 𝑆in 𝑌 𝑆an (t1) 𝑌 𝑆an (t1) 𝑆an (t1)
𝜇= − − ln
𝜃i an 𝑋an 𝜃i an 𝑋an 𝑋an (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) 𝑆an (t0)
𝑌 𝑌 𝑆an (t1) 𝑆an (t1)
𝜇= (𝑆in − 𝑆an (t1) ) − (𝑡 ln
𝜃i an 𝑋an 𝑋 −𝑡 )
an 1𝑆 0 an (t0)

𝑌 1 𝑆an (t1) 𝑆an (t1)

𝜇= ( (𝑆in − 𝑆an (t1) ) − (𝑡 ln ) (3)
𝑋an 𝜃i an 1 −𝑡0 ) 𝑆an (t0)

Sludge Production Equation

𝑑𝑋 𝑑𝑆
=𝑌
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑋 = 𝑌 𝑑𝑆
𝑋an − 𝑋an eff = 𝑌 (𝑆in − 𝑆an )
𝑋an = 𝑌 (𝑆in − 𝑆an ) + 𝑋an eff (4)

Monod Equation
𝜇max 𝑆h
𝜇= (5)
𝐾s + 𝑆h

Equation with Hydrolysis Rate Coefficient

𝑑𝑆h
− = 𝐾h (𝑆an − 𝑆h ) (6)
𝑑𝑡

Equation with Hydrolyzed Substrate Transport Rate Coefficient

−𝑑𝑆h
= 𝑘𝑆h 𝑋an (7)
𝑑𝑡

Combined Equations to find 𝑺𝐚𝐧

(Eq. 6 = Eq.7)
𝐾h (𝑆an − 𝑆h ) = 𝑘𝑆h 𝑋an
𝐾h 𝑆an − 𝐾h 𝑆h = 𝑘𝑆h 𝑋an
𝑘𝑆h 𝑋an + 𝐾h 𝑆h = 𝐾h 𝑆an
48

𝑆h (𝑘𝑋an + 𝐾h ) = 𝐾h 𝑆an
𝐾h 𝑆an
𝑆h = (8)
𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h

(Eq. 5 and Eq. 8)

𝐾h 𝑆an
𝜇max
𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h
𝜇= 𝐾h 𝑆an
𝐾s +
𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h
𝐾h 𝑆an
𝜇max
𝐾h 𝑆an 𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h
𝐾s + =
𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h 𝜇
𝐾h 𝑆an 𝜇max 𝐾h 𝑆an
𝐾s + =
𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h 𝜇 𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h
𝐾s 𝜇max
𝐾h 𝑆an + 1=
𝜇
𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h
𝜇max 𝐾s (𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h )
= +1 (9)
𝜇 𝐾h 𝑆an

(Eq. 9 and Eq. 4)

𝜇max 𝐾s (𝑘𝑋an +𝐾h )
= +1
𝜇 𝐾h 𝑆an (t1)
𝜇max 𝐾s (𝑘(𝑌 (𝑆in −𝑆an )+𝑋an eff )+𝐾h )
= +1 (10)
𝜇 𝐾h 𝑆an
𝐾h 𝜇max 𝑘(𝑌 (𝑆in −𝑆an )+𝑋an eff )+𝐾h
( − 1) =
𝐾s 𝜇 𝑆an
𝐾h 𝜇max 𝑘𝑌𝑆in −𝑘𝑌 𝑆an +𝑘𝑋an eff +𝐾h
( − 1) =
𝐾s 𝜇 𝑆an
𝐾h 𝜇max 𝑘𝑌𝑆in +𝑘𝑋an eff+𝐾h
( − 1) = − 𝑘𝑌
𝐾s 𝜇 𝑆an
𝐾h 𝜇max 𝑘𝑌 𝑆in +𝑘𝑋an eff +𝐾h
( − 1) + 𝑘𝑌 =
𝐾s 𝜇 𝑆an
𝑘𝑌 𝑆in + 𝑘𝑋an eff + 𝐾h
𝑆an = 𝐾h 𝜇max (11)
( −1)+𝑘𝑌
𝐾s 𝜇

(Eq. 11 and Eq. 2)

𝑘𝑌 𝑆in + 𝑘𝑋an eff + 𝐾h
𝑆an = (12)
𝐾h 𝜇max
𝑋an (t1) −1 +𝑘𝑌
𝐾s
ln𝑋
an (t0) 𝑋an eff
+𝐾e +
( (𝑡1 −𝑡0 ) 𝑋an (t1) 𝜃i
an )
 49

Appendix 5 The coding for the Monod Model

Sub Clear_Monod_UASB()
'delete all previous variable value
Dim temp_value_all_model As Range
Set temp_value_all_model = Range("$AA$4:$AG$33")
temp_value_all_model.ClearContents
Dim temp_value_all_SSD As Range
Set temp_value_all_SSD = Range("$BG$4:$BM$33")
temp_value_all_SSD.ClearContents
'copy all the start value of unknown variable to the temporary value
Dim start_value As Range
Set start_value = Range("$M$6:$R$6")
Dim temp_value As Range
Set temp_value = Range("$M$7:$R$7")
start_value.Copy temp_value
End Sub

Sub Run_Monod_UASB()
Dim a As Integer
For a = 0 To 28 ' the total data
SolverReset
'SolverOptions Iterations:=10000, Precision:=0.001
SolverOk SetCell:="$X$" & (5 + a), MaxMinVal:=2, ByChange:="$M$" & 7 & ",$N$" & 7 & ",$O$" & 7 &
",$P$" & 7 & ",$Q$" & 7 & ",$R$" & 7
SolverAdd CellRef:="$M$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$M$4" 'Ke min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$M$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$M$5" 'Ke max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$N$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$N$4" 'myumax min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$N$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$N$5" 'myumax max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$O$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$O$4" 'Ks min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$O$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$O$5" 'Ks max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$P$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$P$4" 'Y min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$P$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$P$5" 'Y max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$Q$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$Q$4" 'Kh min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$Q$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$Q$5" 'Kh max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$R$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$R$4" 'k min
'SolverAdd CellRef:="$R$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$R$5" 'k max
SolverSolve True
'copy all the temporary value to the next table for each experiment day
Cells(5 + a, 27) = Cells(7, 13)
Cells(5 + a, 28) = Cells(7, 14)
Cells(5 + a, 29) = Cells(7, 15)
Cells(5 + a, 30) = Cells(7, 16)
Cells(5 + a, 31) = Cells(7, 17)
Cells(5 + a, 32) = Cells(7, 18)
Cells(5 + a, 33) = Cells(7, 19)
Next a
MsgBox "Done Monod"
End Sub

Sub Run_SSD_UASB()
Dim a As Integer
For a = 0 To 28
Cells(7, 36) = Cells(5 + a, 27)
Cells(7, 37) = Cells(5 + a, 28)
Cells(7, 38) = Cells(5 + a, 29)
Cells(7, 39) = Cells(5 + a, 30)
Cells(7, 40) = Cells(5 + a, 31)
Cells(7, 41) = Cells(5 + a, 32)
SolverReset
50

SolverOptions Iterations:=10000, Precision:=0.001

SolverOk SetCell:="$BD$" & 4, MaxMinVal:=3, ByChange:=("AJ7,AK7,AL7,AM7,AN7,AO7")
SolverAdd CellRef:="$M$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$M$4" 'Ke min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$M$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$M$5" 'Ke max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$N$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$N$4" 'myumax min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$N$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$N$5" 'myumax max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$O$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$O$4" 'Ks min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$O$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$O$5" 'Ks max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$P$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$P$4" 'Y min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$P$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$P$5" 'Y max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$Q$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$Q$4" 'Kh min
SolverAdd CellRef:="$Q$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$Q$5" 'Kh max
SolverAdd CellRef:="$R$" & 7, relation:=3, FormulaText:="$R$4" 'k min
'SolverAdd CellRef:="$R$" & 7, relation:=1, FormulaText:="$R$5" 'k max
SolverSolve True
Cells(5 + a, 59) = Cells(7, 36)
Cells(5 + a, 60) = Cells(7, 37)
Cells(5 + a, 61) = Cells(7, 38)
Cells(5 + a, 62) = Cells(7, 39)
Cells(5 + a, 63) = Cells(7, 40)
Cells(5 + a, 64) = Cells(7, 41)
Cells(5 + a, 65) = Cells(7, 42)
Next a
MsgBox "Done SSD"
End Sub
 51

Appendix 6 The coding for ANN

Public ni, no, nh, ncase
Public Eta, Alpha, Temp, iterasi, nl
Public itend, ite, erss, Err2
Public xinp(100, 1000) As Single
Public des(100, 1000) As Single
Public nn(5) As Integer
Public maxi(1000) As Single
Public maxo(1000) As Single
Public mixi(1000) As Single
Public mixo(1000) As Single
Public w(5, 1000, 1000) As Double
Public dw(5, 500, 500) As Double
Public dwe(5, 500, 500) As Double
Public dw2(5, 500, 500) As Double
Public dwes(5, 500, 500) As Double
Public dw2s(5, 500, 500) As Double
Public u(5, 1000) As Single
Public X(5, 1000) As Single
Public d(5, 1000) As Double
Public er(100, 1000) As Double
Public ersum(1000) As Double
Public cal(100, 1000) As Single
Public erx As Single
Public hsl(1000, 1000) As Single
Sub ReadData()
Eta = Sheet5.Cells(2, 2) ' Learning Rate
Alpha = Sheet5.Cells(3, 2) 'Momentum
Temp = Sheet5.Cells(4, 2) ' Temperature
iterasi = Sheet5.Cells(5, 2)
nl = Sheet5.Cells(6, 2) 'Number of Layers
ni = Sheet5.Cells(7, 2) 'Number of Node Input Layer
nh = Sheet5.Cells(8, 2) 'Number of Node Hidden Layer
no = Sheet5.Cells(9, 2) 'Number of Node Output Layer
For i = 1 To nl
nn(1) = ni
nn(2) = nh
nn(3) = no
Next i
Rem Initial weights
TW = 1
For ii = 1 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
w(ii - 1, jj, kk) = 2 * Rnd - 1
Sheet5.Cells(2 + TW, 8) = TW 'Number Weight
Sheet5.Cells(2 + TW, 9) = w(ii - 1, jj, kk) 'Initial Weight
TW = TW + 1
Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
End Sub
Sub ReadDataTraining()
ncase = Sheet6.Cells(2, 2) 'Total data training
If ncase = "" Or "0" Then Msg = "Please fill Total Data": Response = MsgBox(Msg, Style, Title, Help, Ctxt)
For ii = 1 To ncase
For jj = 1 To no
des(jj, ii) = Sheet6.Cells(ii + 6, jj + 1)
Next jj
52

For jj = 1 To ni
xinp(jj, ii) = Sheet6.Cells(ii + 6, jj + 1 + no)
Next jj
Next ii
End Sub
Rem Data Identification
Sub DataIdentification()
For i = 1 To nl
nn(1) = ni
nn(2) = nh
nn(3) = no
Next i
For ii = 1 To nn(1)
mixi(ii) = xinp(ii, 1)
Next ii
For ii = 1 To nn(1)
For jj = 1 To ncase
If xinp(ii, jj) < mixi(ii) Then mixi(ii) = xinp(ii, jj)
Next jj
Next ii
For ii = 1 To nn(1)
For jj = 1 To ncase
If xinp(ii, jj) > maxi(ii) Then maxi(ii) = xinp(ii, jj)
Next jj
Next ii
For ii = 1 To nn(nl)
For jj = 1 To ncase
If des(ii, jj) > maxo(ii) Then maxo(ii) = des(ii, jj)
Next jj
Next ii
For ii = 1 To nn(nl)
mixo(ii) = 100000
For jj = 1 To ncase
If des(ii, jj) < mixo(ii) Then mixo(ii) = des(ii, jj)
Next jj
Next ii
End Sub
Sub Desimalisasi()
For ii = 1 To nn(1)
For jj = 1 To ncase
xinp(ii, jj) = (xinp(ii, jj) - mixi(ii)) / (maxi(ii) - mixi(ii))
Next jj
Next ii
For ii = 1 To nn(nl)
For jj = 1 To ncase
des(ii, jj) = ((des(ii, jj) - mixo(ii)) * 0.6 / (maxo(ii) - mixo(ii))) + 0.2
Next jj
Next ii
End Sub
Sub Result()
For ii = 0 To (nn(nl) - 1)
For jj = 1 To ncase
Sheet5.Cells(2 + jj, 5) = jj
Sheet5.Cells(2 + jj, 6 + (ii * 2)) = Sheet6.Cells(jj + 6, 2 + ii)
Next jj
Next ii
End Sub
Sub TrainingProcess()
r = Val(Right$(Time$, 2))
Randomize r
 53

TW = 1
For ii = 1 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
w(ii - 1, jj, kk) = 2 * Rnd - 1
TW = TW + 1
Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
'Start Iteration Process
itend = iterasi
ite = 0
For iii = 1 To itend
erss = 0
For ii = 2 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
dwe(ii - 1, jj, kk) = 0
dwes(ii - 1, jj, kk) = 0
dw2s(ii - 1, jj, kk) = 0
dw2(ii - 1, jj, kk) = 0
Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
For i = 1 To ncase
For jj = 1 To nn(1)
X(1, jj) = xinp(jj, i)
Next jj
'forward (calculating output of each PE)
For ii = 2 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
u(ii, kk) = 0
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
u(ii, kk) = u(ii, kk) + w(ii - 1, jj, kk) * X(ii - 1, jj)
Next jj
X(ii, kk) = 1 / (1 + Temp * Exp(-u(ii, kk)))
Next kk
Next ii
'Backward of nlth layer
For ii = 1 To nn(nl)
Err2 = des(ii, i) - X(nl, ii)
d(nl - 1, ii) = Err2 * Temp * Exp(-u(nl, ii)) / (1 + Exp(-u(nl, ii))) ^ 2
If Err2 > ep Then ep = Abs(Err2)
Next ii
'Backward for hidden layer
For ii = nl - 2 To 1 Step -1
For kk = 1 To nn(ii + 1)
d(ii, kk) = 0
For jj = 1 To nn(ii + 2)
d(ii, kk) = d(ii, kk) + w(ii + 1, kk, jj) * d(ii + 1, jj)
Next jj
d(ii, kk) = d(ii, kk) * Temp * Exp(-u(ii + 1, kk)) / (1 + Exp(-u(ii + 1, kk))) ^ 2
Next kk
Next ii
'summation of weight value error
For ii = 2 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
dw(ii - 1, jj, kk) = d(ii - 1, kk) * X(ii - 1, jj)
dwe(ii - 1, jj, kk) = dwe(ii - 1, jj, kk) + dw(ii - 1, jj, kk)
54

Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
ersum(i) = 0
For ii = 0 To nn(nl) - 1
cal(ii + 1, i) = X(nl, ii + 1)
er(ii + 1, i) = des(ii + 1, i) - X(nl, ii + 1)
ersum(i) = ersum(i) + er(ii + 1, i) ^ 2
If iii = itend Then Sheet5.Cells(2 + i, 7 + (ii * 2)) = (X(nl, ii + 1) - 0.2) * (maxo(ii + 1) - mixo(ii + 1)) / 0.6
+ mixo(ii + 1)
Next ii
erss = erss + ersum(i)
Next i
'Correction of weight value
For ii = 2 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
dwes(ii - 1, jj, kk) = dwes(ii - 1, jj, kk) + dwe(ii - 1, jj, kk)
dw2(ii - 1, jj, kk) = dwe(ii - 1, jj, kk)
Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
npemb = Int(ncase / 4)
For ii = 2 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
w(ii - 1, jj, kk) = w(ii - 1, jj, kk) + Eta * dwes(ii - 1, jj, kk) / npemb + Alpha * dw2s(ii - 1, jj, kk) / npemb
dw2s(ii - 1, jj, kk) = dwes(ii - 1, jj, kk)
Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
erx = erss / nn(nl) / ncase
Delta = erx - ers
ers = erx
AdjAp = ep / 0.5
If AdjAp > 1 Then Temp = 1 / AdjAp 'adjusted gain parameter
If AdjAp <= 1 Then Temp = 1 'adjusted gain parameter
Sheet5.Cells(11, 2) = iii
Sheet5.Cells(12, 2) = Delta
Sheet5.Cells(13, 2) = ers
ite = ite + 1
ep = 0
Next iii
'Display
TW = 1
For ii = 2 To nl
For kk = 1 To nn(ii)
For jj = 1 To nn(ii - 1)
Sheet5.Cells(2 + TW, 10) = w(ii - 1, jj, kk)
TW = TW + 1
Next jj
Next kk
Next ii
End Sub
Sub Clear_ANN()
'delete all previous ANN value
Dim ANN_value As Range
Set ANN_value = Range("$F$3:$J$100")
ANN_value.ClearContents
End Sub
 55

Appendix 7 ANN’s data training for UASB effluent estimation

Number Output Data Input Data
data 𝑺𝐚𝐧 𝑺𝐢𝐧 𝑿𝐚𝐧 𝑿𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐟𝐟 HRT
1 6580.24 21499 46200 5400 8
2 18474.74 19210 61600 4200 8
3 6375.31 17166 100000 2600 8
4 9302.83 22807 67000 1000 8
5 9106.63 21008 84600 1800 8
6 24687.67 39075 44000 200 8
7 10038.57 19210 75600 2400 8
8 9989.52 24687 49000 1600 8
9 9351.87 21908 37000 800 8
10 9662.52 26077 98400 3600 8
11 9523.21 22153 57200 1000 4
12 19292.23 24442 58600 2400 4
13 16962.38 21908 56200 800 4
14 23624.93 24360 53800 1800 4
15 14550.78 21989 58600 2800 4
16 14142.04 19292 51200 1000 4
17 17901.93 27058 69800 4600 4
18 16676.26 25341 56600 3000 4
19 9482.67 23870 52600 3800 4
20 6670.50 15592 44000 1200 4
21 1553.01 16430 58600 6600 2
22 5722.21 24605 51400 2200 2
23 6457.62 21989 50400 400 2
24 7765.60 18965 64333 800 2
25 9359.71 22071 48200 1400 2
26 4087.23 26649 33500 143 2
27 10463.33 24524 54800 2800 2
28 10430.96 27385 67000 400 2
29 10038.57 21172 54667 800 2
30 9106.63 25586 46000 2800 2
56

Appendix 8 The UASB’s effluent measurement data, Monod Model, and ANN
t Measurement Data (mg Monod Estimation (mg ANN Estimation
(d) sCOD/L) sCOD/L) (mg sCOD/L)
41 6580 5886 6186
42 18475 11198 16481
43 6375 12143 7126
44 9303 13147 7973
45 9107 9821 6855
46 24688 26879 24482
47 10039 13936 10718
48 9990 15055 12062
49 9352 10632 10135
50 9663 24817 10665
51 9523 14875 15110
52 19292 6436 17722
53 16962 5751 14631
54 23625 6762 17137
55 14551 7567 15639
56 14142 7084 12755
57 17902 15624 19015
58 16676 11776 16901
59 9483 8241 11528
60 6671 6641 9056
61 1553 11846 1355
62 5722 9532 9292
63 6458 5150 7812
64 7766 8809 6952
65 9360 11325 7109
66 4087 14036 4357
67 10463 16969 9827
68 10431 11098 11942
69 10039 9013 8282
70 9107 11323 7447
 57

BIOGRAPHY

The author, Aliyah Baida Wiwiyanti, was born in Makassar, 21st of July
2001 as the only child of Aida Abbas. The author finished Senior High School in
SMA Negeri 9 Jeneponto on 2019. Then the author became an undergaduate student
in The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, IPB University on 2019 as an AdiK 3T Scholarship
holder. During four years in IPB, the author had the opportunities to attended the
short exchange course programme of Sakura Science Program in Kobe University,
Japan (2022) and the volunteering programme of Youth Agricareture: Zero Waste
in Bogor, Indonesia (2019).
The author had achieve the 1st Prize of Presentation and Poster Category on
the 35th Pekan Ilmiah Nasional (Pimnas) in PKM-KC entiteled “Rancang Bangun
Reaktor Kompak Berbasis Hybrid Attached Growth Biofilm Terintegrasi Arduino
Sebagai Inovasi Pengolahan Limbah Cair Tekstil” (2022); the Finalist of the 34th
Pimnas in PKM-GT entiteled “I-SURE: Smart Undersea Train for Indonesian
Unifier” (2021); the Recipient of Grant Fund Program Kreativitas Mahasiswa in
PKM-GFT entitled “D-TECSER: Integrasi Sistem Mitigasi Bencana
Hidrometeorologis Indonesia melalui Teknologi Modifikasi Cuaca Berbasis Drone
Laser dan Artificial Intelligence” and “I-FISHILLAGE: Integrated Fishing Village
for Robust Indonesian Fisheries System” (2022); the 1st Prize of Poster Design
Competition in “LISTEN” KN FGMMI (2021); and the 2nd Prize of Puteri OMDA
in Gebyar Nusantara in IPB University (2020).
Furthermore, the author also join several student organizations and
commitees. Some of them are DPM Fateta as general secretary (2022) & aspiration
commission secretary (2021), IGAF LC IPB as the member of MIC Division (2019-
2021), ICEF as the head of Publication Division (2022) & the staff of Sponsorship
Division (2021), PEMIRA-F as the head of Design and Documentation Division
(2021), The 2nd ISCEE as the staff of Design Division (2021), and MPKMB IPB
57 as the staff of Decoration, Design, and Branding (2020).
In addition, the author become the intern at the Leuwikeris Dam Project (1st
Batch) by PP-BBN KSO with the internship report entitled “Evaluasi Analisis
Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Amdal) pada Quarry Area Proyek Konstruksi
Bendungan Leuwikeris, Jawa Barat” (2023); the lecturer assistant in the courses of
“Ilmu Ukur Wilayah”, “Gambar Teknik Konstruksi”, “Mekanika Fluida dan
Hidrolika”, “Hidrologi Teknik”, and “Pengelolaan Limbah Cair” (2021-2023); and
the co-writer of scientific publication in Jurnal Teknik Sipil Institut Teknologi
Padang entitled “Efek Kecepatan Pengendapan terhadap Perencanaan Unit
Sedimentasi Primer pada Pengolahan Air Lindi” (2022).