Improved Computational Model (AQUIFAS)
for Activated Sludge, Integrated Fixed-Film
Activated Sludge, and Moving-Bed Biofilm
Reactor Systems, Part I: Semi-Empirical
Model Development
Dipankar Sen1*, Clifford W. Randall2
ABSTRACT: Research was undertaken to develop a model for activated
sludge, integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS), and moving-bed
biofilm reactor (MBBR) systems. The model can operate with up to 12 cells
(reactors) in series, with biofilm media incorporated to one or more cells,
except the anaerobic cells. The process configuration can be any combination
of anaerobic, anoxic, aerobic, post-anoxic with or without supplemental
carbon, and reaeration; it can also include any combination of step feed and
recycles, including recycles for mixed liquor, return activated sludge, nitrates,
and membrane bioreactors.
This paper presents the structure of the model. The model embeds a biofilm
model into a multicell activated sludge model. The biofilm flux rates for
organics, nutrients, and biomass can be computed by two methods—a semi-
empirical model of the biofilm that is relatively simpler, or a diffusional model
that is computationally intensive. The values of the kinetic parameters for
the model were measured using pilot-scale activated sludge, IFAS, and MBBR
systems. For the semiempirical version, a series of Monod equations were
developed for chemical oxygen demand, ammonium-nitrogen, and oxidized-
nitrogen fluxes to the biofilm. Within the equations, a second Monod ex-
pression is used to simulate the effect of changes in biofilm thickness and
fraction nitrifiers in the biofilm. The biofilm flux model is then linked to the
activated sludge model. The diffusional model and the verification of the
models are presented in subsequent papers (Sen and Randall, 2008a, 2008b).
The model can be used to quantify the amount of media and surface area
required to achieve nitrification, identify the best locations for the media, and
optimize the dissolved oxygen levels and nitrate recycle rates. Some of the
advanced features include the ability to apply different media types and fill
fractions in cells; quantify nitrification, denitrification, and biomass produc-
tion in the biofilm and mixed liquor suspended solids; and perform dynamic
simulations. Water Environ. Res., 80, 439 (2008).
KEYWORDS: modeling, biofilm, integrated fixed-film activated sludge,
and moving-bed biofilm reactor, activated sludge, AQUIFAS, dynamic
simulation, model development.
doi:10.2175/106143008X268452
Introduction
In the past 20 years, there has been considerable interest in
finding alternatives to increase nitrification and denitrification in
activated sludge tanks that were originally designed for biochemical
1
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California.
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
* 1290 Bryant Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94040; dsen@valleywater.org.
May 2008
oxygen demand (BOD) removal. Further, with the increase in the
value of land and the need to increase plant capacity to meet
population growth, there is a need to reduce the footprint of plants
per unit of flow treated. More recently, following the implementa-
tion of stringent total nitrogen permits and total-maximum-daily-
load-based strategies that require reduction to 3 mg/L total nitrogen,
there has been an interest in increasing nitrification and de-
nitrification rates in aerobic zones and in the pre- and post-anoxic
zones of nitrogen removal systems that were being operated to
satisfy an 8-mg/L total nitrogen level.
One of the alternatives being considered is the addition of biofilm
carrier particles (media) in existing or new activated sludge tanks.
If the plant continues to operate with return sludge (RAS) following
the addition of media to the activated sludge system, it gets con-
verted from an activated sludge to an integrated fixed-film activated
sludge (IFAS) system. Figure 1 shows how this can be done with
fixed-bed media or moving-bed media to increase the rates of chem-
ical oxygen demand (COD) removal and nitrification. In some in-
stances, a plant may be designed without RAS (Figure 1d). In this
case, the configuration is called a moving-bed bioreactor (MBBR)
system. A retrofit can also be made, with media addition, to sepa-
rate stage nitrification systems, to increase nitrification; or to the
anoxic zones of single-stage or separate-stage systems, to increase
denitrification.
One of the hurdles in existing models is the lack of full- or pilot-
scale verification against operating systems, principally because of
the scarcity of IFAS systems with continuous-flow data. Another
hurdle is the lack of good data on biofilm surface areas that can be
achieved with various types of media and the variation in surface area
based on aeration patterns and the location of media along an
activated sludge tank. This paper presents the process kinetics and
methodology for model design. The model can be operated for
steady-state and dynamic simulations. The dynamic simulation
provides information on the variation in effluent quality, based on
hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly changes in the influent loadings and
recycle rates, including changes in loadings from solids dewatering.
Literature Review
The modeling of biofilm reactors is more complex than activated
sludge modeling. This is principally because of the introduction of
diffusion. Further, the modeling of IFAS is more complex than
439
Sen and Randall

‘‘pure’’ biofilm systems, such as MBBRs, where it can be assumed

that, for low-strength wastewaters, the mixed liquor volatile sus-
pended solids (MLVSS) concentration is so low that there is very
little removal of COD, nitrification, and denitrification by the sus-
pended solids (Figure 1). Within the realm of biofilm modeling,
there are different levels of complexity. The simpler models use a
set of equations that can be solved analytically (Wanner et al.,
2006). The analytical approach simplifies the set of differential
equations, but requires more assumptions, such as knowledge of the
rate-limiting substrate in each cell within a reactor. Also, it assumes
knowledge of the limiting substrate in the layers within the bio-
film (Harremoës, 1978; Rittmann and McCarty, 1981). Bae and
Rittmann (1996) presented examples where this could be extended
to multiple limiting substrates. The numerical 1-dimensional model
relaxes these assumptions further (Reichart, 1998a, 1998b; Wanner
and Reichart, 1996 [AQUASIM 2.0]). The 1-dimensional model
can be extended to multiple dimensions. Some researchers treat the
length of a reactor or a multicell reactor as the second dimension
(also referred to as a pseudo 2 d). Others treat the spatial diversity
within the biofilm as a second dimension, wherein the biofilm is
allowed to grow and cover more of the media surface (Picioreanu,
1999). There is recognition that incorporation of the concepts of
2-dimensional modeling is important in IFAS and MBBR media
systems, where the thickness of the biofilm can lead to loss in
specific surface area on the inside surface of plastic cylinders, but
may be partially compensated for by the increase in the biofilm that
develops on the outer surface (Sen, Randall, Copithorn, Huhtamaki,
Farren, and Flournoy, 2007).
Several pilot studies of activated sludge, IFAS, and MBBR Figure 1—Plant configurations.
systems were undertaken between 1992 and 1995 (Mitta, 1994; Sen,
1995). The purposes were to understand the conditions under which
COD removal, nitrification, denitrification, and biological excess thickness and fraction nitrifiers in the biofilm, with changes in the
phosphorus removal were affected by the introduction of biofilm external substrate concentrations. In the mechanistic model (Sen and
support media in activated sludge systems and by the reduction in Randall, 2008a), the biofilm is modeled as 12 layers and a stagnant
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) mean cell residence time liquid layer (biofilm 1-and 2-dimensional diffusional model).
(MCRT) and to develop a simple version of the IFAS model. The basic premise of the model is to add equations for uptake,
Several process kinetic parameters were identified, and their values oxidation, and reduction of COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and oxidized
were measured. Some of the parameters for the biofilm were sub- nitrogen, and for sludge production in biofilms, in a format that is
sequently published as flux rates of COD removal and nitrification compatible with the International Association on Water Quality
(Sen and Randall, 1996, 2005; Sen et al., 2000). (London, United Kingdom) (IAWQ) activated sludge model. The
Earlier versions of the IFAS model were published by Sen and IAWQ model is available in several user-friendly forms, the most
Randall (1996, 2005) and by Sriwiriyarat et al. (2005). Several full- common of which is the Biowin (Envirosim Associates Ltd., 2006).
scale IFAS and MBBR facilities were evaluated using the model, In developing the model described herein, the equations for the
and the results were published in 2006 (Sen et al., 2006). The facili- biofilm were structured in a manner that is compatible with the
ties included Broomfield, Colorado (Rutt et al., 2006); Annapolis, activated sludge model. The COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and
Maryland (Copithorn et al., 2006); Geisselbullach, Germany oxidized nitrogen uptake and removals are computed as the sum
(Lessel, 1994); Mamaroneck, New York (Psaltakis et al., 2003); total of removals by the MLSS and the biofilm. The percentage of
and Providence, Rhode Island (Masterson et al., 2004). The IFAS removal in the biofilm increases as the amount of biofilm surface
model was able to predict the improvement in nitrification at all nine area is increased and the MLSS MCRT (and MLVSS) is decreased.
of the nine full-scale IFAS and MBBR facilities for which data was The equations to compute the COD removal, ammonium-nitrogen
available. What is more important is that it was able to accurately removal (biomass uptake for synthesis and nitrification), and deni-
simulate the loss of nitrification/limited nitrification in winter at two trification were developed based on Monod process kinetics. The
of the facilities. removals in suspended solids are computed as per the IAWQ/Inter-
national Water Association activated sludge model and are dependent
Model Development on the concentrations of suspended solids, biodegradable soluble
The biofilm can be modeled using a semiempirical methodology COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and dissolved oxygen. Additional
and a mechanistic method. The semiempirical method is based on removal resulting from the biofilm in IFAS and MBBR configurations
modeling the biofilm flux rates based on a set of equations for is computed based on removal rates per unit of surface area of biofilm,
biofilm flux. These equations were developed from measurements multiplied by the surface area of biofilm in each reactor (cell).
of biofilm flux in pilot studies (Sen, 1995). They include a second The model is set up to operate with up to 12 cells (reactors) in
Monod expression to simulate the effect of changes in biofilm series. Influent and recycles can be fed to and removed from any cell.

440 Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5


Biofilm support media can be installed in one or more cells. Each cell
can be operated with or without aeration, as part of an anaerobic, pre-
or post-anoxic, aerobic, or reaeration zone. For the unaerated cells,
the model computes the dissolved oxygen and oxidized nitrogen
(NOxN). This is compared with user-specified thresholds for aerobic,
anoxic, and anaerobic conditions, to determine whether aerobic,
anoxic, or anaerobic decay rates should be used for each cell.
The removals in the biofilm can be computed by two different
methods. The semiempirical version of the biofilm model incorpo-
rates Monodlike equations for the biofilm for substrate uptake and
removal under aerobic and anoxic conditions. These equations are
based on experimental measurements of biofilm flux rates observed
in pilot studies. The maximum nitrification rate per unit surface area
of biofilm (qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf) and the maximum COD utilization
rate per unit surface area of biofilm under aerobic and anoxic condi-
tions (qmH,COD,bf,aer and qmH,COD,bf,anx) were quantified. The half-
saturation constants for substrate and dissolved oxygen for the
biofilm (KN,bf and KDO,bf) were determined through a separate model
calibration and from the literature. The methodology for quantifying
rates was published in Sen (1995) and is summarized below.
The modeling of the aeration system for IFAS and MBBR
systems are based on the equations for aeration modeling in the
Aeration Manual of Practice FD-13 (WPCF, 1988). Research is
being undertaken by various manufacturers on the aeration and
oxygen transfer efficiencies in IFAS tanks. This supplements the
work done with diffusers in activated sludge systems, in which the
oxygen transfer efficiency was measured for various roll config-
urations and diffuser placements types on the floor of the activated
sludge tank (Rooney and Huibregtse, 1980; Schmit et al., 1978).
This paper presents the structure of the semiempirical version. The
semiempirical model requires a shorter run time compared with the
biofilm 1-dimensional model presented in Sen and Randall (2008a).
Ammonium-Nitrogen Uptake Rate. Equations 1 to 17 show
how ammonium-nitrogen is incorporated to the semiempirical
version of the IFAS and MBBR models. The default values of the
various kinetics parameters mentioned in the discussion below are
based on literature values for activated sludge systems and observa-
tions from biofilms.
Ammonium-Nitrogen Uptake Rate by Nitrifiers in Biofilm. Eq-
uation 1 shows the ammonium-nitrogen uptake rate in the biofilm
(kilograms per day). The ammonium-nitrogen (NH4N) uptake rate
is the sum total of the ammonium-nitrogen uptake by nitrifiers for
synthesis and nitrification. For cell n, the NH4N uptake by the
nitrifiers (NH4Nu,bf,n 5 BN,,n) is computed as follows:
NH4 Nu;bf;n BN;n ¼ qm;NH4 NNitr;bf
SO2n SNn
3 Vn Mn ð1Þ
KDO;nitr;bf þ SO2n KN;nitr;bf þ SNn
Where
qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf 5 flux rate for ammonium-nitrogen uptake by the
nitrifiers (expressed as kg/1000 m2 of biofilm
surface/d or mg/cm2/d).
The value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf for the biofilm is adjusted for mixed
liquor temperature. This is done using the Arrhenius equation, with
a temperature adjustment coefficient, h, as follows:
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf;T ¼ qm;NH4 NNitr;bf;25 ðhÞðT25Þ ð2Þ
The literature on nitrification in activated sludge systems shows
a range of values of the coefficient to adjust nitrification rates for
temperature. These vary from 1.03 to greater than 1.07 (Marais and
May 2008
Sen and Randall
Ekama, 1976; Randall et al., 1992; Wentzel et al., 1991). Research
conducted by Weiss et al. (2005) using an MBBR showed a
temperature coefficient of 1.047. A value of 1.05 1/2 0.02 is
recommended for the model.
For eq 1,
SN n and SO2 n 5 ammonium-nitrogen and dissolved oxygen
concentrations (mg/L), respectively, measured
in the liquid outside the biofilm in cell n (i.e.,
as measured in activated sludge systems);
Vn 5 volume of cell n (m3);
Mn 5 m2 of biofilm surface area per m3 of cell
volume in cell n; and
KN,nitr,bf 5 half-saturation constants for NH4N for nitrifier
growth in the biofilm (mg/L).
The default value of KN,nitr,bf 5 2 mg/L; this is based on data
presented by Hem et al. (1994) and Odegaard et al. (1994), which
show that nitrification rates in biofilms at 11 to 158C, when mea-
sured at high dissolved oxygen and low soluble COD levels, vary
almost linearly, from 0 to 4 mg/L NH4N (the relationship is first-
order over this range) and are fairly constant (zero-order) above
that. This relationship can also be represented using a Monod
expression with a half-saturation constant for NH4N of 2 mg/L.
For eq 1,
KDO,nitr,bf 5 half-saturation constant for dissolved oxygen for
nitrifier growth in the biofilm (mg/L).
The default value of KDO,nitr,bf 5 4 mg/L. Within the model, the
user may also select a first-order kinetics equation to simulate the
variation in nitrification rates with dissolved oxygen, as follows:
NH4 Nu;bf;n BN;n ¼ qm;NH4 NNitr;bf
SO2n SNn
3 V n Mn ð3Þ
KDO1;nitr;bf KN;nitr;bf þ SNn
Where
KDO1,nitr,bf 5 4.5 mg/L.
Both forms of the equation (eqs 1 and 3) replicate the variation in
nitrification rates with dissolved oxygen and are consistent with the
data presented by Huhtamaki and Sen (2007), Odegaard (2005b),
and Weiss et al. (2005). In the data presented by Odegaard (2005b),
the maximum nitrification rate in biofilms, measured at 11 to 158C
and operating at NH4N levels above 3 mg/L and low soluble COD
levels, varies linearly with dissolved oxygen from 3 to 6 mg/L.
The rates increased from 0.75 kg/d/1000 m2 at 3 mg/L to 1.5 kg/d/
1000 m2 at 6 mg/L dissolved oxygen, which shows a first-order
relationship. The rate began to deviate gradually from first-order to
half-order at dissolved oxygen levels above 6 mg/L. At a dissolved
oxygen concentration of 9 mg/L, the rate was 2 kg/d/1000 m2. In the
equation presented by Weiss et al. (2005), the nitrification rate in
an MBBR varied linearly with dissolved oxygen over a range of 1 to
7 mg/L when the NH4N levels were above 3 mg/L, as follows:
qm;NH4 Nnit;bf ¼ 0:214ðSO2  1:15Þð1:047ÞðT20Þ
Biofilm Nitrification Rates from Pilot Studies. Bench-scale pilot
systems were operated to determine rate coefficients. The activated
441
Sen and Randall
Figure 2—Nitrification rates for biofilm in IFAS and MBBR systems (DO 5 dissolved oxygen).
sludge, IFAS, and MBBR systems were operated under identical
wastewater loads, tank sizes and configurations, and nitrate recycle
configurations, except for the biofilm support media in the aerobic
zones of the IFAS and MBBR systems. The flowrate was 208 L/d,
and the nominal hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 12 hours. Of
this, 17% of the volume was anaerobic, 17% was anoxic, and
the remaining 66% was aerobic (aerobic HRT of 8 hours). The
operating temperature of 128C was low enough to stress the
nitrifiers in the MLSS as the mixed liquor MCRT was lowered.
The maximum ammonium-nitrogen uptake rates by nitrifiers in
the biofilm (qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf) were measured for biofilm removed
from the pilot systems. To measure the maximum rates of
ammonium uptake, 2 L of the biofilm carrier particles and mixed
liquor were removed from each of three aerobic cells of the IFAS
and MBBR continuous-flow system. These were placed in flasks
and spiked with ammonium chloride and bicarbonate, and aerated.
The ammonium-nitrogen uptake rate was measured over time. The
tests were conducted at ammonium-nitrogen concentrations of 10 to
50 mg/L. The rates were determined for the mixed liquor alone and
for the mixed liquor with biofilm carrier particles. The tests were
442
conducted when the systems were operated at 3.1-, 2.4-, 1.7-, 1.0-,
and 0.3-day MLSS MCRTs. The combination of 5 MLSS MCRTs
and three aerobic cells allowed one to measure rates for uptake of
ammonium-nitrogen by biofilm that developed under various
soluble biodegradable COD and ammonium-nitrogen conditions.
The method has been described by Sen (1995). The batch tests for
ammonium-nitrogen uptake were operated at very low soluble
biodegradable COD concentrations. This limited the ammonium-
nitrogen uptake by the heterotrophs in the biofilm. The systems
were operated for a minimum of 3 MLSS MCRTs or 8 weeks,
whichever was longer, and monitored to ensure that steady-state
was achieved following each change in MLSS MCRT. This was to
ensure that the biofilm reached a reasonable degree of equilibrium
with the new soluble biodegradable COD profile.
The qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf data for the biofilm were graphed against
biodegradable soluble COD levels (SCODbio) for those conditions
where the soluble biodegradable COD in the aerobic reactor was
above 10 mg/L (Figure 2a). Note that the concentration referenced
is the concentration measured in the continuous-flow reactor under-
steady state operation at the various MLSS MCRTs. Above 10 mg/L,
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

the studies showed that the nitrifiers in the biofilm were inhibited by
the concentration of soluble biodegradable COD and not influenced
by the concentration of NH4N in the reactor. An empirical relation-
ship (equation for the line) was developed from the data (points on
the graph) using SYSTAT (a statistical software package by Systat
Software Inc., San Jose, California) to relate qm,NH4N2Nitr,,bf to
soluble biodegradable COD (Figure 2a), as follows:
AN KS;bfg;Nitr
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf ¼ ð4Þ
KS;bfg;Nitr þ SCODbio  10
Where
AN 5 1.8 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm surface/d;
KS,bfg,Nitr 5 half-saturation constant for nitrifier growth in biofilm
(5 9.4 mg/L SCODbio); and
SCODbio 5 biodegradable soluble COD in the mixed liquor.
For SCODbio,10 mg/L, it was determined that the COD concentra-
tion did not inhibit the development of nitrifiers in the biofilm. The
qm,NH4N2Nitr,,bf that could be sustained by the biofilm increased
linearly with NH4N in the continuous-flow reactors (Figure 2b), as
follows:
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf ¼ ðDÞSN ð5Þ
Where
D 5 0.47 kg-L/mg/m2 of biofilm surface/d, and
SN 5 ammonium-nitrogen concentration in the mixed liquor
(mg/L).
An alternate form of eq 5 was used to simulate the conditions
observed at SCODbio,10 mg/L, as follows:
AN SN
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf ¼ ð6Þ
KN;bfgNitr þ SN
Where
KN,bfg,Nitr 5 half-saturation constant term in the equation to derive
qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf (maximum flux rate for ammonium-
nitrogen uptake by the nitrifiers) from AN.
The value of KN,bfg,Nitr 5 2.1 mg/L NH4N. Note that this is not the
same as KN,bf in eq 1.
The value of AN over the range observed is in general agreement
with the value of 2 to 2.5 kg/1000 m2/d observed by Odegaard
(2005) and Odegaard et al. (1994) for Kaldnes Miljøteknologi
(KMT) carriers at 10 to 158C, low soluble BOD concentrations, and
without oxygen limitation. The default value recommended for
modeling 5 2 kg/1000 m2/d.
Ammonium-Nitrogen Uptake Rate by Nitrifiers in Mixed Liquor
Volatile Suspended Solids. Equation 7 represents the ammonium-
nitrogen uptake by nitrifiers in the suspended solids (SS) in
cell n. The units for MLVSS are kilograms per cubic meter. The
BVFn is the fraction of liquid volume in cell n that is displaced by
biofilm and its support media. It is characteristic of the type of
media and media fill volume fraction (mf) in the cell. The mf is
the fraction of empty tank volume that is filled with bare media.
For example, if 50% of the empty tank volume is filled with bare
media (media without biofilm on its surface), the mf 5 0.5. The fnitr
is the fraction of nitrifiers in the MLVSS.
May 2008
Sen and Randall
The NH4N uptake by nitrifiers in cell n, AN,n, is computed as
follows:
SO2n SNn
AN;n ¼ qm;NH4 NNitr;SS
KDO;nitr;SS þ SO2n KN;nitr;SS þ SNn
3 Vn ð1  BVFn Þ fNitr Xn ð7Þ
Where
qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS 5 maximum ammonium-nitrogen up-
take rate for nitrifiers in the MLVSS
at temperature T (mg NH4N/mg
nitrifier VSS/d);
KDO,nitr,SS and KN,nitr,SS 5 half-saturation constants for nitrifiers
in the MLVSS at temperature T;
fNitr 5 fraction of nitrifiers in the MLVSS; and
Xn 5 MLVSS concentration in cell n (kg
VSS/m3).
The value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS measured by calibration of the
model to the performance of the activated sludge system in the pilot
studies was 8.51 mg NH4N uptake by nitrifiers/mg nitrifier VSS  d
at 128C (Table 1). This is in agreement with the value for
qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS of 12.5 mg NH4N at 258C uptake/mg nitrifier
VSS  d and a temperature adjustment coefficient of 1.03 (Randall
et al., 1992; Wentzel et al., 1991).
The default value of KDO,nitr,SS 5 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen at
258C. Its temperature adjustment coefficient, h 5 1.00. The default
value of KN,nitr,SS 5 1 mg/L of NH4N at 258C. Its temperature ad-
justment coefficient, h 5 1.06. This results in a value of 0.46 mg/L
at 128C. These values of the coefficients are based on the work
on nitrification and denitrification in activated sludge systems by
Marais and Ekama (1976) and Wentzel et al. (1991).
For the purposes of design, the model allows the user to inhibit
the value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS (8.51 day21) by a certain percentage,
to account for nitrifier inhibition experienced at a full-scale facility.
A typical percentage for the inhibition recommended for design is
25%. The inhibition is because of the presence of certain chemicals
in the wastewater, such as in a system that receives a combination of
wastewater and septage. Certain facilities have significantly higher
inhibition, such as inhibition by cyanide recirculated from multiple
hearth incinerators burning sludge. This has been observed at the
Western Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington Sub-
urban Sanitary Commission, Maryland, and the Virginia Initiative
Plant, Hampton Roads Sanitation District (Norfolk, Virginia) plants
when operated with recycle flow from multiple hearth furnace
exhaust gas scrubbers. The inhibition was as high as 50% (Solley,
2000). At other facilities, such as in Broomfield, Colorado (Sen,
Phillips, Murthy, Pattarkine, Copithorn, Randall, Schwinn, and
Banerjee, 2007), continuous simulation against extended periods of
plant data showed no significant inhibition.
Mass Balance for Ammonium-Nitrogen in Each Reactor. The
ammonium-nitrogen concentration (mg/L) in cell n is calculated
using a mass balance approach, as follows:
IN;n þ Ndecay;n þ NorgN;hydr;n
¼ AN;n þ BN;n þ CN;n þ DN;n þ EN;n ð8Þ
Where
IN,n 5 quantity of unassimilated ammonium-nitrogen
entering aerobic cell n (kg/d);
443
Sen and Randall

Table 1—Values of coefficients measured in pilot studies and default values for the semiempirical model.a Refer to notes
b and c at the bottom of the table for sources of the values.

T Value Default Units/formula Reference

measured

Heterotrophs in MLVSS
Aerobic
um,H,aer,SS Max growth rate 12 3.57 3.57 mg VSS (mg COD d)21 Note b
qm,H,aer,SS Max substrate util rate 12 8.72 8.72 mg COD (mg VSS d)21 Note b
YH,aer Yield 12 0.41 0.41 mg VSS (mg COD)21 Note b
kd,H,aer Decay rate 12 0.042 0.042 day21 Note b
KH,S,,aerSS Half sat constant 12 48 48 mg/L SCOD Note b
KH,DO,SS Half sat constant 12 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen Note c
qm,hydr,aer,COD,SS Max hydrolysis rate (0.1) mg COD (mg VSS d)21 Note d
(qm,H,aer,SS)
qm,hydr,aer,PorgN,SS Max conversion rate (qm,hydr,aer,COD,SS)
(particulate orgN to sol orgN) (influent COD/TKN)
qm,hydr,aer,PP,SS Max conversion rate (qm,hydr,aer,COD,SS)
(particulate orgP to sol P, not OP) (influent COD/total
phosphorus)
qm,hydr,aer,SorgN,SS Max ammonification rate (0.8) (qm,hydr,aer,PorgN,SS)
(sol orgN to NH4N)
qm,hydr,aer,SP,SS Max ammonification rate (0.8) (qm,hydr,aer,PP,SS)
(sol P to OP)

Anoxic
um,H,anx,SS Max growth rate 12 1.77 1.77 mg VSS (mg COD d)21 For pre-anx
qm,H,anx,SS Max substrate util rate 12 5.71 5.71 mg COD (mg VSS d)21 For pre-anx
YH,anx Yield 12 0.31 0.31 mg VSS (mg COD)21 Note b
kd,H,anx Decay rate 12 0.022 0.022 day21 Note b
KH,S,anx,SS Half sat constant 12 56 48 mg/L SCODbio Note b
KH,DO,I,SS Half inhibition constant 12 0.25 mg/L dissolved oxygen Note c
KH,NO3N,SS Half sat constant 12 1.0 mg/L NO3N Note c
Hydrolysis rate (Aerobic rate) Note d
(qm,H,anx,SS/qm,H,aer,SS)
Anaerobic
kd,Hana Decay rate 12 0.005 0.005 day21 Note b
Hydrolysis rate (0.5)(anoxic rate)(0.5) Note d

Autotrophs in MLVSS
Nitrosomonas or ammonia-oxidizing bacteria Values from literature calibrated to pilot studies
um,NH4N-Nitr,SS Max growth rate 12 0.43 0.43 mg VSSNitr1 (mg NH4N d)21 Note e
qm,NH4N-Nitr,SS Max NH4N util rate 12 8.51 8.51 mg NH4N (mg VSSNitr1 d)21 Note b
YN1 Yield 12 0.05 0.05 mg VSSNitr1 (mg NH4N) Note c
kd,N1 Aerobic decay rate 12 0.023 0.023 day21 Note c
KDO,nitr,SS Half sat constant for nitrifiers 12 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen Note c
KN,nitr,SS Half sat constant for nitrifiers 12 1 mg/L NH4N Note c

Biofilm in semiempirical model These are concentrations in the bulk liquid, not inside biofilm
KS,H,aer,bf Half sat, aerobic, heterotrophs 12 48 48 mg/L SCODbio Note b
KS,H,anx,bf Half sat, anoxic, heterotrophs 12 56 48 mg/L SCODbio Note b
KDO,H,aer,bf Half sat, aerobic, heterotrophs 12 4.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen Note f
KDO,H,i,bf Half inhibition constant, anoxic 12 2.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen Note b
ASaer Max aer COD uptake rate, biofilm 12 21 21 kg COD/1000 m2/d Note b
ASanx Max anx COD uptake rate, biofilm 12 14 14 kg COD/1000 m2/d Note g
BSaer Half sat, for AS 12 19.3 19.3 mg/L SCODbio Note b
BSanx Half sat, for AS 12 19.3 19.3 mg/L SCODbio Note b
KDO,nitr,bf Half sat, aerobic, nitrifiers 12 4.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen Note f
KN,nitr,bf Half sat, aerobic, nitrifiers 12 2.0 mg/L NH4N Note f
AN Max NH4N uptake rate (nitr rate) 12 1.8 1.8 kg/1000 m2/d Note b
KS,bfg,nitr Half inhibition, AN for nitrif 12 9.4 9.4 mg/L SCODbio Note b
KN,bfg,nitr Half sat, AN for nitrif 12 2.1 2.1 mg/L NH4N Note b

444 Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

 Sen and Randall

Table 1—(Continued)

T Value measured Default Units/formula Reference

2
Aerobic COD hydrolysis rates by biofilm 20% of qmaer,COD,bf kg COD/1000 m /d Note h
fN Nitrogen in biomass 0.12 mg-N/mg VSS Note b
fCOD COD in biomass 1.42 mg COD/mg VSS Note b

a
Model is structured such that the modeler can use observed values instead of the default values for kinetic coefficients and  when
observed values are available.
b
Unless mentioned, these values were determined from continuous-flow bench-scale pilot studies operated in activated sludge, IFAS, and
MBBR modes (Sen, 1995).
c
Literature referenced: Barker and Dold (1997); Marais and Ekama (1976); Randall et al. (1992); Wentzel et al. (1991).
d
Maximum hydrolysis rate should be refined by calibrating model results to operating data.
e
The value of 0.43 day21 was determined by calibrating the model to the performance of the bench-scale activated sludge system operated
at different MLSS MCRTs.
f
Hem et al. (1994); Huhtamaki and Sen (2007); Odegaard (2005b); Weiss et al. (2005).
g
Based on ratio of maximum substrate utilization rates under preanoxic and aerobic conditions. The value must be corrected for post-anoxic
cells.
h
For aerobic hydrolysis by biofilm, substitute qmaer,COD,bf for qm,H,aer,SS in the equation for MLVSS; all other hydrolysis equations for the biofilm
are related to this equation based on a form similar to the equations for hydrolysis with MLVSS.

EN,n 5 quantity of unassimilated ammonium-nitrogen
exiting cell n (kg/d);
AN,n and BN,n 5 ammonium-nitrogen uptake by nitrifiers in
suspended solids and biofilm, computed by
eqs 7 and 1, respectively (kg/d);
CN,n and DN,n 5 ammonium-nitrogen use in cell n resulting from
heterotrophic biomass production by MLVSS
and biofilm, respectively (kg/d);
Ndecay,n 5 ammonium-nitrogen released through decay of
VSS in cell n (kg/d); and
Norg-N,hydr,n 5 hydrolysis of organic nitrogen (kg/d).
The variable CN,n 5 NH4N uptake by biomass in the MLSS using
dissolved oxygen and NOxN in cell n, as follows:
CN;n ðkg=dÞ ¼ f½CODu;aer;SS;n ½YAH;aer;SS 
þ ½CODu;anx;SS;n ½YAH;anxSS g fN
Where
fN 5 fraction of nitrogen in the
biomass (MLVSS) synthe-
sized (default value of 0.12);
CODu,aer,SS,n and CODu,anx,SS,n 5 COD used by MLVSS under
aerobic and anoxic conditions,
respectively, in cell n (kg/d);
and
YAH,aerSS and YAH,anxSS 5 actual biomass yields for aer-
obic and anoxic uptake of
COD by the suspended solids
(mg VSS/mg COD).
The variable YAH,BF (eq 10) 5 actual biomass yield for heterotrophs
in the biofilm (mg VSS/mg COD). Heterotrophic biomass produc-
tion is discussed in the section titled Biomass Production.
The variable DN,n (kg/d) 5 NH4N uptake by heterotrophic yield
of the biofilm in cell n, as follows:
DN;n ¼ ½CODu;bf;n ½YAH;BF g fN
Unlike NH4N uptake rates by MLVSS, A,n,N and D,n.N, are the
measured net decay of autotrophic and heterotrophic biomass in the
biofilms, respectively. The Ndecay,n is the nitrogen released from
biomass in MLVSS (kg/m3) as a result of decay in cell n. When the
dissolved oxygen concentration is above the threshold that repre-
sents aerobic conditions, the form of the equation is as follows:
Ndecay; n ðkg=dÞ ¼ ðfN ÞðkdH;aerT MLVSS Vn Þð1  BVFn Þ ð11Þ
If the dissolved oxygen concentration is below the threshold for
aerobic conditions, but above the NOxN threshold for anoxic
conditions, the decay rate is reduced from the aerobic decay rate of
kdH,aerT to the anoxic decay rate of kdH,anxT (Table 1). If it is below
the NOxN threshold, the decay rate is reduced to the anaerobic
decay rate of kdH,anaT.
The Ndecay,n is not included when the value of the ammonium-
ð9Þ nitrogen utilization rate term for sludge production (CN,n) by the
MLVSS is the measured net of biomass decay. The corresponding
decay term for biofilm is not included, because the ammonium-
nitrogen uptake rate in eq 1 is the measured net of biofilm decay.
The Norg-N,hydr,n is the unassimilated organic nitrogen that is
hydrolyzed in cell n. It is computed as follows (in kg/d):
NorgN;hydr;n ¼ ðIPorgN þ ISorgN  EPorgN  ESorgN Þn ð12Þ
In this model, the rate of hydrolysis is computed based on a series
of Monod equations. For the MLVSS, the maximum hydrolysis rate
for unassimilated particulate organic nitrogen (qm,hydr,EA,PorgN,SS) is
expressed in units of kg particulate organic nitrogen hydrolyzed/kg
MLVSS  d; the half-saturation constant (Khydr,EA,PorgN,SS) is ex-
pressed in mg/L particulate organic nitrogen. The subscript EA
represents aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic conditions for the electron
acceptor (EA), based on the thresholds of dissolved oxygen and
NOxN, which represent aerobic and anoxic conditions, respectively.
For the biofilm, the maximum hydrolysis rate for particulate organic
nitrogen (qm,hydr,EA,PorgN,bf) is expressed in units of kilograms of
particulate organic nitrogen hydrolyzed per day per 1000 m2 of
biofilm surface. The half-saturation constant (Khydr,EA,PorgN,bf) is
ð10Þ expressed in milligrams per liter of particulate organic nitrogen. The

May 2008 445

Sen and Randall

Table 2—Matrix showing equations for heterotrophs and the interrelationship of kinetic coefficients for the mixed liquor
in each cell of reactor (X 5 MLVSS).

SO2
XH XN SS SN (dissolved SNO3N
(X [12fnitr]) (X fnitr) (SCODbio) (NH4N) oxygen) (NO3N) Kinetic expression for cell n (n 5 cell number in multicell reactor)

21 2ð12fCOD YHaer Þ SO2n SCODbio;n

Heterotrophs 1 YHaer 2fN YHaer YHaer[qm,H,aer,SS KH;DO;SS 1SO2n KH;S;aer;SS 1SCODbio;n Vn(12BVFn) (12fNitr) Xn]
using
dissolved
oxygen
21 2ð12fCOD YHanx Þ SNOxNn SCODbio;n KH;DO;i;SS
Heterotrophs 1 YHanx 2fN 2:86 YHanx YHanx[qm,H,anx,SS KH;NOxN;SS 1SNOxNn KH;S;anx;SS 1SCODbio;n KH;DO;i;SS 1SO2n Vn(12BVFn) (12fNitr)Xn]
using NO3N
21 23:43ð12fN YN1 Þ SO2n SNn
AOB (N1) using 1 YN1 YN1 YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS KDO;nitr;SS 1SO2n KN;nitr;SS 1SNn Vn(12BVFn) fNitrXn]
dissolved
oxygen
21:14 21
NOB (N2) using 1 2fN YN2 YN2
dissolved
oxygen
N YN1 Þ SO2n SNn
AOB 1 NOB 2 21
YN1 2 fN 24:57ð12f
YN1
21
YN1 2 YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS KDO;nitr;SS 1SO2n KN;nitr;SS 1SNn Vn(12BVFn) fNitrXn]
(if YN1 5 YN2
and eff
NO2N 5 0)

effluent particulate organic nitrogen (EPorgN) is computed from the saturation constants for soluble organic nitrogen are used in eqs 14
influent particulate organic nitrogen (IPorgN) and the hydrolysis of and 15.
particulate organic nitrogen by the MLVSS and biofilm. This is A set of values of coefficients have been developed for use in the
simulated using eqs 13 to 16, as follows: model (Table 1). These values are derived by calibrating the model
IPorgN;n ¼ EPorgN;n þ Porg Nhydr;SS;n þ Porg Nhydr;bf;n ð13Þ to the data from the continuous-flow pilot studies (Sriwiryarat et al.,
2005) and calibration of the model to several full-scale MBBRs and
IFAS plants (Sen et al., 2006). In eqs 14 and 15, the half-saturation
Porg Nhydr;SS;n ¼ qm;hydr;EA;PorgN;SS
constants Khydr,EA,PorgN,SS and Khydr,EA,PorgN,SS are 1 mg/L for all
ECPorgN;n electron acceptor (EA) conditions.
3
Khydr;EA;PorgN;SS þ ECPorgN;n It should be noted that the value of the hydrolysis rate selected
3 Vn ð1  BVFn Þ MLVSSn ð14Þ has a greater affect in winter compared with summer and in an
MBBR compared with an IFAS. This is because of a slower
Porg Nhydr;bf;n ¼ qm;hydr;EA;PorgN;bf hydrolysis rate in winter and the relatively low MLVSS in the
ECPorgN;n MBBR, which requires most of the hydrolysis to be in the biofilm.
3 V n Mn ð15Þ The values computed from the pilot studies were revised based on
Khydr;EA;PorgN;bf þ ECPorgN;n
comparison with MBBRs running in winter. Particular care should
be taken in running models for MBBRs at low temperatures (2 to
EPorgN ¼ ðECPorgN ÞðQeff;n Þ=1000 ð16Þ
128C). The results should be checked against actual plants and the
Where values of the coefficients adjusted if necessary.
The equations for nitrification, denitrification, and COD removal
ECPorgN 5 concentration of particulate organic nitrogen in the
are summarized in a matrix format for substrate uptake in the
effluent from cell n (mg/L), and
MLVSS (Table 2) and by the biofilm (Table 3) in each cell of a
Qeff,n 5 effluent flow from cell n (m3/d).
multicell reactor.
The particulate organic nitrogen gets hydrolyzed to soluble organic Chemical Oxygen Demand Removal. The COD removal
nitrogen. The soluble organic nitrogen is then converted (deammi- rates are computed by a set of equations similar to those for
nated) to ammonium-nitrogen. The effluent soluble organic nitrogen nitrification.
(ESorgN) is computed as follows: The COD can be removed aerobically and anoxically by the
biofilm and the MLVSS in each cell. Equation 18 shows the aerobic
ISorgN þ Porg Nhydr;SS;n þ Porg Nhydr;bf;n COD uptake (CODu,aer,bf 5 Bn,1,S) by the biofilm, as follows:
¼ ESorgN þ Sorg Nhydr;SS;n þ Sorg Nhydr;bf;n ð17Þ SO2n
CODuaer;bf B1;S;n ¼ qm;aer;COD;bf
KDO;H;aer;bf þ SO2n
The equations to determine soluble organic nitrogen hydrolyzed SCODbio;n
by the biofilm and suspended solids (Sorg Nhydr,SS,n 1 Sorg 3 Vn Mn ð18Þ
KS;H;aer;bf þ SCODbio;n
Nhydr,bf,n) are structured in a format similar to eqs 13 to 16. The
subscript SorgN is substituted for PorgN. The values of maximum Maximum COD removal rates (qm,COD,bf) also increased with
hydrolysis rate for soluble organic nitrogen for MLVSS and biofilm the soluble biodegradable COD concentration (SCODbio). Based
(qm,hydr,SorgN,SS and qm,hydr,SorgN,bf) and the corresponding half- on batch tests to measure rates by biofilm removed from the

446 Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

 Sen and Randall

Table 3—Matrix showing equations for heterotrophs and biofilm flux associated with the biofilm in each cell in the
semiempirical biofilm model.*

SO2
XH XN SS SN (dissolved SNO3N Kinetic expression for cell n
(X [12fnitr]) (X fnitr) (SCODbio) (NH4N) oxygen) (NO3N) (n 5 cell number in multicell reactor)

21 2ð12fCOD YHaer Þ SO2n SCODbio;n

Heterotrophs using 1 YHaer 2fN YHaer YHaer[qm,aer,COD,bf KDO;H;aer;bf 1SO2n KS;H;aer;bf 1SCODbio;n Vn Mn]
dissolved oxygen
21 2ð12fCOD YHanx Þ K
H;DO;i;bf SCODbio;n SNOxNn
Heterotrophs 1 YHanx 2fN 2:86 YHanx YHanx[qm,anx,COD,bf KH;DO;i;bf 1SO2 KS;H;anx;bf 1SCODbio;n KNOxN;bf 1SNOxNn Vn Mn]
n
using NO3N
21 23:43ð12fN YN1 Þ SO2n SNn
AOB (N1) using 1 YN1 YN1 YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf KDO;nitr;bf 1SO2n KN;nitr;bf 1SNn Vn Mn]
dissolved oxygen
21:14 21
NOB (N2) using 1 2fN YN2 YN2
dissolved oxygen
21 24:57ð12fN YN1 Þ 21 SO2n SNn
AOB 1 NOB (if 2 YN1 2 fN YN1 YN1 2 YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf KDO;nitr;bf 1SO2n KN;nitr;bf 1SNn Vn Mn]
YN1 5 YN2 and
eff NO2N 5 0)

* The value of qm,aer,COD,bf and qm,anx,COD,bf are computed using eqs 19 and 21, respectively.
The value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf is computed using eq 4 or 6.
Equations 4, 6, 19, and 21 are similar to Monod equations. The Monod expression takes into account the change in biofilm flux for SCODbio and
NH4N as a result of external substrate concentrations and the associated changes in the biofilm thickness and fraction of nitrifiers.

continuous-flow reactor cells, an empirical relationship was devel- Equation 20 shows the anoxic COD uptake (CODu,anx,bf 5 B2,S,n)
oped to relate qm,COD,bf to SCODbio (Figure 3), as follows: by the biofilm, as follows:

AS;aer SCODbio KH;DO;i;bf

qm;aer;COD;bf ¼ ð19Þ CODu;anx;bf B2;S;n ¼ qm;anx;COD;bf
BS;aer þ SCODbio KH;DO;i;bf þ SO2n
SCODbio;n SNOxNn
3 Vn Mn ð20Þ
Where KS;H;anx;bf þ SCODbio;n KNOxN;bf þ SNOxNn
AS,aer 5 21 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm surface/d, and
BS,aer 5 19.3 mg/L SCODbio. AS;anx SCODbio
qm;anx;COD;bf ¼ ð21Þ
BS;anx þ SCODbio
Equation 18 shows that the rate changes with biodegradable
soluble COD (SCODbio,n) and dissolved oxygen (SO2,n) in cell n. The Where the default values of A and B are as follows:
default value of the half-saturation constant for COD, KS,H,aer,bf 5 48
AS,anx 5 13.8 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm surface/d, if the media is in
mg/L COD at 128C; this is equal to the value of KSHaer,SS measured
the preanoxic zone; and
for biomass in MLSS in the pilot studies (Table 1).
BS,anx 5 19.3 mg/L SCODbio.
The default value of the half-saturation constant for dissolved
oxygen, KDO,H,aer,bf, at 258C 5 4 mg/L dissolved oxygen. It is set at Equation 20 can be split into two separate equations, based on
the same level as used for nitrification in the biofilm. COD uptake with NO2N and NO3N as the two separate forms of

Figure 3—COD uptake rates for biofilm in IFAS and MBBR systems (DO 5 dissolved oxygen).

May 2008 447

Sen and Randall

NOxN. The current version treats all of the NOxN as NO3N and The value of KH,S,aer,SS measured in pilot studies was 48 mg/L
nitrification kinetics as the kinetics of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. (Table 1). This agrees with the KH,S,aer,SS value of 70 mg/L COD at
The code is structured to allow for future separation of the two forms. 258C observed by McClintock et al. (1988) and a temperature
The value for AS,anx is based on the ratio of maximum substrate adjustment coefficient of 1.03. The default value of KH,DO,SS 5 1
utilization rates for heterotrophs in the MLVSS under preanoxic and mg/L dissolved oxygen at 258C.
aerobic conditions (qmHanx SS/qmHaer SS). The default value recom- The value for qm,H,anx,SS measured at 128C was 5.71 mg COD
mended for the half-saturation constant for dissolved oxygen inhibi- taken up per milligram heterotrophic VSS (Table 1). This is for
tion, KH,DO,i,bf, at 128C 5 2 mg/L dissolved oxygen (Table 1). biomass that grows using a primary effluent with 25 to 33% of the
The default value of COD, KS,H,bf,anx, at 128C 5 48 mg/L COD, COD available as soluble biodegradable COD. A separate value of
which is the same recommended for aerobic conditions. Measure- qm,H,anx,SS should be determined for post-anoxic cells with supple-
ments in the pilot units indicated that the actual value may be mental carbon. This value may be lower when using methanol as a
slightly higher (Table 1, 56 mg/L). The default value half-saturation substrate (Dold et al., 2007).
constant of NOxN, KNOxN,bf, at 258C 5 1 mg/L NOxN. The value of KH,S,anx,SS measured under anoxic conditions at
As with the biofilm, the COD can be taken up anoxically and 128C was 56 mg/L (Table 1). This is slightly higher than the value
aerobically by the suspended solids. The model allows for simul- of 48 mg/L under aerobic conditions. As a default, one may use the
taneous aerobic and anoxic uptake of COD in a reactor. The user same value for modeling anoxic and aerobic zones.
has the option to modify the code and switch one form of uptake off The default values of KH,NO3N,SS and KH,DO,i,SS are from the
in each reactor. literature (Table 1). The value of KH,NO3N,SS 5 1 mg/L NO3N, and
Equations 22 and 23 calculate the aerobic (A1,S,n) and anoxic the value of KH,DO,i,SS 5 0.25 mg/L dissolved oxygen.
(A2,S,n) uptake of COD by the suspended solids in reactor n, as The soluble biodegradable COD (SCODbio) concentration (mg/L)
follows: in each aerobic cell n is calculated using a mass balance approach
SO2n similar to eq 8. The units of the terms in eq 24 are in kg/d.
CODu;aer;ss A1;S;n ¼ qm;H;aer;SS
KH;DO;SS þ SO2n In;S þ Sdecay;n þ Shydr;n
SCODbio;n ¼ A1;S;n þ A2;S;n þ B1;S;n þ B2;S;n þ En;S ð24Þ
3
KH;S;aer;SS þ SCODbio;n
Where
3 Vn ð1  BVFn Þð1  fNitr Þ Xn ð22Þ
In,S and En,s 5 influent and effluent kg/d of SCODbio for cell n,
and
Sdecay,n 5 COD released through the decay of MLVSS (kg/d).
SNOxNn
CODuanx;ss A2;S;n ¼ qm;H;anx;SS A corresponding term for COD release through decay of the biofilm
KH;NOxN;SS þ SNOxNn
was not included, because the COD flux in eqs 19 and 21 are net of
SCODbio;n KH;DO;i;SS decay. The COD flux in the biofilm diffusional model (Sen and
3
KH;S;anx;SS þ SCODbio;n KH;DO;i;SS þ SO2n Randall, 2008a) is also net of decay.
3 Vn ð1  BVFn Þð1  fNitr ÞXn ð23Þ
Sdecay;n ðkg=dÞ ¼ ðfCOD Þ ðkdH;aerT MLVSS Vn Þ ð1  BVFn Þ ð25Þ
Where
Where
qm,H,aer,SS and qm,H,anx,SS 5 maximum COD uptake rates for
heterotrophs in the MLVSS at tem- fCOD 5 COD content of biomass (with a default value of 1.42 mg
perature T (mg COD/mg VSS/d); COD/mg VSS), and
KH,DO,SS and KH,S,aer,SS 5 half-saturation constants for dis- Shydr,n 5 amount of unassimilated particulate COD converted to
solved oxygen and COD for the SCODbio in cell n (kg/d).
heterotrophs in the MLVSS during
The structure of the equations for hydrolysis is similar to eqs 13
aerobic uptake of COD at temper-
to 16.
ature T;
The half-saturation constant (KS,EA,hydr,SS and KS,EA,hydr,SS) is
KH,NOxN,SS and KH,S,anx,SS 5 half-saturation constants for NOxN
10 mg/L of particulate COD for EA 5 aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic
and COD for the heterotrophs in
conditions.
the MLVSS during anoxic uptake
The values of maximum hydrolysis rates for particulate COD by
of COD at temperature T; and
biomass in MLVSS and biofilm are presented in Table 1. As in the
KH,DO,i,SS 5 half-inhibition constant for denitri-
case of nitrogen, these were derived by analyzing the substrate
fication, expressed as mg/L dis-
profiles in the pilot-scale units and refined based on the predictions
solved oxygen.
in full-scale MBBRs operated at low temperatures (less than 108C).
The value for qm,H,aer,SS measured at 128C was 8.72 mg COD taken Biomass Production. The amount of heterotrophs and nitri-
up per milligram heterotrophic VSS per day (Table 1). This is in fiers generated as a result of COD removal and nitrification is
agreement with the value 12.8 per day at 258C and a temperature computed for the MLSS and biofilm. This computation is performed
adjustment coefficient of 1.03 (Barker and Dold, 1997; Randall for each cell n. The sum total for all n cells is the total biomass
et al., 1992; Wentzel et al., 1991). The values of h for heterotrophs production.
in the literature vary from less than 1.03 to 1.07 (Marais and Ekama, The user has to specify an MLSS MCRT for the computation. The
1976; Wentzel et al., 1991). model uses information on the plant configuration, such as anaerobic,

448 Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5


Table 4—Reference table of suggested yields, YH,bf and YN1,bf (generated by running the biofilm diffusional model or
from pilot studies).
Based on runs
of the biofilm 1D Substrate conc. range Anaerobic
model or from
experiments Lower mg/L Upper mg/L mg VSS hetertroph/mg COD uptake
SCODbio 20 200
5 19
1 4.9
0.1 0.99
NH4N range 5 20
1 4.9
0.1 0.9
anoxic, aerobic, and post-anoxic volume fractions, and step-feed,
Modified Ludzack Ettinger (MLE), University of Capetown (UCT),
or anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (A2O) configuration. Each configuration
results in different amounts of MLSS in each cell or different
fractions of MLSS MCRT under aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic
conditions. Additionally, the user specifies the biomass yield for
heterotrophs and nitrifiers in the biofilm or an equivalent biofilm
MCRT. This was discussed in the Model Development section.
Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids. The biomass yield for
heterotrophs (kg/d) in the MLVSS is computed in four steps, as
follows:
(1) The first step computes the yield in cell n, as follows:
Heterotrophic biomass yield by MLVSS in cell n is computed
in eq 26.
AXHy;n ¼ ðCODu;aer;SS;n Þ ðYHaer Þ þ ðCODu;anx;SS;n Þ ðYHanx Þ ð26Þ
The CODu,aer,SS,n and CODu,anx,SS,n are computed in eqs 22
and 23.
(2) The second step computes the decay of MLVSS biomass in
reactor cell n in kilograms per day. As discussed earlier for eq
11, the decay rate, kdH,EA,n, in cell n, is a function of dissolved
oxygen and NOxN in the cell.
Biomass decay for heterotrophs in cell n, is as follows:
An;XHd ¼ ðkdH;EA;n ÞðMLVSSÞð1  fnitr ÞðVn Þð1  BVFÞ ð27Þ
The overall heterotrophic biomass production in reactor cell n is
the sum of biomass yield and decay, as computed in eqs 26 and
27. The value of fnitr is computed iteratively by running through
the entire set of equations (1 to 47). The model runs a maximum
of 100 iterations (which can be changed by the user) or until the
values converge to within 1%.
(3) The nitrifier yield is computed in the third step using an equation
that is similar to eq 26 for heterotrophs, as follows:
Nitrifier biomass yield by MLVSS in cell n;
An;XNy ¼ ðNH4 Nu;SS;n ÞðYN1 Þ þ ðNO2 Nu;SS;n ÞðYN2 Þ ð28Þ
The first term on the right side is for Nitrosomonas biomass
yield 5 (NH4Nu,SS,n) (YN1). The second term on the right side is
for Nitrobacter biomass yield 5 (NO2Nu,SS,n)(YN2).
(4) The nitrifier decay is computed in the fourth step by eqs 29,
May 2008
Sen and Randall
Biofilm yield based on mode of uptake
Anoxic Aerobic
mg VSS autotroph/NH4N uptake
0.25 0.35
0.2 0.25
0.18 0.22
0.16 0.2
0.05
0.045
0.04
30, and 31. Equations 29 and 30 are similar to eq 27 for
heterotrophs.
Biomass decay for Nitrosomonas ðN1Þ in cell n;
An;XN1d ¼ ðkdN1;EA;n Þ ðfnitr1 Þ ðMLVSSÞ
3ðVn Þð1  BVFÞ ð29Þ
Biomass decay for Nitrobacter ðN2Þ in cell n;
An;XN2d ¼ ðkdN1;EA;n Þ ðfnitr2 ÞðMLVSSÞ
3ðVn Þð1  BVFÞ ð30Þ
An;XNd ¼ An;XN1d þ An;XN1d ð31Þ
Biofilm. The structure of the equation for the biofilm is similar
to that for MLVSS. The heterotrophic biomass generated by biofilm
in cell n, BXH,n is computed by eq 32, as follows:
Heterotrophic biomass generated by biofilm in cell n;
BXH;n ¼ ½CODu;bf;n ½YH;bf;n  ð32Þ
This biomass is the quantity sloughed off the biofilm and released
into the MLVSS. The COD used by the biofilm in reactor cell n is
computed by eqs 18 (CODu,bf,aer) and 20 (CODu,bf,anx). For the
semiempirical model, the biofilm yield in cell n, YH,bf,n (flux of
heterotroph out of the biofilm for each unit flux of COD into the
biofilm per day) must be specified as an external input. Its value
can be determined by running the biofilm diffusional model in
conjunction with the semiempirical model. Alternatively, it may be
based on measurements made during pilot studies, from a data table
included as part of the semiempirical model or on data from the
manufacturer. The data table is a table of yields observed at different
SCODbio and NH4N concentrations. It is based on the results of
several runs made with the biofilm diffusional model (Table 4).
For nitrifiers, the computations are similar to heterotrophs.
Equation 32 is modified for nitrifiers, as follows:
Nitrifier biomass generated by biofilm in cell n;
BXN;n ¼ ½NH4 Nu;bf;n ½YN1;bf;n  þ ½NO2 Nu;bf;n ½YN2;bf;n  ð33Þ
Where
BXN,n 5 amount of nitrifiers sloughed off the biofilm and
released into the mixed liquor (kg/d);
NH4Nu,bf,n 5 computed by eq 1;
449
Sen and Randall

YN1,bf,n 5 Nitrosomonas flux (as VSS out of biofilm) per It is for this reason that IFAS systems show a lower activated sludge
unit flux of NH4N into the biofilm per day; and tank volume requirement compared with MBBRs when designed
YN1,bf,n 5 Nitrosomonas flux (as VSS out of biofilm) per with the same biofilm surface area. However, IFAS systems need
unit flux of NH4N into the biofilm per day. sludge volume index control and, possibly, higher clarifier surface
areas.
In the current release of AQUIFAS, the nitrifier biomass generated Denitrification. The NOxN denitrified by the biofilm (NOx-
is based on a lumped yield of all nitrifying (ammonia-oxidizing and Nu,anx,bf,n 5 BNOxN,u,n) and the MLVSS (NOxNu,anx,SS,n 5
nitrite-oxidizing) bacteria (AOB and NOB, respectively) (Tables 2 ANOxN,u,n) are computed as follows:
and 3), as follows:
CODu;anx;bf;n
NOxNu;anx;bf;n ; BNOxN;u;n ¼ ð36Þ
Nitrifier biomass generated by biofilm in reactor cell n; DN COD Factor
BXN;n ¼ ½NH4 Nu;bf;n ½YNtotal;bf;n  ð34Þ
CODu;anx;SS;n
Where NOxNu;anx;bf;n ; ANOxN;u;n ¼ ð37Þ
DN COD Factor
YNtotal,bf,n 5 ammonia-oxidizing bacteria flux (as VSS out of The CODu,anx,bf,n (B2,S,n) and CODu,anx,SS,n (A2,S,n) are computed
biofilm) per unit flux of NH4N into the biofilm per as per eqs 20 and 23, respectively. As mentioned earlier,
day. The YNtotal,bf,n is twice the value of YN1,bf,n in CODu,anx,bf,n and CODu,anx,SS,n can each be split into two terms
Table 4. to separately compute COD used for denitrification of NO2N and
Unlike heterotrophs, the effect of the nitrifier decay rate within the NO3N. The denitrification COD factor (DN COD factor) is used to
biofilm is incorporated to the biofilm yields (i.e., the biofilm yields determine the oxidized nitrogen uptake based on the anoxic COD
are the net of decay). uptake. The DN COD factor is computed from the stoichiometry
Fraction of Nitrifiers. The fraction of nitrifiers in the MLVSS of denitrification, yield, and COD content of biomass (fCOD), as
is computed in the following three steps: follows:
(1) The model computes the quantity of nitrifiers generated in the DN COD factor NO3N ¼ 2:86=ð1  Yh;anx 3 fCOD Þ ð38Þ
MLVSS and the quantity of nitrifiers sloughed off the biofilm in
each cell.
DN COD factor NO2N ¼ 1:71=ð1  Yh;anx 3 fCOD Þ ð39Þ
(2) It determines the sum total of nitrifiers and heterotrophs
generated and lost through decay across n cells in the system. As mentioned earlier, the default value of fCOD 5 1.42 mg COD/mg
This is the biomass production per day. VSS.
(3) It computes the fraction of nitrifiers based on eq 35. In the current version of the model, it is assumed that all of the
The fnitr (fraction of nitrifiers) can be computed as follows: NO2N is oxidized to NO3N. The denitrification that takes place is
X  denitrification of NO3N.
n Nitrifier Biomass Yield and Decay for
f nitr ¼ The NOxN generated by the nitrifiers in the biofilm and MLVSS
1 MLVSS and Biofilm are computed as follows:
!
Xn
Heterotroph and Nitrifier Biomass Yields
4 ð35Þ NOx N generated; BNOxNNitr;n ¼ BN;n  fN BXN;n ð40Þ
1
and Decay for MLVSS and Biofilm

Where NOx N generated; ANOxNNitr;n ¼ AN;n  fN AXN;n ð41Þ

n 5 number of reactor cells in operation.
The biomass yield and decay are computed as shown in eqs 26 to 34.
As mentioned earlier, the value of fnitr calculated during each
iteration is fed back into the next model run.
It is important to understand that, unlike activated sludge systems
operating below the threshold (washout) MLSS MCRT, where the
fnitr can be close to zero because of washout of nitrifiers, the IFAS
(and MBBR) system can have a significant fnitr, even when the
MLSS MCRTs are below the washout MCRT of single-cell acti-
vated sludge systems. This is because of biofilm nitrification and
nitrifiers sloughed off the biofilm. These nitrifiers become part of
the MLVSS, until it is wasted from the system or released in the
effluent.
Second, it is important to appreciate how the fnitr plays slightly
different roles in IFAS and MBBR systems. In IFAS, the nitrifier
population in the MLVSS can make a significant contribution to the
overall nitrification, even when operated well below the washout
MLSS MCRT. However, in the MBBR, which has a very low
MLVSS and the MLSS MCRT 5 nominal HRT of the liquid,
the MLVSS does not maintain a significant population of nitrifiers.
The variables BN,n and AN,n are the NH4N uptake rates in the biofilm
and MLVSS and are computed by eqs 1 and 7, respectively. The
nitrifier biomass yield for the biofilm (BXN,n) is computed by eq 34.
The interrelationship of the kinetic expressions for NOxN are
represented in a matrix format in Tables 2 and 3.
The effluent NOxN (ENOxN,n) load from reactor n (kg/d) is
determined based on the influent NOxN load (INOxN,n), nitrification,
and denitrification in the MLVSS and biofilm, as follows:
INOxN;n þ BNOxNNitr;n þ ANOxNNitr;n
¼ ANOxN;u;n þ BNOxN;u;n þ ENOxN;n ð42Þ
Oxygen. The equations for oxygen requirement for the biofilm
(BDO,n) and the MLVSS (ADO,n) are computed as follows:
BDO;n ¼ B1;S;n þ B2;S;n  fCOD BXH;n
þ 4:57 BNOxNNitr;n  2:86 BNOxN;u;n ð43Þ
ADO;n ¼ A1;S;n þ A1;S;n  fCOD AXH;n
þ 4:57ANOxNNitr;n  2:86 ANOxN;u;n ð44Þ

450 Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5


A mass balance is conducted to determine the oxygen required (kg/
d) in cell n, as follows:
IDO;n þ DDO;n þ TDO;n ¼ ADO;n þ BDO;n þ EDO;n ð45Þ
Where, for cell n,
DDO,n 5 dissolved oxygen diffusing in from the
atmosphere that is not associated with an
aeration device (kg/d);
TDO,n 5 dissolved oxygen supplied (transferred) by
the aeration device, if present (kg/d); and
IDO,n and EDO,n 5 dissolved oxygen loadings in the influent and
effluent (kg/d).
The values of DDO,n are input by the user. One way to determine
DDO,n is to run the model and determine the value that results in
a computed dissolved oxygen in the unaerated cell that is equal to
the measured dissolved oxygen level.
For each unaerated cell, the model checks the mass balance in eq
45, based on an initial estimate of dissolved oxygen that is specified
by the user. If the oxygen supplied is not within a certain percentage
of the uptake (default 5 20%), the model guides the user to change
the estimated dissolved oxygen level until the supply and uptake are
within 20%. For example, if the oxygen supplied is more than 20%
higher than the uptake, the user is asked to raise the estimate of
dissolved oxygen. The model is rerun for the new estimate.
For the aerated cells, the model computes the amount of dis-
solved oxygen that needs to be transferred, Tn,DO, to achieve the
dissolved oxygen set point. The model checks the value of Tn,DO
against the capacity of the aeration system in cell n. If the value is
exceeded, the model guides the user to lower the setpoint or raise
the capacity.
Storage in Reactor Cell in Dynamic Simulation Mode. For
dynamic simulation, an additional term for storage between the
current time step t and time step t21 needs to be incorporated to the
mass-balance equations. Storage is important if the duration of
the time step of dynamic simulation is less than the actual HRT of
the cell. Therefore, storage can have a significant effect in long HRT
systems, such as oxidation ditches and lagoons. On the other hand,
when the time step is greater than 3 times the actual HRT of the cell,
the time step is too long for the effect of storage to linger on. The
effluent would have reached an equilibrium with the new flow and
load well before the time step ends. The model uses an algorithm to
account for the relationship between actual HRT and duration of the
time step.
When the duration of the time step is less than one-half the actual
HRT of cell n, the effect of storage modifies the NH4N computation
in eq 8, as follows:
In þ Ndecay;n þ NorgN;hydr;n ¼ An þ Bn þ Cn þ En þ Sn;t ð46Þ
The units of the eq 46 are kg/time step. For example, if the time step
is 1 hour, the units are kg/h. As the time step increases above the
actual HRT of cell n, the effect of storage drops gradually, to 0.
The variable Sn,t is the storage of ammonium-nitrogen that takes
place in cell n because of the change in effluent ammonium
concentration at the current time step t (En,t ) and the previous time
step t21 (En,t21). Its value, in kilograms, is calculated as follows:
Sn;t ¼ ðEn;t  En;t1 ÞðVn Þð1  BVFÞ ð47Þ
3
The units for concentration, En,t in eq 47 are kg/m .
May 2008
Sen and Randall
Model Analysis and Verification
Sen and Randall (2008b) discuss the results from steady-state and
dynamic simulation with the model. The model was verified in
steady-state against the results observed from the pilot studies. The
model was also evaluated in a full-scale application, by running it
with several 31-day periods of daily data from the IFAS plant in
Broomfield, Colorado (Sen, Phillips, Murthy, Pattarkine, Copithorn,
Randall, Schwinn, and Banerjee, 2007). The model’s predictions of
MLVSS and MLSS in the reactor; effluent quality (SCOD, nitrogen
forms, and phosphorus); day-to-day variation in nitrogen forms;
biofilm thickness; and amount of growth on the media in the two
IFAS cells in series were similar to those observed at the plant.
Summary
(1) A computational model has been developed for IFAS and
MBBR systems. The model is structured to operate with up to
12 reactors (cells) in series. Each cell can be configured to
operate anaerobically, anoxically, aerobically, or post-anoxically
with its own amount of biofilm support media. In the absence
of media, the model operates as an activated sludge system.
(2) In the semiempirical model, the biofilm fluxes are computed by
a semiempirical method that uses equations that are based on
the performance of media, as measured in pilot studies.
(3) The structure of the semiempirical equations for the biofilm
incorporates an additional Monod expression beyond what is
used in activated sludge models. This expression simulates the
changes in biofilm flux rates, as a result of changes in the COD
and ammonium-nitrogen concentrations in the bulk liquid, and
the associated changes in biofilm thickness and fraction of
nitrifiers in the biofilm that develops along the length of
a multicell reactor.
Credits
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the staff and
faculty of the Environmental Engineering Program of Virginia Tech
located at both Blacksburg and Northern Virginia, specifically that
of Thomas J. Grizzard; support from Greg Farren, Jim Welch, and
Mike Bonk of the Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Department of
Public Works operations staff; and assistance from Rip Copithorn of
Stearns & Wheler, LLC (Bowie, Maryland). The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program (Annapolis,
Maryland), Maryland Department of the Environment, and Anne
Arundel County (Maryland) funded the pilot studies, which initiated
the model development. The Water Environment Research
Foundation (Alexandria, Virginia) funded some of the collaboration
with full-scale facilities.
Submitted for publication February 6, 2007; revised manuscript
submitted December 18, 2007; accepted for publication January 8,
2008.
The deadline to submit Discussions of this paper is August 15,
2008.
References
Bae, W.; Rittmann, B. E. (1996) A Structured Model of Dual-Limitation
Kinetics. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 49, 683–689.
Barker, P. S.; Dold, P. L. (1997) General Model for Biological Nutrient
Removal Activated Sludge Systems: Model Presentation. Water
Environ. Res., 69, 969–984.
Copithorn, R. R.; Sturdevant, J.; Farren, G.; Sen, D. (2006) Case Study of an
IFAS System. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment
451
Sen and Randall
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Dallas,
Texas, Oct. 21–25; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria,
Virginia, 4309–4324.
Dold, P.; Takacs, I.; Mokhayeri, Y.; Nichols, A.; Hinojosa, J.; Riffat, R.;
Bailey, W.; Murthy, S. (2007) Denitrification with Carbon Addition—
Kinetic Considerations. Nutrient 2007, Baltimore, Maryland, March
4–7; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 218–238.
Envirosim Associates Ltd. (2006) BioWinTM User Manual; Envirosim
Associates Ltd.: Flamborough, Ontario, Canada.
Harremoës, P. (1978) Biofilm Kinetics. In Water Pollution Microbiology,
Vol. 2, Michell, R. (Ed.); Wiley and Sons: New York.
Hem, L. J.; Rusten, B.; Odegaard, H. (1994) Nitrification in Moving Bed
Biofilm Reactor. Water Res., 28, 1425–1433.
Huhtamaki, M.; Sen, D. (2007) IFAS Process for Nutrient Removal.
Practical Experiences and Guidelines for Design, Modeling and
Operation. Ripesca-projecti LIFE03 ENV/FIN000237; Raisio, Finland.
Lessel, T. H. (1994) Upgrading and Nitrification by Submerged Bio-Film
Reactors—Experiences from a Large-Scale Plant. Water Sci. Technol.,
29 (10–11), 167–174.
Marais, G. v. R.; Ekama, G. A. (1976) The Activated Sludge Process: Part
I—Steady State Behaviour. Water SA, 2, 164–200.
Masterson, T.; Federico, J.; Hedman, G.; Duerr, S. (2004) Upgrading for Total
Nitrogen Removal with a Porous Media IFAS System. Proceedings of
the 77th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference [CD-ROM], New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct. 21–25;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
McClintock, S. A.; Sherrard, J. H; Novak, J. T.; Randall, C. W. (1988)
Nitrate Versus Oxygen Respiration in the Activated Sludge Process.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 60 (3), 342–350.
Mitta, P. R. (1994) Utilization of Fixed Film Media in Activated Sludge
Systems. M.S. Thesis, Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Odegaard, H. (2005a) Combining CEPT and Biofilm Systems. IWA
Specialized Conference on Nutrient Management in Wastewater
Treatment Processes and Recycle Streams, Krakow, Poland, Sept.
19–21; International Water Association: London, United Kingdom.
Odegaard, H. (2005b) Innovations in Wastewater Treatment—the Moving
Bed Biofilm Process. Keynote Presentation, Future of Urban
Wastewater Systems—Decentralization and Reuse, IWA International
Conference, Xi’an, China, May 18–20; International Water Associa-
tion: London, United Kingdom.
Odegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Westrum, T. (1994) A New Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactor—Applications and Results. Water Sci. Technol., 29, 157–165.
Picioreanu, C. (1999) Multidimensional Modeling of Biofilm Structure.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Biotechnology, Delft Univeristy of
Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Psaltakis, E. P.; Liubicich, J.; Pitt, P.; Antonio, P.; Posada, S.; Zabinski, A. J.;
Lauro, T. J. (2003) Demonstration of Integrated Fixed Film Activated
Sludge Process for BNR at the Mamaroneck WWTP. Proceedings
of the 76th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference [CD-ROM], Los Angeles, California, Oct. 11–15;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Randall, C. W.; Barnard, J. L; Stensel, D. H. (1992) Design and Retrofit of
Wastewater Treatment Plants for Biological Nutrient Removal.
Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.: Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Reichart, P. (1998a) AQUASIM 2.0—Tutorial. Swiss Federal Institute for
Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG): Dübendorf,
Switzerland.
Reichert, P. (1998b) AQUASIM 2.0. User Manual. Swiss Federal Institute
for Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG): Dübendorf,
Switzerland.
Rittmann, B. E.; McCarty, P. L. (1981) Substrate Flux Into Biofilms of Any
Thickness. J. Environ. Eng., 108, 831–849.
452
Rooney, T. C.; Huibregtse, G. L. (1980) Increased Oxygen Transfer
Efficiency with Coarse Bubble Diffusers. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.,
52 (9), 2315–2326.
Rutt, K.; Seda, J.; Johnson, C. H. (2006) Two Year Case Study of Integrated
Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) at Broomfield, CO, WWTP.
Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment Federation
Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Dallas, Texas, Oct.
21–25; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 225–239.
Schmit, F. L.; Wren, J. D.; Redmon, D. T. (1978) The Effect of Tank
Dimensions and Diffuser Placement on Oxygen Transfer. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed., 50, 1750–1767.
Sen, D. (1995) COD Removal, Nitrification and Denitrification Kinetics and
Mathematical Modeling of Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Sen, D.; Copithorn, R. R.; Randall, C. W. (2006) Successful Evaluation of
Ten IFAS and MBBR Facilities by Applying the Unified Model to
Quantify Biofilm Surface Area Requirements for Nitrification, De-
termine its Accuracy in Predicting Effluent Characteristics, and
Understand the Contribution of Media towards Organics Removal
and Nitrification. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Dallas,
Texas, Oct. 21–25; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria,
Virginia, 185–199.
Sen, D.; Copithorn, R.; Randall, C. W.; Jones, R.; Phago, D.; Rusten, B.
(2000) Investigation of Hybrid Systems for Enhanced Nutrient Control,
WERF Final Report, Project 96-CTS-4; Water Environment Research
Foundation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Sen, D.; Phillips, H.; Murthy, S.; Pattarkine, V.; Copithorn, R. R.; Randall,
C. W.; Schwinn, D. E.; Banerjee, S. (2007) Minimizing Aerobic and
Post-Anoxic Volume Requirements in Tertiary Integrated Fixed Film
Activated Sludge (IFAS) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
Systems Using the Aquifas Model. Proceedings of the 80th Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference
[CD-ROM], San Diego, California, Oct. 12–17; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 185–199.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008a) Improved Computational Model
(AQUIFAS) for Activated Sludge, IFAS and MBBR Systems, Part
II: Biofilm Diffusional Model. Water Environ. Res. (accepted for
publication).
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008b) Improved Computational Model
(AQUIFAS) for Activated Sludge, IFAS and MBBR Systems, Part
III: Analysis and Verification. Water Environ. Res. (accepted for
publication).
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (1996) Mathematical Model for a Multi-CSTR
Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) System. Proceedings of
the 69th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference, Dallas, Texas, Oct. 6–9; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2005) Unified Computational Model for Activated
Sludge, IFAS and MBBR Systems. Proceedings of the 78th Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference
[CD-ROM], Washington D.C., Oct. 29–Nov. 2; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 3889–3904.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W.; Copithorn, R. R.; Huhtamaki, M.; Farren, G.; Flournoy,
W. (2007) Understanding the Importance of Aerobic Mixing, Biofilm
Thickness Control and Modeling on the Success or Failure of IFAS
Systems for Biological Nutrient Removal. Water Practice, 1 (5), 1–18.
Solley, D. (2000) Upgrading of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants for
Nutrient Removal. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia:
Canberra, Australia.
Sriwiriyarat, T.; Randall, C. W.; Sen, D. (2005) Computer Program
Development for the Design of Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
Processes. J. Environ. Eng., 131 (11), 1540–1549.
Wanner, O.; Eberl, H.; Morgenroth, E.; Noguera, D.; Picioreanu, C.;
Rittman, B.; Loosdrecht, M. V. (2006) Mathematical Modeling of
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Biofilms, IWA Task Group on Biofilm Modeling. Scientific and
Technical Report 18; IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.
Wanner, O.; Reichert, P. (1996) Mathematical Modeling of Mixed-Culture
Biofilms. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 49, 172–184.
Water Pollution Control Federation (1988) Aeration, Manual of Practice
FD-13; Water Pollution Control Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Weiss, J. S.; Alvarez, M.; Tang, C.; Horvath, R. W.; Stahl, J. F. (2005)
Evaluation of Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Technology for Enhancing
May 2008
Sen and Randall
Nitrogen Removal in a Stabilization Pond Treatment Plant. Proceed-
ings of the 78th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical
Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Washington D.C., Oct. 29–
Nov. 2; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia,
3889–3904.
Wentzel, M. C., Ekama, G. A.; Marais, G. v. R. (1991) Kinetics of
Nitrification Denitrification Biological Excess Phosphorus Removal
Systems—A Review. Water Sci. Technol., 23, 555–565.
453